§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Government Business be not interrupted this day at Five or half-past Five of the clock, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."—[Mr. Long.]
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI wish to utter a word of protest against this Resolution. We had very little notice that there was to be any sitting at all to-day, although I am aware that it was suggested last Tuesday that there might be a Friday sitting. We have all been brought here to-day and next week we are supposed to adjourn. I wish to know if there is any necessity for a sitting to-day after five o'clock. The only result of such a course will be that the work will not be properly done. Everybody knows that after five o'clock on Fridays it is difficult to keep hon. Members here, because they have made their arrangements to go away. The amount of work put down on the Order Paper to-day is very much larger than was anticipated, and is certainly more than can be conveniently done in the time. We have to deal with a number of Rills of a highly contentious nature. With regard to the Price of Coal (Limitation) Bill no one suggested that yesterday there was any undue waste of time, or I should say any organised waste of time. I appeal to the Government to remember that those who are in the habit of attending here regularly feel a severe strain when questions are brought on after five o'clock on Friday. This week no less than five amending Bills have been brought in by the Government amending legislation passed during the last few months and passed in a hurry. I think the Bills passed this week have not been known to three Members of the Government, and certainly they have not been read by more than four or five Members. That is not the way to pass legislation. As a lawyer I see the great injustice done by hasty legislation in the Courts by Emergency Bills, and so forth, which turn out to mean something totally different from what the few hon. Members in the House at the moment thought. Therefore, I appeal to the Government that they should keep the recognised hour for sitting when there is no sort of hurry, and I urge 1824 that we should not be kept here after eleven o'clock on ordinary days, or five o'clock on Fridays.
§ Mr. KINGI appeal to the Government to tell us how late we shall sit to-night. This sitting may be continued to twelve o'clock noon to-morrow, and if some of the questions we have before us are to be adequately discussed, it is highly probable that we may have such a sitting. I appeal to the Government to see that we shall get away definitely by five or six o'clock.
§ The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long)I quite understand the appeal which has been made by my hon. Friends opposite. I know the grave inconvenience inflicted upon Members of Parliament who are called upon to stay here beyond the normal hours. I can assure the House that there is no intention on the part of the Government to ask the House to sit late to-day. The President of the Board of Trade promised last night that he would take the Committee stage of the Price of Coal (Limitation) Bill to-day.
We certainly hope that the first two Bills on the Paper will not occupy a long period of time. Any difficulties which arise in connection with the second Order will obviously be difficulties for the Committee stage and not for the Second Beading. With regard to the remaining Orders, if my hon. Friends will look at them, they will see that they are, I think, of a non-contentious character. I hope that the House will be willing to accept the Motion which stands in the name of the Prime Minister, on the clear understanding, which I give with the fullest assurance of my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Gulland), that the convenience of the House will be consulted to the fullest possible extent, and that there is no intention whatever to keep the House sitting beyond a reasonable time.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI desire to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). The conditions in which the House is being asked to conduct business at this-stage of the Session are positively scandalous. Last night we sat after twelve o'clock to take such an important Order as the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill. There were on that occasion a number of very important matters raised, and they were discussed in 1825 an empty House, a House which could have been counted out, and which would have been counted out but for the fact that the hon. Members did not desire to cause any inconvenience to the Government. We had, in the circumstances, to be content with a totally inadequate discussion. I know, for example, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) was very anxious to take part in the discussion raised by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), but, owing to the lateness of the hour at which the matter was brought forward, it was impossible for him to be present. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh yesterday asked the Prime Minister whether the House to-day would sit after five o'clock, and the right hon. Gentleman said that there was no intention of doing so. I am in the recollection of the few Members who pay attention to what is going on, and ho said that he thought it would be over long before five o'clock. We now learn for the first time that we are to be asked to suspend the Five o'Clock Rule.
