HC Deb 27 February 1896 vol 37 cc1344-55

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY moved— That Whenever any Member in charge of a Bill in Committee, or on Report, desires to withdraw from the Bill any clause, or clauses, he may, after notice given either at the commencement of any sitting before such clause, or the first of such clauses is reached, or when such clause, or the first of such clauses, comes on for consideration, move:—That the said clause, or clauses, cease to form part of the Bill, and such Question shall be put forthwith.

MR. DALZIEL rose to move the adjournment of the Debate. Very little argument was, he thought, necessary to convince the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House of the reasonableness of that demand. Some hon. Members took the opportunity that afternoon of protesting against a late sitting by voting against the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule. At 20 minutes to 2 in the morning they were discussing a matter of vital importance and they had arrived at a convenient point, when they might fairly break off and leave for future consideration the Second Clause. ["No, no!"] No one knew better than the right hon. Gentleman that when there was a strong feeling with regard to a particular Bill or clause, there was not much to be gained by proceeding with it at a late hour of the morning. There was probably a stronger opposition to this clause than to some other points in the proposal, and if the Debate was continued a number of Amendments would be moved and the sitting would be somewhat prolonged. He therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to accede to the adjournment now.

MR. LOUGH

seconded the Motion for adjournment.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

There is a more important question than the length of the Debate or the lateness of the hour, and that is the honourable compact that has been entered into. I need hardly tell the House that I do not for a moment make any personal imputation on any hon. Member. That is the last thing I am in the habit of doing; but it is very necessary, if we are to conduct the business of this House for the convenience of hon. Members generally, that there should be some possibility of making arrangements for that business. If it once be understood that arrangements are not to hold good, I confess that I think we should have a condition of things very adverse to the proper conduct of business. There can be no doubt that the arrangement come to last Wednesday covered all the subjects respecting which the Government obtained precedence. We obtained precedence for the two Rules, and on any day on which they might be put down we had a right to block out other business. I said that we would forego that privilege on Wednesday on the understanding that this discussion should be finished to-night. In these circumstances I hope the Mover and Seconder of this Motion for adjournment will feel with me that we ought to go on and finish the considerations of these Resolutions now.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER

said, that he should be the last person to break an honourable understanding to which he was a party, but to the understanding to which the right hon. Gentleman referred he and other hon. Members had not been parties. That they should be asked at a quarter to 2 o'clock in the morning to begin considering an entirely new subject was most unreasonable. He could understand that the Government should have wished to pass the Resolution relating to Supply so that it might come into operation at their next sitting to-day (Friday), but there was no similar reason for pushing on the second Resolution. The object of this Resolution he failed utterly to understand. It proposed to introduce, as far as he could see, a most dangerous procedure. The 12 o'clock rule was generally regarded as the best they had, and it was a strong order that they should be asked to set it aside at this period of the Session.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, it was absolutely necessary for the conduct of business in the House that there should be a power of arrangement between all parties; the business of the House of Commons could not be conducted on any other footing. When the Government were asked with reference to the proposal to take Tuesday and Wednesday—in fact, all the time necessary to pass these, Resolutions—they stated distinctly that they could not abandon that right except on the terms that some arrangement was come to. This was a distinct and clear notice to everybody that an arrangement of that kind was desired. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean received satisfaction with reference to Tuesday in the promise of the Government that they would introduce a Bill relating to the matter on which he had a notice on the Paper. It was then stated, if an arrangement could be come to with reference to finishing the Debate on Thursday, that the Wednesday would be given for the Irish Bill, and the Bill put down for Wednesday would be taken. Everybody knew that the arrangement was proffered.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER

