§ The PRIME MINISTER Moved, "That the Proceedings upon the Motion giving precedence to Government Business, if under discussion when the Business is postponed this day, be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of Business."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 142.
1251| Division No. 10.] | AYES. | [4.0 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Booth, Frederick Handel |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Bowerman, Charles W. |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) | Boyle, Daniel (Mayo. N.) |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Brady, Patrick Joseph |
| Alden, Percy | Barton, William | Brigg, Sir John |
| Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) | Beale, William Phipson | Brocklehurst, William B. |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Beck, Arthur Cecil | Bryce, J. Annan |
| Anderson, A. M. | Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Burke, E. Haviland- |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Bethell, Sir John Henry | Burns, Rt. Hon. John |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Byles, William Pollard |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Black, Arthur W. | Carr-Gomm, H. W. |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Boland, John Pius | Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood) | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Hunter, W. (Govan) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Johnson, William | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Clough, William | Jones, Edgar R, (Merthyr Tydvil) | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Clynes, John R. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Jones, William (Arfon) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T'w'r H'mts, Stepney) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Joyce, Michael | Reddy, Michael |
| Corbett, A. Cameron | Kellaway, Frederick George | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Kelly, Edward | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Kilbride, Denis | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | King, Joseph (Somerset, North) | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) |
| Cullinan, John | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th) | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Leach, Charles | Robinson, Sydney |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Logan, John William | Roche, John |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Lundon, Thomas | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Delany, William | Lyell, Charles Henry | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Devlin, Joseph | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Rowlands, James |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Dillon, John | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Donelan, Captain A. J. C. | MacGhee, Richard | St. Maur, Harold |
| Doris, William | Maclean, Donald | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Duffy, William J. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | M'Callum, John M. | Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | M'Curdy, C. A. | Sheehy, David |
| Edwards, Sir Frank (Radnor) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.) | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Elverston, Harold | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Marks, G. Croydon | Soares, Ernest Joseph |
| Essex, Richard Walter | Martin, Joseph | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Falconer, James | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Masterman, C. F. G. | Summers, James Woolley |
| Fenwick, Charles | Mathias, Richard | Sutton, John E. |
| Ferens, Thomas Robinson | Meagher, Michael | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Field, William | Menzies, Sir Walter | Toulmin, George |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Molloy, Michael | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| France, Gerald Ashburner | Molteno, Percy Alport | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Gelder, Sir W. A. | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Gill, A. H. | Mooney, John J. | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Glanville, Harold James | Morgan, George Hay | Walters, John Tudor |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Munro, Robert | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Goldstone, Frank | Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Needham, Christopher T. | Wardle, George J. |
| Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Gulland, John William | Nolan, Joseph | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Norman, Sir Henry | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Hackett, John | Norton, Capt. Cecil W. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | O'Dowd, John | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Ogden, Fred | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Harmsworth, R. L. | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Haworth, Arthur A | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N. E.) |
| Henry, Sir Charles S. | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Hinds, John | Pirie, Duncan V. | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Pointer, Joseph | |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Pollard, Sir George H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Illingworth. |
| Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Balcarres, Lord | Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.) |
| Aitken, William Max. | Baldwin, Stanley | Bigland, Alfred |
| Astor, Waldorf | Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Bird, Alfred |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor | Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith- |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Barnston, Harry | Bottomley, Horatio |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Barrio, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Burgoyne, Alan Hughes | Hardy, Laurence | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Harris, Henry Percy | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Campion, W. R. | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton) |
| Carlile, Edward Hildred | Helmsley, Viscount | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Cassel, Felix | Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon) | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hickham, Colonel Thomas E. | Pole-Carew, Sir R. |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Rawson, Col. Richard H. |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Chambers, James | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Rothschild, Lionel D. |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Horner, Andrew Long | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Ingleby, Holcombe | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Clyde, James Avon | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Kirkwood, John H M. | Spear, John Ward |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End) | Stanier, Beville |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Staveley-Hill, H. |
| Croft, Henry Page | Lewisham, Viscount | Stewart, Gershom |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lloyd, George Ambrose | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.) | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Thynne, Lord Alexander |
| Falle, Bertram Godfray | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Touche, George Alexander |
| Fell, Arthur | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Valentia, Viscount |
| Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.) | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Forster, Henry William | Lyttelten, Hon. J. C. (Wor. Droitwich) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Foster, Philip Staveley | Mackinder, Halford J. | White, Major G. D. (Lancs, Southport) |
| Gardner, Ernest | M'Calmont, Colonel James | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude |
| Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | M'Mordie, Robert James | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Gilmour, Captain John | Moore, William | Winterton, Earl |
| Goldman, Charles Sydney | Morpeth, Viscount | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Goldney, Francis Bennett- | Newdegate, F. A. | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon) |
| Goldsmith, Frank | Newman, John R. P. | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Gordon, J. | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Greene, Walter Raymond | Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury) | |
| Gretton, John | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Lane-Fox and Mr. C. Bathurst. |
| Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | |
| Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) |
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
§ The PRIME MINISTERMoved, "That, up to and including 13th April, Government Business shall have precedence at every Sitting."
It is always a matter of regret—and this is not merely a conventional expression—when the Leader of the House has to ask fellow Members to surrender for the time being some of their normal and traditional privileges. The other day, when this matter was broached on the question of the ballot, which was then under consideration, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—whose absence we all regret—protested with indignation against the course proposed, and said that I was going to ask the House to make an unexampled invasion into the rights of private Members. I ventured in reply to point out that we had made a precisely similar request last year. To this the right hon. Gentleman retorted with still stronger indignation that the precedents which we had made were precedents that he did not recognise. I have looked into the matter a little more carefully since then, and I have found what I almost expected to find, that in the palmiest days of Conservative and Unionist administration 1252 we had precedents far more drastic than the course we are asking the House to take. In 1887—the first of the Jubilee years, as this is a Coronation year—I remember it well because it was the first or second Session during which I had a seat in this House—the House was led by a very eminent man, the late Mr. W. H. Smith, who was not, I should have said, by temperament or by tradition, a man prone to revolutionary innovation. Immediately at the conclusion of the Address—to give the exact date, 17th February, 1887—Mr. Smith moved:—
That the consideration of the proposed Rules of Procedure——I shall have something to say on that in a moment—have precedence of all Orders of the day, and Notices of Motion on every day on which the consideration of these Rules is set down by the Government.What were these Rules of Procedure? They included in the very forefront—their very essence and core was—that Rule, which, when we are in opposition, we are in the habit of describing as "the gag." That Rule is the Rule of Closure under which our Debates are now conducted, and which has formed, from that day to this, 1253 one of the most efficient additions to the armoury of the Governments of the day. That Motion to take the whole time of the House to the exclusion of private Members days, either for Bills or Motions, so long as these rules were set down—that Motion in support of which and in pursuance of which private Members sacrificed and surrendered their time in order that the House might devote the whole of its time to the fabrication and forging of this most powerful instrument for the use of future Governments—that Motion was carried without a division. In those days we had a public spirited and patriotic Opposition. It was not an indifferent Opposition; it was led by Mr. Gladstone and Sir William Harcourt, but recognising the exigencies of the occasion, they gave to the Government of the day, without protest or division, although there were amendments to accept particular Bills, that power which the Government, as I remember very well, for I was a Member of the House at the time, proceeded ruthlessly to exercise in pursuance of Mr. Smith's Motion. The Rules of Procedure and particularly that Rule which established Closure practically in its present form was carried after fourteen nights of discussion, and then what happened? We are told we are a Radical, innovating Government, which is making an invasion hitherto unexampled in the privileges of private Members. Consider what happened! These charges are made by people who have not the most elementary acquaintance with Parliamentary procedure. As I have said, after fourteen nights, during which private Members surrendered the whole of their rights, the Rule was carried as a Standing Order on the 18th March. Then what followed?In the interval, the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, succeeded to the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland, and his first act in that capacity was to propose for the acceptance of this House a Bill which had a very stormy Parliamentary history, but which subsequently passed into law, and which is generally known as the Coercion Act. In contemplation of the introduction and prosecution of that Bill, Mr. Smith, having taken the whole of private Member's time up to the 18th March for the passing of his Closure Rule, proceeded on the 22nd March to move this Resolution: "That the introduction of the several stages of the Criminal Law Amendment Ireland Bill"—that was its official title—"have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices 1254 of Motion, including the Rules of Procedure whenever the Bill shall be set down by the Government as the business of the day."
The Opposition of the day opposed that Motion strenuously, but it was carried by a large majority, and during the whole of the time from the beginning of the Session after the conclusion of the debate on the Address until the House rose at Easter on the 7th April, the whole of the time of Parliament was occupied first of all with the Rules of Procedure, and then with the Coercion Bill, and private Members never had a look in from beginning to end. The House rose for the recess on the 7th April, and up to that time there was not one single opportunity for private Members to introduce a Bill. I notice that that announcement is received in silence.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYIt would not be polite to interrupt.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI thank the hon. Baronet for his courtesy. He will have an opportunity of replying, but what becomes of the charge the other day, by the Leader of the Opposition, that this is an unexampled invasion of the rights of private Members. The precedent of 1887 goes, at least as far, if not farther, than we go. I quite agree that these differences about precedents between the two Front Benches are minor matters. I do not think it matters very much what the precedent is. The real question is whether a case is made out in existing circumstances for the policy which has been pursued by the Government. How do we stand? At this moment, when the Debate on the Address has concluded, counting to-morrow (Friday) and all Fridays for the purposes of this enumeration as half-days, there are between now and the 13th April thirty-five full Parliamentary days. Under normal conditions, if this Motion was not made, there would be available for private Members, out of these full thirty-five days eight Fridays, eight Tuesday evenings, and eight Wednesday evenings. I will call this twenty-four half days, though, as a matter of fact, Tuesday and Wednesday evenings are not equal to half-days, but I will call them, against myself, half-days. Twenty-four half-days makes twelve full days.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYThe right hon. Gentleman is not counting Friday, 14th.
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, our Motion does not extend to that. I think I am right, but at any rate it is a small point. I call it twelve full days, so that what the 1255 Government are proposing is, that out of thirty-five full Parliamentary days which are available between now and 13th April that twelve full days which under normal conditions belong to private Members should be appropriated to the Government.
Let us see first of all how we stand in regard to compulsory business and how we stand in regard to other business. By compulsory business I mean business that has to be transacted and got through before 31st March, the last day of the current financial year. First of all, I will take that part of the Estimate which is not peculiar to the present year, but which is normal and inevitable. It includes, of course, Supplementary Estimates, getting the Speaker out of the chair upon Army and Navy Votes, Vote A and I of the Army and Navy Votes, the Vote on Account for the Civil Services, the reports of the Votes granted in Committee and the different stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill, and to these we propose to add, as I said at question time, one further item, namely, a joint discussion upon the expenditure of the Army and Navy. To that voluntary addition, to what I am calling the compulsory normal business, which has to be transacted between now and 31st March, we propose to give thirteen-and-a-half days.
Then, as to the second stage—I am still dealing with what I call compulsory business before 31st March—we have a special claim upon our time and attention this year in the second stage of the Finance Bill, the first stage of which was passed in the last Parliament. I promised because we proceeded to carry through our drastic form of Closure in regard to the first stage—that on the whole of the part which actually dealt with the imposition of taxes—there should be a reasonably full and adequate opportunity for discussing the other clauses and for raising on Second Reading all the questions which are properly raised with regard to finance. In redemption of that pledge we have first of all to introduce, as we shall on Monday, by resolution or by a series of resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means, that which will lay the foundation on which we have to prosecute the Bill through its various stages, and we propose to give for these purposes six-and-a-half days.
The House will therefore see, as regards compulsory business of finance, which has to be brought to a close before 31st March, not before Easter, we are giving thirteen- 1256 and-a-half days to what I might call the normal business of Supply, and six-and-a-half days to this exceptional business, namely, the second stages of the Finance Bill of last year—that makes twenty days.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINCan the right hon. Gentleman say how many Parliamentary days there are before the 31st March?
§ The PRIME MINISTERYes; twenty-seven-and-a-half days, counting Fridays as half-days, between now and the 31st March, of which we propose to give twenty to what I have described, and properly described, as compulsory financial business. I pass on. Up to the 13th April, that is the day before Good Friday, and which is the day named in my Resolution, there is remaining, after taking these twenty days from the twenty-seven-and-a-half days, up to the 31st March, fifteen Parliamentary days, and if private Members retained their normal privileges, it follows, from what I said at the early part of my observation, that twelve days out of these fifteen would fall to them. The result would be that the Government would only have three Parliamentary days between now and the 13th April for the transaction of other Government business. Putting the matter shortly and plainly, we ask private Members to give up these twelve days; to allow us, in other words, to have them in addition to the twenty days which I have already described as necessary for compulsory financial business; to give up those fifteen days between now and the 13th April for our business. Why do I make that request If the second stage of the Finance Bill had not been a necessary incident in our Parliamentary activity in the early part of this year it might, and I think would, be possible to show a little more latitude and indulgence to private Members' rights, but in that respect we are bound by the pledges which we gave. Assuming that to be common ground, is it an exorbitant thing for the Government to ask at least fifteen days between now and the 30th April? I suggest it is not. The circumstances this year are very exceptional, far more than the year 1887, to which I have already referred.
