and consequential, and that it did involve | and provocation; but no one could read larger changes in principle than the the statement of the Prime Minister at right hon. Gentleman admitted. When the commencement of the session witha dispute of this kind arose between a out seeing that the introduction of this Minister and the House as to whether measure was a most unexpected departure the House had previously pledged itself from the programme then announced. in the debates in a way that rendered The Prime Minister, after stating that it unnecessary to discuss a particular programme which, of course, included measure, the House alone should be the the Education Bill, and the London judge, and at present it was too thin Water Bill, said, "There are a few other for them to expect an opinion as to measures on the Order Paper which I whether this measure was a consequential think are uncontroversial. With regard part of the larger scheme of which it to these I shall certainly not think of had already approved. When the Bill asking the House to make any excepwas brought forward earlier in the year tional exertions, but, if there is a general at least two Members on the Govern- desire that they should pass, I think ment side of the House had expressed they ought to pass into law. He did the strongest objection to the Bill being not think it was consistent with that pressed. If objection to the Bill existed, statement that this measure, which it was not confined to one side of the was clearly regarded as controversial, House, and that entitled them to say should be pressed. He therefore supthat the right hon. Gentleman ought to ported, and asked the House to support, pause before proceeding with it, on the the Motion of his hon. friend that the assumption that it was one which did debate be adjourned. not need much discussion. The Bill involved some large changes in principle. SIR EDWARD GREY said that was his very point. The right hon. Gentle man said the House had already approved of the large changes which were covered by the Bill. The question of difference between hon. Members and the right hon. Gentleman was whether a full House in giving its general approval to his scheme was contemplating then a measure of this kind as an integral part of it. He held that they could not go on with this Bill without discussing the large changes of principle which were involved, even though those changes were small in practice. They did not know but that this was part of a much larger scheme. What he asked the Prime Minister was thisWas it fair to the House of Commons to press this measure forward after the statement he had made at the commencement of the session. Of course "breach of faith" was a strong term, and should never be used except in circumstances of extreme exasperation MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No notice has been given to me that objection was going to be taken against proceeding with this Bill, on the ground that it was inconsistent with what I had said on a previous occasion. I am the more surprised that this argument should be sprung on the House, because it was perfectly understood that in making arrangements yesterday to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to the Water Bill, I especially begged that it should be understood that no objection should be raised to the Bill of my right hon. friend without notice. SIR EDWARD GREY: I beg pardon; I was not present myself, but I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, did enter a caveat. MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am in the recollection of the House as to the general accuracy of what I have stated. But the right hon. Gentleman will see that that has nothing whatever to do with my speech at the beginning of the Autumn Sittings. I gather that it is on that speech that the right hon. Gentleman who has sprung this Motion on the House relies. I had not had time to read all the debates on the 16th of October. Only scheme of Army Corps and Yeomanry, it was very strongly opposed in many parts of the House. He begged to support the Motion of his right hon. friend for the adjournment of the debate. MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis) said he was surprised to hear the right hon. Baronet read the passage from the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury so as to suggest that there was a breach of faith. He remembered that speech, and had himself intended to quote the passage which the Prime Minister had read from his speech-and it was an extraordinary and rare instance of the accuracy of the Hansard report that it was proposed to introduce a one-Clause Bill. one of my speeches has been quoted. | because it came on at nine o'clock, when After making it, I was reminded, im- few Members were in the House. But, mediately after I sat down, that I had on the general discussion of the whole omitted to mention the Militia and Yeomanry Bill, and I took care to remedy that omission when I came to reply on the afternoon's debate. It is reported in Hansard, which seems to be very accurate, that I said, "The only general pledge I give to the House is that it will not be asked to discuss general legislative questions which, however interesting or important, can be deferred to a subsequent session. I believe in that connection I ought to mention in the first place a oneClause Bill which my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War will introduce and explain in good time, and which he tells me ought to be passed without any undue delay." I am quite sure that everybody who heard me me make that statement will recognise that part of the programme for the Autumn Sittings was the Bill of my right hon. friend. I hope, therefore, that that particular argument adopt the term "breach of faith." will not be used beyond the point to which it can be reasonably carried, seeing that we have always regarded the passage of this Bill as eminently desirable, and have stated this on the first day of the session. I venture respectfully to suggest to the House that, at all events, the explanation of the Bill by my right hon. friend should be heard, and that he should be allowed to state his reasons for thinking that this is the proper time for passing the Bill. It will then be admitted, I think, that it is not with the view of obtaining any Party credit for the Government, but in the public interest. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not press his Amendment, but will give my right hon. friend a chance of stating his case to the House of Commons. MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staf fordshire, Lichfield) said that the House would have listened with great interest to the Secretary of State for War if he had made a statement when the Bill was introduced. The difficulty was that there were important points in the Bill which many Members, who did not expect it to be proceeded with, would wish to discuss. The Secretary of State for War made the point that the Militia Vote had not been discussed this year. That was quite true, Mr. A. J. Balfour. SIR EDWARD GREY said he did not MR. GIBSON BOWLES said he did 66 one not say so, but that the right hon. regards their application to men in the reserve divisions, &c." This gave him a dispensing power over every enactment that referred to the subject matter. For a one-Clause Bill this was rather a tremendous measure, and it did not in the least answer to the expectation raised in his mind by the words used by the First Lord of the Treasury when he introduced it. He was merely dealing now with its character in point of weight and importance. It was a large thing to give to a Minister a dispensing power over any enactment whatever. The right hon. gentlethe First Lord had made the suggestion that before deciding whether the House should continue the discussion man on this measure, it should hear a larger description from the Secretary for War as to what it was intended to do. If that suggestion were accepted, he presumed it would be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion, on the understanding that it could be revived, if necessary, after the right hon. Gentle man's explanation. He should like to add that undoubtedly these sittings had been crowded with new measures and new proposals, which no one ever expected. They had had new Supply, another Appropriation Act, and tonight they were to have further Supply set up, or probably a third Appropriation Bill. That was not quite the way to treat special sittings-*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the Question before the House. MR. GIBSON BOWLES said he would merely repeat his suggestion, which seemed to be the most reasonable way of dealing with the matter-viz., that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Motion, and allow the Secretary for State to explain the measure. The Motion might then be revived. (3.35.) MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.) said he did not suggest that the Government had committed anything like a breach of faith in the matter. What were the facts? They were told at the beginning of the Autumn Sittings that the Government were not going to proceed with any large measures, except the Education Bill and the London Water Bill. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that there might be one or two small Bills, not of a controversial or very urgent nature; but at a later period, not leading the House to suppose that it was uppermost in his mind, the right hon. Gentleman interposed a remark in regard to this Bill, which had not then been introduced. It was described by the right hon. Gentleman as a one-Clause Bill; and they naturally supposed that it was some simple Departmental measure, which might require half-an hour or an hour to discuss, and which would not raise fore, he thought that, although there any serious difference of opinion. Therefaith, there was an understanding, or an was nothing in the nature of a breach of impression, created in the House, which Government now proposed to take. They was not consistent with the course that the did not expect that they should be called upon, after the two main measures had been disposed of, to discuss any question which would raise new issues, on which there was considerable difference of opinion, and which might have very important results. No one could say that the Bill was not an important one, or one which did not raise considerable opposition. As was observed by his right hon. friend, there were three hostile notices on the Paper, two of them by hon. Members opposite and, as the hon. Gentleman had just said, it gave dispensing power over certain legislation. That power was sometimes given, but many of them thought the present proposal was going rather further in that direction than Parliament, with due regard to its functions and principles, ought to go by releasing a Government Department from the ordinary provisions of the law, and entrusting to it practically legislative power. The right hon. Gentleman asked by the Bill to be what the Roman Emperor was-relieved from obligation to the law. Whatever confidence there might be in the right hon. Gentleman's Department--he would not discuss that now-was it right that any Department should be granted such wide powers without a far larger and fuller discussion than was now likely ? What was the position of the House? Hon. Members had been exhausted by long debates; the attendance was exceedingly thin; and many hon. Members, who had the knowledge and experience enabling them to take part in the discussion of the Bill, were not present; and could not have been present considering the notice that was given. The discussion, therefore, under such conditions, must be cf a perfunctory character; and it was not right that the large matters to which the Bill led should be proceeded with at this period of the Session. It had been suggested, as he understood, by the right hon. Gentleman that what was chiefly desirable was that the purport of the Bill should be explained. If that were the main thing desired, he did not suppose that there would be any objection to allowing the Secretary of State to make a statement; and he presumed, under the circumstances, that his right hon. friend would be willing to withdraw his Amendment. But that could only be on the condition that if the statement of the Secretary of State removed the objections which were felt to the Bill, if it put the Bill on a new footing and made it appear to be no longer controversial, then the House might consent to go on with it; but that if objections were still entertained to it, if any considerable section of the House still felt it was too large a measure to be proceeded with at such short notice, the Government should consent to the debate being adjourned and to the Bill going over until next session. It was only on some such terms that they could consent to allow a statement to be made. But if the Government seriously proposed, in spite of the difficulties which had been stated in a manner that carried con viction to every dispassionate mind, to persist with the Bill, it would be necessary for them to enter a protest, which was conveyed in the Motion for the Adjournment, and to take the sense of the House as to whether the Bill should be proceeded with on such an untimely occasion. MR. BECKETT (Yorkshire, W.R., Whitby) said he would urge the Government to