Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

and I hope the House will not allow any important matter such as this may be to be introduced when the House itself has no opportunity of expressing an opinion thereon.

MR. HEALY: May I ask, Sir, is it not the fact that the hon. Member for Wareham (Mr. Montague Guest) moved the adjournment of the House yesterday on the question of Tunis, which was a much more important matter than that now under consideration? I would also ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Member for London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) is entitled persistently to interrupt the hon. Member, at the same time skilfully endeavouring to conceal the fact by putting his Notice Paper before his mouth?

MR. SPEAKER having made no reply,

made further arrests in the Queen's County, to go down there and inquire, not from the landlord side of the question, nor from the officials from whom he was getting information, but to hold an inquiry in public, where he could have the members of the Land League and their accusers face to face. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.

MR. MARUM, in seconding the Motion, wished to bear testimony to the fact that there was not a particle of evidence against the men who had been arrested to sustain the charge of intimidation. The case had come before him and his brother magistrates on appeal, and was investigated with the greatest care.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."(Mr. Lalor.)

MR. LALOR, resuming, denied that these three gentleman had ever committed MR. T. D. SULLIVAN wished to state a breach of the peace of the kind alleged his belief that the number of arrests against them. He challenged the right which had taken place in Ireland, aud hon. Gentleman to go down to that place the character of those arrests, were creatand hear the case, even from the police- ing not merely irritation, but exasperamen and magistrates from whom he was tion in that country. He wished to tell getting his instructions in this matter. the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. He challenged him to bring the matter Forster) that if he went on in this line of to trial, and he would find that he was action he and the Irish landlords would thoroughly deceived by the local autho-produce an insurrection in Ireland. rities in Maryborough. He believed the arrest of these men was intended by the right hon. Gentleman as a blow at the Land League; but the best weapon the right hon. Gentleman could make use of against the Land League would be the introduction of a good Land Bill, which the Bill at present before the House was not. ["Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to refer to the Land Bill, which is not now before the House.

MR. LALOR said, he did not intend to refer to it any further; but he would advise the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to be cautious. There were men in Ireland connected with the Land League who were anxiously waiting for the time when the present leaders should be removed. These men were not the friends of the landlords or the friends of the Government; but they were men who thought the present leaders were not sufficiently advanced, and who would be more likely to give trouble to the right hon. Gentleman than the men who now guided the movement. He would advise the right hon. Gentleman, before he

Question put.

The House divided:-Ayes 23; Noes 317: Majority 294.-(Div. List, No. 204.)

CENTRAL ASIA-THE PAPERS.

MR. NORTHCOTE asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he was aware on March 14th that the consideration of a Motion involving the whole question of Ministerial policy in Central Asia was fixed for the 24th of that month; if so, if he can explain the reason of the delay from March 14 to March 17 in requesting the assent of the Russian Government to the publication of the important papers contained in Parliamentary Paper (Central Asia, No. 3, 1881); if he can explain the delay between March 21st and 24th in communicating the Russian assent to such publication to the Under Secretary of State directly responsible to Parliament for the conduct of Foreign Affairs; and, if he can state to the House the reasons, if any, which precluded the communica

tion to Parliament of the intelligence conveyed in the last two Despatches of that Parliamentary Paper in time to place the House in possession of the information used by Her Majesty's Government in the discussion of the Motion relative to the retention of Candahar?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I gave very full information upon this subject yesterday to the House. My answer must be that there was no such delay as that with regard to which the hon. Member asks. I stated yesterday that the document reached the Foreign Office on the night of the 21st, and that it was seen and the immediate publication of the Paper ordered on the morning of the 22nd. It then, as I explained, had to start on its usual round before it came to me. When he asks me the reason which prevented communication to Parliament of the last two despatches, I must reply once more that no reason whatever prevented it, that every possible haste was shown, and that no haste would have produced the last despatch in time, as it was only written after the debate was over.