The second Order on the Paper is a much more important one than the right hon. Gentleman would lead the Committee to believe. It was only two days ago that this Bill was introduced. It has not been circulated with the Votes yet. I expected to find it with my papers this morning. I had to go to the Vote Office to secure a copy, and then I found that there were only about a dozen copies available for Members. This is a most extraordinary procedure in reference to so important a Bill. I do not wish to go into the details or the merits of the Bill, but it is one establishing the continuance of the existing Parliamentary Register and putting off all local elections. That is a matter which should be discussed under better conditions in the House, and the decision at which we are asked to arrive should be known to the country. Large public interests are concerned, and I think in the circumstances that the House is not being treated with the fairness which it deserves. A large number of Members do not take the trouble to take any interest in what is going on, but some attention should be paid to those who do take the trouble to read the Bills, and who are concerned that the legislation which is to be passed should be in the interests of the country, and should be carefully considered. I protest 1826 against this Motion, and I hope the Government will take note of what has occurred and do better in future.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI was not aware that the Prime Minister, yesterday, stated that the House would not sit after five o'clock. That seems to me to be an important statement.
§ Mr. BECK (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household)He said that he hoped it would not sit after five o'clock.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not know what he said, because I was not here, but if the Prime Minister gave the House to under stand—
§ Mr. PRINGLEPerhaps the hon. Baronet will allow me to explain. The question by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, is inaccurate, but I will read it as it appears:—
Mr. Hogge: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether we shall rise at five o'clock or at eleven o'clock to-morrow?As a matter of fact, the question was, "Will the Five o'Clock Rule be suspended?"The Prime Minister: I hope we shall rise before five o'clock."—[OFFICIAL RKPORT, 22nd July. 1915, col. 1673.]
§ Sir F. BANBURYIt is not quite as the hon. Gentleman says; it is not a distinct pledge that the House will not sit after five o'clock, but it is very nearly that. It is a statement of hope that we shall not sit after five o'clock, and I think a great many Members would consider that to be very nearly a pledge that the House would not sit after five o'clock. I should not have said anything if it had not been for that statement, but, if I might appeal to my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the House, I would say that I think he would probably get on quicker with the business if he acceded to the request now. It looks as if there would probably be a discussion on the suspension of the Five o'Clock Rule, and some Members if they were irritated might make their speeches longer than they intended. I am not a Front Bencher, but if I were in charge of the House, after the statement by the Prime Minister, I should accede to the request not to sit after five o'clock.
§ Mr. WATTI wish to join in the protest that has been made by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). I was unaware that 1827 the suspension of the Five o'Clock Rule was to be proposed until I arrived here. I am interested in a measure which is fairly far down the list, but relying on the fact that the Five o'Clock Rule would not be suspended I have made arrangements to leave the House at five o'clock. I have not the slightest doubt that in the rush which takes place in passing measures after five o'clock this Bill in which I am interested will be one of the number. If the right hon. Gentleman would give us an indication how far down the list he proposes to go, it might meet the wishes of the House. He has indicated that there will not be much of a rush after the three first Orders of the Day are passed, but is he aware what takes place during the last ten minutes of a sitting? If he would indicate how far he would go, and if it were not excessive, it would satisfy me.
§ Mr. PETOI want to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to at any rate give us some assurance that he will not go as far as the fifth order on the Paper. That Bill raises a very serious question, which has already been debated in this House as far back as 16th February. Those interested in the merchant service certainly hold very strong views as to the efficient carrying out of their duties by the officers in charge of our transports, and it is certainly something on which I personally shall not be silent. I have put down Amendments to the Bill, and if it is attempted to pass it with perhaps no one on the Front Bench, practically sub silentio, I should regard it as an outrage.
