HC Deb 19 October 1899 vol 77 cc250-3
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state the exact order of business after the Address has been disposed of.

MR. STEADMAN (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in the event of the Government legislative programme not being satisfactory on the question of the housing of the working classes, will he give an opportunity for that matter to be discussed.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state to the House the intention of the Government with regard to the method of closing the present sittings of Parliament.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Perhaps the House will permit me to make a general statement on this subject. Those who were present at yesterday's debate, or rather, I should say, yesterday's conversation at question time, are aware that considerable objection was taken to the Government's following the precedents of 1878 and 1884 in bringing forward now a Queen's Speech which did not give any foreshadowing of the legislative work of the session, and thereby depriving hon. Gentlemen of an opportunity of criticising that programme and moving Amendments and raising discussions. I depart from the precedent with some reluctance. But I quite recognise that it is a hardship on hon. Gentlemen because there happens to be a crisis in October that they should be deprived of their ordinary and natural opportunity for discussing matters interesting to them and their constituents in February. I am anxious to meet that not illegitimate demand in the best way I can. There were two suggestions thrown out yesterday. One was that a certain number of days at the beginning of next session should be turned into Tuesdays—the House will understand what I mean by that phrase—which should be given up to abstract discussions on resolutions similar in character to those which would have been moved as Amendments to the Queen's Speech in the ordinary course. The other suggestion was that there should be two sessions.

SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

A prorogation.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes, prorogation at the end of our autumnal work and a new session next year. On the whole, as between these two alternatives, we are clear that the second is preferable. I do not think anything would be gained by the somewhat irregular proceeding of crowding three or four private Members' nights, one after another, and I think the discussion should take place upon a Queen's Speech or something equivalent. Let me say that the matter is not quite so simple as it appears at first sight, for the reason that if we terminate the session by prorogation now we stultify one or two Bills at least which were to come into operation "at the end of next session," it being understood when those Bills were passed that the end of next session meant next August instead of this November. It will be necessary, therefore, if that plan is adopted, to pass a Bill explaining in general terms that by "this session" is meant next session. That is a Parliamentary expedient which ought not to be beyond our powers, although it may involve some difficulties in drafting. Now, Sir, if we adopt the course which I understand meets with favour on both sides we are starting a new precedent, and I am anxious, in the interests of our successors, that the nature of that precedent should be perfectly clearly on record. The precedent I take not to be that when the House meets in the autumn there must necessarily be a second Queen's Speech in the spring, but that when the House meets in the autumn for a specific subject and consents to limit the debate on the Address to that subject, then and then alone it should be the recognised and proper procedure that there should be a second Queen's Speech in the spring following. I would assent, therefore, to the proposal made, on that honourable understanding between the two sides of the House—namely, that we confine the debate on the Queen's Speech this year to the specific matter alluded to in the Queen's Speech, and in exchange for that—I will not say advantage to the Government, but advantage to the general convenience of the House—that the discussions which would naturally arise on a Queen's Speech should be postponed by general consent to next year. I would also ask, in exchange for the arrangement I have indicated, that it shall be understood that the small Bill which I think it will be necessary to introduce shall pass without any discussion. I must be permitted to make this caveat, that if I find that constitutionally there is some objection to a prorogation, I must be permitted to come to the House and explain the matter again. But in any case the opportunity will be given next spring for the discussion of the legislative proposals of the Government and for raising any questions that would be in order in the debate upon the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech. I hope this arrangement will be satisfactory to the House. It only remains for me to say that I understand the business we have to transact before we separate—before we, I hope, prorogue—will be to terminate the proceedings upon the Queen's Speech—and I trust I am not too sanguine when I express a hope that we may do that to-night—to answer Her Majesty's gracious Message about the Militia, to deal with the Army Estimates and with the financial proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to pass the small formal Bill the character of which I have already explained, and to pass the Appropriation Bill. I propose to take this business, so far as I can see at present, in the order named, and I think if the House sets to work upon this business in the spirit which has animated our proceedings up to the present time there is no reason why we should not terminate this necessary work in a few days.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

It would be irregular, I suppose, for me even to acknowledge the spirit with which the right hon. Gentleman has met the observations that were made from these benches yesterday, and to say that we accept with proper feeling the arrangement he proposes. I rise only to ask one little question in reference to business, and that is whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take the reply to the Message in reference to the Militia to-night. It would appear rather better to put it off to another day. It would probably not occupy much time, but I believe on a former occasion the point was raised—I have looked it up, and the desire was expressed that the House should have the opportunity of fully apprehending the nature of what was proposed. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consent to put it off to to-morrow.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am quite ready to put it off to to-morrow. I may make this observation. The calling out of the Militia is part of the general military policy, and that general military policy will naturally come up on the discussion of Vote A in the Estimates, which were circulated yesterday, I think, and indeed upon some of the other Votes. I rather hope the discussion upon the Message from Her Majesty may be cut down to very narrow limits, and that we may take the important issues involved in the discussion of the Estimates. In any case, I will not take the Message to-night.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

Arising out of the question as to the arrangement of business, may I suggest that questions should commence earlier than half-past three?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am quite prepared for that, and if it be in order will to-morrow propose that questions be called at a quarter-past three. I do not think that would be inconvenient either to the officers of the House or to my colleagues.

SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)

Can the right hon. Gentleman state, without inconvenience, whether I am right in supposing that it is only intended to call cut a certain number of Militia regiments for special purposes?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

This question had better be raised in the debate on the Message or discussion of the Votes.