Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

the House in taking Morning Sittings was that there should be a general assent to them. There was, so far as he knew, no instance in which Morning Sittings had been forced upon the House by a small majority against the general wish of the House. What he wished to ask the Prime Minister-and it was a question which he should like to have answered before any further proceeding was taken-was whether, as so large a proportion of the House was opposed to a Morning Sitting that day, he still intended to persevere with the Motion for a Morning Sitting?

tration. He (Mr. Newdegate) himself, indeed, regarded the conduct of the late Government as reprehensible in not having shown more promptitude and firmness in dealing with obstruction, and it was that systematic obstruction of the Business of the House which had in the last Parliament rendered early Morning Sittings necessary. He held, then, that the right hon. Gentleman was basing his conduct upon precedents which he had repudiated and condemned at meetings throughout the country, as well as in that House, while he pleaded nothing in justification for this change of opinion on his part. The right hon. Gentleman had charged the late Government with adopting a course which endangered the independence of Parliament, and yet now proposed to pursue the same course himself; and he (Mr. Newdegate) contended that the precedents which the right hon. Gentleman had cited in favour of the course he proposed for the virtual and practical coercion of the House were vitiated by his own often-repeated previous statements.

Question put.

The House divided:-Ayes 182; Noes 202: Majority 20.- (Div. List, No. 199.) Main Question again proposed.

MR. RITCHIE said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister whether, after such an expression of opinion of the House, he intended to persist with the Motion that the House should meet that day at 2 o'clock? He desired to point out to the House that the division had been taken especially at the instance of the Prime Minister, who rather went out of his way in order to attach significance to the division, and led the House to believe that the whole of his forces would be marshalled in the support of the Government.

MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that as he has already addressed the House on this Amend ment, he has exhausted his right of speaking.

MR. GORST said, he had not yet exhausted his right, and therefore he thought he was entitled, seeing that so large a minority had voted, to ask a question of the Prime Minister on the subject of the Motion before the House. The principle which had always guided

VOL. CCLXI. [THIRD SERIES.]

[ocr errors]

1

MR. GLADSTONE: Personally, I should feel inclined to state the matter rather differently from the hon. and learned Gentleman. He says that there has been, so far as he knows, no taking of a Morning Sitting except with the general assent of the House. What I should say would be that, as far as I know, so far as Morning Sittings are concerned, a general disposition to accede to the desire expressed by the Government. ["No, no!"] That has certainly been my experience; but I do not wish to make it a matter of contention. So far as the division which has just taken place is concerned, the number of those who voted for a Morning Sitting is larger than the number who voted against it. On the other hand, I presume that hon. Members who voted with the minority are quite prepared to move other Motions for adjournment. Therefore, if I were to persevere with the Main Question that this debate be adjourned until a Morning Sitting this day, I certainly should do so in the conviction that some hon. Gentleman would move the adjournment of the debate, and that we should have a good chance of a Morning Sitting, although it would be a Morning Sitting continuous from now until 2 o'clock to-morrow. Under these circumstances, I may say that I do not propose to take a Morning Sitting, but we will take time to ruminate on the full significance of the division which has taken place. I may, however, say to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), that he is quite wrong in his supposition that there has been any marshalling of the forces of the Government. There has been nothing of the kind. We have simply taken this division ont he Notice which was previously given. The hon. MemF

ber may take the fact for what it is worth; but I may say that, having given up the Morning Sitting to-morrow, I shall take an early opportunity of reverting to the subject.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Debate on Question [2nd May], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," further adjourned till To-morrow.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
(Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Ashley.)
[BILL 115.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN: In moving the second reading of this Bill, I wish to explain that it contains only one operative clause, to which I imagine there will be no opposition. It is a Bill to explain, and to some extent amend, the Merchant Shipping Acts with refer ence to the measurement of ships for tonnage, and it is rendered necessary in consequence of an inadvertence, and is carrying out the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners now sitting on the tonnage question. It is desirable to pass it as speedily as possible, as otherwise ships may be built under a wrong impression as to the intentions of the law in regard to the measurement of the tonnage of ships. The usual course is to take the cubical space in order to obtain the gross tonnage, and then from the gross tonnage is deducted the space devoted to engine-room and other purposes. With those matters the Bill does not propose to interfere; but a claim has been made in certain cases

to deduct from the gross tonnage the spaces which have not been included in the first instance in the gross tonnage -for instance, the space occupied by funnel casings and by skylights on deck. It is quite clear that this was not the intention of the Act, but that it was a simple inadvertence, and that ships which took advantage of the omissions in the existing law would be placed at an advantage over other vessels, and be relieved, to a certain extent, from tonnage dues. It is in order to correct that inadvertence that this Bill has been prepared, and the effect of the Bill is to provide that nothing shall be allowed to be deducted from the gross tonnage for the purpose of exemption from tonnage Mr. Gladstone

dues which has not been in the first instance included in the gross tonnage.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)

