MEDICAL RELIEF DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.—OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 27 July 1885)

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, it would be convenient to their Lordships if he took that opportunity of asking the noble Earl who had given Notice with regard to the Medical Relief Disqualification Removal Bill (the Earl of Milltown) whether, after what had passed, he intended to adhere to that Notice? He (Earl Granville) did not remember a similar course being taken in their Lordships' House; but there were three noble Lords on the Treasury Bench opposite who had had large experience in the House of Commons, and probably they would be able to say whether such a course was ever taken there. The; Bill having come up that day to their Lordships' House was, like all other Bills coming up from the House of Commons, read a first time. Then the noble Earl suddenly jumped up and, referring to the Bill as a derelict, gave Notice of his intention to take charge of it. He (Earl Granville) did not think the Bill was exactly a derelict, and it would have been more reasonable if the noble Earl, before coming down there at half-past 3——

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN,
interrupting, begged the noble Earl's pardon. The noble Earl had been misinformed, for he had not come down at half-past 3 for the purpose of giving the Notice.

§ EARL GRANVILLE,
continuing, said, that he would not say half-past 3; but before the House met, the noble Earl came down with the Notice which he subsequently gave when he was in Order in doing so. Now, the noble Earl, as far as he (Earl Granville) was aware, was not requested by anyone to take charge of the Bill, and he did not know 28 that he had any connection with it. The House was aware of the circumstances under which the Bill passed through its later stages in the House of Commons. When the Government refused any further responsibility for it, he (Earl Granville) was asked by Sir William Harcourt and Mr. Jesse Ceilings to take charge of it in their Lordships' House. He was, therefore, prepared to do so. If, however, the noble Earl opposite had been requested by the Government to take the course he had taken, and if, as he was told, the noble Earl was very anxious to pass it in its present shape, he (Earl Granville) would think it in better hands than his own, and would gladly resign it to the noble Earl. But if the noble Earl had not received any such instruction from Her Majesty's Government he (Earl Granville) thought he was bound to acquiesce in the wish which had been expressed to him by those who passed the Bill in the House of Commons.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN
said, that he simply adhered to his previous statement. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) had said that the course he (the Earl of Milltown) had taken was unprecedented; but it was also unprecedented that a Bill which had been in the charge of the Government should come up to their Lordships' House as this one had. The noble Earl also said that he had been requested by Mr. Jesse Collings and Sir William Harcourt to take charge of the Bill. It seemed to be thought, from what the noble Earl had said, that Sir William Harcourt had moved the third reading of the Bill in the other House. As a matter of fact, however, the noble Earl was misinformed, for the third reading was moved by Mr. Jesse Collings; and neither Sir William Harcourt nor any other Member of the late Government was present at the time. He could not see what reason the noble Earl had for looking on the Bill with so much favour and veneration, considering that it contained a clause which was not in the Bill of the late Government.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, they had better not go into the provisions of the Bill.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN
said, he merely referred to it because he was giving his reasons for taking charge of the Bill. The noble Earl wanted to know why he took charge of it, He 29 had taken it up as an independent Conservative Peer who was in favour of the provisions it contained; and he might say that he had no communication with the Government on the subject, and did not believe that one of his Friends on the Government Bench had any idea of what he intended to do. He never imagined that the noble Earl (Earl Granville) would wish to take charge of it, and he did not see how on earth he could, seeing that the Bill was so different from the proposals of the late Government. It was true that, having other business to attend to in the Library in the way of looking up references, he had come down to the House at half-part 3, and incidentally mentioned to the Clerk of the Parliaments that he proposed to take up the Bill if it arrived from the Commons, and that he would move the second reading to-morrow. But the Clerk of the Parliaments told him that there might be a difficulty in doing so, as the Bill might perhaps not be printed by to-morrow, and then he put it down for Thursday. But when the noble Earl said that he would move the second reading on Tuesday, then he gave Notice himself for Tuesday. Why the noble Earl objected to what had been done, if he really desired to see the Bill passed, he could not understand. It was not a Party measure, as it had been supported by both sides, and he had only done what he was entitled to do; and he intended, as an independent Conservative Peer, to move the second reading to-morrow.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, as he understood the noble Earl had not been asked by the Government to take charge of the Bill, he (Earl Granville) should adhere to the Notice he had given, and would move the second reading tomorrow.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN
said, that perhaps the noble Earl was not aware of the Standing Order on the subject. Standing Order No. 18 was to the effect that all Orders and Notices should stand according to priority of Notice; and that if a noble Lord gave Notice to the Clerk of the Parliaments that he intended to make a Motion, it should so be printed in the Orders of the Lay. He had altered his Notice in consequence of the statement of the noble Earl.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, that the Standing Order showed that he was en- 30 tirely in his right; because he gave Notice that he would move the second reading to-morrow.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN
After me.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
No; the noble Earl opposite gave Notice afterwards that he would do so. However, putting that aside, the Standing Orders must be read with some regard to common sense; for instance—and he appealed to noble Lords on the Government Benches, and especially to those who had had experience in both Houses—would it be held permissible that any noble Lord might, by giving Notice in the way the noble Earl had done now, entirely block out the persons really connected with the Bill. In this case the promoters of the Bill wished that he (Earl Granville) should take charge of it.