I was no party to it.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, it was impossible that every individual could be a party to it. If an arrangement was to be made it must be made through those and by those who were able or ought to be able to collect the opinions of the House upon it. As far as he was concerned, he endeavoured through the ordinary channels to ascertain what was the feeling of most Members on the Opposition side of the House. He found that there was a willingness on their part that the discussion should close on Thursday, and therefore, as far as he could answer, he agreed with the arrangement that the Debate should close on Thursday. He could not answer for the hon. Members from Ireland who had to deal with the matter themselves. But he understood that the Government received assurances from the Members for Ireland. Thereupon they put this Motion for the Thursday and not for the Wednesday; and therefore there was public notice to everyone. He felt bound to stand by that arrangement. When he looked at the Resolution on the Amendment Paper he found that there was only one very important point, and that was that the Question shall be put forthwith without Debate on the suspension of a clause. He considered this to be a most objectionable and most dangerous power. If they could get an intimation from the Government that they did not mean to insist on the word at the end—"forthwith"—he did not think they would find, even at this late hour, that the House would be unable to dispose of the matter.

MR. HARRINGTON

stated, on behalf of the Irish Members, and not alone the section with whom he was associated, that they quite recognised the understanding and were prepared to carry it out.

CAPTAIN DONELAN (Cork, E.)

spoke in a similar sense on behalf of the Anti-Parnellites.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

said, that in the course of a rather varied Parliamentary experience it had been his duty to enter into many arrangements in which Irish Members were included, and in which they had a profound interest, and he had never found Irish Members depart from any honourable understanding ever yet entered into. [Cheers.] As regarded the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition, if it would shorten discussion, the Government were quite prepared to give way upon the point.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

pointed out that the Leader of the House had never given the slightest explanation of the second Resolution, nor the slightest reason why it should be passed. The Resolution was highly technical in its character. Many hon. Members did not know why it was that a clause under certain circumstances could not be withdrawn, and in his opinion it was scarcely respectful to ask the House to enter upon the discussion at 2 o'clock in the morning of a new Resolution having nothing whatever to do with Supply, and one not required for use this (Friday) afternoon, and as to which no explanation had been vouchsafed.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said, that there was no justification for the sneering reflection of the First Lord of the Treasury on the hon. Gentleman who had moved the adjournment. What he had understood the First Lord to say was that if substantial progress were made on Tuesday evening, the Government was willing to concede Wednesday to the Irish Members. Three or four important Amendments were disposed of, and only one Irish Member took part in the Debate at all. What other arrangement was made? This was not the usual case where an arrangement made between the two front Benches should be binding on all; because the Front Opposition Bench supported the Government on this question, and all the opposition came from private Members on both sides of the House. Any arrangement ought to have included the hon. Gentlemen who had given notice of Amendments, and none of these were approached by anyone. No public arrangement could be come to, because Debate was not possible on the Motion for the suspension of the Twelve o'clock rule. The only possible protest was a Division, and that was taken.

DR. TANNER (Cork, N.)

said, that as a matter of fact he knew of no understanding when the first Division took place, but hearing of it later he forebore to take any further part in the discussion. The Leader of the House had led the House into an impasse on this question.

Motion for adjournment negatived without a Division.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

said, the object of the Motion was so plain and obvious that he thought no explanation of it was needed. As, however, hon. Gentlemen opposite desired to hear him on the subject he would point out that under the existing Rules of Procedure a single clause of a Bill could not be withdrawn though the promoters of the Bill and a majority of the House desired it, until every Amendment to that clause on the Paper was discussed and until the Question was put from the Chair—"That this clause stand part of the Bill." The present arrangement deprived the promoters of a Bill of a degree of control which they ought to have over their own Measure. He recognised that they ought to be called upon to state why they wanted to drop a clause, and there should be a right of reply and Debate. But it was often desirable to bring in complete legislative schemes with the understanding that they could not be passed in their entirety, and, if the Bills could not be curtailed, the control of the House over its work would be unduly diminished, and there would be a risk that necessary Bills would not be brought in if it was to be said they must be passed in their entirety or not at all.

SIR A. ROLLIT

said, as this was to be only a Sessional Order, he would move but two of six Amendments he had put down—one, that the notice should be given at the commencement of public business; and the other, the omission of the words that the question should be put forthwith. The risk to be guarded against was the withdrawal of safeguards on the faith of which a Bill had been read a Second time.

