Commons Sitting of 24 February 1888

QUESTIONS.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 — TRIAL OF REV. J. M'FADDEN, P.P.
  MR. BLANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he could state the cost of the Military and Constabulary on the occasion of the trial of the Rev. James M'Fadden, P.P., at Dunfanaghy, County Donegal, on 27th January?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The cost of the Military throughout the period they were employed on the duty referred to, including the expenses of the return journey to barracks, was £615 9s., and of the Constabulary £480 14 s. 2d.
  MR. BLANE: What was the daily cost?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: This extended over a period of about three weeks.

  POST OFFICE AND INLAND REVENUE —STAMPS FOR CHEQUES, & c.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEasked the Postmaster General, Whether he can give any Estimate for the year ending 31st March, 1887, or that ending 31st
  1354
  March, 1888, of the value of the Post Office stamps which are used as Inland Revenue stamps for cheques, receipts, agreements, & c.; and, if he can, whether he will lay the Estimate upon the Table; and, if he cannot, in what way he can satisfy the House that the Post Office produces a large annual surplus, or any surplus at all?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The value of the postage stamps used as Inland Revenue stamps for receipts, agreements, & c, during the year ending the 31st of March, 1887, was estimated at £488,120. This amount was paid by the Post Office to the Inland Revenue Department, and is not included in any published statement of Post Office Revenue The stamps sold for Post Office purposes during the year ending the 31st of March, 1887, amounted to £10,213,000.

  PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE—USE OF INK IN TRANSCRIBING.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is true that literary men engaged in the Public Record Office have been prevented from using ink in transcribing, on the ground that the public have damaged the records; whether he is aware of any actual case of such damage; whether the Master of the Rolls last year received an influentially signed Petition on the subject; and, whether any decision has been arrived at on such Petition?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): It is true that all persons using the public search rooms in the Public Record Office, either as taking extracts from or making notes of, or transcribing, the public records, are by Rules forbidden to use ink. Indelible pencils are now directed to be supplied to every person using those rooms, to be used by them instead of pens and ink. The Master of the Rolls has, after careful consideration, resolved to adhere to those Rules; because he has himself seen many valuable ancient rolls which have been injured by ink, and has, after inquiry, come to the conclusion that serious injury has been caused by accident, or want of care, while the rolls were being used in the public search rooms—the Master of the Rolls has no means of ascertaining by

  1355
  whom. Anxious as he is to afford every safe facility to the frequenters of the public search rooms, the Master of the Rolls, after carefully considering the safety of the records on the one side, and inconvenience to the public on the other, and after having personally visited the rooms and conversed with various frequenters of them, has thought himself bound to adhere to the Rules; he has received a Petition, signed by 64 persons, advocating a return to the use of ink; and a Petition, signed by 84 persons, in favour of continuing the existing Rule.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—CORK DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUM — APPOINTMENT OF REV. MR. KERR.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that the authorities in Dublin Castle have refused to sanction the appointment of the Rev. Mr. Kerr as Presbyterian chaplain to the Cork District Lunatic Asylum; and, what reasons have been given for the alleged decision?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council made an Order on the 1st of February authorizing the appointment of a Presbyterian chaplain to Cork Asylum. They have not refused to sanction the appointment thereto of the rev. gentleman named.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—MACROOM UNION—PROTESTANT INMATES.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What were the number of Protestant inmates of the Macroom Union in the past 12 months; and, whether it is true that the Protestant chaplain receives £10 per annum for ministering to the religious wants of one poor old woman?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: There were now two Protestant inmates of the Macroom Union, and that number has not been exceeded during last year. The salary of the Protestant chaplain is £10; and the duties of the chaplain are not confined
  1356
  to the workhouse, but he has to visit any Protestant patients who may be temporarily admitted into the workhouse hospital.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask, as there are only two Protestant persons in the Macroom Union, how there can be any extra attention to any other Protestant persons?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: There are only two persons on the regular number of inmates in the Union; but it may be possible that persons may be brought into the workhouse hospital as temporary inmates.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COM MISSION (COUNTY DONEGAL)— UNION OF STRANORLAR.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state when the Sub-Commission for County Donegal will hear the fair rent applications entered from the Union of Stranorlar; and, whether he is aware that a large number of tenants residing in this Union had their originating notices served on the Land Commission before the gale day at November last, and, although entitled to the benefit of the reduced rent in respect of the half-year expiring on the gale day next previous to the passing of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887," they will be obliged to pay the old rent up to the date of the decision of the Commissioners?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners have promised to supply me with a detailed answer to-morrow.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1885—ARREARS OF INSTALMENTS OF THE PURCHASE MONEY.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What was the sum of arrears of instalments of purchase money under "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885," on the 31st January, 1888?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The total amount of instalments due up to the 31st of January last was £50,910. Of this

  1357
  amount £2,702 was uncollected on that day; but £417 has since been collected, and the balance is in course of collection. The arrears on account of gales due before the gale day in November last are under £70.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—RETURNS OF THE JUDICIAL RENTS.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Returns of Judicial Rents decreed since August, 1887, will be distributed?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Returns in question were laid on the Table the day before yesterday.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—TREES IN ST. JAMES'S PARK.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been called to the condition of the trees in and round St. James's Park; what steps he proposes to take with reference to them; and, whether he intends to remove those which are dying or have lost their leader, and replace them by younger and healthier trees?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): It is, unfortunately, true that some of the trees about Birdcage Walk and the Mall are not in a healthy condition. As we see occasion we remove those which seem to be dying, and replace them by younger and more vigorous ones. But the soil is not very favourable, and the trees when originally planted were not skilfully treated.
  In reply to Dr. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.) as to the cutting down of trees on Constitution Hill in 1880,
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he could not answer it, as he was not an ædile at that time.

  COLONIZATION—COLONIAL CONFERENCE.
  MR. RANKINasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have taken into their consideration the question of holding another Colonial Conference, for the
  1358
  purpose of discussing matters of Imperial interest, and especially the question of Colonization; and, if not, whether they will do so at as early a date as convenient?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that to hold another Colonial Conference at an early date would put the Colonies to very great inconvenience, which could only be justified by the necessity of discussing urgent questions not capable of being otherwise dealt with. Colonization, though a subject of great importance, is one which can be conveniently dealt with by correspondence; and, therefore, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that a Conference should be summoned for the purpose of discussing this question.

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS ACT, 1875— AMENDMENT—EMIGRATION.
  MR. RANKINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends to introduce the Bill, promised last Session, to amend the Industrial Schools Act of 1875, so as to give greater facilities to the managers of Industrial Schools for emigrating those children whose cases appear to be suitable for emigration?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; I intend to introduce a Bill to consolidate and amend the Industrial Schools Acts, and have now under consideration the provisions of that Bill. I am not prepared to state what those provisions will be until the Bill is presented to the House.

  ARMS (IRELAND) ACT—REFUSAL OF GUN LICENCE—MR. W. COTTER.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. William Cotter, who resides at Breenymore, near Bantry, County Cork, has been refused by Mr. Warburton, R.M., for a licence to keep and carry a gun on his farm, though recommended by a local magistrate; whether he is aware that Mr. Cotter holds a farm of 170 acres, and requires a gun to protect his crops from vermin; and, on what ground Mr. Cotter was refused a licence?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Resident Magistrate has been absent from the district on duty, and I have not been able to get materials of a detailed answer to the Question. I hope to be able to answer the Question in a day or two.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE SORTING OFFICE, DUBLIN.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Postmaster General, Why the Rule of the Service was not carried out in the recent promotions in the Sorting Office, Dublin, when a second class sorter was promoted to the first class over 28 seniors, some of whom are at the maximum of their class for years?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The Question implies that on the occasion to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers the Rule of the Service was departed from; but such was not the case. I think the House will agree that I am always extremely reluctant to supersede seniors by their juniors in cases of promotion unless there is good reason for so doing. I was assured, on this occasion, that not one of the second class officers senior to the one promoted was fully qualified to perform the different duties which had to be provided for.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The expression "was not fully qualified" has, doubtless, reference to the suitability of such persons; but do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that out of the large number of persons of the same rank not one of those persons was so qualified?
  MR. RAIKES: That was declared to be the ease.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: How was the qualification to be tested?
  MR. RAIKES: The superior officers have always to make a Report to the Postmaster General with a view to these promotions; and, of course, in so large a Service it is impossible for the Postmaster General to be personally acquainted with the particular qualification of every clerk. He must be guided in a great measure, almost entirely, by the advice of those who are responsible to Mm. But I am always ready to investigate any of these Questions if there appears to be reason to do so.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—THE MAGISTRACY—REFUSAL OF BAIL.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether Irish Resident Magistrates have power to refuse bail, as they have done to the hon. Members for West Water-ford and West Cork; would an indictment lie against Justices for refusing bail in the case of prisoners entitled under section 16, sub-section 2, of the Petty Sessions Act, as of right to bail; and, is it the law, under the sub-section quoted, that any ordinary Justice of the Peace of the county may attend the gaol and take bail for prisoners awaiting trial, except in cases of the serious offences therein specified?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): In the cases referred to by the hon. and learned Member, the granting or refusing of bail was in the discretion of the magistrates, and this was recognized by the Court of Queen's Bench in the case of the application to that Court of the hon. Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly). The Court, while admitting the hon. Member to bail, stated that the magistrates had a discretion in the matter, and that they had exercised it rightly. The section of the Petty Sessions Act referred to in the Question deals with the case of committal to trial for an indictable offence, and has no reference to remand or adjournment before committal or sentence, in which cases bail is discretionary with the magistrates. The legal questions contained in the second and third paragraph do not arise in relation to the particular cases referred to; but, in reply to the hon. and learned Member, I may say that a Justice illegally refusing to accept bail in the case of a prisoner entitled to bail does not commit a misdemeanour if he acts under a bonâfide mistake of the law. The law is as suggested in the third paragraph of the Question in the case of persons committed to trial for indictable offences; but not in the case of prisoners committed to gaol under remand.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether these cases were not indictable offences capable of being tried by juries, but which, instead of being tried by juries, are

