Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

did not observe a single Member-he was not even conscious of the presence of the noble Lord, who was so keen to protect the rights of private Members. With the assistance of several Members on the Treasury Bench he was happy to say that a quorum was found, and the House was not then counted out. He afterwards went out, like the hon. and gallant Member, for refreshment, and was sitting in the dining-room, when he heard, to his surprise, the announcement that the Speaker was going home. He inquired of a Member of the Irish Party what had happened, and was informed very good humouredly that that Party had achieved a glorious victory over the Government. That was the simple history of that diabolical conspiracy, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, against the rights of private Members, for which the noble Lord so severely but unjustly blamed them. All he could say was that the Members of the Government were extremely anxious to have the discussion brought on. There was nothing so disagreeable as to have on one's hands a speech which it was impossible to deliver. That had been his case on the three occasions in question; and he should be extremely glad were he able to think that this speech was a thing of the past, instead of a thing of the future. If private Members valued their rights so much, the Government were entitled to expect some assistance from them; and it seemed very unjust for private Members, who had gone away themselves, to come down and accuse the Government of not upholding those rights.

MR. GORST thought it rather curious that, if the Government were so perfectly innocent, they should have now put up the Home Secretary, who was not in the House at the time of the "count out," instead of the Solicitor General for Ireland, who was. What they complained of was that the hon. and learned Gentleman, representing the Government, assented to the adjournment. The minority had no chance against the will of the Government in favour of an adjournment of the House; but what hon. Members wanted to know was whether the Solicitor General for Ireland did consent to the adjournment; if so, by whose authority and for what purpose?

Sir William Harcourt

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) said, that as his name had been so prominently brought forward, he might be allowed. a few words of explanation, especially as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), who was not himself present to see what occurred, did not choose to take the explanation that had been accurately given in his absence by the Prime Minister. He had never assented to the adjournment. [Mr. GORST: I never said anything of the kind.] He was speaking [within the hearing and recollection of the House. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) was, in this instance, very much in the position of the "needy knife-grinder," who exclaimed, "Story! God bless you, I have none to tell, Sir." He would state precisely what happened. He was also taking refreshment, and did not know of anything which exhausted nature so much as listening to some of the debates in that House. Hearing the bell ring, he immediately followed the Home Secretary and assisted in making a quorum, and he did not leave the House from that time except for a moment. He was not a party to this conspiracy which was alleged to have existed, and which was, in fact, as mythical as the knowledge of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. He listened respectfully, as he always endeavoured to listen, to the arguments addressed to the House by the Members sitting below the Gangway. He was in the House when the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) concluded his speech, and he heard the remarks next made by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). When the Question was put for the adjournment, he said "No;" but he did not challenge a division, for he took it for granted that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Alexander) would have been present, or would have had somebody present to represent him, to challenge a vote. Finding, however, that no one-not even the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, whom he looked upon as the champion of the cause-challenged the division, he did not think it his duty to do so. The House was then adjourned, and he left, as the other Members did.

Question put, and negatived.

[merged small][ocr errors]

LORD EUSTACE CECIL asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether under the terms of the armistice concluded in March last there exists any power of supplying the garrisons in the Transvaal with material of war; and, if not, what steps it is proposed to take to remedy so serious an omission in view of the critical state of pending negotiations, and the probability of a native uprising?

MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to the Question of the noble Lord, I have to say that Sir Evelyn Wood entered into an engagement not to send ammunition into the Transvaal; but the information in his possession, and transmitted to us, is that the garrisons in the Transvaal are amply supplied with ammunition.

PARLIAMENT-BUSINESS OF THE

HOUSE.

the other gases emitted by cement works, and what minimum emission of each of those gases the Government is prepared to allow, having regard to the fact that it is impossible wholly to prevent these emissions?

MR. DODSON: I am not prepared to exempt cement works from the Bill; for although no practical means may at present exist for consuming carbonic acid gas, I have no doubt that, in many instances, arrangements are capable of being made for regulating its emission so as to render it much less objectionable than at present. As the Bill simply requires the adoption of practicable and available precautions it is impossible to suppose that it will have the effect of closing cement works, although I have no doubt it will lead to a considerable abatement of the present nuisance-a nuisance which, in the words of the Royal Commission, is substantial, and which may be mitigated, if not avoided altogether. I cannot undertake to exother gases emitted by cement works, plain in detail in the Bill what are the

and what is the minimum emission the

MR. GLADSTONE: As to the course of Business to-night, the Government will offer no opposition to the adjourn-Government is prepared to allow, as this ment of the debate on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill at such an hour as the would be to place these works on a difHouse may think fit; but, at the same ferent footing from many others named time, I should desire to call the attention in the Bill, and, as in the case of the of the House to the fact that the debate alkali works, a test could only be preon the Bill has been unusually pro-scribed after the experience acquired by careful inspection. longed. ["No!"] Well, it has gone on an unusual length of time. I do not say it is without precedent; but if it is further adjourned Monday next will be the seventh night of its extension, and I wish to express a hope that the debate will, at any rate, close on Monday.

