HC Deb 28 May 1900 vol 83 cc1570-2
MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I have no objections to holidays myself; but at the same time it appears to me somewhat remarkable that we should take longer holidays this year at Easter and Whitsuntide than we ordinarily do. Engaged as we are in a most expensive war, spending two millions a week, I would have thought that it would be undesirable that the House of Commons, unless under great necessity, should adjourn for so long a period at Whitsuntide. I do not see the First Lord of the Treasury in his place, but there is the Secretary of State for India, and I want him to explain to me what we are going to do in the immediate future. I trust he will take the House into his confidence, because there are rumours abroad that the time of our usefulness will be cut short very soon. We had a speech from that eminent Member of the Conservative party the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which he told us what the settlement was to be after the war in South Africa was over, and that if we said one word against that settlement in any sort of way we were to be punished by a penal dissolution. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!] It may be that the war will come to a very speedy end, and that the dissolution may come in July instead of in August or September. Now, there are a great many Bills before the House which we have been told will be passed. Some have passed their Second Reading, and others have not. I have heard from members of the Standing Committees that they will have very great difficulty, even if the session lasts the ordinary time, to report on all these Bills. Under these circumstances, unless we have some clear understanding that this session is not to be cut short prematurely, we ought not to have these holidays extended, and we ought to allow hon. Gentlemen upstairs to carry on without interruption their very useful labours. I think there was a pledge distinctly given that the session would not be cut short by a dissolution. We were told at the commencement of the war that it was our patriotic duty not to criticise what was going on, and not to dwell on the blunders that were supposed to be made by Ministers, but to wait until the war was over. It may be said that we, who had strong opinions as to the war being unnecessary, accepted that patriotic duty, and did not raise discussions. We saw time and again blunder's made, but we thought that while the soldiers were in the field, they were not responsible, and although we disapproved of the war itself, we were anxious not to do anything to weaken the feeling of the soldiers that, so far as the fighting is concerned, the country is behind them. We are told that our opportunity will come at the end of the war; but if we are put out of existence prematurely I want to know when that opportunity is to come. Ministers and their supporters have had an opportunity of stating their case to the country; but we have held our tongues. In fact, many Gentlemen on this side of the House have elected to hold their tongues because the Government assured us that our opportunity is to come after the war is over. Now, where should the country learn what our case is? Surely in this House, where there is the grand inquest of the nation. The nation looks to the House to see what parties do, and from the action of parties here they to a very great extent take their views. There ought to be an interval between the termination of the war and the actual settlement of South Africa. We are as patriotic on this side of the House as hon. Gentlemen opposite, but we are not such fools as to believe that after the war things can be put back in the same way as before. What we want is to give peace and 'concord to South Africa and to secure us against the possibility of a future war. The right hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies told us what the settlement was to be. We may or may not agree to that; we may or may not have a better way; but we are absolutely told that if we do not accept that settlement as a mandate from on high, if we venture to discuss it, there is to be a dissolution. I ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who is in the Cabinet and knows its secrets, to be good enough to say whether the declarations of his colleague the Secretary of State for the Colonies are to be regarded as the mere irresponsible utterances of a private individual, or whether they bear the imprimatur of the Cabinet as enunciating their deliberate policy. We ought seriously to consider whether we should take a holiday or not when we are told that the session of Parliament is to come prematurely to an end. We have had discussions about Protestantism, and about Lord Mayors' sons being sent into the Army, but the practical question, it seems i to me at the present moment, is, when is the dissolution going to take place?