  1361
  tried by Resident Magistrates; and, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that bail up to £5,000 was offered and refused in the hon. Member's (Mr. Pyne's) case, and that the same magistrates who refused bail afterwards dismissed the charge as unsustainable?
  MR. MADDEN: Even if the case came within the category of indictable offences, and came under the section referred to, in cases of remand bail is always discretionary. I know nothing as to the amount of bail tendered.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND) — MR. CECIL ROCHE, R.M.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Has his attention been called to the fact that, on charges where Resident Magistrates have no special jurisdiction (such as the preliminary hearings at Tralee into the murder of Quirke), the police are bringing prisoners solely before Resident Magistrates; did the Quirke investigation at Tralee begin in Potty Sessions; if so, has he any information to show why all the unpaid County Justices were absent; has his attention been called to the statement of Mr. Cecil Roche, R.M., at Tralee, to the unpaid Justices sitting in Court there, that he would direct the notice of the Lord Chancellor to their conduct, in refusing to give priority to the hearing of cases under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; on what principle was this demand made for the postponement of the ordinary Court business; has Mr. Roche, R.M., made any representation in the matter, or will any notice be taken by the Government of the language reported to have been used by Mr. Roche; how long has Mr. Roche been himself a Resident Magistrate; can he state the circumstances under which Mr. Roche went to Tralee Gaol and obtained from a prisoner the statement to which he deposed in the Quirke case; had Mr. Roche previously sat in this case as one of the Resident Magistrates before whom the prisoners wore originally brought; did he adjudicate thereon, refusing remands, & c.; if so, how does it occur that Mr. M'Dermott, R.M., now sits alone in the case; is there any precedent for an adjudicating magistrate becoming a witness before a
  1362
  Court of which he is a member, as to matters occurring between remands; how many different Resident Magistrates have dealt with this case since the crime was committed; and, in what way, and by whom, is it decided that cases cognizable either by Resident Magistrates or Justices of the Peace, such as an assault on a policeman, are to be tried by Resident Magistrates to the exclusion of the unpaid Justices?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): I cannot find that there is any ground for the allegation contained in the first paragraph of this Question. With reference to the Quirke case, it appears that Mr. Roche, having held a magisterial investigation, and having satisfied himself that the case was one for further inquiry as against the accused, remanded them to Petty Sessions, whore the case was heard in the usual way. It was open to the unpaid magistrates to attend, and I am unable to say why they did not do so. As to the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs of the Question, Mr. Roche never had any controversy whatever with the local magistrates at Tralee as to the priority of cases under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; but a question of the kind did arise at Rathmore. If this be the matter referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I shall be happy to make inquiries if he repeats this portion of his Question. Mr. Roche was appointed on the 23rd of October, 1886. With reference to paragraphs 7 to 11, I have to state that it was at the urgent request of the prisoner, conveyed to him through the Governor of Tralee Gaol, that Mr. Roche visited him and obtained from him the statement that had appeared. Mr. Roche had previously heard some of the evidence; but after his interview with the prisoner he took no further part in the case, except to take the prisoner's depositions. Three magistrates acted in the case. The Attorney General for Ireland decides before what tribunal important cases should be tried; and in less important cases the directions are given by the Divisional Magistrates.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Who gave the direction in the case of the Mayor of Cork?
  MR. MADDEN: The prosecution in that case was directed by the Attorney General for Ireland.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— "BLUNT v, BYRNE"—PRISON CLOTHING.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on coming to Dublin for his recent trial, permission to wear his own clothes while attending Court was (unasked) offered to Mr. Wilfrid Blunt; by whose instructions, and on whose authority, this offer was made; why a similar permission (though asked for) was refused to the hon. Member for South Galway (Mr. Sheehy) when brought up as a witness on Mr. Blunt's trial at Portumna; and, whether it is true, as stated in the Press, that the hon. Member was driven sis miles between Birr and Portumna (a distance of 12 miles) bareheaded, on an open car, during inclement weather?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The General Prisons Board inform me that, at the instance of the Attorney General for Ireland, they accorded to Mr. Blunt the privilege of wearing his own clothes; but that he declined to avail himself of it, with the exception of wearing his private overcoat. The Governor of Clonmel Prison states that the hon. Member for South Galway (Mr. Sheehy) did make application to him for permission to wear his own clothes on the occasion referred to; but that he did not consider that he had authority to sanction it, and accordingly refused the request. The Governor, however, permitted him to wear his private overcoat. The allegation referred to in the last paragraph is not true. The hon. Member was driven each time in a covered carriage. He was also provided with a cap.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say why the Attorney General for Ireland interfered in one case and did not interfere in the other?
  COLONEL KING-HAEMAN: I cannot say.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether it is the invariable
  1364
  practice in England to bring up prisoners who are witnesses in cases in their own private clothes?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: That Question should be put to an English Minister.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Arising out of the answer of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, would the Chief Secretary for Ireland be able to tell us whether the Governor of Tralee Gaol in my case applied for permission to send me in my own clothes down to the Court House; and whether an answer did not come back that if I resisted going in the prison clothes I was to be bound hand and foot and forcibly taken down?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will give me Notice of that Question I will answer him.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that in this country, and in London especially, prisoners undergoing their sentences, and brought up as witnesses at trials, are invariably brought up in their own private clothes?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am not able to answer the Question with precision; but I do not think the practice is invariable.
  DR. TANNER: Are we to understand that the hon. Member for South Galway (Mr. Sheehy) was driven out with a cap; because I saw him carried by the police, and he was without a cap?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  POST OFFICE — MAIL CONTRACTS— SUBSIDIES TO STEAM COMPANIES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General, If it is approximately true that the Peninsular and Oriental Company receive a subsidy at the rate of 6s 8¾d. per mile for carrying the mails to India at the average rate of 12·50 knots per hour, and the Royal Mail Company a subsidy at the rate of 5s. 4½d. per mile for carrying the mails to the West Indies at the average rate of 11·87 knots, and the Peninsular and Oriental and Orient lines together a subsidy at the rate of 3s. 8d. a-mile for carrying the mails to Australia at the average rate of 11·3 knots per hour, whilst the Union and Castle

  1365
  lines are only paid at the rate of 1s. 8d. a-mile in the new contract, now practically concluded, for carrying the mails to the Cape at the average rate of 12½ knots; and what is the explanation of this great discrepancy; and, whether ocean postal rates could be very much reduced if all the mail services were paid at the same rate as the Gape Mail service?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The hon. Member's figures are approximately correct as regards the first three Services he mentions; but as regards the new Cape Mail Contract, which is stated to have been made by the Government of the Cape Colony, I have no official information. I really do not see how it would be possible to fix a standard scale of speed and price for all ocean mail contracts alike. The Post Office makes its contracts after open tender; and has no more power to prescribe universal rates for the carriage of mails to all parts of the world than merchants have to fix a universal tariff for the conveyance of goods. I think this must be obvious to the general intelligence of the House.

  POST OFFICE — AUSTRALIAN MAIL CONTRACTS — PRIVILEGES TO FOREIGN STEAMERS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General, during the discussion on the Mail Contracts to and from Australia, Was the attention of the Government called to the fact that the Messageries Maritimes (French) and North German Lloyd (German) Steamers have privileges allotted to them in the Adelaide, Melbourne, and Sydney Harbours not granted to the Peninsular and Oriental and Orient Companies; and, has any, or is it proposed to take any steps in the matter in order to remedy the anomaly?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The point referred to by the hon. Member was duly considered in making the new Australian Mail Contracts; and it has been arranged that the two British Steamship Companies carrying the mails shall be placed on equally favourable terms with the French and German Companies as regards the privileges conceded to them in Australian ports.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Will the Postmaster General state if any steps are being taken in regard to giving the same privileges to English mail steamers at Ceylon and other Crown Colonies as are given to foreign semi-Government vessels?
  MR. RAIKES: Yes; the matter is now engaging the attention of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Colonial Office.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—SALARIES— DELAY IN PAYMENT.
  MR. TUITEasked the Postmaster General, If it is a fact that Postmasters and letter receivers in Ireland were not paid the salaries due to them for money order business for the quarter commencing 1st September, 1887, until the 21st instant; and, if the Government intend to adopt any moans by which this great delay will be avoided, and which will insure the payment of their salaries when due to these hard-worked officials?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member's Question, I have to state that sub-Postmasters and letter receivers in Ireland, as well as in other portions of the United Kingdom, are paid for money order business by commission, and that the computation of the commission, applying, as it does, to a very large number of transactions at several thousand offices, necessarily occupies a good deal of time; but I will see whether the interval between the end of the quarter and the payment of the remuneration can be shortened in any way.

  ADMIRALTY — COASTGUARD STATION ON BERE ISLAND.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the preliminaries for the erection of a Coastguard Station on Bere Island have been completed; and, if so, when the building of the same will commence?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON), in reply, said, the negotiations which commenced some time back for the purpose of removing the Coastguard Station from Bere Island to a more convenient situation had not yet much advanced; and

  1367
  until the conditions which the Admiralty considered necessary were fulfilled he could not undertake that the building would be commenced.
  MR. GILHOOLYwas understood to ask, was the noble Lord aware that the delay arose owing to some objection on the part of the landlord to the granting of the proposed site for the new Coastguard Station?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONrepeated that the negotiations were proceeding.

  COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS, SESSION 1887.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Treasury Minute, by which the recommendations and decisions of the Committee of Public Accounts, Session 1887, are rendered operative, has been issued; and, if not, what is the reason of the delay; and, what is the ordinary date of issue?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The Treasury Minute dealing with the Report of the Public Accounts Committee of 1887 is dated the 23rd of January, 1888; the decisions contained in it have been communicated to the Departments concerned; and it will, according to custom, be laid before the Public Accounts Committee of this year at its first meeting. The last two Minutes bore the dates of the 3rd of November, 1885, and the 27th of December, 1886.

  ADMIRALTY — MR. F. W. SMITH, A LOWER DIVISION CLERK.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether Mr. F. Werter Smith, the paid Secretary of the Conservative Association and Secretary of Mr. Darling's Committee, is a Lower Division clerk in the Admiralty; and, whether the only difference between Mr. Werter Smith and Mr. C. H. Andrews is that the former is paid for his services to the Conservative Party, and the latter acts in an honorary capacity?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): Mr. Werter Smith is the Secretary of the Conservative Association in Deptford, and he is also a Lower Division clerk in the Admiralty. The second part of the
  1368
  hon. Gentleman's Question shows that he did not understand the answer which I gave on Tuesday last in reference to certain Dockyard Regulations laid down for the guidance of officials employed in those Departments. The object of the Rule which I then read out is not to prevent persons in the employ of the Government from voting or taking part in political contests. It is to restrain officials who are placed in positions of authority over employés in Government establishments from taking such a part in political elections as would enable them to politically influence those over whom they have official authority.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether the noble Lord would be prepared to proceed against such a Head of a Department who unduly used his political influence?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Undoubtedly. Any official connected with the Admiralty who infringes the Dockyard Regulations will be liable to punishment, quite irrespective of political Party.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in reference to the last answer, whether the same Rules obtained in all the Departments of the Public Service as obtained in the Admiralty?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I must have Notice of that Question. I can only say, from my general knowledge, that the same principle absolutely and impartially prevails in all Government Departments.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: In the Inland Revenue?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I believe so.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—WINCHESTER ELECTION.
  MR. MOSSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that, at the recent election for Winchester, the Conservatives were allowed to canvass the military at the barracks, while the Liberals were prevented doing so?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E STANHOPE): The officer commanding the troops at Winchester reports that the Service Rules regarding the admission of strangers to barracks were strictly

  1369
  carried out at the last election, and that no distinction was made between one political Party and another.
  MR. J. O'CONNORasked, whether it was not the case that when the orderly sergeant came to him with orders from the Commanding Officer not to canvass the soldiers, and he desisted from doing so, the Conservative Party had already canvassed every soldier in the barracks?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am aware that certain persons, both male and female, of both political Parties obtained entrance to the barracks, and began canvassing. The Commanding Officer thought that they were a great nuisance, and gave orders that they should be kept out without distinction.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman has said that certain persons, both male and female, were allowed—
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I did not say "allowed." I said certain persons "obtained" entrance.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the persons who obtained entrance represented the Tory Party; and that the prohibition to further entrance of strangers did not begin until that Party had completed their canvass?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir; I am not aware of it.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The officer commanding makes no inquiry with reference to political Parties; but excludes them indifferently.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE RIVER BARROW.
  MR. LEAHYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, That since it appears that the Government do not propose to make the free grant towards the cost of the drainage of the River Barrow more than about one-fifth part of the cost of the works recommended by the Royal Commission on Public Works in Ireland, how is it proposed that the balance is to be provided; and, what is the estimated sum per acre per annum which will be assessed upon the lands to be benefited?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN)1370
  (who replied) said: I do not think any public advantage will be gained by entering into preliminary statements of the estimated expenses of carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—KANTURK PETTY SESSIONS COURT.
  DR. TANNERasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If it is a fact that a young man named Patrick Hongan, within the past fortnight, applied for a summons to the Petty Sessions Clerk at Kanturk against Constable Egan of that town, and that the clerk refused to issue a summons without the directions of a magistrate; whether Hongan then applied to Mr. Crawford, J.P., who refused to grant a summons until Hongan went before the Petty Sessions Bench and formally there applied for same; whether Mr. Crawford, at Kanturk Petty Sessions, on Saturday last, the 18th instant, stated from the Bench that it was always the custom not to issue summonses against policemen without the sanction of the Bench; and, whether there is any legal foundation for such a custom?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): I have caused inquiries to be made; but I have not yet received a Report. I would, therefore, ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone his Question.