MR. T. E. SMITH expressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not proceed with the Bill at that hour of the morning, because, although it seemed to be a small Bill, it involved an important question, which would seriously affect the mercantile community. A number of persons had built ships which they believed to be in accordance with the law; the law took a different view upon the question, and an action was tried which ultimately came before the House Board of Trade. Since then there had of Lords, and was decided against the been various attempts on the part of the Board of Trade to alter the law, and this was only another step in the same direction; he, therefore, trusted that the House would not proceed with legislation, until they had an opportunity of hearing the views of those who were interested in the question. The right hon. Gentleman said that a Commission them have the Report of the Commission, was sitting on the subject. Then let so that those interested in the matter, who had a large amount of property at stake, might have an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the new legis lation proposed by Her Majesty's Government. He appealed to the right of the hour, and that a Royal Commishon. Gentleman, considering the lateness sion was sitting on the subject, not to ask the House to proceed with the Bill that night. If the right hon. Gentleman did, he must certainly move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

MR. W. LOWTHER, in seconding the Amendment, said, he did so for the simple reason that the Bill only came into the hands of hon. Members that afternoon. The subject was a very imA Commission was already Portant one. would not allow the Bill to be read a sitting upon it, and he hoped the House second time in that hurried manner.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."-(Mr. T. E. Smith.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS said, he hoped that both the Motion and the Amendment would be withdrawn for the present. He could not imagine that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would wish to press forward a Bill which had not been in the hands of Members and had not been printed. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is on the Table. It was not among the Bills lying on the Table of the House. It could be obtained at the Bill Office that afternoon; but it had not yet been delivered in the usual way.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN said, he had made inquiries at the Office, and had been informed that it had been delivered that morning.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS replied, that the right hon. Gentleman had been wrongly informed. The Clerk at the Table had shown him a memorandum which showed that the Bill had not been delivered. It was quite impossible, therefore, that the House could go on with the second reading. In the list of Bills hon. Members were supposed to look at, the Merchant Shipping Bill was mentioned as not delivered. But even if it had been delivered that morning, hon. Members could not have had an opportunity of examining its provisions. It was a Bill which undoubtedly affected very important interests, and, under the circumstances, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to adjourn the debate.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I have no desire to press the Bill forward with undue haste, and the moment the House asked for more time I was prepared at once to fall in with that expression of opinion. If my hon. Friend (Mr. T. E. Smith) will withdraw the Amendment, I will withdraw the Motion and postpone the Bill. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I may say that I had made inquiry at the Vote Office, and I was assured in the most positive terms that the Bill was delivered this morning. [Mr. MONK: Hear, hear!] I gather from the cheer of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) that he has received a copy. I have only made these remarks, because I do not wish it to be understood that I had moved the second reading of a Bill which had not been delivered.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: The right hon. Gentleman will do me the justice to suppose that I had ample justification for the statement I made.

MR. DILLWYN remarked, that he had received a copy of the Bill that morning.

MR. HEALY protested against the way in which the Bill had been brought forward. It was introduced and read a first time by a very curious kind of subterranean legislation. About 3 o'clock in the morning the right hon. Gentleman got up-a few seconds before the House adjourned-and whispered something to the Clerk which nobody could hear. Then somebody said, "Merchant Ship, ping Bill-second reading, Monday; and that was all anybody knew about it. He objected to 2 o'clock in the morning legislation; and, in order to prevent a recurrence of what had just happened, he should put down a blocking Notice against the Bill. He trusted that what had taken place would be a warning to the Government not to attempt legislation in whispers.

MR. T. E. SMITH said, that, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he would, with the leave of the House, withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

IMPROVEMENT.

Select Committee appointed, "to consider the working of The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875, and the amending Act of 1879, with a view of consider ing how the expense of and the delay and difficulty in carrying out these Acts may be reduced, and also of inquiring into any causes which may have prevented the reconstruction of dwellings for the Artizan Class to the full extent contemplated and authorised by these Acts and of recommending such Amendments as may be most expedient for carrying out the full intention of these Acts, and also to consider the working of the Metropolitan Streets Improvement Acts, 1872 and 1877, and of 31 and 32 Vic. c. 130, and 42 and 43 Vic. c. 64."(Sir Richard Cross.)

House adjourned at Two o'clock.

