§ MR. CARBUTTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, "Whether it is true, as stated in the public press, that, having regard to the want of interest recently shown on private Members' nights, and to the necessity of carrying the programme mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, it is the intention of the Government to ask leave of the House to take Tuesdays and Fridays for Government purposes; and, if so, how soon it is proposed to make such request?
LORD HENRY LENNOXasked why the Government had not, in fulfilment of their pledge of April 10, fixed an early day for the discussion of the Navy Estimates?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that it was certainly the intention of the Government to provide an early day for this purpose; but he believed no pledge had been given. The Estimates might, as far as he could judge, be taken on the first Government night after the second reading of the Bill. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for the Monmouth District, he had no doubt it sprang from anxiety to promote Public Business; but it must be borne in mind that it was not more than six or seven weeks since the House had commenced the transaction of Business, reckoning from the time when the debate on the Address terminated; and the Government did not think the time had yet arrived when they could ask the House to resort to the practice of taking Tuesdays and Fridays for their Business.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that it was very desirable to make arrangements for the resumption of the Transvaal debate; and, with the object of enabling the House to form a clear idea of the course that would be taken as to the several Amendments, he would ask his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham whether he would be prepared to withdraw his Motion if 632 a day were fixed for the renewal of the discussion?
MR. GORSTsaid, that, in the event of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) being withdrawn, he thought he should be able to adduce reasons which would induce the House to allow him to withdraw his Motion, on the understanding that the Resolution of which Notice had been given by the Prime Minister should be proceeded with. In the absence, however, of any understanding of that kind, he thought he would not be justified in adopting a course that would deprive the House of the opportunity of expressing its opinion as to recent events in the Transvaal.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEgave Notice that he would to-morrow ask the Prime Minister, Whether, in the event of the withdrawal of the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, he would be prepared to submit to the House as a substantive Motion the substance of the words which now stood in his name on the Notice Paper?
MR. GLADSTONEI will answer the Question at once. My Amendment was given Notice of as an Amendment to the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). I have a difficulty in undertaking any course which would imply that time is to be found for two separate debates on this subject. I am afraid I could not undertake that. I believe the House has very largely discussed the question of Bechuanaland, and, certainly, I cannot object to the desire of the hon. and learned Member to take the judgment of the House upon it. That could be taken in case the House did not adopt the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman, and then the judgment of the House could be taken on the words of my Amendment, in immediate prosecution of any division on the Motion of the right hon. Baronet. If the House agrees to take a division on the Bechuanaland question, then I can pledge myself to find an early day—I hope before Whitsuntide—for the discussion of the Transvaal Convention.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked if they were to understand that the Prime Minister did not abandon his intention to move the Resolution on the Paper?
MR. GLADSTONENo. I am perfectly willing to abide by it; but I am not prepared to give Government time for the prosecution of two distinct debates on the Transvaal.