MR. JAMES A. LOWTHER

said, it would be a farce to move Amendments at that hour of the morning (2.5 a.m.), and the First Lord of the Treasury had not given a single instance in which a rule of this kind had been wanted. A Bill might be one dealing with the interests of a licensed trade, and the clause to be withdrawn might be a compensation clause. A Bill might be read a Second time with the concurrence of the interests concerned. It might pass through Committee similarly without resistance. On the stage of that report a Motion might be made to omit the clause on the faith of which the House had passed the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] Take, say, a Coercion Bill. It might accord the right of an appeal, but this might likewise be dropped. That was a danger which the House ought not to be asked to enter upon. ["Hear, hear!"]

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he was quite agreed as to the danger if there was no power to meet it. The right hon. Gentleman had just said that a clause might be withdrawn, but they must get the majority of the House before they could withdraw it. He quite agreed that the whole matter of the withdrawal of a clause should be fully Debated, but with his experience of the Household Suffrage Bill of 1866 and the Conservative safeguards, he was not at all alarmed. If it was the opinion of the House that the safeguards should be dropped, they would be dropped without the senseless ceremony of going through all the Amendments. They would remove an inconvenience which ought to be removed.

SIR J. JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)

joined with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in opposing this Amendment. He saw the danger which would arise. He had in his memory a Bill which hon. Members who were in the last Parliament would recollect—that was the Miners' Eight Hours Bill. It passed the Second Reading, and it was only in Committee that a clause was introduced to give Local Option. Supposing the Bill had been brought forward with such a clause in it? The probability was that the Bill would come forward at a time when many Members would have gone home expecting that it was passed in a satisfactory form and that they were quite safe in doing so. They knew how quickly Bills were passed in the last days of a Session and on the Report stage one of the promoters of a Bill might get up and move that a clause giving Local Option be dropped, which might be the means of the Bill passing. That was one of the dangers which might arise.

SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)

asked if the Resolution intended to apply to the Committee of the whole House. If so, he suggested that the words "of the whole House" should be inserted after "in Committee."

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

believed there was no ambiguity about the words, but if there was he was quite willing to introduce the words proposed.

DR. CLARK

was anxious to know where they were. At present, if every Minister in charge of the Bill either in Committee of the House or in a Standing Committee upstairs, moved that a clause or clauses be omitted no discussion took place, therefore there would be no change in the procedure of the House. There would be a change if it was decided that the Question should be put forthwith. If the Resolution were passed in its present form there would practically be no change at all.

*SIR F. POWELL moved to insert in line 1, after the word "Committee," the words "of the whole House."

DR. CLARK

said, it appeared to him that the Amendment was a limitation of the powers of the House, for it would not be possible for a Minister in charge of a Bill in Grand Committee to withdraw a clause if he saw fit to do so.

MR. TOMLINSON

remarked that the proposed Resolution was to be a Sessional Order, and would, therefore be, to a certain extent, an experimental Order, and for that reason he thought the Amendment might be adopted.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

thought it would be better to leave the Resolution as it was, or the result might be that the Grand Committee would be put to inconvenience in the matter.

SIR F. POWELL

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved to insert in line 2, after "he may, after," the words "two days previous."

Amendment agreed to.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said he did know exactly where they were. He would point out to the Government the absurdity of the situation. If they were to give this previous notice of the withdrawal of a clause, the necessity of which might not necessarily arise——

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment has been passed. I would not have allowed the Amendment to have been moved if it had not made sense.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT moved, in line 3, after "of," to insert "public business at." The object of his Amendment was to ensure that the withdrawal of such clauses should take place when the House was full, namely, at the commencement of public business.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorgan, Mid)

said that at the present moment the lines would read as follows:— Whenever any Member in charge of a Bill in Committee, or on Report, desires to withdraw from the Bill any clause or clauses, he may, after two days' previous notice"—— When was the notice to be given? move after notice given either at the commencement——

MR. SPEAKER

That is not what the clause says. The clause as it now stands is, "He may, after notice given"—those words "notice given" are read as if they were in brackets—" either at the commencement of," and so forth—"move."