This year is the year of the Coronation of our Gracious King. That must take place in the third week in June, and inevitably must lead to a certain amount of dislocation of the distribution of Parliamentary activity. Everybody admits that. In this Coronation year we find ourselves 1257 charged with the responsibility of carrying through Parliament a measure for which we appealed at the General Election, and in support of which we were returned to this House with a majority which, we believe, to be both adequate and enthusiastic. I think we should be grossly wanting in our sense of responsibility, having regard to all the circumstances of the last fifteen months, if we did not press on the new House of Commons as its first duty the exclusion and sacrifice of the particular interests in which private Members are naturally concerned, and to make it the first most urgent and most responsible duty to devote the forefront of the Session to carrying through the House of Commons a measure which they were returned to support. We believe that by the expenditure and distribution of Parliamentary time, which I have indicated, we shall be able, without any undue curtailment of Debate at any of the stages of the Parliament Bill—if the House approves of that Bill—to send it to the House of Lords comparatively early in the month of May, so that the House of Lords may have full opportunities of discussing it and coming to their decision upon it before the date of the Coronation. Whatever view may be taken on either side of the House as to the merits or demerits of this Bill, and of the controversy of which it will be the embodiment, I think we shall all agree that in the public interets it is desirable that that issue, however it is going to be decided, should if possible be decided before the Coronation. Of course, we here have no control of any sort or kind over what may take place elsewhere. That rests with powers for which we are not responsible and over whose proceedings we exercise no influence; but so far as the House of Commons is concerned we have power to declare for ourselves what shall be the course of our own procedure and how we shall allot our own time. I believe, and at least I hope at any rate, that I am expressing an opinion which is held not only on this side of the House, but also by hon. Members opposite, when I say that our duty to our constituents as well as our regard for the general interests of the community requires us to record our decision, after full opportunity for argument and debate on this Bill at as early a moment in the history of the Session as the exigencies of time and circumstances will allow. It is upon that ground primarily and substantially that I ask private Members up to Easter to curtail their ordinary rights and opportunities, in the hope 1258 and belief, and with the intention that when the Parliament Bill has passed through this House, and we resume our proceedings after the Easter Recess, private Members may have their normal and natural opportunities. Sir, I think I have said all I have to say either in regard to precedent or the necessities of the occasion, and I now make the Motion which stands in my name.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINAs I listened to the speech of the Prime Minister I was irresistibly reminded of a conversation I once had with a Member of the Civil Service, in which I agreed in admiring the speech of a certain Minister who shall be nameless. I ventured to say that I could not sufficiently admire that Minister's skill in concealing from the House the extreme badness of the case he was arguing, and, what was more remarkable, that he did it with such good temper and in such a tone of sweet reasonableness that I believe he carried the House with him. The gentleman I was addressing said: "That is just it. When he is most reasonable, most sweetly reasonable, you may be sure his case is most bad." The Prime Minister has introduced in his most moderate speech a most immoderate proposal. He adumbrated his proposal a few days ago, and founded himself upon a precedent of his own creation. To-night he has gone back twenty-three years, to 1887, in order to find what he thinks a parallel instance. Last night the Government and their allies were imploring this House not to rake up the ancient history of 1886, and they were asking what possible bearing that could have upon our proceedings to-day. As the Prime Minister has done so, let us look at his precedent. What was it? Mr. W. H. Smith at that time was Leader of the House, and he asked for the whole time of the House. For what purpose?—
In order that the House might devote itself to the discussion to its own Rules of Procedure, and in order to secure the dignity, honour and capacity of the House to discharge the duties it has undertaken in coming here.Then he went on to speak of the gross obstruction which has lately been shown in Parliament, and he mentioned, as enforcing the necessity of the course he was pursuing, the fact that they were then on the first day of the fourth week of the Session, and had spent sixteen days on the Address. The Prime Minister has not thought fit to offer private Members sixteen days on the Address this Session, and that is the patriotic Opposition that took 1259 sixteen days over the Address. So scandalous is the state of things that, as the Prime Minister said, the Opposition of that day did not seek to defend what had taken place, and Sir William Harcourt, who led them, said:—He offered no opposition to this proposal for he agreed that nothing could be more urgent than to restore the command of this House over its own time by restoring dignity to its proceedings; and the only complaint he had to make of the proposals which the Government put forward was that they did not go far enough.Is that any precedent for taking away from private Members the time of the House in order to discuss, not a revision of the procedure of the House, which was required alike to maintain Government rights as well as private Members' rights, not in order to do something upon which both sides of the House were agreed, but in order to do something on which there is the sharpest division of opinion in the House, and which has nothing whatever to do with the character or the dignity of the House.Let me pursue the Prime Minister's references to 1887 one step further. He said that at that time a further demand was made upon the House for all the time, in order to pass what we call the Crimes Act and what the right hon. Gentleman calls the Coercion Act. For what purpose? Could there be anything more urgent or could any private Members' rights be as urgent as the restoration of law and order in Ireland, or indeed in any portion of the United Kingdom, when it was gravely menaced. Does any hon. Member deny that law and order was gravely menaced at that time? We were then told that Irishmen were waiting in open rebellion in Canada, and there was open war in South Africa. At that time the Government had to put down what was little short of civil war in Ireland. Do those facts give you any right to claim that as a precedent for taking up the time of the House in order to destroy the Constitution? I do not think the precedent of the Prime Minister helps him. In point of fact, it helps him even less when you consider what has taken place in the intervening time. In 1902 the Rules of Procedure were again revised, and private Members were asked to sacrifice a proportion of the rights which they had theoretically held before that time in order that what remained should be made more secure to them, and in order that they might have a more effectual exercise of them. From that time, when 1260 the rights of private Members gave them certain days, and portions of days, right through the Session and in the early part of the Session, no attempt was made by the party that sits on these benches as long as they were in power to intrude upon the right so reserved to private Members, and it was left to this Government, who complained that we did not pay enough attention to the rights of private Members, to make the first inroad on those rights. The Prime Minister has not been fortunate in his precedents. Probably the right hon. Gentleman has not looked at the speech he made last year upon this question. I think he was well advised not to mention the precedent of last year. What did he say last year:—
I certainly should not make this demand except under the stress of absolute necessity.Those are strong words, and the Prime Minister never uses such words lightly or without meaning them. The right hon. Gentleman went on to explain what the absolute necessity was. He surveyed the financial situation, and I must say at this stage that his Motion then only extended up to the end of the financial year, and did not go one day beyond, whereas on this occasion he proposes to go further. In the same speech the Prime Minister said:I think that that shows it is impossible between now and that date (the 24th of March), to introduce any other matters for the consideration of the House, than the necessary financial measures of the country which have to be carried into effect, if things are not to come to a standstill.Therefore, the precedent of last year, an inroad as it was upon private Members' rights, and, novel as it was, was strictly limited to taking so much of private Members' time as was required in order that the necessary financial business might be done in the legal time and that the law might not be broken, and the Prime Minister said that, except under that pressure of absolute necessity, he would never have made such a Motion. Never, no never—not till twelve months later. Never means a short time when it places a disability upon Ministers in making inroads upon private Members' time.The right hon. Gentleman on this occasion has not shown the slightest necessity for the course he has pursued. He has got a good deal of financial business to do, but it is his own fault he has got to do it. It is the fault, not of him personally, but of the Government and himself among them. In the first place, why were we not allowed to finish the Budget at the proper time, and, in the second place, why does this Government of financial purists produce 1261 no less than twenty Supplementary Estimates? The Prime Minister was not aware of it, but there are twenty. Minister after Minister on that bench denounced the presentation of Supplementary Estimates at all as being a sure sign—I think I am using the Prime Minister's words—of sloppy finance. They said the presentation of Supplementary Estimates was a confession of incapacity on the part of the Government, and deprived the House of Commons of any real power to review the finances of the year because they never had the finances of the whole year before them. Here is the Government with no less than twenty Supplementary Estimates. May I ask the Prime Minister to tell us whether we are yet in possession of all the Supplementary Estimates?
§ The PRIME MINISTERSo far as I know.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINPerhaps the Prime Minister will make certain if he does not know. I do not want to press him for an answer across the floor of the House at this moment if he will answer in the course of the Debate. I want to know whether there is any Supplementary Estimate for the Army and Navy, and with regard to the Civil Service, whether there will not be a necessity for a further Supplementary Estimate.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI was wrong. I am told there is an Army Supplementary Estimate.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman will revise the time he is allowing to Supplementary Estimates as this has come as a surprise to him as well as to the rest of the House. The time he thought adequate, and no more than adequate, for the Civil Service Supplementary Estimate is not adequate for an Army Supplementary Estimate as well.
§ The PRIME MINISTERmade a remark which was not audible in the Press Gallery.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWill the right hon. Gentleman give it to us at all?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI will see.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI will wait and see. The special financial difficulties of the Government are of their own creation, but, when you have allowed for their financial difficulties, there is no 1262 necessity for this Motion, none whatever. If I followed the right hon. Gentleman rightly, he has before the end of the year enough time for all the necessary financial business of the year without intruding upon private Members' time at all. In any case, he does not confine himself to taking such time from private Members as he proposes to allot to financial business. The whole object of his Motion is not to facilitate financial business, but to facilitate the Parliament Bill. With what purpose? In order, he says, that it may get through this House as rapidly as possible, and be presented to the Lords at such a time that they may arrive at a conclusion about it just before the Coronation. I confess I do not think that is a particularly appropriate moment for bringing a constitutional crisis to a head, and I should have thought the Government, if they had any regard for the loyal feelings of the nation or for the comfort of the Crown, would have done everything in their power to avoid producing a crisis at or about that time, instead of deliberately aiming at bringing it about. I think it is a most unfortunate choice that the Government have made. But in any case there is no urgency except their own convenience about the passage of the Bill. If a decision is taken upon it in the ordinary course of the Session during the ordinary duration of the Session that is time enough, as it has been in the past, for the greatest of all Bills, and time enough now for this Bill. And when I say if it is brought to a conclusion within the ordinary limits of the Session, those are very elastic limits. The Session used to end on the 12th August or thereabouts, but we are now accustomed to have the ordinary Session go on until December. The Government, therefore, have the whole year before them. There is no necessity for depriving private Members of their rights in order that a decision may be arrived at within the Session. There is ample time if the Government will use it, and I think it is an outrage upon the House and an outrage upon the country that, in order to force through a most revolutionary change in our Constitution, placing exorbitant and uncontrolled power in the hands of this House, that the Government, as a first step, should arrogate to themselves complete control over the whole proceedings of this House. What a light it casts upon single chamber government. Not only is this House to be supreme in the Constitution, but the Government are to be supreme in this House. Not only is this House to be the 1263 sole effective House, but the Government are to be the only effective House of Commons for all time. If precedents are against them, they do not count. It is not precedents, says the Prime Minister, which are of importance. No precedent or custom is to restrain their action. This House is to be made supreme in order that Ministers may be supreme over and through this House.
We see no such necessity for haste in a measure of this kind, and we shall offer the strongest opposition we can to the exorbitant demands of the Government. I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite and hon Gentlemen below the Gangway: are they going to support the Government in making this inroad upon private Members' time when there is admittedly no necessity for it, when all the financial business can be done and the law can be kept without the Motion, and when the Bill itself, to force through which this Motion is made, has ample time in the ordinary course of the Session without the Motion at all for full consideration? Are they going to support the Government in the arbitrary action which they are taking? I suppose they are. The Prime Minister says that he does not attach much importance to precedent, but precedents remain, and will be followed. Hon. Gentlemen will not always form part of a majority in this House. The time will come, and come sooner than they think, when they will cross the floor of the House and will sit in a minority. I give them fair warning. Those of them who vote for this Resolution will forfeit all right to claim any consideration for private Members. Those of them who help to make the majority thus to override and ride down the present minority will forfeit all right to consideration when they are in minority themselves. As they make their bed so shall they lie upon it.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDOn one point at any rate I propose to follow the two speakers who have preceded me, and that is on the point of precedents. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister quoted a precedent which struck me as being very much to the point. There were certain doubts and difficulties about it, but I am bound to confess that as soon as the right hon. Gentleman opposite dealt with the same precedent he removed all those doubts and difficulties. What did the precedent establish? He told us that the justification for that precedent was 1264 that the dignity, the honour, and the capacity for work of this House should be maintained. That is precisely the position to-day. The Labour party is going to support the Government because the Government is asking for time for the purpose of maintaining the dignity, the honour, and the capacity of this House for doing work. The right hon. Gentleman said he could not discover in what respect the dignity of this House was involved in the Parliament Bill. The only doubt he left in my mind, after having heard that observation, is what he meant by the dignity of the House. Surely, if this House has any dignity at all it is the dignity of being the voice of the sovereign will of the people of this country. The Parliament Bill is going to establish the principle—not for the first time, but for the first time in our lifetime—that when a progressive Government, whatever name it may call itself, is sitting on these benches a section of the Constitution shall not block all its business and make its intentions almost abortive. The light hon. Gentleman told us, in words of somewhat mechanical passion, that the meaning of the Resolution was that the Government were asking to be supreme ever this House, and at the same time were asking that this House should be the supreme branch of the Constitution. Supposing that is a true description, what is it but a description of what actually happens when there is a Conservative Government in power. It is all very well for them to-day to come and deliver panegyrics about the rights of private Members, but I am bound to say that the only thing of which the speech of the right hon. Gentleman reminded me was that old adage which says, and shows a vast amount of wisdom in saying, that—
When the devil is sick, the devil a saint would be.If the right hon. Gentleman was on this side of the House it would not require the vote we are to give this afternoon in support of the Government to induce him to take away our rights if it happened to be convenient to him to take them away. The rights of private Members raise, undoubtedly, questions that must have been present in the minds of everybody who has sat in the last two or three Parliaments in this House.5.0 P.M.
It seems to me that hon. Members belonging to the Irish party and ourselves are getting into the unfortunate position of being the only two parties in the House who 1265 are really concerned in the protection of the rights of private Members. When right hon. Gentlemen opposite cross the floor they will suit their own convenience and take as much of the time of private Members as they desire. The Liberal Government will very likely do the same. The only thing we are concerned with this afternoon, therefore, is to answer conscientiously and honestly the question, are the reasons assigned for this resolution adequate and sufficient to justify us in supporting it? What are those reasons? So far as we as a Labour party are concerned, we asked our Constituents at the last two elections to send us back here to do two things immediately. We asked them to send us back here to support the Parliament Bill, and, moreover, to try and have some justice restored to Trades Unions, which are suffering under a gross injustice consequent on certain decisions of the Law Courts. We are not prepared to abandon for one single moment any of the rights of private Members unless we can secure both these aims. I am perfectly willing to take the Government at its word with reference to the Trade Union Bill. We have been told, and I am not going to cast any suspicion on the statement, that the Government mean to introduce a Bill on this subject. We have accepted their word, and I have no doubt that their action will justify us in so doing. Then comes the Parliament Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite told us in the precedents that have been discussed to-day there were certain particular features, and one of those features was that, before Mr. Smith moved his Resolution, four precious weeks of the time of the Session have been taken up, and that that was his justification for moving it. What is the position now? Nearly two years of precious time of this House have been taken up, and we have had two elections on the Parliament Bill—the first in January last year and the second in December last—and the question of the position and constitution of the other place was then clearly and definitely before the public. There is not a single Member of this House who was returned in January and again in December but knows that simply in the form of a general proposition in January and in the form of three definite and precise resolutions in December he had to discuss with his constituents the position of the House of Lords in the constitution of this country. The delay would not have been justified had it not been for the melancholy 1266 event which led to a truce. Nobody can say for a moment that it was anything but proper and human that the truce should occur, and I for one have never criticised the fact that it did take place. But it has now passed. We have had our election in January with the mandate it gave us, and we have had the December election with its mandate also, and the Government would not be worth five minutes of support unless it showed its determination, without loss of time, to press on, without delay of any kind, with the settlement, so far as this House is concerned, of the Parliament Bill. It is because, after carefully going through the time-table, after carefully going through the time available for the business of this House, we are convinced it is not only wise, but necessary, for the Government to ask us to surrender our rights that we have come to the conclusion to give their proposal our support.