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)
said, that once before a question arose as to dealing with the Orders of the House, and the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) spoke on that occasion as if a noble Lord had a right to take possession of a Bill. It was the courtesy of the House that when an Order was put down in the name of a particular Lord that noble Lord should deal with it. Their Lordships made their own Standing Orders; and if the noble Earl wished them to be changed in any way—for instance, if he intended to proceed against the noble Earl who had priority of Notice—it must be done by a Motion. In that case it would be for the House itself to decide.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN
said, he had given Notice for Thursday, in consequence of what had been said to him by the Clerk of the Parliaments; but as soon as the noble Earl (Earl Granville) objected to the delay he agreed to alter it to to-morrow. However, the noble Earl was still discontented, and said he himself would move it to-morrow. He (the Earl of Milltown) maintained that his own Notice had been given first.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
I do not desire any alteration in the Standing Order. I have already given Notice that I shall move the second reading of the Bill tomorrow.

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)
said, in that case, he would ask the Clerk of the Parliaments who gave Notice first?

The CLERK of the PARLIAMENTS (Sir William Rose)
said, that the Notice of the Earl of Milltown stood first.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
Stands first for Thursday, but not for Tuesday.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN
said, he must again say he gave Notice of his Motion for Thursday; but in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Earl he had altered it to Tuesday. After that the noble Earl was still discontented, and said he would move it himself.

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT (Viscount CRANBROOK)
But who stands in the Order Book for the first place to-morrow?

§ LORD MONSON
said, that his noble Friend (Earl Granville) came into the House after the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Milltown) had given Notice for Thursday. He (Lord Monson) told his noble Friend what had taken place, and the noble Earl, in a state of surprise, said—"Why, the Bill was committed to me." Then his noble Friend got up and said he would move the second reading to-morrow, thus having precedence of the noble Earl opposite, and then the noble Earl opposite said he would alter the day.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD
said, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Monson) was not quite correct. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) did not give Notice, but said—"I was just going to move the second reading to-morrow." In fact, no Notice was given by the noble Earl opposite until after the Notice of his noble Friend (the Earl of Milltown).