  STATE-AIDED EMIGRATION (IRELAND —CHARGES AGAINST MR. STONEY.
  MR. DEASYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Lord Chancellor has inquired into the charges against Mr. Stoney, who he stated in September last was guilty of gross dereliction of duty, or something more, in connection with the money entrusted to him in carrying out the Government emigration scheme; whether Mr. Stoney is still on the Commission of the Peace; and, what steps the Government are taking in the matter?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the charges against Mr. Stoney were fully inquired into by a Local Government Board Inspector, who found that the irregularities were attributable

  1371
  to a want of administrative foresight on the part of the committee. In one case, however, he attributed personal misconduct to Mr. Stoney for having permitted a girl to emigrate with a family to which she did not belong, contrary to a Rule of the Local Government Board. The Lord Chancellor then inquired fully into the case and all its circumstances, and has censured Mr. Stoney for having yielded to the girl's entreaties, thereby transgressing the Rules laid down by the Local Government Board, and also for not having taken sufficient steps to prevent the irregularities which had occurred. The Lord Chancellor saw no reason for removing Mr. Stoney from the Commission of the Peace; and the Government did not contemplate taking any further action in the matter.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he would like, as he now saw the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in his place, to refer him to the extraordinary language he used last year in reference to Mr. Stoney in the debate on the Estimates; and when his hon. Friend the Member for West Mayo was dealing with the question the right hon. Gentleman had said, interrupting his hon. Friend (Mr. Deasy)—
  "Perhaps it may shorten the hon. Gentleman's case if I say that the evidence he has quoted is admitted, and that it is not my intention to make any defence."
  And he continued—
  "I cannot pledge myself to go as far as the hon. Gentleman"
  —who wished to institute a criminal prosecution—
  "but I am quite ready to admit that Mr. Stoney has been guilty of grave dereliction of duty, and possibly, in some cases, of something more."—(3 Hansard, [320] 794.)
  He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he, when that gentleman had been guilty of gross dereliction of duty, and something more in some cases —namely, peculation of hundreds of pounds—transmitted to the Lord Chancellor, with the Report of the Inspector of the Local Government Board—
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It is not my function to convey anything whatever to the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: You promised to do it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman, in the last part of
  1372
  his Question, appears to have misquoted me—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: I quoted from Hansard.]—because in the last part of the Question he said that I had expressed a distinct opinion that the gentleman in question was guilty of peculation. I beg to say that I never accused him of peculation. I do not understand the quotations which he has read from Hansard, and which I have not had an opportunity of looking at.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that perhaps, as the matter was one of great importance to the persons concerned, the House would permit him to repeat the quotation for the right hon. Gentleman. [The hon. and learned Gentleman again read the quotations, pointing out that the right hon. Gentleman had twice interrupted the hon. Member for West Mayo in order to make the statement which he had read.] He asked the Chief Secretary, whether he expressed to the Lord Chancellor, as the Chief Law Administrator in Ireland, an opinion that Mr. Stoney was "guilty of grave dereliction of duty and something more;" and, whether he would state what "the something more" was?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I again say that it is not my duty to give my views as to Mr. Stoney to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor is perfectly capable of drawing his own deductions from the Report; and I maintain that the hon. and learned Gentleman will now see that it is so—that I never went the length of accusing the gentleman in the House of peculation. It has been already stated that the only charge sustained against Mr. Stoney was that he allowed a young woman to be emigrated as a member of a family to which she did not belong.
  MR. DEASYwished to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman, whether one of the charges which he admitted was brought against Mr. Stoney was that he used the public funds for the purpose of evicting his own tenants, and in order to get possession of their farms; and whether, under the circumstances, he considers Mr. Stoney a fit and proper person to hold the Commission of the Peace?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Give Notice of the Question.
  MR. DEASY: I beg to give Notice that I shall move a Resolution on the subject of Mr. Stoney upon the House

  1373
  going into Committee on the Supplementary Estimates.

  CHARITY COMMISSION—CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.
  MR. HOWELLasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether any steps are being taken to give effect to the Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into matters connected with the Royal Foundation of the Blue Coat School, presented more than 10 years ago, and which concluded with the unanimous recommendation that,
  "For a thorough reform in the management and discipline of Christ's Hospital, we think that its removal from London is indispensable;"
  whether it is true that the Charity Commissioners have satisfied themselves that the funds of the Charity are sufficient for the education of 1,300 boys, 900 girls, and 120 infants, in all 2,320 children, 1,320 of them as boarders, or more than double the number at present benefited; whether it is true that the opposition to the official scheme, issued two years ago, is, in a large measure, due to the action of the Aldermen of the City of London, and others, in respect of their "vested interests" in such Charity; and, whether he can state to the House when the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and of the Charity Commission, providing increased accommodation for more than 1,000 children, urgently needing such educational advantages as Christ's Hospital affords, will be carried into effect, so as to facilitate increased accommodation being provided at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, which is so sorely needed, and which has been so long delayed?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The scheme of the Charity Commissioners, involving the removal of Christ's Hospital from its present site, and largely extending, as the hon. Member correctly states, the benefits of the Institution, is now engaging the attention of the Department with a view to progress being made with it. The scheme can scarcely be said to be opposed on grounds so restricted in their character as the hon. Member seems to suppose; but I hope before long to be in a position to make a definite announcement in regard
  1374
  to it. The increased accommodation of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, though depending, no doubt, upon the removal of the School, does not come within the cognizance of the Department.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—5TH LAN CASHIRE ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in September last, the 5th Lancashire Artillery Volunteers applied for permission to raise a second battery at Blackpool, and a battery at Morecambe; and, whether, in view of the fact that further delay in enrolling recruits would probably involve the loss of the capitation allowance for this year, he can yet conveniently state whether the required permission will be granted?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Applications from Volunteer corps for increase of establishment can only be considered together when the Estimates are in preparation. Having in view the greater requirements of other districts under the general scheme for the defence of the country now being worked out, I am sorry to say that it will not be practicable at present to grant an augmentation to the 5th Lancashire Artillery Volunteers.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—BANTRY PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to The Cork Herald, in which appears a report of a case heard at Bantry Petty Sessions on Saturday, 18th instant, where four men were charged with attacking a dwelling house; whether Mr. Warburton, R.M., refused to allow evidence for the defence unless the defendants or their solicitor would pay, or guarantee to pay, for the depositions about being taken; whether it is customary to require this; and, by what authority such a demand was made?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): The case referred to was heard at Bantry Petty Sessions on Saturday. The Petty Sessions Clerks' Act requires that all depositions must bear a 1s. stamp; and the whole of the evidence tendered by the defence was received on

  1375
  the solicitor undertaking to pay the Stamp Duty. The course taken by the Bench was fully justified by the statute to which I have referred.

  POST OFFICE—DISMISSAL OF SAMUEL HAEVEY, A LETTER CARRIER.
  MR. LAWSONasked the Postmaster General, If his attention has been called to the case of Samuel Harvey, a letter carrier, who was dismissed from the Public (Service on the 14th of January, 1882, on the charge of having obtained admission to the Agricultural Hall on false pretences; and, whether he has considered the fresh evidence that has been brought forward; and, if so, what is his decision?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): My attention has been called to Harvey's case; and, after considering the additional statements which Harvey has put in, I can see nothing to impugn the justice of my Predecessor's decision.

  MALTA—CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have received the Report of the Royal Commission for arranging the electoral districts of Malta; and, whether they intend to present such Report when received to the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS), in reply, said, the Report had been received, and was included in the collection of Papers relating to the Constitution of Malta which were presented yesterday. The printing of these Papers vas nearly completed, and he hoped that they would be distributed in a very few days.

  CROFTERS' COMMISSION—HOLDINGS.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Government will request the Crofters' Commission to report on the causes which have led to the circumstance that no holdings have been enlarged under the provisions of the Act of 1886?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Yes, Sir.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 — TENANTS OF THE LORD LIEUTENANT.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the Lord Lieutenant, with a view to make a settlement with, or to sell their holdings at 20 years' purchase, to his County Down tenants, extended the time within which they could make applications to have fair rents fixed and be entitled to the reduction on the half-year's rent due at 1st November last, as provided by the 5th section of "The Land Law (Ireland Act, 1887;" whether he can state how many originating notices to fix fair rent were served on the Land Commission by the tenants of His Excellency between the 31st October last and the 1st February instant; whether notices were served on the tenants who had not made application to the Court, offering 20 per cent reduction on the old rents; and, whether, considering that there are upwards of 4,000 applications at present entered for hearing in the County of Down, and that one Sub-Commission could not dispose of all these cases for years, he will now consider the desirability of having a new Sub-Commission appointed for the County of Down?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, he had not had time to get the information sought by the hon. Member, and he would, therefore, request him to ask it again.

  ARMY CONTRACTS—SUPPLY OF LEATHER.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for War, When the Evidence and Report of the Committee, presided over by the Judge Advocate General, to inquire into the supply of Leather by Army contractors will be published; whether Messrs. Ross and Company, of Bermondsey, will be required to make good anything wanting in past supplies; whether the greater proportion of defective leather already supplied has been issued; what will be done with the hides remaining in store; whether it was at one time decided to rescind Messrs.

  1377
  Ross's contract; and whether that decision has been reversed, and why?
  MR. LAFONEasked, "Whether some of the experts called were not of opinion that the leather supplied was equal to the pattern; whether the contractors had proved that a large number of the hides rejected were sold in the trade at a price considerably above the contract price; and whether Messrs. Ross and Co. did not express themselves ready to do anything that the Department thought right when a complaint was made?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I am informed that the Report of the Judge Advocate General on the supply of leather to the Army, with the evidence, will be issued to-morrow. As regards hides, Messrs. Ross and Co., who have placed themselves in the matter entirely at the disposal of the Department, will be required to make good anything wanting in past supplies. All defective hides remaining in store have been returned to them, and they will replace them at their own cost. There are no standing contracts for hides, and, therefore, none to rescind. Hides are bought by competition as required. The greater part of the hides had been issued; but a large number have been returned from out stations, and will be treated in the same way as those in stock.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, Whether it was not the case that the contractor in question and the Director of Contracts both belonged to the local Conservative Association?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I consider such a question a public disgrace.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he considers that no disgrace attaches to a refusal to answer the question?
  [No reply.]