I have already said that the Labour party is very keenly alive to the fact that the rights of private Members are in jeopardy at the present moment. But that is not the question which at the present moment is in the mind of the Opposition. The object they have in view is the method of delaying business so far as the Parliament Bill is concerned. I hope I am not misinterpreting their complaint, but I do suggest that they are inspired by party considerations rather than by national considerations in the opposition which they are offering to this proposal. I admit it is beginning to be the ordinary method of political fighting—that the consideration of party is far too frequently being put in front of the consideration of the national well-being. Everybody sees that from the outside. It is becoming a fashion, and an exceedingly bad fashion, and I hope some of us will do our best to prevent its development.
§ Lord HUGH CECILIt depends on whether your party is right or wrong.
§ Mr. MACDONALDI associate myself with what has fallen from the Noble Lord, and I wish he would apply the adage to which he has just given utterance to his own vote this afternoon. It recalls to my mind a circumstance in yesterday's Debate. The Noble Lord gave the House a very amusing extract from Boswell's "Johnson," and he told how a certain clansman had remarked about his chief, that if that chief directed him to cut a man's throat he would do it; in fact he would cut his 1267 own throat if ordered to do so. The Noble Lord said that that was the mirror in which the Government would find its face imaged. When the Noble Lord told that story it entered into my mind at once that it would be very apropos of to-day's position, and I am certain that the Noble Lord will turn the story over again in his mind and hold it up as a mirror, he will see himself in it—he will realise that it is very much to the point of the present situation. As a matter of fact, the Labour party is going to support the Government, not because it desires to keep the Government in office, not because it has come to any bargain with it—because neither of those two motives are in existence—but it is going to support the Government because it wants this Parliament Bill to be decisively and practically dealt with, and because, after careful examination of the time available for the Government, it has come to the conclusion that the Government can do nothing else. We are prepared to fight for our private rights in other ways and under other circumstances. But to-day we are going to carry out the pledges we gave to our constituents when we said that the first and most energetic business to be undertaken by this Parliament was the settlement of the outstanding difficulties between this House and the other.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYWe have gathered one or two very interesting things from the words which have fallen from the last speaker. One is we are learning that the issue at the last elections was different to the one we have always been told it was. We always understood that the issue in January last was the Budget. Now we learn that it was the Parliament Bill. Whether that be so or not, I do think, if private Members are only to trust to the advocacy of the party which stands behind the hon. Member for Leicester, they will not retain that which, at any rate, is at the bottom of my heart. The Labour party claim to be the one which is in future to look after the rights of private Members. Yet they are a party which is absolutely compelled in every vote it gives in this House to act, not on its own free will, but on the will of those over whom it has no control.
§ Mr. MACDONALDI am sure the hon. Gentleman would not desire to misrepresent anything I have said. That statement of his is not quite accurate.
§ Mr. HARDYI should be glad to hear in what way it is not accurate. Certainly it conveys the impression which has been given to us by the Debates which have occurred, and by the discussions of a recent day, which showed that there was not altogether unanimity among the hon. Gentleman's own followers as to the extent to which their pledges bind them. At all events I desire on this occasion to call to the attention of the House a matter which has not, I think, been dealt with in any of the speeches up to the present time. The speeches we hear on these Resolutions that come up again and again are undoubtedly impeded in their influence by the fact that everybody knows that both Front Benches are to some extent tarred by the same brush. When they have been in office they have been under the necessity of taking certain action, and when they have been in opposition they have had to take other action; therefore, on ordinary occasions, there is, I think, a lack of genuineness in the arguments put forward by the occupants of the Front Benches. It is consequently the back benches that on these occasions should come to the rescue. This is a very peculiar occasion, because we now have, at all events, a right to claim the support of our Front Bench, because they are responsible for the new condition of things that came into existence in 1902. It is absurd to go back to the precedent of 1886. Everybody who has any knowledge of the Debates that occurred week after week over the new Rules knows that matters entirely changed in 1902, and in nothing more than in connection with the question of the time of private Members. So far as we are concerned, the final settlement arrived at was a concordat. It was stated again and again in the most decisive terms by the Leader of the House at that time that if private Members gave up that which had no doubt been their privilege, although it was a privilege they were very seldom allowed to use, the Government would make their bargain with them, and it should be a bargain which would stand in the future.
So far as that Government and the Parliament of 1906 were concerned that bargain, which is the one the Prime Minister has to go back to for a precedent, was never broken. It is unfair, therefore, to go back to years in which an entirely different condition of things prevailed. What were the statements that were made by the Leader of 1269 the House on that occasion again and again? In February, 1902, he said:—
Under the existing system private Members never know when the Government may come down and take their time for public business. Every Government has found that necessary for the last twenty-five years, but that system we hope to put an end to.On another occasion in April he admitted that it was a great interference with the nominal privileges of individual Members, but he contended that their real privileges would be greatly extended, because in future they would have fully secured all the time that was given to them. If it is said that this bargain was not accepted from the other side, if hon. Members refer back to these Debates, they will find that the very position which is now taken by us was put forward at that time. There was at that time a doubter. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) threw doubts upon the good faith of the Government, in connection with this matter, and it was in consequence of those doubts that the statement was made by the Government that they felt that they were absolutely bound to the House in this matter, and it would not lie in them as long as they retained office, whoever succeeded the right hon. Gentleman, to take away the small limits of time of private Members which had been secured for them under these rules. I must say that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division did very accurately prophecy. He said:—What would be the action of a Liberal Administration—there were such things as Liberal Administrations—who desired to pass a great deal of legislation. He ventured to say that Members of the House would live to see the day when other Members of the House would desire to pass measures which hon. Gentlemen opposite would think were against the constitution of the country. And what would happen? Why, they would take away the time which was now contracted to be given to private Members.That was what he suspected, and I am sure that he showed a very good knowledge of what was likely to happen. On this side of the House no breach has been made in regard to that bargain. The only precedents that can be used are the precedents of last year, and let us compare the two sets of circumstances. First of all, last year there was, as everybody knows, a late General Election, which had taken place within the year. The opening of Parliament was somewhat delayed, and Easter was abnormally early. Undoubtedly, the Prime Minister came down and showed that it was somewhat difficult, especially as the first duty of the Government was to pass the Budget, which had been rejected by the Lords in the previous Parliament— 1270 it was rather difficult for them to get through their financial arrangements—and he accordingly asked for the time of the House. He asked for a precedent—namely, the first interruption of the established rule of 1902. What was the result? The time was not taken for financial business. It was devoted, some of it, to the Veto Resolutions. The time was not required for the financial business of the Government. Everybody who turns back to the memory of last year will know that again and again, hours in the course of an evening, could have been spared to private Members' business, because the business of the Government was concluded comparatively early in the evening. It was not, therefore, even with the overwhelming case which was then stated, and which is a very much better case than that set up this afternoon; even under those conditions the Government could not support the contention which they laid down when they asked for the time of the House. But this is a very different period. We have got a very large amount of time before Easter. We have ample time, even on the showing of the Government themselves, when every piece of financial business can be brought forward—even including their extra Budget, which we have to deal with this Session. Therefore, there can be no possible arguments put forward except in regard to forwarding legislation which they hold dear, but which this side of the House does not value.The Government say that private Members must submit to the sacrifice of issues in which private Members are concerned, but do let us remember the use for which private Members are given this time. The whole of this time is not given to Bills, and two or three of the occasions during the week, when private Members are given time, are for the purpose of Motions. These Motions are undoubtedly, in the main, in criticism of the Acts of the administration. The idea of giving up the issues in which private Members are concerned means that the Government are going to get out of, at the beginning of a new Parliament, any of those criticisms which can be launched against the various deeds or acts of administration in connection, with the various Departments of the Government. That is the opportunity which has been taken away, that is the issue for the sacrifice of which we are asked. That is not a sacrifice of anything that we have to do with; it is a sacrifice by private Members of that natural and necessary criticism of the Government 1271 which it is the duty of the Opposition to bring forward and which the country requires from them. The Government, therefore, in taking away from private Members this time is really only saving and relieving themselves from the danger of having these criticisms made upon them. Let us just think only of the conduct of business during the present week. Will anybody in this House get up and say that if the discussion on Local Taxation had taken place on a Motion instead of on an Amendment to the Address that the Government would not have had to have treated it very differently to what they did. We are limited to the occasions given to us by Amendments to the Address to bring forward great questions which we think require to be discussed. We bring them forward, therefore, under a great disadvantage, for we know that behind them the Government have the solid support of their party, in order to insure the defeat of an Amendment on the Address. It does not matter whether they make a good case or not, because they know that on that occasion they are bound to have the support of their party; but if it were the case of a Motion, everybody is a great deal freer to act according to what he thinks is right, and we should have had a very different attitude taken up by the Government, and we should not have ended the Debate in the manner in which it was brought to a conclusion.
I think it is very necessary for private Members to remember their rights, and a great many of the private Members in this House were not in it under the old condition of things. They do not remember the time when there was more freedom, and they see the Government, again and again, coming on the scene and taking away rights which we, on this side, as far as possible, safeguarded, and which the then Leader of the House safeguarded permanently as far as possible. But I do think that even on this occasion, perhaps I myself would be willing to yield to the Government's recommendation, if any right hon. Gentleman on the Government Bench would get up and say that if this extraordinary demand which is now made upon private Members to give up their time to the Government is granted, they will, on their part, undertake that in no time of this Session, will they make use of those other powers by which great legislative measures are carried through by the present Government. If they will give a promise 1272 that on no occasion will these other powers be made use of, then, I think, it may be possible for this House to grant them the extra time desired; but we have seen again and again in past Sessions, whenever they have obtained the grant of the time of the House, and the sacrifice of all private privileges, that time has been used, not to give that full liberty of discussion which is our right in regard to great legislative measures, but we have only had an opportunity of discussing them which has been very much curtailed and we have discussed them, under very different circumstances than those which ought to prevail in regard to a great constitutional question. That is really where the difficulty comes, that this time, when the Government has possession of it, it will not be used to secure greater liberty of debate in this House. I oppose this measure, and do hope that on this occasion private Members will use their privileges, as on the occasion when the Rules were framed, and when Members on both sides of the House united to bring their influence on the Government of the day, in regard to the framing of the new procedure resolutions, so that they should form a contract with the House and come to a permanent bargain under it. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will unite on this occasion so that we may not see this curtailment of our rights.
§ Mr. BOTTOMLEYI shall endeavour, in a humble way, to emulate the example of the Prime Minister and avoid the use of exaggerated language, but I cannot resist the conclusion that this Motion is the apotheosis of governmental tyranny. It is the negation of the doctrine of popular representation. Under it the idea that we private Members of Parliament are here to exercise any check over the Executive or any control over the public purse is reduced to the level of a screaming farce. I recognise, as every Member of the House recognises, that the King's Government must be carried on, and even if the reason for this demand were the fault of the Government as alleged by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and they are in arrears with the old Budget, still, whatever the reason we must get rid of these financial arrears and deal with the current financial requirements of the country. I would willingly support whatever remnants of freedom and responsibility private Members still possess in the House, but I go further and say that I recognise that 1273 under the Party system under which we live, the Ministry of the day is entitled to make a liberal use of Parliamentary machinery to secure the passage of its own central measures, whatever may be their merits or demerits. From that point of view, however, when the Prime Minister, with his unique Parliamentary experience and the great responsibility of his office, deliberately repeats to-day that fantastic prophecy which he indulged in a few days ago, that there is an expectation in the mind of the Government that this Parliament Bill may be passed into law, and got out of the way before the Coronation, then I say, with great respect, that unconsciously and unknowingly he is trifling with the intelligence of the House. What is the position of the Bill? We have not yet had the First Reading. We are told that such freedom of debate as will of course be necessary in the case of a measure of this importance will foe allowed. Then comes the Second Reading. Then there comes the Committee Stage. I can well imagine the ingenuity with which opponents, whatever be the merits of the measure, will not be lacking in placing many perfectly orderly and legitimate Amendments on the Notice Paper. Then there comes the Report stage, when, under our present procedure, we shall go over the Committee stage again, Then there comes the Third Reading, and then the Bill goes elsewhere, and it is possible to conceive that the other House will give it a respectful consideration. The other House may carefully consider it, taking a not unreasonable period in regard to the importance of the measure. They may send it back with amendments, with conditions, and with modifications, which will entitle them to be considered with respect and consideration in this House. The Bill may come back again, and on that occasion this House, having expressed its temper on the measure, the other House may have no alternative but to submit to the opinion of this Assembly or to reject the measure. One must, as a practical politician, face these contingencies. In that case these much discussed assurances and guarantees must be expressed and converted and translated into terms of living peers. Then the new peers have to be found—not the least difficult step in the process of the passage of this measure. Having been found, probably some time will elapse while their party fidelity is being insured at Lloyd's, and when that operation has been successfully carried 1274 through they have to be created. Then having been created the measure undergoes another course of consideration in the other House. And to tell us that all this can be done within three Parliamentary months, when we have been told already that twenty days out of the thirty-five between now and Easter are allocated to financial business, is not paying a very high compliment to the sagacity of the Members of this Assembly.
I am more concerned, however, with another phase of this matter, which was referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Laurence Hardy). I want to know what the private Member is here for in these days. We seem to have become Parliamentary jellyfish, with no real live existence at all. Those of us who come here from time to time in our humble capacity when we get the opportunity to plead for the rights of private Members speak as people in the wilderness, with scarcely any support from the orthodox Members of the Government party. I remember an experience which rather shocked me. A few days ago a Member of this House sitting on this side, relatively an old Member of the House, paid me the compliment of consulting me as to the form of a question which he desired to address to a Minister. He thought I might possibly have some special information which might be of use to him. We adjourned to the Lobby outside, and carefully went through the question and I gave him such poor assistance as I could, and having got it into shape I walked with him round the Lobby expecting to see him go to the Clerk at the Table and hand the question in. To my horror and surprise, he said, "I must first go and show it to the Whip." That is typical of the condition under which the private Member of this House discharges his Parliamentary duties. I do not complain of the frequency with which the Leaders of the parties, as they are called, take part in our Debate; I do not complain of the fact that the two principal Leaders have already addressed the House about twenty times this Session. I agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Laurence Hardy) that both front benches are tarred with the same black brush in regard to this matter. The sympathy of any right hon. Gentleman on either front bench in this case is like the sympathy of that gentleman of whom we have heard who, seeing a poor beggar on the other side of the road eating his last crust, crossed over the road 1275 and shared it with him. It sounds very sympathetic at first, but there is not very much in it.