ALKALI, &c. WORKS REGULATION BILL

-CEMENT WORKS.

MR. W. FOWLER asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, having regard to the fact that no means of a practicable character exist for consuming carbonic acid gas, he is prepared to insert words into Clause 8 of the Alkali, &c. Works Regulation Bill, exempting cement works from the operation of the Bill, so far as relates to the emission of this gas; and, whether he is aware that the passing of the Bill in its present form will have the effect of closing cement works; and, if he is prepared, before the Bill is proceeded with, to explain in detail in the Bill what are

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS (MR. BRAD-
LAUGH).

MR. NEWDEGATE asked the First

Lord of the Treasury, When it is the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to invite the House to proceed with the Adjourned Debate on the Parliamentary Oaths? He explained that he put the Question because he found that the adjourned debate stood on the Order Book the last Order for Tuesday next.

MR. GLADSTONE: I think the Question of the hon. Member is perfectly justified by the facts; but, at the same time, I hope he will agree with me that, as the subject is likely to be raised tomorrow by the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, I should postpone my answer until that Motion has been disposed of.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I rise to put two Questions to you, Sir. I wish to ask you whether it is competent for a Member of this House to move

MR. SPEAKER: I think it is a question of Privilege, and not a question of Order.

that a Resolution, formally submitted to | ring from your answer to my second the judgment of the House, put from the Question that you regard the Motion as a Chair, adopted by a majority of the question of Privilege, and not as a quesMembers present and voting, and re- tion of Order? corded on the Journals of the House repeatedly acted upon by the House, and still unrescinded, is an illegal Motion? And, secondly, Sir, I wish to ask you whether, if such a Motion is in Order, it can be regarded as a Motion entitled to precedence, bearing in mind that more than a fortnight has elapsed since the passing of the Resolution referred to; and, if so, upon what ground precedence would be given to it?

MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish further to ask you, Sir, whether it is not competent for any hon. Member, on any day he may think fit, to raise a question of Privilege as to the arbitrary and illegal exclusion of an hon. Member duly returned by a constituency to this House before he has taken the necessary steps to bring himself within the full jurisdiction of the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Exception has been taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon to the word "illegal," used in the proposed Resolution of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle. I must admit that there is some force in that objection. I have understood the expression "illegal" to be intended by the hon. Baronet as indicating the rescinding of the Resolution of the 26th April, 1881; but I am bound to say that I think the hon. Baronet would have been better advised if he had proposed, according to the usual Parliamentary practice, to move that the Resolution of the House be rescinded. In regard to the other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that if the hon. Baronet had thought fit yesterday to make a Motion on the letter of Mr. Bradlaugh having been read, and if that Motion had been in regular form, he would have been entitled to proceed with that Motion as a question of Privilege; and I cannot think that he has forfeited his claim to have that question considered as a matter of Privilege by reason of his having, for the convenience of the House, postponed it until a future day. I think the answer I have given already sufficiently answers the Question of the hon. Member for Northampton.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish, Sir, to ask if I am right in infer

Sir Stafford Northcote

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I do not think hon. Members have at all gathered whether the terms of the Motion are in Order, because I would submit, before you give a final decision on the subject, when several hon. Members were suspended, one after the other, before the Easter Recess, it was proposed by some other hon. Members to call in question the action of the House as illegal and arbitrary; and you ruled that any calling in question the action of the House would be a breach of Order, which you would be obliged to meet with very severe penalties. Therefore, I would like to ask you to decide clearly whether the hon. Baronet's Motion is in Order; and, if so, how it differs from the Motion which the Irish Members were anxious to make with respect to the suspension of a large number of that body, and which Motion was pronounced to be a gross breach of Order?

MR. SPEAKER: I have already stated that the expression "illegal" in the Resolution of the hon. Baronet is open to exception, and I should advise the hon. Baronet that that expression should be withdrawn; and also upon this ground, that it bears the construction-it may bear it, although I have not put that construction upon it myself-that an expression of that kind is scarcely respectful to the House, and reflects upon a Resolution which this House has already passed.

MR. WARTON: I wish to ask, Sir, whether, in the event of the hon. Baronet refusing to withdraw the word "illegal," you would refuse to allow the Motion to be put?

MR. SPEAKER: I am not prepared to answer that Question until I see the Resolution in its revised form.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: May I ask whether, to-morrow, it will be competent for any hon. Member, on the Motion of the hon. Baronet, to move that it is not a question of Privilege?

MR. DILLWYN: I would further ask whether it will not be competent for any hon. Member to move that it is a question of Privilege with respect to the il

legal exclusion of a Member from this | the permanent pacification of that country, House? he would propose that the discussion of that Bill should be carried on de die in diem until such time as it should be passed?

MR. SPEAKER: I must wait to see what Motion may be made before I give an opinion upon any Motion which may be taken in this matter. I am not prepared to say now, upon a hypothetical question, what course it would be right

to take.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I should like to ask whether, when the hon. Member for Carlisle brings forward his Motion to-morrow, before he rises or after he submits his Motion, it will be competent for any Member to move as a question of Order, or as an Amendment to that Motion, that it is not a question of Privilege?