[blocks in formation]

PARLIAMENT - BUSINESS OF THE

HOUSE-THAMES RIVER BILL. MR. RITCHIE asked if it was the intention of the Government to press forward this Bill to-night, and why it was placed on the Paper every day, including those of private Members, which was a most inconvenient course?

MR. CHAMBERLAIN considered the course referred to an inconvenient one; but it had appeared to him necessary in the circumstances of the case. The Bill had first been introduced as a Private Bill, in the hope of saving the time of the House. In deference to opinions Mr. Northcote

expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, it subsequently was introduced as a public measure. The re-introduction of the Bill was, however, deferred for three weeks in consequence of the Notices of opposition of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton); but having managed to catch the hon. and learned Member napping, he at last succeeded in introducing the measure. The second reading might have been taken on Friday; but in deference to the wishes of hon. Members opposite he undertook not to begin the discussion after 12 30. The Bill was then put down for Monday, and Notices of opposition were at once given by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill, and the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence). There was, therefore, no other course for him to pursue than to put down the Bill in the Order Paper day after day. If the opposition to the House being called upon to give a verdict on the measure could be overcome, he would put the Bill down for an evening that would be convenient to those interested.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Under the circumstances stated by the President of the Board of Trade, I will agree to remove my block to the Bill.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881-ARRESTS UNDER THE ACT-THE CASE OF MR DILLON.

MR. J. COWEN said, he wished to ask the Speaker a Question respecting the privileges of an hon. Member of the House. The Speaker had ruled that Mr. Bradlaugh's expulsion-notwithstanding the Resolution that was arrived at on the 26th of April, declaring that he could not take an oath, and notwithstanding also the Resolution based on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) that he must be prevented entering the House-could be made a question of Privilege. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had raised the point, and it had been held that he had a right to do so. Now, Mr. Dillon was a duly qualified Member of the Legislature. He had committed no offence. He had not been put upon his trial; he had not been con

demned: he had simply been arrested on suspicion. He was apprehended, too, while on his way to take his seat in Parliament. What he wanted to know from the Speaker was, whether Mr. Dillon's case stood in the same category as Mr. Bradlaugh's, and could be treated as a question of Privilege? He knew the Speaker had ruled that the essence of Privilege consisted in its urgency; but he begged to remind him that immediately the fact of Mr. Dillon's arrest was made known to the House, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and other Irish Gentlemen started a discussion on the subject, and they only abandoned it when the Government gave an undertaking that there should be an opportunity for debating the whole question. That opportunity had not been afforded; and what he wished to know was, whether the matter could be recurred to in the way that Mr. Bradlaugh's case had been recurred to, and be brought up as a question of Privilege?

day, but I cannot wonder that this should have happened; and I would ask you for some expression of opinion as to whether it would not be a desirable step to take, with the view of preventing irregular debates from springing up, which it was natural should spring up in the absence of any means of bringing these very important matters before the House, for the Government to give once for all one day to the Irish Members, for the purpose of bringing up the whole question of the 100 or so arrests made under the Coercion Act?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for the City of Cork has put to me a Question in reference to my opinion upon a matter not now before the House. The hon. Member must be aware that it is not for the Chair to express an opinion except upon points of Order. With regard to the Question of Order put to me by the hon. Member for Newcastle, I have to say this-that Mr. Dillon, one of the Members for the county of Tipperary, has been committed to prison for some time under an Act of Parliament passed this Session, and I am asked whether any Motion on that matter would be treated as a question of Privilege? I have no hesitation in saying that any Motion bearing on Mr. Dillon's arrest, seeing that he has been for some time in prison, and that urgency does not apply, could not, according to the practice of the House, be treated as a question of Privilege. Any Motion brought forward on that matter must be brought forward in the ordinary way.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: With regard to this question of the arrest of Mr. Dillon, the Government has been guilty of a distinct breach of their own promises. On Notice being given by an hon. Member, calling attention to the arrest, the Government declined to give us any opportunity of bringing it forward. [Order"] I think I am speaking to the point raised by my hon. Friend -namely, that this remains a question of urgency to us because of the action of the Government, for when we brought the matter forward in an irregular manner the Government challenged us to bring it to the test of a Motion. Yet the very day after that distinct statement of the Government, when my hon. Friend asked for facilities, the Government took advantage of the Forms of the House again. Accordingly, if we have not been able to bring it forward as a matter of urgency, the responsi-curred last Session for having sat in the bility is on the Government, not us.