I suggest to private Members that they should follow the example of the Gentleman who found himself recently a party to some legal proceeding in one of the American States in which he was accused of some act of moral backsliding. The evidence was overwhelming but after, in accordance with the law of the State, the Judge asked him whether he would like to say something to the jury before the verdict was given, he said, as many of my hon. Friends are in the habit of saying, he was a nervous retiring man who did not care for public speaking, but he would like to write a note to the foreman of the jury. Permission was granted, the note was passed, and to the astonishment of everyone in court a verdict of acquittal followed. When the Judge came to look at the note, as he insisted upon doing, he read with astonished eyes this simple message:—"Don't you think it time we married men stood by each other?" I think it is time we private Members, married or single, stood by each other against the common enemy, against the jury on one Front Bench or the other. I am astonished to see how the idea of the impotence of Parliament under the present system is permeating the public mind and the public press. Looking at my copy of "The Church Times," I think it was, I was struck by a most important leader on the present condition to which this Government system has reduced us. I will read this extract because it has a most important bearing upon the discussion, and, of course, the authority is so high that one need scarcely apologise for quoting it. It says:—
Speeches, for example, might under the present arrangement be dispensed with. They are really only wanted for 'Hansard' and the local papers, It would be the simplest thing in the world to hand in typewritten copies to the Whips, who would select those suited for imperishable record in 'Hansard.' The writers might make their own arrangements with the Press. Again, why continue the waste of time involved in Divisions? All that is required is for the Whips to compare notes and hand in to the clerk a statement of the numbers at their disposal. Indeed, there might be a permanent arrangement borrowed from the democratic precedent of the Trade Union Congress, and each Member might be credited for the Session with a certain voting power. An approach to a commonsense method has already been made in pairing. Why should not the process be extended? It would be quite simple, for example, to pair the whole Liberal party against the whole Opposition, their numbers being exactly equal, and the House might then be left to the Nationalists and the Labour party and Mr. Bottomley, the result being just what it is under the cumbrous system now in force. Indeed, we do not see why even these gentlemen should be kept dancing attendance on the Speaker. Mr. Bottomley, of course, must be there since he stands for himself, and 1276 pleasantly claims to be the sole representative of London, the Ministerial and Opposition Members for which exactly balance each other. Poor London.That is the view of so dignified and sedate an authority as "The Church Times," and it is finding expression throughout the land. I wish to make one recommendation to private Members. Our powers are being taken away day by day, and we are gradually being reduced to a position of absolute impotence, and I want first of all in their name, so far as I can speak for private Members, to put before the Prime Minister this argument, which, I think, is the argument which tells most in the country in connection with this Constitutional crisis. Some of us are busy people. We appreciate very highly the honour of being here. But we come here not for the sole purpose of registering the designs and wishes of the Government, but of trying to do a little work on our own account and trying to achieve some sort of political honour, however slight and trivial it may be. I ask private Members to adopt a motto, one which some of them may have heard before, and it is called in Latin solvitur ambulando. I am told on high classical authority that it means walking in the light of common sense in the domain of reality. That is a position which has never occurred to a private Member in these days. We walk not in the light of common sense in the domain of reality. We walk in the darkness of party servitude in the domain of party hypocrisy, and I ask that we may be relieved of it. My last words are again to commend that maxim to Members of the House—Solvitur ambulando.
§ Mr. W. R. REAI do not rise to say anything in opposition to the Amendment, though we feel on this side of the House, at any rate, that the circumstances are so exceptional as to justify even the strong step that has been taken by the Government. But I feel that we are bound to offer just a word of warning that it may be realised that we do appreciate the magnitude of the sacrifice which we are asked to make, and especially because it is the second year in succession that we have been asked to make that sacrifice. It is perfectly true, and it is as equally inevitable, that the sacrifice should be made last year. Things which are inevitable twice running have a habit of becoming inevitable every year, and some of us are certainly afraid that the Prime Minister may have been only too correct when he described the rights 1277 of private Members as being traditional. I fear in years to come that there may be nothing traditional to sacrifice. We feel that at any rate in this Session it may be justifiable—in fact it is not only justifiable but inevitable—that no time should be lost in putting forward the Parliament Bill. But many of us feel that the privileges of Parliament are, after all, something which we can call upon the Government to defend. I do not know that it is possible to say one is paying too heavy a price for the liberty we are asking under the Parliament Bill, but I ask that it should be taken into consideration whether we are not injuring the Parliamentary machine by this constantly growing practice of asking private Members to subordinate themselves entirely to the convenience of the Government. It is mischievous in that it is very apt to drive out of Parliament a class of Member whom it is most desirable to retain in this House, even though he has no opportunity and no desire to sit upon either of the two Front Benches. My own experience of Parliament has been short, but even in my own time I can remember men of the stamp of Mr. Lever, Sir Owen Philips, and Mr. D. A. Thomas, amongst the most influential of our private Members, and perhaps the best of our business Members, who have found it not worth their while to remain in this House because they were not prepared to sacrifice their lives as mere voiceless voting machines. It will be recollected that when many of us first came here in 1906 we made this protest to the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and he promised us definitely that steps should be taken to find work for private Members, so that they shall feel they are doing something to represent their constituents beyond simply walking through the Division Lobbies and sitting on these benches without having any opportunity of doing more useful work than could fee carried out by mere automatons. It appears to me that the Government are risking—I admit that the risk is one which this Session is justifying—the establishing of a dangerous precedent. I am quite aware that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not care very much for precedent, but, after all, if the time ever does come when they will cross the floor of the House and occupy the Treasury Bench, it may prove useful to Members of the Liberal party that there should be opportunities for private Members to bring subjects before the House. I was not a Member of the House 1278 at the time, but I have a vivid recollection of the Fiscal Debates in the Parliament which was elected in 1900, and which were so excessively inconvenient to the Government that their supporters left the House. It was due to the initiative of private Members that these Debates took place, and in these Debates a number of Members made their reputations as statesmen—made the reputations which they have since consolidated.
We recognise to-day that the Motion which the Prime Minister has brought forward is absolutely inevitable, and we who have been returned as supporters of the Government welcome it with our whole hearts, because we believe it shows that the Government is in earnest about the Parliament Bill, which it is our desire to place on the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment. I am not going to cry over any small injury done to the privileges of private Members on this occasion. I have only risen because I wish to draw attention to the fact that we do appreciate that we are making a sacrifice, and that we may be called upon to make that sacrifice more often in the future. I ask the Government not to be satisfied with this Resolution to-day, but to look a little bit forward and consider whether it is not possible to devise some means by which the work of private Members can be placed at the service of the State. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman promised it, and we have not found it. It appears to me that it is merely because the work of Parliament is so congested that private Members have nothing to do. It is not a healthy state of affairs, and it is not one that ought to continue. I ask the Government to take a longer view and consider whether they cannot work out a new scheme for the entire readjustment of the duties and privileges of private Members, so that without in any way interfering with the work of the Government, which we all desire to push forward as far as possible, men will still consider it an honour to come into this House, because they will feel that they are doing something to forward the good' of the people and not acting as mere machines which count for something in the division lobbies, but which otherwise are of no account.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONThe plaintive appeal of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. R. Rea) would be more effective if he were to walk in what the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) called the domain of reality, but we know perfectly well that though he has cried 1279 considerably, he will vote with the Government this time, next time, and all the time. We know he is there as a voting machine. He says so himself, and therefore I do not think his agonies will be quite so pathetic in the view of the House as he tried to make out. I am well aware that in the arbitrary temper of this Government, no First Minister has ever treated the House in so arbitrary a way as the right hon. Gentleman. It is absolutely useless to try to resist this Motion by speech, and just as useless to do so by the dumb show of the division lobby. But I am less concerned to rail at the hon. Member than I am to emphasise what has been so well illustrated by my hon. Friend opposite, and that is that this is a long step in the progressive, or perhaps I should say, the "degressive" degradation of this House as a place for free discussion and as a deliberative assembly. No one pointed that out better than the Prime Minister in the last Parliament but two. The Prime Minister in 1904, when the Licensing Bill was under discussion, said that there was great risk of making this House a mere machine for registering the edicts of a transient majority. I might add now "and an uncertain majority." The phrase impressed itself so much on me that I actually learned it. The truth is the position of the private Member is a different thing now from what it was when I entered the House twenty-five years ago. Then he counted for something, now he is a mere cypher. It is true that there has always been the trite saying that if he was of very little positive utility so far as measures go his influence was felt. Now it is not felt, and I am bound to say I think we are becoming exactly what the late Lord Salisbury said we should become—blind machines here, for, as the Prime Minister said, registering the edicts of the Government. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) told us that his party stood for the protection of individuals. That is just exactly what they do not stand for. They stand for groups, and groups can take care of themselves. They apply the same rules as in their own unions, and they raze a Member very quickly if he shows any signs of independence. Groups will always be protected, but what the House is losing is the sturdy and robust independence of the private Member as he existed even up to the elections of this century, and I quite agree that that is a 1280 very serious loss. Of course, the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) says we are partisans because we oppose this Resolution, and that they are patriots because they support it. Well, that is hardly worthy of him. That is always the cant of those why try to find extenuating circumstances for a vote which they know they ought not to give. He is particularly unhappy in his illustrations. He says the Labour party are supporting this Resolution because it would enable the Government to carry through the Parliament Bill which had been discussed for two years in the country. Let me point out that the Home Rule Bill was discussed for six years in the country. It was the subject of two elections, and yet no such procedure was proposed in regard to that Bill as is proposed now. I have some right to speak, because, as a matter of fact, I was engaged with the Prime Minister in those days in fighting on the same platform. I have reason to know that no detail escaped criticism in the second election except the possibility of the presence of Irish Members in this House. That was the only detail of the Bill not discussed on the platform before Mr. Gladstone introduced his second Home Rule Bill in this House.
The Prime Minister, in seeking precedents, went back to 1887. I was in that Parliament with him, and I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. A. Pease) will bear me out, whether those sharing his views agree to it or not—that the plea was that we were in a state of public danger, that the State was in danger, and that that alone justified the extreme measures proposed for carrying through the business of the House. No such reasons can be alleged now. The Coronation is alleged as a reason, and that is a great ceremony, but after all it is a great ceremony only. There is not now such a condition of things as was alleged to exist in 1887 as an excuse for what was undoubtedly an arbitrary exercise of Ministerial power in the House. I venture to point this out because I hold that the Resolution now before the House is taking us very quickly down the steep and slippery slope which will lead to the extinction of Parliamentary liberties in the proper sense of the term. We are fast becoming a mere bureaucracy here, and I wonder so many of us trouble to come back to the House where those who do not belong to the official gangs have small consideration and are able to do little work.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHI desire to approach the consideration of this question from rather a different standpoint from that of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lawson). I quite agree that the time of private Members is more and more entrenched on year by year. Somehow there is always ready an excuse for taking that time. I think this is an occasion out of common precedent, and I wish to explain to the House why I, and those with whom I am associated in this House, are prepared to support the Resolution. We think this Resolution is necessary in order to pass the Parliament Bill, and we take the view that the Parliament Bill should be passed this Session, because it is the basis and beginning of all progressive legislation in the country. But we take the view also that a measure in which we are intimately concerned has only a chance of being passed by the Veto of the House of Lords being abolished. At the same time, we want to make our position perfectly clear. We have pledges of the Prime Minister in 1909 and 1910, and our view is that these pledges still stand. We take the view that this Resolution is necessary, because without it the Veto Bill might be jeopardised. We take the view that we vote for this Resolution relying on that double pledge and upon the fact that Welsh Disestablishment will be carried through this House in one or other of the first two Sessions of this Parliament, because if it is not so passed it will not get the advantage of the Veto Bill. I want, on my own behalf and on behalf of those with whom I am associated, to make it perfectly clear that we support the Resolution, relying on these, promises, and I am perfectly confident that the promises will be carried into effect.
§ Mr. PICKERSGILLI intend to oppose the Motion, and, therefore, I naturally desire not to give a silent vote. This Motion has been supported by the plea that the circumstances are exceptional. No doubt they are exceptional. It is always in exceptional circumstances that bad precedents are established. For instance, there is that institution colloquially known by the name of the guillotine, which every true old Parliament man simply loathes, I care not in what part of the House he sits. I remember the circumstances under which the guillotine was introduced. Probably there are not more than half a dozen on this side of the House who are in a position to remember it.
1282 6.0 P.M.
It happened twenty-four years ago, but still I can remember as if it were yesterday, when the late Mr. W. H. Smith, the then Leader of the House, brought forward this proposal, and he said: "We are faced by a condition of circumstances absolutely unparalleled in the history of Parliament." That was opposed by the Liberal party in this House at the time. But when the Liberals came into power they also found no difficulty in satisfying themselves that they also were faced by a condition of circumstances absolutely unparalleled, and they adopted that odious instrument which the other side had invented; and the use of it has become an established practice in this House. Therefore, when I am told that the circumstances are exceptional, having that experience before me, it is not an argument which carries any weight with me. But when an advance is made from the proposition that the circumstances are peculiar or exceptional to the further proposition that this Motion is necessary, then I traverse that proposition. The Government took the time of unofficial Members last year, but after they had taken their time, again and again they moved the adjournment of the House at an abnormally early hour, and I heard new Members lately come into the House who were amazed at this method of conducting public business, rise from their place and make strong, but, of course, absolutely fruitless protests. Further, I ask, did the sacrifice which unofficial Members had to make last year prove successful? Was it fruitful? What did it lead to? Only to a Dissolution. I dare say right hon. Gentlemen who are drawing salaries of £5,000 a year, paid quarterly, can face the cost of an Election with a cheerful countenance. But two Elections within twelve months impose an intolerable strain upon the resources of unofficial and independent Members who happen to be poor men. We were bitterly disappointed last year. It is possible that we may be disappointed this year. If the Prime Minister is not in a position to do more for us after the last Election than he was in a position to do for us after the last Election but one, this Parliament will probably be short.