MR. S. EVANS

, on a point of order, submitted that "at the commencement of the sitting" was not controlled by the word "move," and the word "move" did not control these words at all.

MR. SPEAKER

said, an hon. Member must move either at the commencement of a sitting or when the clause came on.

MR. KNOX

submitted that if that was the Amendment, the word "move" ought to come earlier in the clause.

MR. SPEAKER

, said the hon. Member could move any Amendment when the time came. At present it appeared to him to make perfectly good sense.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR A. ROLLIT moved, in line 6 to leave out "and such question shall be put forthwith." The object was to fulfil the desire of the right hon. Gentleman that there should be, before such a withdrawal, possibly altering the whole character of a Bill, a full discussion if that be desired.

MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Walsall)

inquired whether if this proposal were agreed to, all Amendments would be precluded? It seemed to him that if they merely struck out these words without adding some others they would find themselves in exactly the difficulty that they were anxious to escape from.

MR. SPEAKER

The clause will be struck out in the shape it is at the time the Motion is made.

MR. KNOX

observed that as the clause now read he took it they might get either a private Member's or a Government Bill through the second reading, they might then, by giving two days' notice, move at the commencement of public business that certain clauses be left out——

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Member is discussing matters that have been already passed. The question now before the House is that "such questions shall be put forthwith" be omitted.

MR. KNOX

observed that that was the very point to which he was addressing his observations. They were now going to be allowed to debate this question. That was the effect of the Amendment. He did not want to have an opportunity of obstruction given without the Government understanding what they were doing. As he understood it, the clause now meant that having got a non-contentious Bill through the Second Reading they might then move at the commencement of public business that certain clauses might be left out of that Bill. All they had got to do to obtain precedence for that over all the public business of the day was to give two days' notice. Their friends might debate that question; they might take a different view of this clause to what was taken by those who moved this Motion, and in that way a considerable part of the time of public business might be consumed.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

agreed that before a clause was allowed to be omitted there should be discussion. Accepting the rulings Mr. Speaker had given as to the operation of the clause the working of it would be as follows:—Immediately after a Bill had passed the Second Reading and Committee stage was reached a Minister or Member in charge of it might move, at the commencement of any sitting before discussing clause one, two or any other clause in Committee, after giving two days notice, to omit say Clause 50 before it was reached. That was the operation of the clause according to the Speaker's ruling. He respectfully asked the Government whether that was their intention or whether they did not intend the Motion was to be made by the Minister or Member in charge of the Bill when the clause to be omitted was reached in Committee. Before they could discuss any clause at all it might be taken from the Bill. He appealed to the Government to know whether that was or was not their intention?

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! this is not pertinent to the Amendment before the House. The hon. Member is now asking what is the intention in leaving out the first three or four lines, whereas the only question now is whether on the question which has been already settled there shall be discussion before it is put to the Vote of the House or whether it shall be put without discussion?

MR. EVANS

submitted that before the House decided whether there was to be discussion it ought to know when that discussion took place, whether it was to be a useful discussion. He submitted it was perfectly relevant to urge that to discuss a clause long before they got to it would not be profitable to the House. When the Motion was put from the Chair, he should move to omit the words "before such clause is reached."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER

then put the Resolution as amended.

MR. EVANS

asked, when the Motion referred to in the Resolution would be made?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

When the Clause is reached.

MR. EVANS

Then, what is the meaning of "the commencement of the sitting of the House?" [Laughter.]

MR. TOMLINSON

urged, that the words referred to the commencement of the Committee stage of a Bill.

DR. CLARK (Caithness) moved the adjournment of the Debate.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

said, that, as they had now got almost to the end of their labours, he trusted that the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion.

Motion for the adjournment of the Debate, by leave, withdrawn.

The House divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 56.—(Division List, No. 21.)

Back to