§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)asked whether the Leader of the House, who had so far acceded to the request made to him the day before as to put the Motion for the adjournment in the second instead of the twentieth place among the orders of the day, could not see his way to follow the practice of recent years by not putting down either the Second Reading or Committee stage of a Bill first in order on the day on which the House rose for its holidays. Did not the right hon. Gentleman think that anything he desired—and the Opposition desired—in the way of speed in regard to the Police Commission Bill could be adequately obtained if it were taken as the first order on the Monday after the House reassembled? The other House would not meet until the day following, so that the Bill could not become law until some days after the House had mot again. He reminded the right hon. Gentleman that though the Committee stage might be forced through the House that day, the Third Reading could not be taken except by leave of 431 the House, and said that, although he could not answer for any hon. Members except those who sat on that side of the House above the gangway, he thought he could promise that no very great expenditure of time would be required on the Monday after the holidays for the two stages which, he imagined, would still remain to be taken.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI am afraid we must look backwards as well as forwards. This Bill was introduced to meet a general demand and a particularly active demand from the friends of the right hon. Gentleman. This is the fullest possible form of inquiry that can be submitted to the House; but at the time I announced the course we were going to take, largely to please the right hon. Gentleman's friends, I said it must be understood that the Bill would be introduced on the footing of the precedent of the Bill of last year, which was not opposed at any stage and which passed through the House without difficulty. This Bill has been opposed by the friends of the right hon. Gentleman at every stage on every day on which it was put down; and I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, who manages the business matters on the other side of the House, declared to my hon. friend the Patronage Secretary that he had no control over his friends to prevent them from pursuing this course. Then we come to last night, when not some obscure and independent friends of the right hon. Gentleman, but the right hon. Gentleman himself and his principal lieutenant or coadjutor took the leading part in deliberately preventing the progress of the Bill. That indicates a spirit towards the Bill that does not hold out much hope of a very amicable arrangement for the quiet and unobtrusive passage of the Bill on the first Monday after we meet again. I am afraid, therefore, I must adhere to the purpose of taking this stage first, which ought to have been taken easily last night.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman another Question, which I will endeavour to couch in a less controversial tone than the right hon. Gentleman adopted. I will ask nothing about the particular circum stances which, as the right hon. 432 Gentleman knows, or ought to know, were the reason why the Bill was not passed in the half-hour last night which I think might have been sufficient; but I will ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's insinuation that my statement that I believed the Bill would not be received by any of my friends in a controversial spirit on the Monday after we meet—whether his insinuation that that statement is one which he cannot believe is an insinuation which he ought to make. The right hon. Gentleman's answer, if I rightly apprehend him, amounts to this— that although I made a promise on behalf of myself and my friends with regard to Monday week, he did not think that past events justified him in accepting that promise. I consider that is a most offensive insinuation. I never heard it made by the Leader of the House to the Leader of the Opposition before in my whole life. I have never heard it by one hon. Gentleman in this House to another. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about 'impertinence'?"] I will still ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in these circumstances, he does not think he would be acting in the cause of general peace and harmony to meet the request which everybody will admit I have made in a most respectful and conciliatory spirit.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANNo doubt the right hon. Gentleman is respectful and conciliatory in his spirit just now, and I do not doubt he would himself be very willing to do his best to secure that the Bill should go through on Monday week without much difficulty; but, as I said when I first rose, we judge of the future a little by the past, and we have found again and again that there has not been that control by the right hon. Gentleman over the action of his followers which he expects to find himself able to exercise on Monday week; and last night, as I have said, he himself took a part in proceedings on the Bill which did not show any active desire to promote the progress of the measure.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe right hon. Gentleman has made the statement that over and over again I have failed to carry out a pledge. ["No, no!"] I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that over and over again my 433 friends had so far declined to accept the advice I gave them as to destroy the arrangements made between the two sides of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: That is another matter.] I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give one instance. He says there are many. I ask him for one.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANOn more than one occasion there have been notices of opposition given which were in direct conflict with the desire, as we understood it, of the whole House.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel, as I am sure the House will feel, that there is a very great distinction between the statement he has now made and the other statement that I had given rise to expectations and had given advice to my friends which they refused to take. There is no such case, Sir. I desire to say nothing more at the present moment on this point; but may I, by way of personal explanation, read to the House what was said last night by the Patronage Secretary? I have the exact words in the report in The Times. The hon. Gentleman used these words—