In these circumstances it seems to me to be the part of wisdom to seize the flying moments as they pass. Let us at all events secure something out of this Parliament. Something can certainly be secured. Good work can be done by means of legislation, initiated by unofficial members. 1283 My right hon. Friend (Mr. Pease) says something about such bills being frustrated through opposition in another place. I think that the particular constitutional process in which we are engaged would tend rather to facilitate those Bills initiated by private Members, than to secure their rejection. I say, therefore, that these are really not days when Radicals can afford to abandon any little privileges which may still remain to them. In my own time—I think this is revelant to the subject which we are discussing to-night, and upon previous occasions you, I notice, have allowed some latitude—the ranks of the official Members of the House have been greatly swollen, not only by the creation of new paid offices, but also by bringing into existence an entirely new category—I mean the Parliamentary private secretaries of Ministers. The creation of these appointments has been carried to extreme under the present régime. Every Minister, every sub-Minister, every deputy sub-Minister has got now his Parliamentary private secretary, and the Home Secretary—the public Press on Tuesday last gave advertisement of the fact—has two hon. Gentlemen dancing attendance upon him. This very strange character did not exist when I entered the House. That hon. Members should be so insensible to the dignity of the great position of a Member of the House of Commons as to advertise themselves in "Debrett" as proud to fetch and carry for Ministers does amaze me as an old Parliamentarian. That is a matter which on one side concerns simply themselves and their own sense of what is due to themselves. But there is another side to this which touches the public interest, because these appointments do undoubtedly tend to undermine, or at all events influence, the personal independence of Members of this House.
I for one, at all events, feel that it is high time to protest. Perhaps I should have taken a stand before, but at least I have exercised independence during all the time I have been in this House. But we are now in this position that the inroads upon the privileges and upon the dignity of unofficial Members of this House have increased, and are increasing, in what I may call a kind of geometrical progression. I will go further and say this. Even the great object of curbing the power of another place, which no one desires more ardently than I desire it, might yet be purchased too dearly if 1284 it were purchased by destroying the independence, and by breaking the spirit of the House of Commons. I do not know how it may be with other Members, but for myself, the electors of South-West Bethnal Green have not sent me here for twenty years and more to be merely a voting machine, to register the decrees of the Government, or to speak only with the kind permission of the Government licenser. I had rather, and I say it deliberately, go out of Parliamentary life altogether than subject myself without protest to these humiliating conditions. When I first entered Parliament there was a number of men who, while they were prepared to give a general support to any Liberal Government, did not, and would not, swallow holus bolus everything that was put before them by the Cabinet of the day. It is not for me to celebrate the praises of those men, but this I do say, that in those days, in the opinion of most thoughtful men, the class of Member whom I have described did play a useful and valuable part in the life of the House of Commons. Now that Sir Charles Dilke is gone, I believe that I am the only surviving Member in this House of that old school of Radicals, and so long as I have the honour to sit here I shall maintain, unequally it may be, yet to the best of my power, the old tradition.
§ Earl WINTERTONWe have all listened to the very eloquent speech just made by the hon Gentleman (Mr. Pickers-gill) with a considerable amount of interest, because it is not unjust or unfair criticism to make that he represents a school of independent thought on the opposite side of the House which, unfortunately has become too rare. My Parliamentary experience now goes back some seven years. Even in that period, certainly since the election of 1906, there has been a very considerable declension of independence on the opposite side of the House. I am not referring to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir Henry Dalziel), because he, fortunately, still remains, or the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). But there are many hon. Gentlemen who, on these occasions, used to make eloquent and very vehement protest against seizing the time of private Members by the Government. Where are they now? Some are on the Front Bench, some have gone to the judicial bench, and others have either compulsorily or voluntarily sought more congenial occupations 1285 outside. Very few are left. As to those who are left I do not altogether agree in finding fault with their reluctance this afternoon to protest, having regard to the opportunity of honours that will exist about the middle of next June.
The seriousness of the position with regard to private Members' time cannot be exaggerated, and this afternoon the whole question has hardly been fully gone into. During the last six years the considerable amount of liberty hitherto enjoyed by private Members has largely disappeared under Resolutions similar to that which we are now discussing. There used to be a time when opportunities of moving the Adjournment of the House at question time were frequent, and private Members in that way had an opportunity of airing their grievances. That opportunity in recent years has been practically non-existent. In every direction the opportunity of private Members for airing their grievances, or putting forward their views, is becoming less and less, and threatens to become still more diminished in the future. That is a serious condition of matters from the point of view of private Members. It is also a serious position from the point of view of the House as a whole. It is becoming customary in the public Press to regard the private Member as a more or less insignificant personage, and his cause does not appear to be dear to anyone except, perhaps, his constituents. But the private Member is, after all, an integral part of this House, sent here by his constituents—the people about whom right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite show so much regard. Just as some people imagine that in hunting it is possible to get on without the hounds, so some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both Front Benches seem to think it possible to get on without private Members. The dullness of the Debates in this House would be vastly increased if the whole time were taken up by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Benches banging the box on either side of the House, and saying what they have to say well by reason of saying it often, the cheers of humble individuals like myself helping them on. But, apart from the fact of the dullness or otherwise of the House, this, after all, is a deliberative assembly, and the right to make his voice heard by one Member or another is nominally, at any rate, supposed to be equal to that of any other Member of the House, whether he sits on a front or back bench.
1286 Another point in connection with this Resolution is that the whole trend of this sort of Resolutions which we have had recently, and of which this one is such an admirable example, is to put Members of the Government on a higher level of usefulness than the average private Member. That would be all very well if Members of the Government were recruited from a special class noted for its eloquence, brilliance, and usefulness in public service. I am bound to say some hon. Gentlemen do possess those qualities. I am quite willing to admit that many Members of the Government, whatever position they filled, whether in business or in this House, would have attained to greatness. But is it not a fact that some hon. Members on that bench have obtained their places rather by fortuitous coincidence than owing to any other circumstance. We see an interesting phalanx on the back benches above the Ministerial Front Bench, and I cannot help thinking that there are some hon. Gentlemen there as well qualified to fulfil the position of Under-Secretary as some hon. Gentlemen present on the Front Bench. I know the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) agrees with me, and I really had him in my mind as much as anybody, and also the hon. Baronet the Member of Kircaldy Burghs (Sir Henry Dalziel) when I made that statement. I do not think the mere fact of sitting on the Front Ministerial Bench entitles hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to be put on so much higher a plane than the average private Member, who is so greatly affected by a Resolution of this kind. Hon. Members opposite profess a great deal of regard for the voice of the people; but they evince precious little regard for them when their views come to be expressed through their representatives in this House. After all, it is a curious state of affairs, which makes us all pause to consider to what we are coming in this so-called democratic age. We are told that the democracy is ever moving forward, but when the democracy is in power it seems afraid to trust its representatives to speak. We are rapidly approaching an oligarchy in this House, and we are rapidly approaching a time—I daresay we shall approach it by the end of the year if the Government carry out their intentions—when the other Chamber will be silent for effective purposes. We shall then reach the point—and some hon. Gentlemen opposite might pause before they support it—when we shall have this House at the absolute 1287 mercy of a dictatorship, the Government depriving Members of all rights of deliberation in order to make itself independent, and this while the other Chamber will be silent. That may commend itself to some hon. Members, but it ought not to commend itself to any hon. Member who values freedom of Debate.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI think myself it is somewhat unfortunate that the Government have brought forward this Motion because it gives a valuable opportunity to hon. Gentlemen opposite to attack, as the Noble Lord has done just now, the Liberal party. It will not do for us to be in this position. The Veto power of the House of Lords has gone; at the same time the Government are obliterating the private Member from the House of Commons. It is a damaging position to put us in, and I must honestly say that it would require a very great inducement to force me to back up the Government in that particular matter to-day. They have told us that it is absolutely essential if the Veto Bill is to be carried before the Coronation that private Members' time should be taken. If that be so, I shall go into the Lobby with them to-night. If that be shown, I will do so. But it strikes me it is not the fact, and that there are obvious alternatives. One would be to suspend the eleven o'clock rule, and to sit on Saturdays. Everyone who is in this fight, and who wishes to see the fight to a finish, is prepared to sit up all night and on Saturdays if necessary.
§ Mr. MARKHAMNo, we are not.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODOn Saturdays people in the country are doing work just as on every other day in the week, and I think we ought to be prepared here to sacrifice the Saturday holiday in order to get our work done. The Debate, so far as concerns the Front Benches, has gone on the question of precedent. I must say I would rather the Liberal Government did not take a precedent from the Administration of 1887, because, however good it may be as a weapon against the Front Opposition Bench, it is not a very good precedent to take in order to persuade us to vote with them. The Coercion Act of 1887 is not a proper precedent for the Veto Bill destroying the power of the House of Lords. It is not a very happy precedent, and I certainly say that this method of taking a precedent in order to 1288 score off the Front Opposition Bench, or off the Front Government Bench, as the case may be, is rather overdone, when it is brought in to deal with private Members, who under such circumstances are suspicious of the action of the two Front Benches.
I am by no means an extremist in many matters, and I am quite prepared to vote with the Government of the day if they can give me one of any three promises or assurances. The time of private Members is being taken up to 13th April. What is left to private Members is question time only. The questions have been very numerous this Session. We have had 148 questions down on the paper to-day, and by dint of curtailing the supplemental questions we got through ninety-eight in the three-quarters of an hour allowed. It is perfectly possible for the Government to amend the Standing Orders of this House, and to give us an extra quarter of an hour for questions so long as the time of private Members is taken. That is not very much to ask; it would only be temporary, and, of course, it is in no way an equivalent for the time taken from or surrendered by private Members. It would be something, and I beg the Home Secretary to give us this chance of saving our face, and at the same time preserving to some extent the rights of private Members. I think myself that a great deal can be done at Question time by the cross-examination of Ministers. The short time allowed for questions not only concerns the number of questions, but also the number of supplemental questions. After all, the original question is of small importance and very little value to the private Member. It is the supplemental questions which are of real value in eliciting the opinion of Ministers in regard to specific lines of policy. The answer to the original question is drafted in the office with all the skill that the permanent officials provide. The supplemental questions are the true test of the Ministers, and they enable us to find out what they are really thinking and not merely what the permanent officials are thinking. I think this question of private Members' time is one of enormous importance to them. That is one assurance I should like to get from the Government, namely, as to an extension of the time for questions. Another question is one in which I think other Members are also interested. It relates to committees of private Members to deal with the Estimates of different Departments. That would give private 1289 Members of this House a good deal more influence with the public departments and the permanent officials than they at present possess. We do want committees to go carefully into the accounts of the different departments, to see that they are on businesslike lines, and they should go into the accounts, not after, as do the Public Accounts Committee, but before the expenditure has been incurred. That would be of great importance to us as private Members who are really anxious to do good work in connection with the various departments.
There is a third question, which would also perhaps, though not of so great importance to the private Member, be a distinct improvement. I daresay most Members have read that excellent book by a recent Member of the House, Mr. Hilaire Belloc, called "The Party System." In that he gives a most amusing account of how two private Members, fired with enthusiasm from a General Election, came to the House and tried to bring the question of the Duke of Battersea's concessions before it. He tells how they put down an Amendment to the Address, and how promptly the official Opposition put down several Amendments, and how Amendments, moved by the official Opposition, and Amendments moved by the Irish party, and Amendments moved by the Labour party, were all taken and discussed night after night, and how finally the private Member's amendment at the end of the time was closured out. This time we have seen exactly the same thing. We have had had three or four official Amendments from the Opposition and an Amendment from the Labour party. We have not had an Amendment this time from the Irish party. The official Amendments, approved by the party Whips of the Labour party and of the Conservative party, have been taken and considered at a length lasting for several days, while of private Amendments to the Address there was not a single one. Hon. Members with whom I am associated put down several Amendments. This would be all very well if we had had time for a general discussion on the Address. On the first day the Debate opened about six o'clock, and the two Front Bench people occupied the time until eleven o'clock. On the second day we have about three-fourths of the day occupied with one subject and the remainder of the day taken up with a question about South Wales, so that there was no opportunity for independent discussion, or for what is grandiloquently called the 1290 national inquest, which simply did not occur. It does seem to me we have a chance here of getting something back for private Members. At the beginning of the Session we ballot for private Members' Bills, and ballot for Resolutions. I think we might also ballot to see who should have a chance of moving Amendment to the Address.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis is not relevant to the Motion now before the House. It would require a new Standing Order to carry that out. Whether that might be desirable or not, this is not the time to discuss it.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI was trying to show a way in which private Members could get an equivalent for the liberty they are surrendering to the Government. It is perfectly well-known to the House that the Standing Orders could only be altered if the Prime Minister and the Government are agreeable thereto. If they would undertake to alter those Standing Orders then they would do something in the direction which I am urging upon the Government and on the House. Since private Members are asked to surrender a considerable portion of their time I think they are justified in asking the Government in turn to do something for the private Member. This afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), tore his passion to tatters over the iniquities private Members are suffering from the Government, but he himself on this very Address, on which you would think he might have facilitated the question, moved the Closure upon me.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member knows quite well he is not entitled to go back on that Motion. The Closure was the action of the House, and there is nobody to be blamed in that matter except the House itself.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI was speaking as to the putting of the Closure. The Closure was the act of the House, but surely I am entitled to criticise the fact that an hon. Member moved it.
§ Mr. SPEAKERUnder a well-known rule of the House, the hon. Member is not entitled to go back and criticise the act of the Closure, and therefore, I must ask the hon. Member not to do so.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI will not say anything more about it, except to urge that hon. Members opposite who have made such touching appeal to hon. Members on 1291 this side to be independent for once in that particular, should remember the old adage that "dog does not eat dog." I hope the Government will not press this Amendment without giving some assurance to private Members on those three points which I have mentioned.
§ Mr. TOUCHEAs one who is new to the Debates, I claim the indulgence of the House. I venture to intervene because I I am a new Member. It seems to me that this is a matter of very special interest to new Members. The older Members of the House have had their opportunities; those opportunities, no doubt, have been growing less and less, but it has been a process of gradual encroachment. With us new Members, however, there is no such gradual encroachment. We come up to the House filled with great enthusiam and high regard for the traditions of the House, and some of us—I am not one of them—perhaps with our pockets bulging with beneficial measures. What do we find? We find on the very threshold of the House that we are gagged, and that the old powers and privileges of the private Members are taken away. We come inside, and we find that the proposal to take away those rights and privileges is being supported by an aggregation of gentleman who are private Members themselves. It is true that a certain number of them, on the other side of the House, have stated that they do not approve of this kind of thing as a general rule, but almost without exception they find that in this particular year, and in this particular case, there is a justification for it. I was very pleased indeed to hear that one hon. Member on the other side, the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) was not only going to protest against this restriction but was actually going to vote against it. I hope that all the other hon. Members on the other side of the House who cheered that statement will join him in voting against it. I am, however, not at all sanguine that he will receive a very large measure of support from the other side of the House. I confess I was somewhat hopeful about the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), but I observe that he, too, began to make excuses and to seek to find a way by which he also could support the Government on this occasion in taking away or restricting the rights and privileges of private Members.