MR. PARNELL: I also wish to ask whether it would not be greatly for the convenience of the House that the Government should afford some opportunity to the Irish Members of discussing the question of the arrests made under the Coercion Act? I certainly regret very much that the question should have been raised in an irregular way, as it was yesterday, and again to

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS-MR.

BRADLAUGH.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR said, he would on Thursday next ask the Prime Minister, Whether, seeing that Acts of Parliament had been passed for the purpose of relieving two noble Lords from the penalty which they had in

House of Lords without having taken the usual Oath, it was the intention of the Government to propose a similar measure of relief in the case of Mr. Bradlaugh?

SIR WILFRID LAWSON wished to put a Question to the Speaker with reference to the proceedings of the House. He desired to know, Whether, acting on the precedent which had been set by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for

North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) in the case of Mr. Bradlaugh, it would be competent for any hon. Member to make a similar Motion for the purpose of ascertaining the orthodoxy of the theological views of Mr. Thomas Collins when he presented himself at the Table to take the Oath ?

MR. SPEAKER: The Question put to me is on a point of Order which has not arisen, and, therefore, I decline to answer it.

MOTIONS.

PARLIAMENT-BUSINESS OF THE

HOUSE-RESOLUTIONS.

:

"That the present Standing Orders be abrogated, altered, or amended, in so far as they may be inconsistent with the following New

Orders :

1. That Debate on a Bill shall be confined to the following stages: Second Reading; Committee; Consideration of Report; Third Reading.

2. In the course of any Debate it shall be competent for any Member, the consent of Mr. Speaker having been first had and obtained, to move that the Question shall be put forthwith, and the decision of the House shall be at once the affirmative, the Question before the House shall be put forthwith; if resolved in the negative, no similar Motion shall be allowed on the same Question before two hours have elapsed. Provided always that not less than 150 Members shall vote in the majority.

taken without further Debate; if resolved in

[blocks in formation]

upon

it.

MR. DILLWYN rose to move the that the House of Commons was befollowing Resolutions :coming incompetent for the work put should exist with regard to this Legis He regretted that feeling lative Chamber, in which he had spent the best part of his life. Various suggestions had been made with the object of affording the House some relief in the discharge of its duties. Among other proposals that had been made was one by which the Business was to be apportioned under certain heads and handed over to Special Committees; but that was an objectionable Course, in his opinion, because he thought that the Business of the country should be done by the Representatives of the nation, and not by mere Committees. He was satisfied that by Orders of the House, which had rea mere alteration in the old Standing mained unchanged for years, they would be able to get through their Business easily. The hindrances to satisfactory legislative progress arose, in his opinion, from three main causes-first of all, that they had too many unnecessary Forms in which they allowed questions brought before the House to be debated; second, useless and unnecessary discussion, due perhaps to the increased interest taken in Parliamentary proceedings by the constituencies, and Members being anxious to show that they were "somebody" in the House; and, third, and paramount of all, the abuse of the Rules instituted for the purpose of protecting the rights of private Members. Instead, however, of those Rules being used to enable the minority to protect their own rights, they had enabled the

3. If during any Debate a Motion be made for Adjournment, Mr. Speaker may decline to put the Question thereupon, if in his judgment the Motion is made for purposes of obstruction; or if he think fit to put such Question, he may put it from the Chair forthwith.