accept the Motion of the right hon Gentleman. He thought the Prime Minister was under a misapprehension. The Secretary of State for War stated, just before the Prime Minister entered the House, that he had already sufficiently explained the Bill. Further, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had explained it to such an extent that the House was already committed to it. Mr. Bryce. Either they knew what the Bill contained or they did not. If they did, then it was not necessary that they should abstain from pressing the Motion; if they did not know what the Bill contained, and that a longer statement from the Secretary of State for War was necessary, then it was obvious that they ought not, at that period, to be called upon to consider it. It was true that the Secretary of State for War made an explanation on the Estimates, but that was part and parcel of the whole scheme of Army Administration; they could not pick out the particular could not see how the House could be He part which referred to the Bill; and they naturally passed the Estimates as they were presented to them. But he said to have given consent to a Bill which, at the time, was not in existence. If the Government wished to press it, they could carry the Bill; but whether that would be wise or desirable, in the teeth of strong opposition from all quarters of the House, was another question. Minister on the ground that, as his right would, furthermore, appeal to the Prime hon. friend had said, the Bill was part and parcel of that larger scheme which was not yet in full operation. Before they discussed a Bill which introduced a great many serious changes they scheme in full operation; and on that ought to see the other parts of the ground he would ask his right hon. friend to consent to the Bill being post poned. a *COLONEL BLUNDELL (Lancashire, Ince) said he would most respectfully urge on the House that the Bill was an urgent Bill. What they wanted especi ally was a reserve for the Militia. Any hon. Member who had studied the Army at all would agree that the Militia was the stand-by of the nation. He had seen that at the Crimea. It was very important that they should have reserve of Yeomanry; but he disagreed very much with the proposal that the Yeomanry should be called to pass from regiment to regiment, except in time of war. There were at present in the country a number of men returned from the War who found it difficult to get work. Each of them would know where they could get a little extra money by joining the reserve of Militia or Yeomanry if the Bill were passed; and he was satisfied that great injury would be inflicted if the measure were not proceeded with. hoped this Motion would be defeated, and that the Government would press forward this Bill. It was impossible to obtain a Militia reserve without this Bill, and it was only right that the Bill should be passed in order to enable that reserve to be created without delay. MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight) said the hon. Member who had just sat down contended that all army reformers ought to support this small Bill, because they ought in the interest of army reform to support all such small Bills as this whenever the House had time to pass them. The contention of his hon. friend opposite was that the Bill was a retrograde step. *MR. SPEAKER said the question whether this was a good or a bad measure was not before the House. The question was whether the debate should be adjourned. *MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tunbridge) said he was very much astonished at the attitude which had been taken up by many hon. Members with reference to the measure, especially at the attitude of his hon. friend the Member for the Whitby Division. For a long time past hon. Members on both sides of the House had been calling out for Army reform; and he believed that there was no keener Army reformer than his hon. friend. Yet, on the present occasion, when his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War came forward with a very small but very necessary measure of Army reform, it was immediately met by a dilatory Motion from the other side, which was supported by his hon. friend. It seemed to him that, in Army reform they ought to take small measures, such as that before the House, and press them through when they had time at their disposal. For his part, he could not understand what the objections to the Bill were. They had been told that under sub-Section 2 very large powers would be given to the Secretary of State in connection with the Yeomanry; but these were the very powers which had been in force since 1882 in connection with the Militia, and he had never heard that any badresult had followed from the exercise of them. Why, therefore, should they not be entrusted to his right hon. friend in connection with the Yeomanry? Then, as to that part of the Bill in which he was more immediately concerned, the powers given to the Secretary of State in connection with the Militia, he, speaking as a Militiaman, would submit to the House that the reserve of Militia promised by the Secretary of State would be far better than the old Militia reserve. It seemed to him most extraordinary that when his right hon. friend the Secretary of State asked the House to pass this small Act to carry out the purpose which he had fully explained both this year and last, for which the House had already voted the money, and which would give the country a real reserve of Militia, that he should be met with a dilatory Motion of MR. BRODRICK: I cannot on the this kind. Speaking as a Militiaman, he Motion for Adjournment. MAJOR SEELY apologised for having trespassed beyond the subject before the House. He should support the Motion for the Adjournment because he believed, quite apart from the Bill being a retrograde measure in itself, it was as contentious a Bill as could well be. The people acquainted with it were almost unanimously opposed to it, and although no one would accuse the Government of a breach of faith in the matter, the House contended that the Government had made a mistake in saying that the Bill was non-controversial, when, as a matter of fact, directly it was put into words it was highly contentious. He strongly urged the House to support the Motion for the Adjournment. *LORD CHARLES BERESFORD (Woolwich) thought the House was in a rather curious position. As he understood, the right hon. Gentleman had been asked by his right hon. friend the Prime Minister and others to explain the Bill, and as he (Lord Charles Beresford) understood, if that explanation were made the Motion for the Adjournment would not be persisted in. Would the right hon. Gentleman explain the measure? |