1292 It appears to me that it would be very much better in some respects if the private Members were to take the time of the Government rather than the Government should take the time of the private Members, because it seems to me that the Government do not make very good use of their time. They do not employ it to pass their own measures. They have not used it in the past to get their own Budget through. They have no programme, so far as we can see, that is likely to be at all beneficial to the people. I think, therefore, that the Members even on the back Benches could probably conduct the affairs of the House quite as beneficially as the Members on the first Ministerial Bench. It is quite possible that sufficient time might be found for Ministers and private Members alike if something could be done in the direction of shortening Debates. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said that this proposal would not be necessary if the House sat on Saturdays. I think it might not be necessary if speeches were somewhat shortened. There was a time when we used to hear a great deal from the other side on the subject of economy of money. They never practised it, but they often preached it. They might do something in the way of practising economy of time. It is undoubtedly true that it is more difficult to make a short speech than to make a long one. A good many people have not the capacity for marshalling the information they wish to communicate in brief compass, and if a restriction were put on the length of speeches those gentlemen would probably remain silent. In the short time I have been in this House I confess I have heard some speeches that have bored me, chiefly from the other side of the House, I think I may say almost exclusively from the other side of the House. As a new Member, I venture to say that I cannot feel very great pride in being a Member of the House if it is to become merely an automatic machine for the purpose of registering the decisions of the Government for the time being. It seems not only is that the position in which hon. Members are being placed, but that the Government themselves are little better than an automatic machine for the purpose of registering the decision of the group with the casting vote. It is because of the regard which I have for the traditions of this House, long and honourable traditions, and for the dignity of the House, that I venture 1293 most humbly, but most emphatically, to join my feeble voice in protest against the measure it is now proposed to put in force.
§ Mr. PIRIEI must say that, after hearing the words which fell from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), I doubted for the first time in my life, either his Radicalism or his common sense. Here is a man who professes indignation with the proposal before the House to curtail the time of private Members. I must say, on this occasion, that I never gave a vote more gladly than I do at the present time to curtail the rights and privileges of private Members in view of the consideration of the object the Government have in view. What is the object the Government have in view? The present Motion is far from curtailing private Members' rights in the long run. The rights of private Members, whether under one Government or the other, are curtailed by nothing more or less than the congestion of business, which, year after year, takes place in this House. The Government now say: "We have a paramount object in view, we have before us the obligation and duty of removing an obstacle which has stood in the path for once and all, and giving real Parliamentary Government to this country, by the creation of a fresh field and not only one fresh field, but several fresh fields for the proper exercise of the rights of private Members and for the Parliamentary government of this country by its representatives in Parliament." That, after all, is one of the main objects the Government have in view in dealing with this matter, namely, to do away with the rights of a House which has always been an obstacle to progress. I cannot understand any Member who values freedom and the rights of private Members objecting for a moment to sacrifice every opportunity, not only up to Easter, but, if necessary, for one or two years, in order to sweep away what has been an anomaly and a curse to the country. I strongly advocate and gladly support the Resolution before the House.
§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEYIt is no doubt rather difficult to discuss this Motion without discussing the larger spectre which is behind it. If we base ourselves upon precedent, I would invite the House to consider in what manner former precedents were used and what objects were achieved by them. With regard to the precedent of 1887, I have a preliminary 1294 observation to make. The guillotine was not invented by Mr. W. H. Smith in 1887; it was invented by Mr. Gladstone in 1881. The principle at the heart of what was then done was that of a time limit on debate, on the one hand, and, on the other, the establishment of the principle that decision without debate is better than debate without decision. Further, in regard to the precedent of 1887, in what way were the powers used. The full extent for which they were used was to take away from private Members no more than three Wednesdays—Wednesdays at that time fulfilling the function which Fridays now fulfil, of providing an opportunity for the passing of private Members' Bills—and three Tuesday evenings, which were the evenings for private Members' Motions. But of the whole nineteen days over which alone the operation of the precedent then established extended, no less than five were given to Supply, which in those days even more than now gave opportunities for private Members to air the special grievances of their Constituents. Let me ask the House to consider not only the object, but also the effect of what was being done. The object and effect were to emancipate further and to give greater freedom not only to the Government and the House as a whole, but more especially to private Members, for the business to be expedited was the establishment of the Closure rule as we know it now, in substitution for the older Closure rule, which had proved insufficient. Under the old rule you could get no decision without, first, the initiative of the Chair, and secondly, a qualifying minimum of two hundred Members in the division. Mr. Smith's Motion was to establish the principle that no longer should the initiative of the Chair be necessary, and that one hundred members should be the minimum sufficing to pass the Closure. Under that rule more private Members legislation has been given an opportunity of passing than probably could have been passed in double the time under the old system.
We must not discuss to-night the real Object for which this Motion is being passed. We must not now discuss the Parliament Bill, but what we are entitled to discuss is the manner in which it is being pressed forward. In that connection we are entitled to ask two questions First, is it altogether in good taste, and is it otherwise judicious, to bring into this matter the question of the Coronation? Secondly, what is the reason for all this unseemly haste? With regard to the 1295 Coronation, the Prime Minister has gone as near as it is safe to go to the forbidden thing of introducing the Sovereign's name into Debate. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I say as near as it was safe to go. If the Coronation is to be employed as a kind of time limit upon the Debates in another House which you cannot otherwise control, I say that the Government's proceeding falls under the same kind of censure under which would fall that other act to which I said it came so dangerously near. After all, if you are to have a kind of time limit applied, what does our experience show? Is that the way to obtain harmony? Do any time limits on Debate ever promote harmony? Do they make minorities better pleased at having their wishes over-ridden? Do they make it easier to arrive at a compromise? Will this Resolution make it easier in this present year to do any of the many things by which you might arrive at that result at which I do not believe you wish to arrive, and at which you certainly will not arrive, namely, a result which shall be permanent because it is based on the consent of all. That, I believe, is not the desire of the Government, and that, I believe, is the reason for these abnormal and extremely injudicious methods. I asked just now what is the reason for all this haste? What are you going to get by your proceedings? You are going to get an arrangement by which in two years at the least, and three years, if you like, you can translate into legislative action pretty well the whole of that programme of measures for which you pretend you have popular authority, but no one of which you are willing to submit by itself to the vote of the people as a whole. In these circumstances I am not surprised that the Ministry proceed by these abnormal and totally unprecedented methods to show the House what is really the mark of their own conviction, that, if they do not make this haste, they will not be able to keep their places even so long as three years, because even in that short period the power to do this bad work would be found to be stripped from them.
§ Mr. BARTONThe right hon. Gentleman opposite has just declared that the Prime Minister has shown unseemly haste in the Resolution before the House. In my judgment, if the Prime Minister had not taken this course, the whole of his followers throughout the country would have 1296 been grievously and justifiably disappointed. What is the position of Members like myself? Elected for the first time in January of last year, we came here to do specific work, the main feature of which was to abolish the unlimited Veto of the House of Lords. The history of the last Parliament is known to us all. We cams here month after month, and just as we were approaching what appeared to be the climax of our labours, the sad event happened which put an end to those labours for the time being. We all realised that we had arrived at a point when bitter party controversy was totally unsuited for the circumstances of the day. Both parties met together to try to accommodate the difficulties before the nation. That attempt failed, and an election ensued, as the result of which we are here to discharge a specific business, that business being to abolish the unlimited Veto of the House of Lords. I contend that, under these circumstances, the Prime Minister is taking the only course open to him, consistent with his and our pledges to the people of the country. It has been said that in politics it is the unexpected that happens. By natural inclination and bias I should have been delighted to have joined my fellow private Members on this occasion in appealing for and supporting their rights; but it appears to me to show a serious lack of the sense of proportion to assert those rights under present circumstances and conditions. The main object of this Resolution is to give effect and potency to the rights of private Members in this House. What use is it for us to come here to support legislation and carry it through this House if we have not a free road to put it on the Statute-book? In my judgment the people of the country are not concerned at this moment with the rights and privileges of the private Members of the House of Commons. What they are concerned with is the right of the people as a whole to have their wishes placed in legislative form on the Statute-book. I am delighted that the Prime Minister has taken the straight course, the vigorous course, and the course which I feel sure will commend itself to his followers throughout the country.
§ Mr. LANE-FOXThe assumption underlying most of the speeches to which we have listened from the other side appears to be that, unless this Motion is passed, the Parliament Bill cannot get through this Session. I want to know whether 1297 there is not some stronger or better reason than the Government have yet given for insisting upon this Motion. Certainly hon. Members opposite have contented themselves with getting up and asserting their undying fidelity to their party, while even the Leader of the Labour party told an astonished House that that party were actually going to support the Government on this occasion with a docility which is already beginning to make some of their supporters considerably uneasy, and is likely to make them still more uneasy in the future. Why is it so absolutely necessary that this Motion should pass now I What is it the Government have really got up their sleeve? Think what the position is. If the Parliament Bill can be forced through early this Session what are we going to do during the rest of the Session? What are we going to do in the month of July? Is it not fairly obvious that there cannot be any real reason, except the one I am about to suggest, for insisting on getting the Parliament Bill through right on top of the Coronation, with an apparent desire to show extraordinary consideration to the Sovereign, and to those delegates from all parts of the Empire who will be assembled to celebrate that great event. Surely that is a most extraordinary moment to force a constitutional crisis, and to exhibit to these gentlemen from all parts of the world this country in the throes of a strenuous political crisis. If there is one moment more than another when we ought to avoid the appearance of political differences, it is at the time of the Coronation. Therefore that cannot be the reason. But look at what the position will be if the Parliament Bill can be got through Parliament in this Session. That Parliament Bill, first of all, provides that the House of Lords is to have the power of delaying legislation for three years, and it also provides that Parliament shall not exist for more than five years. Does not that then come to what the Govern-really wants? Is it not obvious that if introduced they can pass a certain number of measures in the three years after we have done with the Parliament Bill? That I believe to be their reason. None of the other reasons they have given us are adequate. The reason is that they can smuggle some of these measures through, and pass them into law. So they will be able to secure even that with three years' delay, by the operations of their Bill, an advantage when they go to the country; to suffer what I hope will be a very different result at the hands of the electorate at 1298 the next General Election. I believe that to be the real object of the genesis of this Motion that we are having thrust upon us. We have heard a great deal from the other side about the rights of private Members, and of a desire to protect them. I quite admit it is more difficult for hon. Members opposite to show that independence that it is very easy for us on this side to preach. But there are, I am glad to say, one or two just men still left who are prepared to sacrifice their party feelings for the sake of their principles. This is an occasion when, in view of the protests which have been so frequently uttered, one begins to wonder whether it is worth while for the House to sit at all. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) said: "Why not have the whole thing registered, and leave the Government to govern; why not let us go back to our comfortable homes; why should we walk to London so that we may be voting machines 'for' and 'against,' and have no effective power of bringing before the House those subjects that the party whips do not wish to see discussed?" I do not believe the reason the Government has given is the real one. I believe the reasons I have mentioned are the real ones, and that makes me all the more determined and ready to oppose this Motion.
§ Mr. TOULMINI do not think it is necessary to search very deeply for the reasons of the Government for bringing forward this Motion. It is that they may take Parliamentary measures against the campaign of delay which may be proclaimed against this Bill in the place where the popular will has no means of entrance. Unless I mistake my reading of the Parliament Bill the reason which the hon. Gentleman opposite gave in regard to the three years' delay is not quite correct. It is not necessary that there should be a three years' delay; but one not less than two years. With regard to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), the House knows his great knowledge and experience of precedents, and recognises when he speaks on such matters that he is to be listened to with very great respect. But I cannot agree with him in the slightest degree in his criticism of the Premier. I do not consider that the Premier went anywhere near infringing the rule which the right hon. Gentleman spoke of against introducing the name of the Sovereign for the purpose of influencing the decision of the House. 1299 We are parties to the Coronation, and if this great Constitutional question can be settled before the time of the Coronation, it would be a matter very pleasing to a great many of the inhabitants of the Empire. We will be able to rejoice then with minds free from disturbance on the great Constitutional crisis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I suppose hon. Members on this side of the House will be entitled to rejoice just as much as Members on the other side in that great event in the country's history. As to the criticisms on our own side in regard to this Motion, I do not disagree with everything that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) brought forward; but I am going to support without any conditions the Motion of the Prime Minister. If I mistake not the hon. Gentleman last year was one of those who were foremost in demanding the Veto—"Veto first." It does not appear to me that twelve months' delay has done anything to lessen, but has rather increased the necessity for enforcing that demand. The Opposition has treated this rather too much as a party Motion—a question of the Opposition versus the Ministry. Really, as it affects the private Members of this House it is a question of the Private Member versus the Two Front Benches. I would like to draw the attention of those Members who cheered very loudly the simulated indignation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, that his remarks are double-edged. We were told that as we made our beds so we should lie on them. Well, according to him, as the bed is made, he any his supporters will have to lie on it when, and if, he crosses to this side of the House. Inwardly the right hon. Gentleman was apparently rejoicing that a precedent was made for him to take away the rights of those who would be behind him then. This Motion is to be justified because in a time of war the habits and customs of peace have to be superseded. This House is repelling an attack upon itself, its honour, dignity, and efficiency. It has to do so as a House divided against itself. It has to do so, as it were, with a hostile garrison established within itself. Treating this measure as martial law, I take it as an advisable one in order that the crisis may not be prolonged, but may be brought absolutely to an issue. The eclipse of the private Members of the House, which seems to be accepted by 1300 both sides, is no light matter, and it is not because I consent to that that I assent heartily to this Motion. It is not merely a question of Bills and Motions wherein the private Member is robbed of his rights. There is also the effective criticism of votes. It is part of the argument for this Motion that there is to be sufficient time granted for financial business. But it is not merely in taking the time of private Members in regard to Bills and Motions in exceptional circumstances that the dominance of the executive is so dangerous. It is a general reduction of the power of criticism of the private Member which is the most serious question. I do not know whether I should be going too far to say that there is a kind of creeping paralysis of the critical faculty of the House owing to the fact that both Front Benches, in turn, when they are in office, treat every detail of every Estimate as a vote of confidence. That is partly assisted by whichever party is in Opposition treating the Estimates more than otherwise as an opportunity for a party score, or for the propaganda of some policy. The control of this House over expenditure is unsatisfactory owing to the fact that it is not gone into with the detail that is desirable. If the hon. Members on the other side who are at the present exalting the dignity of the private Member would find some method of curing that I am sure they would find great support on this side. For the present this vote is a vote of confidence, and it is strictly in accordance with all I have been able to gather of the feelings of the constituencies that I shall support" the Ministry both now, and in any other subsequent steps which they may find it necessary to adopt to bring to as early a conclusion as possible the Parliament Bill.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, so far as I understood his remarks, suggested that it would be a great advantage to private Members if they were encouraged to speak more frequently on the Estimates, but he held that in doing so that the vote subsequently given should not necessarily be taken to be a vote of no confidence. That is what hon. Members opposite are always doing. That is what the Labour party is always doing. They are very courageous if the result of their action is going to lead to nothing. But the moment there is any 1301 chance of their action resulting in any-ting, then, like the hon. Gentlemen opposite, they begin with one accord to find excuses.