Sir HENRY DALZIELI hope the Government will consider the various views which have been expressed in opposition to this proposal. I am sure that no hon. Member wishes in any way to obstruct any of the measures before the House. I would therefore suggest that this is an occasion when the Government might pay some respect to the wishes of hon. Members. I agree with the hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), that it may help them to gee their measures through more speedily than might otherwise be the case. It is useless to deny that the Government really are pursuing a high-handed policy. For instance, in taking the Second Beading of the Appropriation Bill last night, at a very late hour, when Members had bad very few opportunities of discussing matters of very great public interest, their action was, 1828 in my opinion, entirely unjustifiable. We have to remember, too, that although Fridays have been taken away from private Members—and, indeed, from the House—yet when it is proposed we shall have a Friday sitting the hours of sitting are proposed to be extended.
Incidentally may I express the hope that the Government will put the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill down if possible as a first Order, and certainly at an hour at which it can be discussed. They ought not by pursuing this policy to prevent Members raising matters which they wish to have discussed, and which certainly would have been debated had the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill been proposed at a reasonable hour. It is entirely opposed to the traditions of Parliament that a Bill of the importance of the Elections and Registration Bills should not have been circulated on the morning of the day on which it is proposed to take it. We have only had mention of it in the last few days; it goes further than many of us had any expectation it would. I do not say it is an opposed measure, but it is certainly one which ought to be fully discussed, and hon. Members ought to have time to consult local authorities by letter instead of having to do so by telegram. It is quite impossible for us to express the views of the local authorities on the Bill, seeing that it has only just come into our hands. I would seriously appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to consider whether, after a short debate on the Bill, he cannot see his way to adjourn it to another day. It would certainly facilitate its progress. No one desires to keep the House sitting longer than is really necessary, but I would point out that this Government has the faults of all Governments: it brings in a lot of new Bills within the last few days of the Session. There is absolutely no reason why all those Bills should not have been brought in earlier in the Session, and some might very well go over until after the Adjournment. I hope the Government will make this small concession to private Members.
§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSMay I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should take the Committee stage of the Coal Bill first. The contentious part is really over, and I do not think we need be very long in dealing with the remainder. Once that is cleared out of the way the right hon. Gentleman would see exactly what the situation is.
§ Mr. LYNCHAfter listening to the various speeches which have been delivered, I have become mere than ever impressed with the futility of our parliamentary system, and I am convinced that if the Government have their way the verdict of the country will be one of "found wanting." Evidently it is thought that the best service the House of Commons could render would be to entirely efface itself. On many important measures involving most serious issues to the whole country the House of Commons is almost commanded to keep silent, and what deliberation is possible in the way of a business-like examination of the Government Bills has been reduced almost to a farce.
Mr. JOHN O CONNORI rise to back up the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sheffield. We have here at the present moment most of the doughty champions who fought yesterday's battles, and they, I am sure, while their minds are fresh and refreshed by a night's sleep, are quite prepared to go on and finish the Bill. If the Government interpose another very contentious measure it will probably induce their energies to flag somewhat, and the chances of the Coal Bill passing may suffer thereby. Again, if it is only brought on late in the evening I am sure the measure would suffer because the minds of hon. Members would be by then somewhat fatigued. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the second Order will allow it to lapse for a few moments and thus enable us to go on and finish the Bill upon which there was such an interesting discussion last evening.
§ Mr. LONGI do not propose now to discuss the various propositions which have been made with regard to the bills on the Paper. It would be impossible for the Government to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sheffield to change the order of those bills. That is a system which is unknown to our practice, except at the cost of the Bill standing in the earlier place, and to that I cannot assent. With regard to the suggestion that the second Order on the Paper has been taken too hastily and that the opinions of local authorities ought to be obtained, may I remind the House very respectfully that this Bill has been produced largely in response to appeals which have been made to us repeatedly by Members of this House during the last few weeks, on behalf of the local authorities, and that one of its main objects is to save to the local authorities 1830 a great outlay on work which would be of no practical value. It is not as if we were proposing to interfere with the powers of local authorities. We are not doing that. I will not, however, discuss that point because it will be a matter for debate on the Second Reading.