  ARMY—CHAPLAINS' DEPARTMENT.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the commissions in the Chaplains' Department, vacant by the retirement of the Reverend W. C. Magill and the Reverend J. F. Browne, have not been filled; whether it is a fact that a Catholic chaplain to the forces in Egypt is to be withdrawn and not replaced; what is the number of troops
  1378
  now stationed at York; and, why there is no Catholic chaplain there?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The only vacancy not filled among Roman Catholic chaplains is that caused by the retirement of the Rev. J. F. Browne in December last. It is not proposed to fill this vacancy at present, as there is no station at which there are sufficient Roman Catholic soldiers to justify the employment of a commissioned chaplain. No order has been given for the withdrawal of the chaplains of this denomination from Egypt. The Roman Catholic soldiers at York are only about 160; and an officiating chaplain has been appointed.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT—SULLIVAN, THE KERRY BLACKSMITH.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that in order to obtain the release of Sullivan, the Kerry blacksmith, from the sentence of Resident Magistrates under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, no less than nine applications on different days had to be made to the Superior Courts in Dublin; that though the Court of Exchequer decided that there was no evidence on which the man could be convicted, yet they held there was no power to give costs against the Crown on habeas corpus; is it the fact that in the case of the sentence on Mr. Walsh, of The Wexford People, of three months' hard labour for publishing the reports of suppressed branches, which the same Court quashed, the costs of the argument of the "case stated" will not include the heavy costs in the hearing below before the Resident Magistrates; and, whether, as these convictions were held illegal and unwarrantable, the Government intend the prisoners to be left charged with the costs involved, thus involving practically the infliction of a heavy sum on men declared innocent by the highest authority?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Chief Crown Solicitor reports as follows: —
  "In the case of Sullivan proceedings were at first taken for certiorari before the Queen's

  1379
  Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, and the Court, composed of four Judges, unanimously refused the application of Sullivan. Proceedings were then taken for habeas corpus to the Exchequer Division; and the Court being composed of three Judges, two of them ruled in Sullivan's favour, and he was accordingly discharged, but no costs were given. I am unable to state the number of days on which these applications were made."
  The Attorney General adds—
  "In Sullivan's case, which was an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the Court of Exchequer decided that there was no power to give costs; but in Walsh's case, which was a case stated by the magistrates, the Court decided there was power to give costs. This was the decision of the Court of Exchequer, which decided both cases."
  As to the release of Sullivan on the ground that there was no evidence, this arose from the accidental omission of not entering in the particular case of Sullivan the evidence of Mrs. Curtin, which had been previously recorded, and which applied to all the cases heard on that day, including Sullivan's. The Government have no intention whatever of paying Sullivan's costs.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Apart from the argumentative matter which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has thought fit to introduce into his answer, I have to say that the latter portion of his answer is grossly inaccurate.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION— SUSPENSION OF WRITERS.
  MR. GENT-DAVISasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the fact that a communication from the Civil Service Commissioners has been sent to three writers—namely, Mr. Brattle at the War Office, Mr. T. Knighton at the Custom House, and Mr. Franklin at the Admiralty—informing them that—
  "Further proceedings in connection with their promotion have boon suspended for the present;"
  and, whether he will state what essential difference exists between the position of these gentlemen, under the provisions of the Treasury Minute of December, 1886, and that of M. A. J. Rothon, notice of whose promotion to the Lower Division was given in The Civilian newspaper of the 18th instant?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The four copyists named in the Question were recommended for
  1380
  appointment to the Lower Division, in the belief that they had passed the age at which they could compete in ordinary course. It was subsequently ascertained that this belief was erroneous, and that these copyists are still of age to compete; the appointments were therefore cancelled. In one case, however—that of Mr. Rothon—the appointment had been completed before the error as to his age was discovered; and the Treasury have that case under consideration.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) ATTACK ON A BELFAST FUNERAL PROCESSION.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, Whether it was a fact that the workmen engaged at Sir William Ewart's mill assaulted the funeral procession of a priest in Belfast yesterday; whether an attempt was made to upset the hearse; whether they threw stones; and, finally, whether the crowd had to be dispersed by the police; whether in view of these occurrences, and the Report made by the Committee which inquired into the Belfast riots, and of the amendments made by the Select Committee when passing the Municipal Franchise (Belfast) Bill, he proposed to take any steps to promote legislation for the better government of Belfast?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN): I have telegraphed for a full report as to the truth of the allegations made in the hon. Member's Question, which was only received at the Irish Office at 3.40 this afternoon. Since I came to the House I have recived the following telegram from the Town Inspector of Belfast: —
  "Referring to the alleged attack upon funeral procession published in The Freeman's Journal to-day, full report goes by post. Newspaper report is greatly exaggerated."
  I do not consider, having regard to the peaceable condition of Belfast and its neighbourhood, one isolated outrage would in itself be sufficient to induce the Government to introduce legislation of the nature contemplated by the hon. Gentleman in the present Session.
  Subsequently,
  MR. M'CARTANsaid, with reference to the exaggerated case in Belfast to

  1381
  which reference had been made, he wished to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he was aware that a similar outrage was perpetrated last year at the very same place; and whether, under those circumstances, he does not consider that some legislation for the preservation of the peace of that town was required?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I have no information, on the subject.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, What is the course of Business for the coming week?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I should have been glad to have arranged to take the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Charles Russell) with regard to public meetings in Trafalgar Square on Monday; but I can only do so on the understanding that the remaining days of Supply between Thursday in next week and the 15th of March would be sufficient to vote the Supplies necessary for the Public Service. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there are only five days when it is possible to put down operative Supply after Monday next. We have to obtain the Supplementary Estimates which have been presented to the House, and we have also to take a Vote for the Army and Navy, and a Vote on Account for the Civil Services. If the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to intimate his belief and to give us his assistance to secure that those Votes shall be passed by the 15th of March, I will gladly surrender Monday next for the discussion which, it is desired to raise. The question is one on which the Government are anxious to obtain the judgment of the House with the least possible delay; but if there is any doubt as to the time that would be taken by the Estimates I shall be compelled to take Monday for them, and in that event I would give Thursday for the Motion.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: When that sort of question is put to me, perhaps I am justified in rising to reply. I entirely agree as to the reasonableness of the object that the right hon. Gentleman has in view; but he will not be
  1382
  surprised when I say that it is not in my power to give him the assurance that a certain number of days will be sufficient for Supply. I cannot give that assurance; therefore, I think he would do wisely to take his own course.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Under these circumstances, I am only discharging my duty in fixing the Supplementary Estimates for Monday. I hope and believe that that will suffice, so that Thursday may be given for the Motion.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the Estimates bad not been issued.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, they were laid on the Table that morning, and were now in the Vote Office.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORinquired whether, in the Constabulary Estimates, any sum had been put down for the additional money required for the services of the police?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: None.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether there was anything in the Estimates referring to magistrates in Ireland?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: There is.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, whether there was any Vote in the Estimates on which they could raise the case of Mr. Stoney?
  THE CHIEF SECEETAEY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I rather think not.

MOTIONS.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    RESOLUTION.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in rising to move a Resolution on the subject, said, he was aware that in making the Motion he was trenching on the rights of private Members, but neither the Motion, or the Rules concerned the Government alone; it concerned the whole House as regarded its convenience and its capacity to perform its Business in a satisfactory manner. They were Rules which the House as a whole was most desirous of adopting. In these circumstances, he regretted that the only course open to the Government was to ask that the whole time of the House should be given to the consideration of these Rules

    1383
    until they were disposed of, and he trusted the prolonged discussions which occurred in the last Session of Parliament would not be repeated in the present. It appeared to him. that they had already disposed of the principles of the great questions which then occupied the time of Parliament, and that the questions which remained to be discussed on these Rules were questions upon which the House and the country had made up their minds and arrived at a judgment upon almost every material point, and that the House only required to deal with matters of detail rather than matters of grave and serious principle. He trusted that the Government would have the assistance, not only of their Friends, but of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who would do wisely to accept the arrangements proposed, which were intended for the promotion of Public Business, the facilitating of the discussion of questions in which they themselves took much interest, and the securing of greater order and despatch for the discharge of the duties of the House. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by making the Motion of which he had given Notice.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Consideration of the proposed Rules of Procedure have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion on every day on which the consideration of those Rules may be set down by the Government." —(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, that with respect to the points on which he differed from the conclusion at which the Government had arrived, he would give the best evidence he could of his desire to promote the rapid progress of Public Business by refraining from arguments, and simply stating those differences in the briefest and most inoffensive and least controversial manner. At the same time, he deeply regretted the Resolution of the Government to give precedence to Procedure Rules over the regular Business of the Session. He believed, after what occurred last Session, that that course would not conduce to the progress of Business or the legislative efficiency of the Session, and that more time would be lost in the discussion which such a question was sure to raise than could possibly be gained during the course of the Session by the amendment of their
    1384
    Rules. He was also sorry that the right hon. Gentleman deemed it his duty to demand the whole time of the House; because the right hon. Gentleman must himself feel that, after the singular history of last year in this respect, when the voice of the House was almost entirely silenced until the months of August and September, of which there was so sore a recollection, it was a great pity that such soreness should be revived. He was certainly inclined to hope that as two proposals had been made by hon. Gentlemen on the right hon. Gentleman's side of the House, not quite against, but in mitigation of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, so that the independent portion of the House should not be entirely shut out from public discussion on their measures when the question of Procedure was before it, the right hon. Gentleman would accede to one or other of these proposals, if it should turn out that it was agreeable to the sense of a large portion of the House. Having thus stated his objections to the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, he would give what assistance was in his power to shorten the discussion on these Rules, and to avoid whatever might lengthen it. He himself had at all times, whether in or out of office, entertained little faith in what might be called penal legislation on the subject of Procedure. He had always looked to devolution as the only really effective and hopeful method of bringing about an essential change in the capacity of the House of Commons to perform its Business in a more satisfactory manner, and to diminish the enormous, extraordinary, and exhausting calls that were now made, not only on the time, but on the health and constitution of hon. Members, as well as of Her Majesty's Government. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had re-opened the door on the subject of devolution. Taking the whole proceedings of last year as one measure, the fundamental objections they on that side of the House entertained was that the dignity of the Speaker's Chair and that of the Chairman were compromised and were endangered. But he was not now going to say a word in support of those objections. The measure was there, and they must take it as a fixed fact, at any rate, for the present. That being so, he was disposed to make the admission that