§ LORD FITZGERALD,
after reviewing the history of the Bill, said, that his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Milltown), who had no connection with the Bill, assumed possession, and gave Notice of the second reading for Thursday; and then his noble Friend near him (Earl Granville), who was requested to take charge of the Bill, objected to Thursday, and he put down his Motion for to-morrow. The noble Earl (the Earl of Milltown) subsequently put down a Notice for to-morrow also. The Standing Orders did not affect the question in the least. What the Standing Orders said was, that the Notices of Motion should be recorded on the Minutes in the order in which they were given in. He would make an appeal to his noble Friend opposite. There was 32 such a thing as courtesy in that House, and it was only consistent with courtesy to leave the matter in the hands of the noble Earl who had been given charge of the Bill by the parties who had the right to do so. He hoped that the noble Earl opposite would not forget what was due to the courtesy of the House. One thing, however, appeared to be clear from the action of noble Lords opposite, and that was that the passing of this Bill was assured.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (The Earl of IDDESLEIGH)
I do not profess to be able to decide any thing with regard to the order of your Lordships' House; but as the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) has referred to me, among others, as having had experience in the House of Commons, I should wish to say that, so far as the proceedings of the House of Commons are concerned, I believe it to be an entirely unprecedented and disorderly thing for a Bill which has been revived, and on which an Order has been moved by one Member, that another Member should come in and make another proposal in regard to the same measure. The noble Earl the Loader of the Opposition may have thought he had acquired the right to fix the Bill for Tuesday; but the Bill having already been fixed for this day by my noble Friend (the Earl of Milltown), according to the proceedings of the House of Commons, the noble Earl would certainly have no right to take it out of the hands of my noble Friend.

§ LORD FITZGERALD
There is no Order made. It is a mere Notice of Motion for an Order.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (The Earl of IDDESLEIGH)
My noble Friend (the Earl of Milltown) gave the Notice, and thereby placed himself in charge of the Bill, and the Motion was made by the noble Earl, and, as I understood, taken down by the Clerk at the Table. That undoubtedly would, in the practice of the House of Commons, be giving precedence to the Member who had so taken charge of the Bill. But there appears to be some inaccuracy in the statement of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitzgerald) as to what passed in the House of Commons. A Bill was introduced by Mr. Jesse Collings on the subject, which, after certain progress had 33 been made, was superseded by another brought in by the Government, and which has now come up to your Lordships' House. Undoubtedly, an important change was made in the Bill during its progress through the House of Commons, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of that House stated that, in consequence, the Government could take no more interest in the Bill there; and, therefore, they did not take an active part in the third reading. But neither did the Colleagues of the noble Earl opposite. The proceedings closed by a Motion made by Mr. Jesse Collings for the third reading of the Bill, and that Motion was carried without any objection. In that way the Government, represented by my right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), fulfilled their obligations in the matter by saying they were not prepared to take an interest in the Bill, neither were they prepared to vote against it. Accordingly, the Bill was left in the hands of the House, and the third reading was carried without a division. It thereupon comes up here, and then the noble Earl (the Earl of Milltown), who has himself always supported the measure in the shape in which it comes here, says he will move the second reading of the Bill on a given date. He is quite entitled to make such a Motion, and I should have thought that the fact of his giving Notice would entitle him to precedence in making it.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
When I asked the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Iddesleigh) whether there was any precedent in the House of Commons, I meant was there any precedent in the case of a Bill coming down from the Lords to the Commons, and the Leader of a Party in the Commons of the same political opinions being requested to take charge of it, it was competent for an independent Member to slip in and try to insert his own name instead. I must own I am a little disappointed at the line which the noble Earl has taken. I have had the honour of representing my Party for a long time in this House; and I believe I should have been perfectly incapable, if the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had informed the House that, he desired to take charge of the Bill at the request of his Friends in the House of; Commons, and one of my best Friends 34 and Supporters had managed to slip in his name before that of the noble Marquess—I say I should have been incapable of not making the strongest appeal to my Friend not to take so unusual, and I must say so unprecedented, a course.

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)
The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition has been all throughout treating this as a question of right; but upon that question of right he is undoubtedly wrong.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
Do I gather from the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) that some intimation had come to me from my Friends in the House of Commons to the effect that I should take up the Bill?