What I rise to state to the House is this. The Government put this Motion on the Paper certainly, not with any intention of trampling on the feelings of hon. Members or of making an unfair demand on their time, but in what they believe to be the general interests of the House of Commons and of our business. I may say at once, in answer to the hon. Member for East Wilts (Mr. Peto), that if the Motion of the Government is adopted, it is not our intention to proceed with Order No. 5 (Naval Disciplne No. 2 Bill), should it not have been reached before the ordinary limits of a Friday's Sitting. We would not proceed with it at a later hour. Under these circumstances I should have thought it would have been for the convenience of the House to have voted this Motion on the clear understanding that after the ordinary time we do not take any Order after the first four. I put that in the general convenience. On the other hand we have been reminded of the language which was used by the Prime Minister yesterday, when he certainly was under the impression that our business to-day would not last very long. He expressed a hope it would not, but I am sure hon. Members will admit that there was no undertaking and no definite statement that the House would not sit after five o'clock. Speaking as Prime Minister and Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman expressed a very strong hope. But he is not here, and it falls upon my unworthy shoulders to be responsible in his absence. I can only say that I cannot ask the House to pass this Resolution if any hon. Members believe it to be in contravention of what the Prime Minister said yesterday. But I still hope that the suggestion I have made will meet the general view of the House. If, however, it does not do so, the Government will not press this Motion.
§ Mr. BOOTHI would make an appeal to my right hon. Friend in regard to the Elections and Registration Bill. I do not quite agree with some of my hon. Friends, with whom I usually find myself associated in asserting the rights of private Members, in urging that that Bill should not be taken for Second Reading to-day. My reason is 1831 this: That if we want the opinion, as we do, perhaps, from our friends and the local authorities in the country, I would sooner they gave it after they had heard the statement of the President of the Local Government Board. If the Bill had been introduced under the Ten Minutes' Rule, or if an explanatory statement had been made to guide us, the difficulty would have been avoided. But we have not had that. I want to hear the statement the right hon. Gentleman has to make on behalf of the Local Government Board. Then our friends in the country can consider it over the week-end. I would point out that we do not lose our grip on the Bill, and that if we find we do not like it we can make representations on Monday.
§ Mr. CHAPLINI am sure that everybody will agree, whatever views he may take upon individual Bills, that my right hon. Friend has done everything in his power to meet the requests of all hon. Members. I rise to suggest, that, my right hon. Friend having taken that course, it would not be unreasonable to proceed with business as soon as we can. With reference to the expression which fell from the Prime Minister last night, I suppose that all of us have the hope, which was held by the Government, that the business would be over before five o'clock. In the circumstances I think we might now proceed with the business.
§ Sir GEORGE YOUNGERI wish to say a single word of appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the Elections and Registration Bill—that is, to ask him to do nothing whatever, and to agree to nothing whatever, that will prejudice that Bill and cause delay in its being considered. I do so in the interests of Scotland. There are no difficulties whatever in Scotland in connection with the Bill, and I believe that every Scottish Member is agreed that it ought to apply at once to Scotland.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI would point out that if the hon. Baronet enters into the merits of the Bill, he will at once be met with opposition.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYI did not quite understand the right hon. Gentlemen's statement as to how far we were to go to-night. I understood that he desired that we should go as far as the fourth Order. Does he really mean that, supposing we come to the Price of Coal 1832 (Limitation) Bill, he intends to force the whole of the Committee stage through in any circumstances?
§ Mr. LONGI thought I had made it quite clear that in no circumstances do the Government propose to take advantage of this Resolution, if it is passed, to keep the House sitting beyond a reasonable hour this evening. The sole object the Government had in view was to facilitate business by preventing the stroke of the clock automatically stopping something which the whole House wished to see passed. We nave no intention, if the House is good enough to pass this and proceeds to business, to keep the House beyond the normal hour mentioned by the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King). We have no intention whatever of using this exceptional power to force business against the wish of the House.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Ordered, "That the Government business be not interrupted this day, at Five or half-past Five of the clock, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."