    1385
    these proposals, as a whole, had not been conceived in any spirit of Party ascendancy, and that they were partly to be regarded as in the nature of a sequel or complement to the measure of last year. He drew from that the important conclusion that it would be for the public advantage on the whole if, on both sides of the House, they approached the discussion of details of the subject in the shape in which, the Government had laid it before them, without having recourse to the machinery of Party and without conducting the debate in the spirit of Party. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would meet what he had said in a corresponding and reciprocal spirit. For himself, he was disposed to go a considerable length in accepting the proposals of the Government, or, at all events, to make very few exceptions; but, all the same, he thought time would be wasted by the course the Government proposed to follow.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith)—whose enmity he much preferred to his friendship—had done more to destroy the rights of private Members since he became Leader of the House than any Minister who had preceded him. Last year the right hon. Gentleman said his sole object in proposing new Rules of Procedure was to preserve the freedom of the House and to facilitate the progress of its Business, and he disclaimed any intention or desire to use the Rules in order to accelerate any legislation to which objection was made on the Opposition side of the House. But the right hon. Gentleman had scarcely got the new weapon in his hands when he frequently and almost invariably put it to the very use which he had disavowed. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) felt sure that these now Rules would be used as the others were for the suppression of the liberties of a certain section of the House. As far, however, as the shortening of the hours of the Sittings was concerned, he thought a universal and cordial assent would be given to that part of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he thought the whole time of the House which the right hon.
    1386
    Gentleman had asked them to give the Government, would be occupied in the discussion of these Rules, with the Supplementary Votes and Supply intervening, until Easter. That would amount to a surrender of the entire rights of private Members. He himself had a Motion on the Paper challenging the conduct of a Minister of the Crown, and the action of the Prime Minister in connection therewith, and he had always understood that it was the object of the Government to meet Motions of that kind at the earliest opportunity. If the present Motion were carried he would be practically prevented from bringing the subject under the notice of the House. He would put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether by taking so strong a measure as asking for the whole time of the House he was not likely to introduce unnecessary friction, which would tend to retard rather than accelerate the objects which they all had in view.
    MR. BEADLAUGHsaid, he intended to move as an Amendment to the Motion that Wednesdays be excluded from its operation. He submitted that he was entitled to this concession because last Session he gave up his opportunity of reading the Bill which he now had on the Order Book—the Oaths Bill—a second time for the convenience of the Government, and having obtained a favourable place on a Wednesday, he thought that he should be afforded the opportunity of bringing it forward, which might be destroyed if the Motion were adopted without Amendment. He would, therefore, move as an Amendment the insertion of the words "except Wednesdays" in the third line of the Resolution.
    Amendment proposed, in line 3, after the word "day," to insert the words "except Wednesdays."— (Mr. Bradlaugh.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted,"
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he thought that some consideration was due to private Members in this matter. Last Session, while every day was taken from them, there was a tacit understanding that when the Session was over private Members' days would not again be taken by the Government. It seemed, however, that the Government were

    1387
    again to have the whole time of the Session given to them. Under the proposal made, no private Members' Bills would have a chance until after Easter. Already in this Parliament private Members had made large concessions; but even the worm would turn at last. It was the private Members on the Ministerial side who had suffered most; they were placed, as it were, between two millstones; for the Government managed to find time for private Members sitting opposite to them. It was much to be regretted that great social questions, which in the opinion of some of them were more important to the welfare of the people than many other measures which were disposed of, should by this action of the Government not to be able to be dealt with on days set apart for private Members. He had been interested in a subject which he considered of great importance for a long period, and for years past had been doing his best to get a day for its consideration. In the year 188G he had the misfortune to get the first place on a day which was memorable in the history of the House, for it was the day upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) moved the second reading of a Bill which some of them might probably remember—the Home Rule Bill. He (Mr. Bartley) had to give way. But he might remind the House that the Home Rule Bill was dead, and that his Motion was still alive. Last year, of course, he had not a chance of moving it; but this year, amongst 200 competitors, he had been be lucky as to draw the first private Members' day available this Session— namely, next Tuesday. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed at the "self" coming out—they all of them had a little "self" at; the bottom he supposed. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) had now pounced upon his (Mr. Bartley's) one ewe lamb, and was going to take the day away from him. He was inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) when he said that the Government would be likely to get on with these Rules much more rapidly and satisfactorily if they refrained from irritating hon. Members by making them give up their time. If the rights of
    1388
    private Members were not recognized, and private Members did not succeed in carrying the Amendment, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would find that the support of the House in getting these Rules of Procedure through, and in enabling the House to rise at a reasonable time, would not be so readily obtained, He thought some consideration to private members would be a better course than forcing this somewhat drastic measure upon the House. The Amendment claimed Wednesday as an exception to the Rule the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House wished to lay down. But he (Mr. Bartley) was under the impression that there was some objection to Wednesday, and he would propose that Tuesday be the exception: He had noticed that on Wednesdays, if any Bill was brought forward on that —the Ministerial—side of the House, there were one or two hon. Members opposite who deliberately set themselves to work to talk it out. Even if a Bill came on as an unopposed measure after a quarter to 6, someone opposite was always sure to stop its progress by merely taking off his hat. Considering his own private position, he (Mr. Bartley) thought Tuesday preferable to Wednesday. At any rate, he would plead hard that the right hon. Gentleman should give thorn one day a week. He did not wish to claim it in any formal manner; but, as an humble and obedient and loyal follower, he wished to protest against the private rights of hon. Members being entirely taken away; and he sincerely trusted that at this, the last hour, the Government would think with them, and spare one day a-week. If the Government could do that, they might be sure that their side would reap the greatest advantage from it.
    MR. ESSLEMONTsaid, he rose to support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). It would be understood that he also was not to be regarded as altogether unselfish. He had had the privilege out of the ballot to secure the first Order for Wednesday, the 29th, for a measure applicable to Scotland. Now, he could appeal with confidence to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) to give him his attention for a moment on behalf of

    1389
    Scotland. It was within the recollection of the Government that last Session the Scotch Members gave every assistance possible in the passing of measures relating to Scotland—measures which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) brought in. Scotch Members were contented at the end of a very long Session with two Wednesdays for Scotch Business. He would still further urge the case of Scotland in this respect—that the other day they dealt with two Scotch measures; that was to say, they gave the Government an opportunity of rejecting two Scotch measures within half-an-hour. He would undertake on behalf of his hon. Friends from Scotland that they would do everything in their power to shorten the discussion of the Rules of Procedure if the Government would concede to them one day in the week, either Tuesday or Wednesday; but, of course, preferably the Wednesday. If the Government would do this they would have nothing in the nature of a factious opposition to fear from the Scotch Members; but, on the other hand, would receive every possible assistance from them. He hoped the Government would not force on Scotland the desire for Home Rule by taking away the privileges of her Members—the very moderate and inconsiderable privileges which they at present possessed. He was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman would listen, to this appeal he would have no cause to regret a concession made to Scotland, and that Scotland would not forgot the favour.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he wished to add his voice to the petition of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and of those who had been successful for getting a day for Motions which they thought important. He (Mr. Staveley Hill) had been able to secure a Tuesday for a Motion which a great many people in this country considered of great importance. He accepted most loyally anything the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) might demand in the conduct of the Business of the House, and would merely say that he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would find it possible— if not to give next Tuesday, at any rate, to give a day to those who now stood out
    1390
    of the way to enable him to carry his Motion.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, that it was only natural and reasonable that Private Mombers at this period should desire to preserve for themselves the favourable positions which they had obtained for their Motions or Bills, and he earnestly hoped that they would find an opportunity of bringing those subjects, which they, no doubt, thought of great importance, before the notice of the House. If, however, he made the concessions which hon. Members desired, it would be impossible for him to ask the House to consider the Procedure Rules at all before Easter. It was necessary that the Government should get some money, therefore Supply must occupy the ensuing month practically up to the 17th of March on ordinary Government nights. It appeared to be thought by hon. Gentlemen that in asking for the time of private Members to consider these Procedure Rules he was asking for private Members' nights beyond Easter; in fact, up to Whitsuntide, if not for the rest of the Session; but that was not the case, for if the consideration of the Rules was entered upon by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) and others, had spoken, he believed that the Rules could be disposed of in the course of three days in next week, and if not, certainly within a day or two of the following week. In that case the position of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) would not be interfered with. If the recommendations of the Government wore adopted private Members, he believed, would be the gainers, because Procedure would be improved and the transactions of the House would be greatly facilitated. The views he had expressed were, he thought, shared by right hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as hon. Members behind them, and under these circumstances, feeling that the facilities for the consideration of the Business of the House would be increased by the proposals he was about to make, he felt compelled to adhere to his original proposition. He was sure that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont) would find that

    1391
    under the arrangement proposed there would be many facilities for the consideration of Scotch Business. He thought the hon. Member underrated the time the Government had given for the disposal of Scotch Business last year, but he would not enter into a controversy upon that matter. If the Rules were disposed of in the way he suggested, and as there was reason to anticipate they would be disposed of, the Government would spare no effort to afford private Members facilities for the discussion of those important topics in which they were interested.
    Mr. E. ROBERTSONsaid, he thought it was to be very much regretted that the opposition to the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had been based on strictly personal grounds. No doubt the Bill in which the hon. Member for Northampton was so much interested was an important Bill, and no doubt the Bill of the hon. Gentleman beside him, the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont), was even of greater importance. He did not know anything about the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite, but as that was not intended to end in legislation no doubt it was a subject which would be acceptable to Members on the Benches on which the hon. Gentleman sat. This was a private Members' question, and it ought to be left in the hands of private Members. He hoped that private Members on both sides of the House would unite in maintaining their right to a fair share of the time of the Session for the discussion of matters in which they took an interest. He did not see why the burden of these Rules, which were to be for the benefit of the House at large, should fall upon private Members alone. He failed all the more to see it because, not only last Session, but ever since the question of Home Rule was mooted in the House, private Members' rights had been almost extinguished. Why, new Members of the House actually did not know what private Members' rights were, because they had had no experience of them. The vast majority of hon. Members came in at the General Election of 1885 or since that, and, with the exception of about three weeks before the Home Rule Bill was matured and presented to the House—with that slight exception— the whole time had been taken up by
    1392
    the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the one hand for Home Rule for Ireland, and on the other hand for Coercion for Ireland. It appeared, therefore, to him (Mr. E. Robertson) quite time that private Members on both sides of the House united and stood up for their rights. As this was to be a question relegated to the consideration of hon. Members without regard to Party ties —as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian had followed the example of the Prime Minister in declining to stake his position on the result of debates in the House—he hoped the private Members on their part would have the courage to take advantage of the opportunity afforded them. He trusted the private Members would insist upon having the time which was usually devoted to them, notwithstanding the demands of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) made upon their time. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had said that neither the hon. Member for Northampton nor the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeen were in danger, because the Procedure Rules would be disposed of in a very short time. If that were the case it was a reason, not for hon. Members yielding, but for the right hon. Gentleman yielding. If the consideration of the Procedure Rules would not occupy a long time why was the right hon. Gentleman so anxious to deal, with them at the cost of the time of private Members? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman leave them the small opportunity that they were allowed for the discussion of matters they were bound to promote? The right hon. Gentleman, believing as he did that the discussion of these Rules might be concluded efficiently and sufficiently within a few days, and holding as he did in his hands the power of closure, it rested with him to make the best use of the facilities he had for making rapid progress with business without interfering with the rights of Private Members. Why did he not make a more courageous and efficient use of the closure than he did last year to bring the discussion on the Rules to an end within a reasonable time? He (Mr. E. Robertson) held that, possessing