§ Mr. TOULMINMay I ask the hon. Baronet if that is not the case whichever party is on these benches?
§ Sir F. BANBURYNo, certainly not! If the hon. Member looks back to the year 1902, when the new Rules, which are really the foundation of this question, were passed, he will find that not only Mr. Gibson Bowles, who sat then on the other tide of the House, myself, and several ether members of the Conservative party, objected on several occasions to them, and voted against the Government. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last but one, the Member for Oldham, I think, says he is going to vote for this measure, because, he says, that at the last election there was a mandate for the Parliament Bill. Therefore, he says, the first thing he has got to do when he conies down to this House is to sacrifice the rights of private Members in order to help forward this Bill which has a mandate. What' will happen in the future? Is there never going to be any mandate for any other Bill? We know perfectly well that after every General election there will be a mandate on a Bill, and the result will be that private Members' rights will vanish altogether. Of the three or four hon. Gentlemen who have recently spoken, with one or two exceptions, every one of them have demanded pledges as the price for their vote. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme demands certain pledges. Is he going the right way to get those pledges if he starts by saying: "Nothing will induce me to vote against you"? What value does he think his action will have, or what amount of pressure does he think he can put upon the Front Bench? The Front Bench knows perfectly well that all these requests for pledges are to be put forward. There is not one of the hon. Members opposite, except perhaps the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney, who have the courage of their opinions and will do something to show that their desires are to be carried out The Prime Minister when he introduced this Motion this afternoon talked about precedents which had occurred, and he went back to 1887. Let me point out, especially to hon. Members opposite, who have not been in the House very long, whether or not the 1887 precedent is a good one. 1302 Supposing the old state of affairs remained, as it does not remain. In 1902, when certain rules were made, there was a distinct pledge given that if the House accepted the proposals then made there was a certainty that private Members' rights should not be taken away from them. That pledge was alluded to by no less a person than Lord Wolverhampton (then Sir Henry Fowler). Speaking on 18th February, 1902, he said he attached great importance to the unofficial Members and their Motions, and, referring to the speech made by an hon. Member, he said that hon. Members seemed to think the alterations would deprive unofficial Members of what they then possessed, and he went on to say:—
I do not quite read the proposals of the Government in that light. I think they form a sort of contract between the Government and the House of Commons for securing that a larger portion of time should be placed at the disposal of unofficial members.That was the contract entered into between private Members of the House and the then Government, which was endorsed by Lord Wolverhampton, speaking from the Front Bench; and it has been observed with scrupulous care ever since it was entered into in 1902, and the first person to break that rule was the present Prime Minister, who broke it last year, and is now going to break it a second time. The hon. Member for Scarborough said, though he commenced his speech in order that there might be no black mark put against his name for criticising the proceedings of the Government, he commenced by saying that it must be understood he supported the Government, "but that what was done once might be done again." It will be done again. When you introduce Motions of this kind in two years, what is it that may not be done when there is no Second Chamber and when the supreme control rests in the hands of right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench. We are going back to the days of the Tudors. It reminds me of the time when the then Speaker of the House of Commons went to Sir John Pickering, the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, in 1592, and asked for the privileges of discussion for this House. Sir John Pickering then said, and I can quite understand the Prime Minister saying the same thing to-day:—You must know what privilege you have; not of speaking everyone what he listeth, or what cometh to the brain to utter. All your privilege is 'aye' or 'no.'That is the privilege of the Liberal party and of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. They may say "aye" and "no," 1303 but not always quite as they like. They must consult at the door which aye or no they may get leave to vote from the whips. That is what the present Government are reducing the once great House of Commons to. The issue is a very plain and simple one. Are private Members, having already given up much of their time, going to give up more of their time with the certainty that this precedent created twice in two years will be continued, and with the certainty that the more they surrender their rights to any Government or to any Front Bench, it does not matter which it is, the more the certainty that that Front Bench will ultimately become the dictators of the House. I appeal to hon. Members to pause before they give their votes in favour of this Motion. I do not wish to say anything that may in any way be considered offensive, but I venture to say that the arguments brought forward that this course must be taken in order that the Parliament Bill may pass are utterly absurd. I see the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy present. He has very great knowledge of the discussions in this House, and he is a good judge of them. I have often admired him, and he knows the Parliament Bill. Does he suppose that the Parliament Bill can take up an enormous amount of time?
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not think so. If the hon. Member wants my opinion I am prepared to give it to him. I do not think there is any possibility of the Parliament Bill taking five or six months. We are only now in February. For eight hundred years we have had our Constitution. Why is it to be abolished in two or three months? Our Constitution may be right and it may be wrong—it would not be m order to go into that now—but why are you going to destroy something which has been in existence for 800 years and under which the glory and prosperity of our country has gone on? Why do you want to destroy it in two or three months, when two or three years would not foe enough? It is only an illustration of what I said that the Front Bench consider any plan they choose to bring forward must be accepted at once. Discussion is not to be allowed, and if hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite venture to discuss this matter, in all probability they will not be made one of the 500 peers.
§ Mr. JOSEPH MARTINOne of the first votes I was called upon to give in this House was upon a Motion of this kind. After having voted to take away the time of private Members, I came here day after day and often found the House adjourned at seven or eight o'clock, sometimes at four or five o'clock in the afternoon. Then I regretted very much that I had voted for such a Motion, because it was clear that the demand the Government made that they required the time of the House for the business then in hand was not justified, and had I known that beforehand I certainly would not have voted for taking away the time of private Members. With regard to the Motion which is now before the House, I take the same position that other hon. Members on this side have taken, namely, that the subject for which this time is asked is of such transcendant importance that I am in favour of assisting the Government in every possible way to get all the time they require, not only to put the Parliament Bill through this House, but also to put it through, as the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister suggested he would do, before the Coronation adjournment. But I was very much alarmed indeed at one sentence which fell from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman. He said that this House had no control over the procedure of the other House, and would have no control over this Bill, which he hoped would pass early in May, after it left this House and got to the other House. Of course, ordinarily that is quite correct, but I had understood from the right hon. Gentleman himself and from other Members of the Government that that was not the attitude they intended to take with regard to this particular Bill. I am not alluding now, of course, to what has been suggested as to what is to follow the rejection by the House of Lords of the Bill, but I am alluding to the manner in which the House of Lords are to deal with the Bill when it goes up to them. I may have misunderstood the Prime Minister, but I understood him to say that while he would get the Bill through this House early in May we would have to leave the matter absolutely in the hands of the House of Lords as to what they would do with the Bill. My understanding of the matter in that light, has been further justified by the speech of the hon. Member for Hackney in which he detailed the numerous ways in which the House of Lords could delay the passing of this Bill by making Amendments and by discussing it at great length, and there has been no 1305 other statement from any right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench denying that that will be the course followed. That was not the understanding last Session, and it seems to me that the position of the Parliament Bill ought not to be worse now than it was last Session.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe future course of the Parliament Bill is hardly relevant to the Motion now under discussion.
§ Mr. MARTINProbably I did not make myself understood. I am hesitating whether to vote for this Motion. I am willing to vote for this Motion if it is going to have the result of forwarding the passage of the Parliament Bill through the whole Parliament.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThese reasons, the hon. Member must wrangle out with himself, but the reasons he must submit to the House on this occasion are reasons strictly relevant to the Motion now before us.
§ Mr. MARTINIt seems very relevant to me, Sir, whether my voting for this Motion will effectuate what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said the Government intend to do. If the Government can assure me that I have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman's statement made in this Debate, and which he intended to influence Members in bringing on this Motion, I would vote for the Motion. I am adhering strictly to the right hon. Gentleman's statement with a view to endeavouring to get an explanation.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is not relevant to the Motion now before the House what eventually will happen to the Parliament Bill when it goes to another place. That has no relevancy whatever as to why the time of private Members of this House is to be taken up to Easter. That is the whole pith of this question.
§ Mr. MARTINI do not want to trespass unduly, but the ruling just given makes a great difference to me. The Prime Minister made a statement in this House of what he intended to do in order to prevent the House of Lords from delaying the Parliament Bill, and not dealing with it as it is. Subsequently, when the Government introduced the Bill into the House of Lords they announced their intention that the Bill was not to be amended, and that the House of Lords would either have to take the whole Bill or not deal with it at all.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThose are all very interesting considerations, but they are not relevant to the Motion before the House. They may be relevant to the Parliament Bill when we reach it, and I daresay the hon. Member will be given an opportunity then of raising these interesting topics. The only question before the House now is whether the time of private Members shall be taken for the purposes of the Government up to Easter.
§ Mr. MARTINI think I have succeeded in making my point clear, and unless I receive an assurance from the Government that they intend to pursue the same course which they have mapped out before I shall not vote for this proposal to give private Members time for purposes which, to my mind, will not have any effect in putting the Parliament Bill through the whole Parliament.
§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSI am glad to hear from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Martin) that under certain conditions he will vote, as we propose to do on this side, against this Resolution. The proposal of the Government is a serous encroachment on the rights of private Members of this House. We all know how difficult it is for a private Member to do anything on his own in this House. He has to go through many difficulties in the first place, to get a place in the ballot. Then he has to get his Bill read a second time on a Friday. After that his measure goes up to the Grand Committee, where it is liable to be obstructed by other Bills which come after it. When the Committee stage is over, the private Member's Bill has to come down to this House, where it is again liable to be obstructed in the same way. What will happen this year? If this Resolution passes, the private Member is going to be restricted to three or four Fridays after Easter. Therefore the difficulties are very much enhanced indeed, because each Friday there will be more Bills put down, and, therefore, more hon. Members will be interested in stopping any Bill getting through in front of theirs. As a matter of fact, it would be almost impossible this year for a private Member to get any Bill through at all. The Prime Minister told us this afternoon his reasons—not very fortunate ones, I think—for making this proposal. He said that, first of all, the compulsory business—that is, the Estimates for the year and so forth—must be carried, and we quite agree. Then he said he must make a special appeal because of the delayed 1307 Finance Bill of last year, which would take six days and a half; but whose fault is it that the Finance Bill is left over till the present time? Surely the Government ought to have got that measure through last year, because they could have done. Therefore it is their fault that they are asking us now for six days and a-half for the old Budget Bill.
I come now to the more serious part. The Prime Minister has asked for fifteen days for other business. He has asked for this at a most unfortunate time and during the crisis when this Bill will be before the country in another place. Surely the Prime Minister himself must regret it if at the time of the Coronation the Parliament Bill is at its crisis in another place. On this side of the House we rather wonder what has driven the Government and the Prime Minister to make such a proposal. Many suggestions have been made. We know what drove them on last year—it was hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Benches below the Gangway, who would not allow the Government to pass their Budget, but forced them on with their Parliament Bill. The Prime Minister knows that very well.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI know nothing of the kind.
§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSThe first business last year was the Budget, and why did they not proceed with the Budget? Because hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway said: "No; we must get the Parliament Bill through, and we will hang up the Budget Bill." The Prime Minister knows that that is perfectly true.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI do not.
§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSWe were told that the Budget was to be passed first, but they could not pass it, and it had to be hung up, with the result that the finances of the year were disorganised. Is the same thing going to happen now? Are hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway now going to say, "We will not allow you to proceed with the Budget unless we have the Parliament Bill first"? I very much suspect the same conditions are operating as operated last year. In conclusion, I wish to make another protest against private Members' time being taken away from them, as is proposed by this Resolution. If it is passed it will be a precedent, and every Government when they come into office will say they have some important Bill which they consider necessary for their existence. They will say, "It is 1308 important we should get this particular measure through quickly and expeditiously, and we have a Resolution to take up the time of private Members. Therefore, we are establishing a most dangerous precedent, and one which I hope the House will not adopt in view of the very great difficulty there is in the way of private Members doing anything on their own, because, year after year, the Government of the day will more and more monopolise the time of this House.
§ Mr. GEORGE THORNEI intervene in this Debate to say that I entirely disagree with the view which has been expressed by my hon. Friend on my right (Mr. Martin). I intend to support heartily the Motion which the Government is making, and, in expressing that view, I believe I am expressing the view of my Constituency, who have elected me to take my part in helping the Government to pass the Parliament Bill. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Samuel Roberts) says this Motion is creating a most dangerous precedent under which any subsequent Government will be able to take away the time of private Members. I draw a distinction between the Bill on behalf of which this Motion is submitted and other Bills which we shall have to consider in the future. This Bill is a Constitutional measure to enable other Bills to be passed in the future, and, unless we take this step now to have the Parliament Bill passed into law there will be little chance, in our view, of the other measures to which I have alluded, being promoted and carried. Therefore there is a complete and absolute distinction between the character of the Bills to which I have alluded, which seems to me to completely answer the objection taken by the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield. Another hon. Member opposite made the remark that if we went on much longer in the way we are going it will be very little use for a private Member to come to this House at all, and it would be better to remain at home and not come to a place where he could be practically of no service. During the short time I have been in this House I have come very largely to that conclusion, because when I have taken my part as a private Member in supporting Government business, and night after night and month after month have registered votes which have proved absolutely abortive owing to the action of another House, I have concluded that it is no use coming here unless some efforts are made to alter that condition of things. Therefore I think it is in the 1309 interests of private Members to support the course the Government are taking by means of the Parliament Bill to get our work done. I have further concluded that if it be impossible, as has been proved by our recent experience of the action of another place, to get Government measures through, how is it possible for private Members to get any measures through? The first thing we have to do is to make sure that the business of the Government is achieved, and there will be a better chance for private Members taking their part. Instead of this Resolution operating in the long run in limiting the rights of private Members, in my opinion it will ultimately enlarge those rights. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke a moment ago referred to my distinguished predecessor in the representation of the Constituency which I have the honour to represent. He stated that Lord Wolverhampton, when he was a Member of this House, desired that there should be larger opportunities for private Members instead of smaller. I am entirely in agreement with the view he then expressed, and it is because I believe that the passing of the Parliament Bill is absolutely essential to maintain and enlarge those rights that I shall most heartily support the course which the Government are taking. This constitutional issue is the supreme matter before the country and I believe the Government would have failed in their duty if they had not taken the course which they have done. Instead of criticising the action of the Government, I thank them for moving this Resolution. I hope they will continue in the course they have started. As a private Member, I am prepared to support them in any measure they may take to get the Parliament Bill passed. This is not only my own desire, but I am satisfied that it is also the desire of my constituents that the Parliament Bill should be passed into law at the earliest possible moment.
