COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 7 August 1879)

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that as this was the first Bill for Saturday he would like to know what other measures it was proposed to take then? With regard to Ways and Means, he had heard that it was not the intention of the Government to take the usual step of introducing the Resolution on which the Appropriation Bill was founded that night. The Government, by omitting to introduce the Resolution that night, would lengthen the Session by one day or longer. If the Resolution had been introduced that night into the House they might have risen by Friday.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
remarked, that there were a great many measures, not only of importance, but of necessity—money Bills, and so forth. What they proposed to take as the First Order of the Day on Saturday was the Public Works Loan 484 Bill. What other Bills were put down would depend very much upon the position of Business. He might say that they did not intend to take a lengthened Sitting for Saturday; but that it would be much the same as the previous week.

§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID
asked if the Government only intended sitting till 6 o'clock? They would have a lengthened Sitting on Friday, as well as that night, and he thought there ought to be some understanding as to the time at which they should rise on Saturday.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
remarked, that if his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea proposed to divide the House upon the question he should vote with him. He objected to the Public Works Loans Bill being put down as the First Order for Saturday, as it was clear that the Government might very properly have taken the Bill one day earlier. He was very desirous of taking a Division upon the question as a protest against the treatment which had been shown them by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was clear that the right hon. Gentleman took a Sitting on Saturday as a sort of penal measure, because he felt aggrieved at the proceedings of certain hon. Members. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown an exhibition of feeling of a very unusual character, for he seemed to be very much aggrieved by the action of the hon. Member for Burnley in reference to the Public Works Loans Bill. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had any right to feel aggrieved by the action of his hon. Friend, for that action was the same which had been taken, not only in the present Parliament, but in many previous Sessions. If it were right for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce the Bill after the substitution of words, it was also right for his hon. Friend to object to the Bill being thus brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And his hon. Friend was still more in the right, because the Bill was brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, if anyone did, ought to know the Orders and Rules of the House. If he understood the denial of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to mean that he was not aware of the 485 substitution of important clauses in the Bill, and he did not know that it involved the necessity of the Bill being brought in a second time, then it showed a want of knowledge on the part of the right hon. Gentleman which was not to be expected in one who had been 14 years in the House. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had any-right to feel aggrieved with the action that some of his hon. Friends had taken.

§ MR. RAIKES
wished to ask whether the hon. Member for Birmingham was in Order in referring to a debate which had taken place earlier?

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, that the Question was, that the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill be fixed for Saturday next. The observations of the hon. Member were irregular in so far as he referred to the Public Works Loans Bill, which was not then before the House.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
did not understand the ruling to be that he was out of Order; at the same time, he did not intend to carry on a line of argument which might be irregular any further. He would only observe that, in his opinion, the Government had taken Saturday's Sitting very much on personal grounds, and he did not think they had any right to take that course.