    1393
    the powers he did, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had no right to call on private Members to give up their time in order to enable him to carry a measure which was necessary, not for facilitating private business, but business that at any time might come before the House.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he rose to make a conciliatory proposal. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) said that in all probability these Rules would be carried next week. Well, he (Mr. Labouchere), for his own part, did not see why they should not be carried next week. At any rate, he did not think there would be any lengthy discussion upon them on that—the Opposition—side of the House. But it would simplify matters if the right hon. Gentleman would bear that in mind and would limit his demand, say, until next Friday. Either the right hon. Gentleman did or did not believe what he said. He (Mr. Labouchere) believed it, and the suggestion he now made was based upon that belief. The only Gentleman who would be shut out would be the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley), and who had described himself as a crushed worm sitting between two millstones. Without wishing to go into the intricacies of the Procedure Rules, it seemed to him (Mr. Labouchere) that practically, if they passed the Rules in their present position, private Members would to all intents and purposes be shut out from carrying any of the Bills which they might bring forward in the House. As the right hon. Gentleman very well knew, a great many Bills which were not blocked were carried in the early hours of the morning, and it was proposed to give for those measures only half an hour. It would be impossible to discuss them in that time. Only a few short words on one or other of them would stop the whole of the business in regard to them. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would consider the matter, and see if he could not give the reasonable facilities which were asked for in order to enable private Members, who had passed their Bills through the second reading, to get them through their further stages. Another reason why the right hon. Gentleman should yield to them on the Opposition side was
    1394
    because they were exceptionally magnanimous with regard to these Rules of Procedure, for the reason that they were anxious to see them passed, notwithstanding that they would tell more against them than the Conservative Party. In support of that view he had the evidence of a Gentleman whose opinions he was sure the right hon Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would not controvert—he meant the noble Marquess the Prime Minister (the Marquess of Salisbury). In a speech the noble Lord had made at Oxford, alluding to his intention to frame some new Rules of Procedure, he said—
    "I know there are many Conservatives who will say that this obstruction, bad as it is, is a way to prevent bad measures from passing; and they will say 'After all, the greater number of measures that are proposed are bad, and anything that prevents all measures from passing prevents more bad measures than good ones.' I have no doubt that the result of a considerable amendment in the Rules of the House of Commons will be to send up from time to time, when there are bad Houses of Commons"—
    that was to say when there were Liberal Houses of Commons—
    "A considerable number of objectionable measures to the House of Lords, and I hope that the House of Lords will not shrink from acting upon its conscientious convictions."
    That was to say, when from time to time a bad Government was in power— that was to say when the Radical Party was in power—a number of bad Bills would be passed and sent up to the House of Lords, and the House of Lords would not shrink from acting upon its conscientious convictions and would refuse to pass them, but that when measures were passed by the Conservatives the House of Lords would unhesitatingly accept them. He (Mr. Labouchere) thought he had clearly proved the magnanimity of the Opposition with regard to the Procedure Rules.
    MR. HUNTERsaid, he wished to address a few words of appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), because he had stated his willingness to do justice to Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman by his proposal was going to do the greatest injustice to Scotland. The first Order for Wednesday next was the Returning Officers' (Scotland) Bill. What had been the history of that measure? Two years ago

    1395
    they passed that Bill through the House of Commons, five-sixths of the Scotch Members supporting it. The measure was lost in "another place." That was no fault of the Scotch Members. In the following year they got a good place for the Bill; but the Government took away all the Wednesdays. At the beginning of the present Session a number of Scotch Members had met and decided that the prospects of legislation for Scotland in the House were so scanty of character that it would be inexpedient to bring many Bills in. They, therefore, concentrated their attention on this one Bill, which was of the greatest possible importance to the Liberal Members for Scotland. They had got it down as the first Order of the Day. It was the only Scotch Bill that was promoted during the present Session, and yet the Government came immediately and took away their opportunity for dealing with it. He had often heard it stated that the Scotch Members were allowed to manage their own affairs in this House; but his opinion was that Scotch Members were treated as badly as Irish Members, and that Scotch Business was neglected even more than Irish Business. The Scotch people would understand what all this meant if the Government refused to give them such legislation as they desired— would not permit them on those rare occasions when, by the fortune of war, it was in their power to bring on a great measure to use that power in legislating for themselves.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith). There were two kinds of Rules of Procedure—those proposed by the Government, and those proposed by private Members. The present Resolution referred to all Rules of Procedure which were set down on the Paper without any distinction, and he wished to ask what was the intention of the Government in the matter. He wished to know whether when the House had disposed of the first description of Rules—namely, those proposed by the Government, the Government intended to put down the Rules of Procedure standing in the names of private Members, and apply the present Resolution to them; or whether they would follow the precedent they had set on previous
    1396
    occasions and get rid of the whole matter when their Rules had been disposed of?
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he could only answer the question by the indulgence of the House, as he had already spoken. It appeared that the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman as to the Rules of Procedure which they had put down on the Paper were questions which would probably arise on the Rules he (Mr. W. H. Smith) had the honour to propose to the House, and that, therefore, the necessity would not arise for considering the Rules put down by private Members at a later stage. He certainly should not feel justified in asking the House to surrender its time for the consideration of matters made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, unless there was a general feeling on the part of the House that it was desirable that they should be introduced.
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, he would confine his observations to a couple of sentences. He hoped the Government would take into consideration the grievances of private Members who had Bills down for the next few Wednesdays. He and his hon. Friends believed and hoped and trusted that these Procedure Rules would not only pass, but pass quickly; but the first two Wednesdays, and probably the third Wednesday, would be swamped. It would be a serious thing if hon. Members who had Motions down for Tuesdays and Fridays to lose their opportunities—he knew this from personal experience, having suffered in this way himself on similar occasions. But the loss of a Tuesday or Friday was not necessarily fatal, as an hon. Member might succeed in securing a day later on for the discussion of his Motion; but the loss of a Wednesday was absolutely fatal to an hon. Member's Bill for half a Session. It so happened that the first two or three Wednesdays were all occupied by extremely important Bills—Bills which ought, undoubtedly, to receive the judgment of the House, and which—judging from appearances in their favour—were Bills which would be of considerable advantage to the country. He must say he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House could make an exception in favour of Wednesdays during the progress of a great

    1397
    debate which otherwise would have occupied the whole week.
    Question put.
    The House divided: — Ayes 150; Noes 247: Majority 97.

    AYES.

    Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

    Hooper, J.

    Howell, G.

    Acland, A. H. D.

    Hoyle, I.

    Acland, C. T. D.

    Hunter, W. A.

    Allison, R. A.

    Joicey, J.

    Anderson, C. H.

    Kay-Shuttleworth, rt. hon. Sir U. J.

    Asher, A.

    Asquith, H. H.

    Kilbride, D.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Labouchere, H.

    Ballantine, W. H. W.

    Lalor, R.

    Barbour, W. B.

    Lawson, H. L. W.

    Barran, J.

    Leahy, J.

    Bartley, G. C. T.

    Leake, R.

    Biggar, J. G.

    Lefevre, right hon. J. G. S.

    Blane, A.

    Bolton, J. C.

    Lubbock, Sir J.

    Bolton, T. D.

    Lyell, L.

    Broadhurst, H.

    Lymington, Viscount

    Bruce, hon. R. P.

    MacInnes, M.

    Brunner, J. T.

    M'Arthur, A.

    Bryce, J.

    M'Arthur, W. A.

    Buchanan, T. R.

    M'Cartan, M.

    Buxton, S. C.

    M'Carthy, J.

    Cameron, C.

    M'Donald, P.

    Cameron, J. M.

    M'Ewan, W.

    Campbell, H.

    M'Laren, W. S. B.

    Carew, J. L.

    Marum, E. M.

    Causton, R. K.

    Morgan, right hon. G. O.

    Cavan, Earl of

    Clark, Dr. G. B.

    Morley, A.

    Cobb, H. P.

    Morley, rt. hon. J.

    Collings, J.

    Mundella, right hon. A. J.

    Conway, M.

    Corbet, W. J.

    Neville, E.

    Cossham, H.

    Nolan, J.

    Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

    O'Brien, J. F. X.

    Craig, J.

    O'Brien, P.

    Crawford, D.

    O'Brien, P. J.

    Cremer, W. E.

    O'Connor, A.

    Crossley, E.

    O'Connor, J.

    Dillon, J.

    O'Connor, T. P.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    O'Hanlon, T.

    Dimsdale, Baron E.

    O'Kelly, J.

    Ellis, J.

    Palmer, Sir C. M.

    Ellis, J. E.

    Parker, C. S.

    Ellis, T. E.

    Parnell, C. S.

    Esslemont, P.

    Paulton, J. M.

    Evershed, S.

    Pease, H. F.

    Farquharson, Dr. E.

    Pickersgill, E. H.

    Fenwick, C.

    Pinkerton, J.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro-

    Playfair, rt. hon. Sir L.

    Finucane, J.

    Flower, C.

    Power, P. J.

    Gardner, H.

    Pyne, J. D.

    Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-

    Redmond, J. E.

    Gill, T. P.

    Richard, H.

    Gourley, E. T.

    Roberts, J.

    Haldane, R. B.

    Robertson, E.

    Harrington, E.

    Robinson, T.

    Harris, M.

    Roe, T.

    Hayden, L. P.

    Roscoe, Sir H. E.

    Hayne, C. Seale-

    Rowlands, J.

    Healy, H.

    Rowntree, J.

    Healy, T. M.

    Russell, Sir C.

    1398

    Samuelson, G. B.

    Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.

    Schwann, C E.

    Sheehan, J. D.

    Tuite, J.

    Slagg, J.

    Wallace, R.

    Smith, S.

    Wardle, H.

    Spencer, hon. C. R.

    Watson, J.

    Stack, J.

    Watt, H.

    Stansfeld, right hon. J.

    Wayman, T.

    Webster, R. G.

    Stevenson, F. S.

    Williams, A. J.

    Stewart, H.

    Wilson, H. J.

    Stuart, J.

    Wilson, I.

    Sullivan, D.

    Woodhead, J.

    Summers, W.

    Sutherland, A.

    TELLERS.

    Tanner, C. K.

    Bradlaugh, C.

    Thomas, A.

    Burt, T.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, J. T.

    Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N.

    Ainslie, W. G.

    Aird, J.

    Coddington, W.

    Allsopp, hon. G.

    Coghill, D. H.

    Amherst, W. A. T.

    Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Baden-Powell, Sir G. S.

    Corbett, J.

    Corry, Sir J. P.

    Bailey, Sir J. R.

    Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

    Baird, J. G. A.

    Cubitt, right hon. G.

    Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

    Curzon, Viscount

    Banes, Major G. E.

    Curzon, hon. G. N.

    Baring, T. C.

    Dalrymple, Sir C.

    Baring, Viscount

    Davenport, H. T.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Dawnay, Colonel hon. L. P.

    Bates, Sir E.

    Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

    De Cobain, E. S. W.

    De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.

    Beach, W. W. B.

    Beadel, W. J.

    Dixon, G.

    Bentinck, W. G. C.

    Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

    Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer

    Dorington, Sir J. E.

    Duncombe, A.

    Bethell, Commander G. R.

    Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.

    Biddulph, M.

    Egerton, hon. A. de T.

    Birkbeck, Sir E.

    Elton, C. I.

    Blundell, Colonel H. B. H.

    Ewart, Sir W.

    Eyre, Colonel H.

    Bond, G. H.

    Feildon, Lieut.-Gen. R. J.

    Bonsor, H. C. O.

    Boord, T. W.

    Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

    Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

    Field, Admiral E.

    Bristowe, T. L.

    Fielden, T.

    Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

    Finch, G. H.

    Finlay, R. B.

    Brookfield, A. M.

    Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

    Bruce, Lord H.

    Fitz-Wygram, General Sir F. W.

    Burdett-Coutts, W, L. Ash.-B.

    Fletcher, Sir H.

    Burghley, Lord

    Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

    Caine, W. S.

    Caldwell, J.

    Forster, Sir C.

    Campbell, Sir A.

    Forwood, A. B.

    Campbell, J. A.

    Fowler, rt. hon. H. H.

    Carmarthen, Marq. of

    Fowler, Sir R. N.

    Chamberlain, R.

    Fraser, General C. C.

    Chaplin, right hon. H.

    Fry, L.

    Charrington, S.

    Fulton, J. F.

    Churchill, rt. hn. Lord R. H. S.

    Gedge, S.

    Gent-Davis, E.

    Clarke, Sir E. G.

    Giles, A.

    1399

    Gilliat, J. S.

    Low, M.

    Goldaworthy, Major-General W. T.

    Lowther, hon. W.

    Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

    Gorst, Sir J. E.

    Goschen, rt. hn. G. J.

    Maclean, F. W.

    Gray, C. W.

    Maclure, J. W.

    Green, Sir E.

    M'Calmont, Captain J.

    Grenall, Sir G.

    M'Lagan, P.

    Grimston, Viscount

    Madden, D. H.

    Grotrian, F. B.

    Malcolm, Col. J. W.

    Gunter, Colonel R.

    Mallock, E.

    Gurdon, R. T.

    Manners, right hon. Lord J. J. R.

    Hall, A. W.

    Hall, C.

    Maple, J. B.

    Halsey, T. F.

    Marriott, right hon. W. T.

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

    Matthews, rt. hon. H.

    Hamilton, Col. C. E.

    Mattinson, M. W.

    Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

    Maxwell, Sir H. E.

    Mayne, Admiral E. C.

    Hanbury, R. W.

    Mildmay, F. B.

    Hankey, F. A.

    Mills, hon. C. W.

    Hardcastle, F.

    Milvain, T.

    Hastings, G. W.

    More, R. J.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir H. M.

    Morgan, hon. F.

    Morrison, W.

    Heath, A. R.

    Moss, E.

    Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

    Mount, W. G.

    Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

    Heaton, J. H.

    Herbert, hon. S.

    Mowbray, R. G. C.

    Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

    Mulholland, H. L.

    Muncaster, Lord

    Hill, Colonel E. S.

    Murdoch, C. T.

    Hill, A. S.

    Newark, Viscount

    Hoare, S.

    Noble, W.

    Hobhouse, H.

    Norris, E. S.

    Holloway, G.

    Northcote, hon. Sir H. S.

    Houldsworth, Sir W. H.

    Howard, J.

    Norton, R.

    Howorth, H. H.

    O'Neill, hon. R. T.

    Hozier, J. H. C.

    Paget, Sir E. H.

    Hubbard, E.

    Parker, hon. F.

    Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.

    Pelly, Sir L.

    Fenton, Captain F. T.

    Hunt, F. S.

    Plowden, Sir W. C.

    Isaacs, L. H.

    Plunket, right hon.

    Isaacson, F. W.

    Jackson, W. L.

    Pomfret, W. P.

    James, rt. hon. Sir H.

    Powell, F. S.

    Jardine, Sir E.

    Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

    Jennings, L. J.

    Rankin, J.

    Johnston, W.

    Reed, H. B.

    Kelly, J. R.

    Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.

    Kenrick, W.

    Robertson, Sir W. T.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

    Robertson, J. P. B.

    Rollit, Sir A. K.

    Kimber, H.

    Round, J.

    King-Harman, right hon. Colonel E. E.

    Russell, T. W.

    Salt, T.

    Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.

    Sandys, Lieut-Col. T.M

    Knowles, L.

    Saunderson, Col. E. J.

    Lafone, A.

    Sellar, A. C.

    Lambert, C.

    Selwyn, Captain C. W.

    Laurie, Colonel E. P.

    Seton-Karr, H.

    Lawrance, J. C.

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

    Lawrence, W. F.

    Sidebotham, J. W.

    Lees, E.

    Sinclair, W. P.

    Legh, T. W.

    Smith, right hon. W. H.

    Leighton, S.

    Llewellyn, E. H.

    Smith, A.

    Long, W. H.

    Spencer, J. E.

    1400

    Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

    Wharton, J. L.

    Stephens, H. C.

    Whitley, E.

    Stewart, M. J.

    Whitmore, C. A.

    Stokes, G. G.

    Williams, J. Powell-

    Talbot, J. G.

    Wilson, Sir S.

    Taylor, F.

    Wodehouse, E. R.

    Temple, Sir E.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Thorburn, W.

    Wood, N.

    Tollemache, H. J.

    Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

    Tomlinson, W. E. M.

    Wright, H. S.

    Trotter, H. J.

    Wroughton, P.

    Tyler, Sir H. W.

    Young, C. E. H.

    Vincent, C. E. H.

    Vivian, Sir H. H.

    TELLERS.

    Waring, Colonel T.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Webster, Sir R. E.

    Walrond, Col. W. H.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he did not propose to divide the House again upon this matter; but as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) had told them that the Procedure Rules would in all probability only occupy one week, he trusted that even now the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter and limit the application of the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman might limit it to one week, for if the Rules of Procedure were not likely to take a longer period, then hon. Members ought not to have this compulsion indefinitely put upon them.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That the consideration of the Proposed Rules of Procedure have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion on every day on which the consideration of those Rules may be set down by the Government.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (RULES OF PROCEDURE)—I. SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in rising to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice relating to the Sittings of the House, said, he thought the House would perceive that this rule was designed for the convenience of the House and in the belief that an arrangement of this kind would conduce to the better discharge of Public Business. He pointed out that the prolonged Sittings of the House during the last two or three years had had a serious effect not only on the health of hon. Members, but on the mode in which the Business of the House had been conducted. During last Session the House sat 277 hours after midnight, and there must have been many hon.

  1401
  Members—probably a large majority of the House—who had duties to perform before coming to the House in the afternoon. In these circumstances it was clearly impossible for an ordinary human being to continue to devote his powers of mind and body to the discharge of his duties in the House. Hon. Members were practically too exhausted to do so. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) said nothing of those who had to conduct the Public Business of the country, and who were responsible not only for the duties of Government, but for the working of the various public offices. It was, however, highly desirable that Ministers should be in a condition to devote the best of their intellect and physical powers to the discharge of their onerous duties. At present, owing to the prolonged Sittings of the House, it was practically impossible for Ministers of the Crown to be in that condition; and therefore the Government had framed these Rules with the object of meeting earlier in the day and rising earlier at night. In recommending this Rule to the consideration of the House it must be understood that the Government did so on the understanding that the question of half-an-hour later in meeting or half-an-hour earlier in separating was not one of principle nor a matter to which the Government were so wedded as to persevere against the general feeling of the House. This Rule had been framed by the Government to meet to the best of their ability the interests of all Parties in the House; and, therefore, on matters of unimportant detail they were prepared to make such concessions as were generally desired. Reference was made in the Rule to certain proceedings which were to be exempted from its operation. It was often practically impossible to put those proceedings down for the early consideration of the House; and even if it were possible, they would be blocked altogether by the operation of the Rule of Adjournment, and hence serious public mischief might arise. It rarely happened, however, that there was any serious difference of opinion upon those Orders; but if there was it was necessary that the hour of closing Debate or Adjournment should be made with reference to those proceedings. He thought also the House would agree that the House should not be counted precisely at 9 o'clock; and he trusted the provision made in the Rule would
  1402
  meet with the acceptance of hon. Members. But this, again, was one of the provisions upon which the House itself must express an opinion. The Government recommended it for the consideration of hon. Members as one which had been generally represented to them as a provision for the convenience and conduct of Business. With reference to the paragraph as to the Speaker ascertaining by the preponderance of voices that the majority of the House desired that Business under discussion should be deferred until a later day, he stated that some public inconvenience had arisen on days on which opposed Business finished, say at 10 minutes to 7 o'clock on a Morning Sitting or a quarter to 6 o'clock on Wednesday. The Bill opposed in these circumstances did not come on next day, but there was no knowledge as to the particular day on which it would come on; it was therefore proposed to give this preponderance of voices in order that a day might be named for the consideration of the Bill. He concluded by moving the adoption of the Rule.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, unless the House otherwise order, the House shall meet every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, at Three of the clock, and shall, unless previously adjourned, sit till One of the clock a.m., when the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put, unless a Bill originating in Committee of Ways and Means, or unless proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament or Standing Order, or otherwise exempted from the operation of this Standing Order, be then under consideration:
  That at Eight of the clock the Speaker or Chairman, as the case may be, shall suspend the sitting by leaving the Chair until Nine of the clock. If, after the resumption of business, at Nine of the clock, and before a quarter-past Nine, notice be taken that 40 Members are not present, the Speaker or Chairman shall, unless 40 Members are sooner present, suspend the sitting until a quarter-past Nine, when he shall count the House or Committee.
  That at half-an-hour after midnight on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, except as aforesaid, and at half-past Five of the clock on Wednesdays, the proceedings on any business then under consideration shall be interrupted; and, if the House be in Committee, the Chairman shall leave the Chair, and make his report to the House; and if a Motion has been proposed for the Adjournment of the House, or of the Debate, or in Committee That the Chairman do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, every such dilatory Motion shall lapse without Question put; and the business then under consideration, and any business subsequently appointed, shall be appointed for the next day on which the House shall sit, unless the Speaker ascertains by the preponder-