§ Lord HUGH CECILI desire to ask the Home Secretary one or two questions upon points which are not perfectly clear to me. To begin with, I do not quite understand what progress it is hoped to make with the Parliament Bill during the period of time the Government are taking. We were told at question time that the Government hope to get the first reading of the Parliament Bill in one day—a tremendous aspiration—but we were not told how much time was to be given to the remaining stages of the Bill. 1310 The right hon. Gentleman said that the time would not be unduly curtailed. That is a phrase we have heard quite recently. The time of the debate on the Address was not to be unduly curtailed. We know, therefore, what it means. The assurances of the right hon. Gentleman are like the scroll of the prophets, "Sweet in the mouth, but bitter in the belly." It sounds more attractive to say that your opportunities for debate will not be unduly curtailed, but experience goes to show that the views of those who desire to take part in the debate and the Minister in charge of the measure, are quite different as to what constitutes undue curtailment. I should like to know, with a little more detail therefore, what the plan of the Government is in respect of the different stages of the Parliament Bill. The right hon. Gentleman quoted a precedent in 1887. I could give him a great deal better precedent than that. That is a very remote precedent, and one which is not really important, because when you are considering procedure, it is natural, of course, that that should take precedence of all other business. It is manifest that until the procedure is put right this House cannot do business, and naturally, therefore, discussions on procedure precede discussions on any other matters. The hon. Member' for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) seems to think that similar considerations apply to changes in the Constitution. The theory apparently is that if the Parliament Bill is not passed early in May the House of Lords between May and July will do something to some measure which it is very desirable they should be prevented from doing; otherwise, there is no meaning in the theory that it is necessary to press on with the Parliament Bill in the same sense as with a Procedure Resolution. It is obvious whatever may be done with regard to the business in this House, it does not apply to the business likely to take place in the other House following the present time and going on to July.
A similar answer may be made with regard to coercion. Suppose you think it necessary, it is perfectly plain you cannot allow any delay about that. It is perfectly plain, if life and property are in danger, every moment is of importance. What conceivable analogy is there between a Bill of that kind and the Parliament Bill? We are told that the Parliament Bill ought to pass, and must pass, before the Coronation, and that, therefore, this 1311 Resolution is necessary. Why does it make any difference to the Parliament Bill whether it passes in May or July? What conceivable difference is there from any point of view, from the point of view of hon. Members who have all along treated this Bill as though it were a very fragile thing, and as though if it were not managed with the greatest care it would break? Is that the language of those who are conscious of a great national mandate behind them? Do they really think the prospect of national support is so feeble that the Bill will pass into law if it gets through this House in May, and that it will not pass into law if it gets through this House in July? Surely it is plain you are only justified in putting forward a constitutional change of this kind if you have an overwhelming predominance of opinion behind it, a predominance much too great to be affected by any difference between May and July. All this nice calculation, and all these words worthy of a sharp attorney for getting an advantage of a few days here, or a few weeks there—all these things are quite inappropriate to carrying a great change in a great country, and I am quite confident it is not by that method you will carry it. Either the Parliament Bill will not pass or it will, but it will not make the slightest difference whether it passes through this House in May or in July.
I suspect the Government have some other apprehension in view. I suspect they are not thinking merely of passing the Parliament Bill, but of preventing some other measures which may be in the hands of private Members not only passing but being discussed in this House at all. The Government attach urgent importance to not discussing Women Suffrage, and I suspect also the Osborne Judgment. They, therefore, propose to take as much time as they can. They see that awkward questions are coming up, and I can imagine the Prime Minister coming down after Easter, and, with his wonderful direct and innocent manner of stating things simply, being all the time the subtlest of all the beasts of the field, proposing to deprive the private Member of all further time. If in earlier days the right hon. Gentleman had undertaken the work of the tempter he certainly would not have been so injudicious as to take the shape of the serpent, but he would have appeared as a retired archangel of moderate progressive opinion, and in that guise no doubt he 1312 would have achieved remarkable success. The reason I am principally opposed to this Motion is that it is part of a tendency for which undoubtedly the Leaders of both parties are responsible, to constantly subordinate the independence of the House of Commons to the convenience of the Government of the day. That is a very serious danger. I am not sure that the danger of a bureaucracy and of the growing powers of the Executive is not even from the point of view of convinced Radicals the greater danger of the two. The Prime Minister made one of his most admirable speeches, in point of form, in the spring of 1905, on a Resolution shortening the Debate by what is called the guillotine. He stated in very eloquent terms the danger that threatened the House of Commons. New Members often ask what sort of style they should adopt in speaking to the House of Commons. They could not do better than speak in the style of this extract from the speech of the Prime Minister. He said, speaking of this measure:—
It is a step in a series. It is another stage on the journey which has marked, and is marking, the degradation of the House of Commons—I speak in all seriousness—from a deliberative to a dependent body, and which, if it is allowed to go on, will transform the House into a mere automatic machine for registering the will of the Executive of the day. This is not a party question. Majorities and ministries come and go. Before very long we may be sitting on that side of the House, and the party opposite on this——Less than twelve months it was so—But there is one thing which hitherto, at any rate, has always remained behind and above all as a constant and continuous factor in our constitutional life, and that is the authority of the House of Commons That authority, many outside observers tell us, in these days is dwindling. Sir, the House may be certain that it cannot survive, and that it does not deserve to survive, habitual acquiescence in humiliation such as this. We are here as representatives and spokesmen of our constituents. We are here also, most of us, zealous and faithful party men. But we all share in whatever quarter of the House we sit in, the responsibility of a higher and a larger duty the duty of preserving and perpetuating the unbroken identity of a free Parliament.Since that time the right hon. Gentleman has moved a great number of guillotine resolutions, and he has to-night moved a resolution taking the time of the House, though, as has been said, I think by the hon. Members for Kent (Mr. Laurence Hardy) and Sheffield (Mr. S. Roberts), the very purpose of the last reform of procedure was to make these Motions unnecessary. The Labour party are going to support the Government. The independence of the Labour party is very much like the jam in "Alice in the Looking-Glass "—It is always jam yesterday, jam to-morrow, but never jam to-day.1313 It is always independence yesterday, independence to-morrow, but never independence to-day. I would really ask them to consider whether they think in what they are going to do they are really consulting the interests of labour, and whether they are really acting as the representatives of poor men. Let us be sure of it. These guarantees which are treated so lightly, the guarantee of a Second Chamber, and the guarantee of free opportunities of discussion in this House, are most of all important, like all the apparatus of liberty, to the poor working classes of the country. The Labour party for the moment, it may be, see some advantage they are going to get out of the proceedings of this Session. I am not sure they will not be disappointed, because under the grotesque Constitution going to be set up Parliament is going to be like the pool of Siloam, and only those matters are going to be passed which are first immersed in the waters. The opportunity will soon pass, as the Nationalist and Welsh parties appear to have already mortgaged the two vital Sessions of which the House of Commons will be absolute masters. I am not sure the Labour party will get as much as they think. Sooner or later there will be a reaction, and they will be face to face with a Parliament strongly devoted to preserving the interests of property, capital, and industrial organisation. The Constitution which has been rigged in one sense will then be rigged in another. What will happen to liberty of debate in this House then? What protection in those days will the Labour party have? Be sure of it, rich men, people with money at command, are in a sense independent of Constitutions and the guarantees of liberty. It is not so with poor men. The Labour party will certainly not be able to complain if the majority of that time use their powers in the most arbitrary manner. This House has steadily gone down. What the Prime Minister said in 1905 is much more true to-day; it has steadily sunk in authority. The opportunities of private Members are growing smaller and smaller. That opportunity of raising discussions, valuable precisely because it is often vexatious to the Government of the day—and which is one of the few powers the House can sometimes usefully and effectively exercise under modern conditions—is destroyed by means of this Motion. I am sure the Labour party and all those who value liberty, whether on this side or on that, are making a profound mistake in 1314 subordinating the interests of the House of Commons to the advantage of party. If there is anything I care about in the Constitution, it is the preservation of liberty. I am quite sure free Parliamentary discussion is a vital matter. I have always disagreed with high authorities who have deprecated the tendency of this House to talk. I remember a very distinguished man, Lord Selby, saying in my hearing that he did not want the House of Commons to become a talking shop. I thought that an unwise and mistaken observation. To complain of the House of Commons becoming a talking shop is like complaining of a grocer being a tea dealer. It is the business of the House of Commons to talk. Of course, if the politician is quite sure the Government are right, and that none of their proposals ought to be altered, the less talk the better, but in that case why have a House of Commons at all? If you do no£ have discussion, a great deal that is most faulty will pass into law, and the interests of those who cannot bring pressure to bear upon the Government, not, perhaps, the great organised unions, but the genuine poor, who, having many friends, they suffer most of all.8.0 P.M.
I think it is a great pity that the Government are not only destroying the Second Chamber this Session, but they are continuing what has been going on for a good many years, the process of subordinating the House of Commons to the authority of the Executive. There never has been, in the history of any free country, such authority as is now exercised by the Cabinet. They sit in secret and they are apparently agreed, whatever may be the differences of opinion in their ranks, on a party system which they force on the House of Commons, by guillotine and by closure, so that there is really little free discussion. We are face to face, therefore, with the danger of having a supreme bureaucracy, chosen, no doubt from time to time, by the electorate at large, but one which once chosen is supreme, and has at its disposal the property and well being of the nation. That is sheer tyranny, and I hope that hon. Members will reflect on what they are doing. I hope they will remember that each step is a step downwards, and that we are getting nearer and nearer to the final danger which threatens us. I hope they will resolve, if not now, at any rate at some future time, to combine together to put an effective check on the growing power of the Executive and to set 1315 back the tide now flowing with such overwhelming power, and so make the House of Commons once again the home and citadel of free discussion.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDThe Noble Lord says that if we support as a general policy measures of the description proposed by the Executive the day may come when, the political pendulum having swung in the opposite direction, we shall find that the powers we are giving to a party, which we believe to be legislating in our favour, may be used for the purpose of destroying some of the special privileges and advantages we may possess to-day. We quite recognise that danger. I do not think there is a single Labour man on these benches who does not recognise the danger that, if you give authority to a party which usually represents your views those extraordinary powers that are asked for to-day, may in the time to come be used to upset a policy which we believe to be of great advantage to the community. We recognise the danger, but then we are obliged to remember the history—the later history—of the democratic movement in this country and its struggles to get recognition in this House. We have to decide whether, under the old system, we are likely to get the greatest advantage, or whether we shall attain it under the proposals now before the House. We recognise the danger just as the Noble Lord does of the power we are giving to the Executive to-day being possibly used against us to-morrow, when the swing of the pendulum takes his party into power. We are asked by the Noble Lord what protection we shall then have. We meet that question with another, and we inquire What protection have we had hitherto? What protection have we had against the legislative machinery of the country being largely used for bolstering up interests which we consider to be inimical to the best interests of labour? We have found one branch of the Legislature absolutely out of touch with our aspirations, and, knowing nothing of our ideals and requirements, trying now and again to solve some of the problems that press on our class so heavily, but really understanding almost nothing of the circumstances of our lives and daily occupations. When that sterile position with reference to the legislative machinery of the State is considered, and when we balance it against the possible advantages to be secured by the proposals of the Executive to-day, we unhesitatingly 1316 decide in putting our vote and voice in favour of the new policy. We think it would be to our advantage—not merely to the advantage of the working-classes of the country, but to the advantage of the democracy in general—and that is why we are supporting proposal" even to the extent of curtailing discussion in this House.
The hon. Member for Stepney asked us to consider this from the point of view of the realities of the situation. What are those realities? There is not the slightest doubt that if the swing of the pendulum anticipated by the Noble Lord should by some means transfer him and his party to this side of the House, even more drastic proposals than those suggested by the Premier to-day would be enthusiastically supported by the Noble Lord and his friends. That is a reality of the situation. If you happen to be in opposition to the policy of the Executive Government, and they want to go on with that policy because they believe the country has approved it, you call it the "gag," and I dare say if I were on the other side I should under such circumstances shout "Gag!" as loudly as anyone. But if you put yourself in the other man's position, and are in favour of that which the Executive are fighting for, then it does not appear to be the gag. You consider it only business. It is the hypocrisy of the situation which strikes one who, like myself, has been in this House for four or five years. Take, for instance, the speech delivered by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) this afternoon. He appealed to the Labour Members and to all that was best in their nature to oppose this policy—the policy of the curtailment of discussion on private Members' proposals in this House. But of all men in the world why should he make such an appeal. Everybody knows that whenever the Labour party or even an ordinary private Member gets a chance to Debate a Resolution the hon. Baronet endeavours to talk out the business and to defeat the object of the private Member secured by the chances of of the ballot. I must give him credit for impartiality in reference to this matter. He not only snuffs out Labour Members and others politically opposed to him, but he even snuffs out at times his own friends, and, time after time, I have heard him deliver speeches in this House, after a full discussion on a Friday, declaring that he does not consider it right that a private Member should be allowed to bring forward 1317 important proposals, and that it was the duty of the Executive Government to deal with matters of that description. If the hon. Member for Stepney wants a reality of the situation I present that to him. It is exactly the situation which we see to-day. The point is—are we prepared to give the powers suggested to the Executive Government in order to carry out a policy which we believe has been affirmed by a majority of those who have the opportunity of electing representatives to this House. We quite admit the possibility that by the swing of the pendulum the powers we are now proposing may be used against us on some future occasion. I confess to that were I in the position of the Noble Lord I should use an occasion such as this Resolution affords to obstruct, delay, oppose, and destroy a policy in which I did not believe. But to pretend that that is an infringement of the privileges of private Members is absolutely absurd. The first thing that every private Member of this House wants to do in his capacity, both as a public representative and a private Member, is of course, to pass the Veto Bill, and to pretend it is an injury to us to use the forms of this House for that purpose is ridiculous. We think we are entitled to use forms which have been forged by the party opposite for purposes of this nature. We are using them in order to press forward a policy accepted by the majority of the people, and if the Government thought fit to propose that the Parliament Bill should pass through this House within a week from now we should support them. I tell you frankly that if they would give three days to it I should still say we were consistent as private Members in voting as we now propose to do.
§ Lord HUGH CECILThen why discuss it at all?
§ Mr. JOHN WARDWe simply want to get the Parliament Bill out of the way.
And it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.