A though there was no distinct agreement with Members on that side of the House that this Bill should be regarded as a non-contentious measure, there was a general understanding throughout the whole House that it should be regarded as non-contentious, and be passed as soon as possible in order to set this Commission to work. The action of the right hon. Gentleman is, in my judgment, a breach of that understanding.Now, Sir, in my view, putting aside altogether the ethics governing our conduct in this House, no more serious accusation could be made against an individual Member of this House—and it is more serious than ever when made against the Leader of a Party in this House —than that he has committed, in the words of the hon. Gentleman, "a breach of an understanding." I venture to make the statement to-day quite distinctly, and I am prepared to defend it at the proper moment, that in the first place, had there been an understanding that the Bill was to be non-contentious, circumstances occurred in last night's sitting which would nullify it, and, in the second place, that there was no understanding of the kind referred to binding either myself or my friends.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY,) Yorkshire, W.R., PudseyI do not want to prolong this controversy. I only wish to say that I adhere to every word I said last night. I appeal to the House as a whole. There was a distinct general understanding that this Bill should be regarded as non-contentious, and that the Home Secretary should follow the precedent of the War Stores Commission Bill of last year—a Bill which passed through every stage one night after twelve o'clock. But this Bill has been opposed by hon. Members sitting behind the right hon. Gentleman at every stage, and when I remonstrated with my right hon. friend opposite as to the attitude of Gentlemen behind him, he told me that it was not the doing of the Front Bench, and that they had no control over Gentlemen behind them. When this Bill has been put down after midnight, and we have pleaded that it should be allowed to go through, we have been told by hon. Members opposite that it should be taken during Government time. It was taken during Government time last night and it was opposed by the Front Opposition Bench.
§ SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somersetshire, Wellington)I think the House will allow me to say a few words.
§ MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)This is time wasted. We know the game.
§ MR. CROOKS (Woolwich)It is like a lot of schoolboys.
§ SIR A. ACLAND-HOODI have always been anxious that the Commission should be appointed, and the Patronage Secretary will allow that I saw him several times yesterday afternoon, and if he had been content to put this Bill down behind the motion for the holiday adjournment there would have been no opposition. I saw him again at twenty-five minutes past ten last night, when the Budget discussion came to an end, and we discussed what business should be taken. I told him then that I thought that in the thirty-five minutes that remained it might be possible to get the Bill through Committee and Third Reading, but that was on the distinct understanding that the Motion for the 435 adjournment should be the first order to-day. Obviously I had to refer that agreement to my leaders, and I came into the House to do so. The only reason why the agreement was not carried out was the absence of the Home Secretary. A point of great importance was raised. The learned Solicitor-General did not satisfy those who raised it, and I think we have a right to ask that, when a Bill of this importance is brought forward, the Home Secretary, the Minister in charge of it, should be present, or the discussion should be adjourned.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEYand other hon. Members rose together to continue the discussion.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThis discussion is becoming a debate.
§ [The discussion then closed.]
MR. KEIR HAEDIEasked what action the Prime Minister intended to take to protect the right of private Members to discuss questions on the Motion for adjournment in the event of the time for that purpose being seriously encroached upon by debate on the first Order (the Metropolitan Police Commission Bill).
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI have no desire to curtail discussion at all, and, as for the Bill which is the first Order on the Paper, it would have passed long ago if it had not been for the discussion on giving it precedence.
MR. KEIR HAEDIEpressed the Prime Minister to say what action he would take if discussion was prolonged on the first Order.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI have no expectation that the discussion on the first Order of the day will be prolonged. I see no reason why it should be. I do not think that in decency it ought to be prolonged. If it was prolonged so as to curtail the time for moving the adjournment the resources of civilisation would not be exhausted. I will then make the same Motion tomorrow instead of to-day.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason 436 officially given last night for the absence of the Home Secretary was that the Government did not expect the Bill to come on?
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI presume it was that the Government did not expect it to come on so soon.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIt was not expected to be reached.