[blocks in formation]

SOUTH AFRICA-THE ANNEXATION OF THE TRANSVAAL-MR. GLADSTONE'S LETTER TO MR. TOMKIN. SON. OBSERVATIONS.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON rose to call attention to a letter in The Times of 15th April, purporting to be written by the Right Honourable W. E. Gladstone to Mr. Tomkinson on the Transvaal War. He said: I believe that since Parliament sat this subject has been under discussion on several occasions in this House, and I wish to take the earliest opportunity of making my acknowledgements to my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) for the fair and considerate way in which whenever my name has been mentioned as one of those concerned in the annexation he has been good enough to deal with it. That makes me all the more sorry that I have to criticize the letter referred to in the Notice I have given. Ordinarily, I should not be prepared to take notice of a letter on a public subject; but this letter is of a somewhat different character from others. It is written by the Prime Minister, and it contains charges of such a very grave and dark character that it is hardly possible for me to avoid taking some notice of it. I think, therefore, the earliest notice which it is in my power to take is the best. The letter purports to be a letter from the Prime Minister to Mr. Tomkinson, who, I understand, was a Liberal candidate for West Cheshire. The earlier part of the letter I need not trouble your Lordships with; but I must read the concluding sentences. They are

"I am glad that in your address in relation to the Transvaal you take the bull by the horns, and avow your approval outright. I can assure you that when we come to the discussion in the House of Commons I shall adopt no apologetic tone. It was a question of saving the country from sheer blood-guiltiness. I chiefly regret the discussion, because it will oblige us to go back and censure anew what it would have been more agreeable to spare."

There are three different points in these paragraphs. As regards the singular illustration of taking the bull by the horns, I was prepared for something very startling by the vehement metaphor with which it was ushered in; and I was, therefore, surprised when I found that all Mr. Tomkinson did say was that he strongly approved of the moral courage of the Government in their

policy in the Transvaal. It is rather a pared to defend it. At the time no moderate expression to evoke so strong voice was raised against it. Two years a simile. The points which are of con- subsequently, in this House, when the sequence are in the sentences which question was mooted, I stated the facts, follow. When Mr. Gladstons says he and there was not a shadow of opporegrets the discussion "because it will sition. It is not too much to ask now, oblige us to go back and censure anew if it is to be condemned on new grounds, what it would have been more agreeable that those new grounds should be disto spare," that sentence, as far as I can tinctly and formally stated. When they read it, can point only to one of two are so stated I shall be perfectly prepared persons-either to Sir Theophilus Shep- to defend the course I took, and to stone, who practically carried the an- vindicate the course of the Government nexation into effect, or to myself. Sir of which I was a Member. I pass on Theophilus Shepstone is a man whose now to another point in one sentence of name, until within the last few years, the letter, in which the right hon. Gentlewas not known in this country. He was man leaves the region of vague charges one of those public servants of which and comes to the more substantial this country has so many and feels so ground, direct propositions. The right proud, whose whole lives are spent in hon. Gentleman says, "It was a question the conscientious and faithful discharge of saving the country from sheer bloodof their duty abroad. His has been a guiltiness." I can truly say that when very long and unblemished career; but I read those words I was lost in astonishI shall not attempt to defend him until ment as to what their meaning was. I know more distinctly what are the They are hard words. What does charges made against him. It is only blood-guiltiness mean? Blood-guiltiness fair that the accusations against such a is a term you apply to murderers and man should be formulated. Whenever other criminals of the highest degree of any charge is directly made against him depravity. If the words had fallen from I am perfectly prepared to take my full the lips of some irresponsible speaker share of responsibility in the matter; perorating on the subject, I should not and I feel confident that I can put his have troubled your Lordships or myself conduct in a light which will satisfy your about them. But this is a very different Lordships and the country. As regards case; these are the words of the Prime myself and Mr. Gladstone's wish to spare Minister; and they are not words spoken censure, I have no desire to be spared in the heat of debate; they are words in the matter at all. I ask for no for- coolly and deliberately set down in bearance, and I am prepared to face any writing, and used as a manifesto at an charge that may be made against me in Election, which was declared far and this matter. I would, however, venture wide to be a test Election of public to offer to the right hon. Gentleman a feeling. If there were blood-guilticaution, and it is that when he makes ness at the time of adopting the policy, these charges he should beware lest in his there must have been blood-guiltihaste he involves some of his Colleagues ness in continuing it; there must have in the common accusation. I cannot been blood-guiltiness in fighting the help thinking that my noble Friend op battles of Majuba, Ingogo, and Laing's posite, the Colonial Secretary, expressed Nek, and, above all, in proclaiming in a very honourable and fair approval of the Queen's Speech on the 6th of January the measure at the time. In the other that measures would be taken to vindiHouse, the Chief Secretary for Ireland cate the authority of the Crown. If this (Mr. W. E. Forster) never hesitated to policy was right, it was right at every declare his concurrence in the measure; step; if it was wrong, it was wrong at and I believe that no fewer than four every step. But it really seems to have Members of the present Government been reserved to the Government to voted in favour of the first Transvaal make this notable discovery after we grant, while there were others who by had sustained three severe and heavy their silence assented to it. I am not defeats; after one massacre which the now going into any defence of the late Parliamentary Papers show to have original annexation of the Transvaal; been treacherous and cold-blooded; and but when I hear the grounds on which after a capitulation obtained by frauduit is attacked, I shall be perfectly pre-lent means, promised to be cancelled,

« ForrigeFortsett »