4. When a Motion is made for the Adjournment of a Debate, or of the House during any Debate, the Debate thereupon shall be strictly

confined to the matter of such Motion.

5. Mr. Speaker may call the attention of the House to continued irrevelance or tedious repetition on the part of a Member, and may direct the Member to discontinue his Speech.

6. On Motion made, the House may decide that any Bill shall be resumed in the ensuing Session of the same Parliament at the same stage at which it stands at the end of the current Session.

7. Any Member suspended from the service of the House, in accordance with the Order of February 28th, 1880, shall be suspended from

Moving and Speaking for a week at the first offence, and for the remainder of the Session at the second, but shall retain the power of voting.

Sir Wilfrid Lawson

minority to prevent the majority carrying out measures which they deemed to be necessary, and, in fact, to wage war with the country through the Forms of the House. He admitted that he had on occasions taken part in obstructive tactics; but that was at the end and not at the beginning of the Session, because, in his opinion, that which was Obstruction at the beginning and at the middle of a Session sometimes became a duty at its end, when Bills could not be properly considered. Tracing the recent development of Obstruction, he referred to the "All-night" Sitting in 1877 over that very important question, the Confederation of South Africa-a measure which his hon. Friends the present Under Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Courtney), the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), did their best in assisting the Irish to obstruct. If they had succeeded in throwing out that Bill, he believed that many of the evils which had since arisen in South Africa would have been prevented. He and they, however, did not then carry Obstruction to the extent of going on with it all night; and he believed that the angry feeling engendered by the obstruction of certain Members who persevered in it prevented the fair consideration being given to the objections urged against that measure which they would otherwise have received. The course of procedure which was adopted in that Session resulted in the appointment of a Committee to reconsider the Rules which regulated the procedure of the House. This Committee made several suggestions, some of which were adopted; but they had not proved sufficient to restore perfect order to the debates in that House. Notwithstanding the fact that the House in the present Session had been sitting since early in the month of January, hardly anything had been done in the interest of the country; indeed, no measures had been passed except such as were, speaking in general terms, thoroughly and heartily disliked. The Government had proposed certain measures in reference to the state of Ireland, and he had great faith in the wisdom of the Government; but he saw little chance of their measures passing at an early period as long as the present method of conduct

ing the Business of the House was maintained. For the reasons which he had stated he asked the House to pass a series of Resolutions, the first of which would have the effect of limiting the occasions on which any measure could be discussed and, if any hon. Member thought fit, obstructed by the methods with which the House had become acquainted. The second Resolution was an important one. If passed, it would enable any hon. Member, with the assent of the Speaker, to move that the question should be forthwith put and the decision of the House be forthwith taken; and it provided that, if resolved in the affirmative, the question should be then put, provided that not less than 150 Members should vote in the majority. He put the number at 150 with a view to prevent a small majority at the end of the Session, when the House was weary and few Members were in town, being possessed of undue power. The requirement, however, that 150 at least should vote in the majority would, he thought, secure a sufficient expression of opinion to justify the carrying out of the Rule. The next three Resolutions had already been in operation. They had been framed by Mr. Speaker as Urgency" Rules, and he thought they might well be incorporated with the Standing Orders of the House. The sixth Resolution might be regarded as an innovation; but he thought its adoption would lead to a practical and important improvement in their procedure. His principal object in framing that Resolution was to enable Bills to be passed which never could be carried in any other way, at least as perfect measures-he alluded to Bills relating to Law Reform, to Merchant Shipping, and such like. Measures such as these were either dropped altogether, or were hurried through the House at the end of the Session without much consideration. The House would, he thought, agree with him that it would be far better that such measures should receive full and free discussion before they were passed, and that could not be secured without some such provision as he suggested in his Resolution. It would, he was sure, lead to better legislation than they were able to secure under the present system. The seventh Resolution provided that a Member suspended from the service of the House should be suspended from

[ocr errors]
« ForrigeFortsett »