MR. NEWDEGATE: May I further ask you, Sir, whether, if the subject of the Notice given by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle is brought forward in this House as a question of Privilege, it will not, and ought not, to take precedence of all other Business?

MR.SPEAKER: I have already stated that I consider that the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, when put in the proper form, would be brought forward certainly as a question of Privilege; and if an Amendment were moved to the effect that it was not a question of Privilege, that would be, in effect, to challenge the ruling of the Chair.

MR. GORST: I beg to give Notice that, when the hon. Baronet makes the Motion with which the House is not yet acquainted, if that Motion should raise substantially the same question as that on which the House has already expressed its judgment, I shall ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is competent for an hon. Member to bring forward, in the same Session, the same question on which it has already expressed an opinion?

LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL

URGENCY.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS asked the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which he had given him private Notice, Whether, considering that the Government demanded and obtained Urgency for the passage of two Bills which they declared to be necessary for the maintenance of order in Ireland, and that it was equally necessary that the Land Law (Ireland) Bill should be passed for

MR. MACARTNEY desired to know, before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question which had just been put, whether, if those who wished to address the House should not have had an opportunity of doing so before the end of Monday's debate, the right hon. Gentleman would use his large majority to bring the debate to a conclusion that evening?

MR. PARNELL wished to know, whether it would be necessary to obtain urgency in order to carry on the debate de die in diem. Two-thirds of the House, or a majority of two to one, were required to obtain urgency. Could not the course which had been followed earlier that Session on the Coercion Bills be followed, and the days of private Members be given up to the discussion till the Bill was passed?

MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the closing of the debate on Monday, it would be extremely disagreeable to my taste and desire that any Gentleman should be precluded from addressing the House in the present stage of the Bill; but it seems to me that we work under very severe conditions as to time, and under very severe conditions indeed as to public interests of a character affecting the whole of the people of Ireland; and, although I may be very sorry to press anything of a restrictive nature against Members, yet I even hope that some hon. Gentlemen will, if possible, submit to a sacrifice rather than allow us to go on, in the face of the very great necessity for this Bill, for the sake of all parties in Ireland, with a debate extending over many weeks on a stage of the Bill in which, after all, we can make no progress towards a final adjustment of its terms. Hon. Members will, I trust, continue the debate longer than usual to-night; but I am afraid I cannot recede from what I have presumed to say with regard to the closing of the debate on Monday. As to the Question put to me, I am not sure that I follow with perfect clearness the Question of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); but I do not know that it is very important at the present moment, because I may say, in answer to him and in

answer to the hon. Member behind me | quiry, and as yet not one of those hon. (Mr. Thorold Rogers), it would be more Members had had an opportunity of convenient to wait until the House has speaking. The Question he rose to put disposed of the second reading before was, Whether it would not be possible considering any course which it may be for the Speaker and the Representatives the duty of the Government to propose of the different Parties in the House to to expedite the progress of the Bill. make an informal ballot of the names of All I can say is that there is no recession the hon. Members who wished to adfrom the pledge I have given that no dress the House? If such an arrangeGovernment Business will be allowed to ment could be come to, it would greatly interfere with it, except Business of abso- contribute to the convenience of Memlute necessity. A matter of absolute ne- bers; and he wished to know if it would cessity would be the disposal of the Tax-be in accordance with the Rules of the ing Bill in Committee; but I have no House? reason to believe that that will occupy any great length of time. That is the only exception. I will be able to answer the questions after the Bill has been read a second time and the Bill has arrived at the stage of Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: I am always most anxious to promote the convenience of Members of this House; but the hon. Member is imposing a task upon me which is beyond my powers.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

[ocr errors]

COLONEL MAKINS asked whether, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman had just said, it was likely that the House would rise for Whitsuntide; and, if so, when it would rise, and for what | (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, Mr. Bright, Mr. length of time?

He

MR. GLADSTONE thought it was rather soon to ask that Question. would consider the matter.

MR. MACFARLANE asked if it would not facilitate the division on the second reading of the Bill on Monday if a Sitting took place on Saturday?

MR. ONSLOW asked the Prime Minister whether, if the Motion of the hon. Member for Carlisle were altered to omit the word "illegal," the Motion, as amended, would receive the support of Her Majesty's Government?

MR. GLADSTONE said, he should follow the wise example set by the Chair, and wait until the words of the Motion were before him before giving a reply. With regard to a Saturday Sitting, he looked upon the adoption of such a course as a very strong measure, and he would rather postpone raising that question for the present. He did not think it was a satisfactory method to follow, as it was very difficult to secure the attendance of Members.

MR. J. COWEN said, that, as far as he could learn, there were certainly 40 Members anxious to address the House on the Bill. There had been two Agricultural Commissions sitting on this Irish question, and several of the Members of those Commissions were Members of this House. They had visited Ireland, and engaged in an elaborate in

Mr. Gladstone

LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.-[BILL 135.]

Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor
General for Ireland.)

SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.

[blocks in formation]
« ForrigeFortsett »