§ EARL GRANVILLE
No; I did not say that I was only suggesting a hypothetical case.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
Then I am mistaken. I had no idea that the noble Earl wished to take up this Bill.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN
I should like to say that I also had not the slightest idea that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) intended to take up the Bill, as the late Government not only did not insert any provision in their Bill such as that moved by Mr. Jesse Ceilings when it came up to this House, but opposed the Amendment moved by Mr. Davey. How could I know, in those circumstances, that the noble Earl would take up such a Bill as this? There was nothing to show that he took any interest in it. On the contrary, I had always taken an interest in it, and it has always been supported on the Conservative side of both Houses of Parliament. It was not a Party Bill in any sense of the term; and I did not see why I should not have come down in the regular manner and given Notice in accordance with the Standing Order. I did so; and I cannot see, alter I had given Notice to the Clerk of the Parliaments that I intended to move the second reading, and after the Clerk had called upon me to give my Notice—I say I cannot see how on earth the noble Earl could object to my action. I gave Notice that I would move the second reading on Thursday; and the noble Earl then stated that time was of importance, and that he intended to have 35 moved that the second reading he taken on Tuesday. I thereupon said that I should be most happy to meet his wishes, and put down the second reading fur Tuesday. He replied that that did not suit his wishes; and he gave Notice that he would put the Bill down himself for Tuesday. In any case, I contend that the noble Earl's Motion was subsequent to my own.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
The noble Earl's chronology seems to be defective. I said that I intended to put the Bill down on Tuesday, and I did give Notice for to-morrow.

§ VISCOUNT BURY
There is another point of Order which I venture to submit. One noble Lord having given Notice to make a certain Motion on a particular day, is it competent for another noble Lord to give Notice of the same Motion for an earlier day?

§ EARL GRANVILLE
Does the noble Viscount seriously mean to say that, after a Bill has been read a first time, any person, however hostile he may be to the Bill, can jump up and fix his own day for the second reading, a day which may be beyond that on which it would probably be token at all, and that the person who is friendly to the Bill cannot fix an earlier day? The proposition is absurd.

LORD DE ROS
said, an appeal had been made to the Clerk of the Parliaments, who stated that the noble Earl below (the Earl of Milltown) had given Notice first; therefore he did not see why this irregular discussion should be continued.

The CLERK of the PARLIAMENTS (Sir William Rose)
I received no written Notice. A verbal one was given to me by the Earl of Milltown, who told me that be wished to put down the second reading for to-morrow; and afterwards, when I told the noble Earl that there might be some difficulty about printing the Bill, he said he would put it down for Thursday.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
Precisely; the noble Earl put it down for Thursday, and I put mine down for Tuesday.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN
Whatever may be the view entertained as to the courtesy of the matter, it is certainly not in accordance with the usual practice of the House, when one noble Lord puts down a Motion for one day, 36 for another noble Lord to put down the same Motion for an earlier day, though there may be occasions when it might not be desirable to adhere too closely to the rule. As this discussion has gone on for some time without any definite result, I venture to suggest, as the only way of deciding: the question at issue, that the opinion of the House should be taken as to whether the Motion should stand in the name of the noble Earl on this side of the House, or in that of the noble Earl opposite.

§ LORD BRAMWELL
I distinctly heard what took place, and I can declare that my noble Friend (Earl Granville) gave a distinct Notice for Tuesday, when the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Milltown) had left his Notice for Thursday. I thought that the noble Earl's public Notice was a mark of his wish to associate himself with the Bill. That was what impressed it upon my mind. I also took particular notice of the Motion made by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, which fixed Tuesday for the second reading. That, as I take it, is how the matter stood—namely, that the noble Earl opposite gave Notice for Thursday, and the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition gave Notice for Tuesday. But apart from all this, is it not desirable, as a matter of common sense, that those who promoted the Bill, and who have conducted it to a successful termination in one House of Parliament, should select someone to take charge of it in the other House?

THE EARL OF LIMERICK
My recollection is quite different from that of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Bramwell). The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, after the Notice fixing the Bill for Thursday had been given, expressed a wish that the second reading should be taken on Tuesday. The noble Earl who gave Notice for Thursday agreed to alter his Motion and insert Tuesday. I think it most desirable that this irregular discussion should come to some sort of end. I will, therefore, move that the Motion of the Earl of Milltown should have precedence.

LORD THURLOW
said, he understood that the question was set at rest 37 by the declaration of the Clerk of the Parliaments.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he would not trouble their Lordships to divide; but he must say that the course taken was a most unusual one, to say the least of it.