  1403
  ance of voices that a Majority of the House desires that such business should be deferred until a later day:
  Provided always, That on the interruption of business the Closure may be moved, and if moved, or if proceedings under the Closure Rule be then in progress, the Speaker or Chairman shall not leave the Chair, until the Questions consequent thereon, as provided in the Rule ' Closure of Debate,' have been decided:
  That after the business under consideration at half-past Twelve and half-past Five respectively, has been disposed of, no opposed business shall be taken; and the Orders of the Day not disposed of at the close of the sitting shall stand for the next day on which the House shall sit:
  That a Motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of Public Business, to be decided without Amendment or Debate to the following effect. ' That the proceedings on any specified business, if under discussion at half-past Twelve this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order, "Sittings of the House:"'
  Provided always, That after any business exempted from the operation of this Resolution is disposed of, the remaining business of the sitting shall be dealt with according to the provisions applicable to business taken after half-past Twelve o'clock."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he begged to put a question to Mr. Speaker on a point of Order. He wished to know whether the Rule would be put as a whole, or paragraph by paragraph?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Rule will be put as a whole, and it will, therefore, be competent for hon. Members to discuss the general questions which it involves. The first Amendment will be taken in its order.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that, with reference to the general provisions of the Rule, he should in discussing thorn be able to rely upon a personal experience of some 30 years. In criticizing the Rule he should endeavour to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) in the same spirit as that in which the right hon. Gentleman's statement had been conceived. The House had heard with pleasure that Her Majesty's Government did not desire to thrust these Rules as they stood down the throats of hon. Members without considering the various Amendments to them of which Notice had been given, or which might be proposed. As to the Rule generally, it could not be denied that the experience of the last few years showed the necessity of its main principles being adopted. In his opinion, there ought
  1404
  to be a fixed time when the Business of the House should be brought to an end, because it was impossible that the House should go on in the future sitting night after night till two, three, or four o'clock in the morning. The cardinal object of the Rule appeared to be to put an end to the late Sittings which had so long prevailed, and as far as it went in that direction, he should cordially support it. With regard to the proposed adjournment of the House for an hour, or an hour and a quarter, at 8 o'clock, he thought that the present custom of the dinner should be followed, and that the Speaker should leave the Chair without Motion at the end of a speech for some 20 or 30 minutes only. That would be better than the Speaker leaving the Chair at any fixed hour, regardless of whether an hon. Member was in the middle of his speech or not. If the course he suggested were adopted, the House would have more time for the transaction of its Business, and might perhaps be able to adjourn for the night at half-past 12 o'clock, instead of at 1 o'clock, so that the opposed business should cease at 12. [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] He gathered from the cheers from all sides of the House that his proposal in that respect was not an unwelcome one. He quite agreed, however, in the suggestion that it would be necessary to modify the half-past 12 o'clock closing Rule to the extent of empowering Ministers to move, in the case of an important debate, that the time for closing should be extended, but notice of this should be given, and appear in the Order Book. It would be too much to lay down a hard-and-fast line that would require a Minister, who was engaged in malting an important speech on some great question, to sit down suddenly in the middle of his speech at 12 o'clock. He took it that such an Amendment as he suggested would not be opposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He assumed that as the House now met nominally at a quarter to 4 o'clock, under the new Rule it would meet nominally at a quarter to 3 o'clock in the afternoon, but this was a mere detail, and 3 o'clock would probably be satisfactory. But what he most cared for was the continuance of the present practice as to dinner, and opposed business ceasing at 12.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he was

  1405
  afraid that the Rule as it stood would kill the dinner hour, as it was called, when younger Members had an opportunity of addressing the House. He hoped, that the nature of the Money and other Bills, which were to be excepted I from the Rule requiring all contentious business to cease at a fixed hour, would be more clearly defined, and that it should not be sufficient for a measure to contain one money clause to enable its mover to proceed with it at any hour. As the Rule stood, somebody was sure to count the House on its re-assembling at 9 o'clock; and as it could not resume Business in such a case until a quarter past 9 o'clock, the Speaker would be kept sitting uselessly in the Chair for a quarter of an hour every night. He, however, regarded the present dinner hour as very valuable, and as being in accordance with the traditions of the House, which encouraged young Members to speak. "With respect to that part of the Rule which gave a Minister of the Crown power to move the suspension of the Standing Order as to the termination of a debate at 12.30, he saw no objection to it if there were any safeguard for its being carried out in the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. But other Ministers might take different views, and he should suggest that such a Motion should require the assent of either the Leader of the Opposition or of some Privy Councillor who had filled certain important offices, so that practically it had the assent of both sides of the House.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, he rose in consequence of a remark which had been made by the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh opposite (Mr. Childers). He took exception to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, that there should be no alteration as to the period during which the Speaker or Chairman of Committees should leave the chair, so that the House might be able to adjourn half-an-hour earlier than was proposed under the Rule they were now discussing. Every hon. Member must feel that these Rules would make a very great change in the habits of the House. Last Session they used to rise at 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning, and he thought it would be sufficient at all events to provide that the proceedings should come to an end at 1 o'clock It
  1406
  would be apparent to every hon. Member that a provision of that kind would bring about a very great change. It would, in future, be possible for the House to adjourn at 1, which would bring about a very great change, and he thought a sufficient change, without introducing any further modification. At the present moment there was a Rule which prevented the counting of the House before 4 o'clock.
  An hon. MEMBERsaid, there was no Rule in existence to that effect; only a custom.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) would remember that, in the Parliament of 1848, the same custom prevailed in reference to the Sittings of the House at 9 o'clock, when there had been a Morning Sitting, as the House was never counted until a quarter past 9.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he was sorry that he was unable to agree with the hon. Baronet who had just spoken, especially in regard to the dinner hour; but he congratulated the Government on having brought the sittings of the House within the power of the human constitution. Those who had experienced any sitting up to all hours of the night knew that after midnight a great difficulty arose in regulating the debates. Hon. Members became irritable, and the difficulty of preserving order in the House always arose after midnight, when Members were tired. He thought the Government had made a little mistake. It would have been better if they had fixed half-past 12 instead of 1 o'clock as the hour at which contentious Business should end. The greater proportion of hon. Members could then leave, and only those hon. Members would remain who had special business to attend to. With regard to the proposed adjournment for an hour for dinner, he wished to point out the danger of that Rule. In the first place, by saying that there should be a dinner hour there would be a great temptation to leave the Precincts of the House, and some difficulty would be thrown upon the Whips in keeping a quorum at 9, or after 9 o'clock. If the Business were allowed to go on as at present no time would be lost. Moreover, there were other and even more important dangers than that. They all

  1407
  knew that the House could be prevented by certain tactics, such as keeping hon. Members in the Lobbies and persuading them not to come into the House, from proceeding with Business and preventing certain measures from being discussed. This Rule would give Members full power to carry out those tactics, and it would frequently be found that at a quarter past 9 o'clock the whole of the Business of the House was stopped. He hoped the Government would see the advantage of closing all contentious Business at 12 o'clock, and having no dinner hour at all. It had worked well hitherto, and was of great use to young Members. He therefore trusted that the Government would be prepared to consider favourable Amendments to carry out the changes he had indicated.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, that the criticism of the hon. and learned Member for East Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) showed that he had not read the Rules with which he found fault. They were clearly expressed, and carefully guarded against the evils which the hon. Member deprecated. He (Mr. Gedge) strongly objected to the proposal to adjourn the House from 8 to 9; but as he had put on the Paper two Amendments dealing with the matter, he would not now discuss it.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) for allowing the Resolutions to be discussed, not as a Government measure, but as a matter which was introduced in order to suit the convenience of hon. Members. He suggested that when no Private Business was under discussion the House should proceed at once to Questions, instead of wasting half-an-hour in doing ing nothing. Day after day—as Mr. Speaker was well aware—they sat there doing nothing between 4 o'clock and half-past 4 o'clock. Even then the hours fixed during which hon. Members would have an opportunity for speech would be short. As a private Member, he would make an appeal to right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Benches to somewhat curtail their remarks. There was a tendency on the part of right hon. Gentlemen to imagine that if one right hon. Member spoke for an hour, it was necessary for them to speak for an hour and five minutes, followed by some
  1408
  other right hon. Member, who spoke for one hour and ten minutes. If right hon. Gentlemen would more fully consider what they were going to say, he was sure they would be able to put their speeches in a much smaller compass. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House always spoke with commendable brevity. He put what he had to say into a short compass; but it was impossible to say the same of other right hon. Gentlemen sitting on both sides of the House. The question really was whether they should end all contentious Business at half-past 12. Under the Rules, as they were at present drafted, there would be an automatic closure at the end of the Sitting. It would, however, mean that if they were not to close contentious Business until half-past 12, very few hon. Members would be able to get away until near 1 o'clock, and many hon. Members would find it impossible to get to bed until a quarter to 2 or 2 o'clock. It was these last half-hours that really told upon the constitutions of hon. Members. He thought it would be of great advantage if the Members of the Government were able to obtain a good night's rest, and by that means be ready to attend to their office work in the morning, He believed that the late hours last Session had been disastrous to some Members of the Government, as they were bound to be in regard to any Member who had to remain in attendance until the end of the Sitting, in order that they might devote their attention to the Business of the country.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, that the Rule greatly diminished the chance of private Members' Bills and Motions. It was quite true that the system of blocking which had come into practice much interfered with the chances of private Members nowadays. Their measures were invariably blocked; but still there did remain some opportunities for them, and occasionally a private Member's Bill was brought on without a block having been attached to it. If, however, the closure was absolutely applied by the rising of the House at 12 o'clock, or half-past, it would be impossible to find time for private Members. It not unfrequently happened that a useful discussion arose on a Motion of an hon. Gentleman which did not stand first on the Notice Paper, and the debate went on until half-past 1

  1409
  o'clock; but under the proposed new Rule, as the House would rise at half-past 12, any Member who disliked a Motion would only have to extend his remarks a little in order to defeat the Motion. He believed that this year there were some 200 Bills introduced by private Members, but practically only one each Wednesday could be brought on for discussion. He was quite ready to admit that Bills of first political importance ought to be blocked, in order to secure that they should be properly discussed; but there were other Bills which did not involve matters of controversy or Party considerations which were desired by the country, and which might be satisfactorily passed. He believed that a great deal of good had been effected in the past by Motions introduced by private Members; and he asked whether it was quite right to diminish the slender opportunities which private Members now possessed in reference to measures of an important character, which nevertheless had strong claims to be commended to an over-pressed Government? He would appeal to the Government to give way on this point, and to prevent the evil from which private Members would otherwise suffer. There were three methods by which the evil might be avoided. The first was, to appoint a Committee to make a selection of the Private Bills and Motions which ought to be proceeded with, to determine which of them were deserving of discussion. The second was, to give the House power to vote as to what Bills should be advanced and fixed for a particular day. And the third method was, that hon. Members should be enabled to express their preference for certain Bills and Motions in the Order Book by subscribing their names to them. In that way it would be shown what Bills and Motions ought to be taken, and the legislation of the House would be increased. He hoped that before they came to the end of the Rules the Government would meet that difficulty, and that they would exercise their power as to the time which was to be given to private Members.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES)said, he did not propose to follow hon. Members who had taken part in the debate in a general survey of the new Rules. He had only risen to follow the
  1410
  observations of the hon. and learned Member for (South Aberdeen (Mr.Bryce), who had just sat down. He (Mr. Raikes) thought that the hon. and learned Member, in his desire to promote the interests of private Members, had drawn rather a gloomy picture of the effect of the proposed new Rules. The hon. and learned Member had spoken as if no half-past 12 Rule had been or was still in existence. At present there was a Rule in existence which prevented opposed Business from being taken after half-past 12 o'clock. The hon. and learned Member had spoken as if opposed Motions were never talked out in order to prevent Motions from being brought on. The New Rules would not prevent that. They did not appear to him to inflict any injury on private Members. This Rule would not impose any more effectual stopper on private Members than the present half-past 12 Rule, nor would they alter the Order of the House in regard to Business on Wednesday, except in directing that a discussion upon a Bill should cease at half-past 5 instead of a quarter before 6. The case of unopposed Bills which were discussed after half-past 12 was one which undoubtedly required consideration. He much doubted whether the suggestion with respect to the precedence of private Members' Bills would find acceptance in the House. It was not clear how any such plan would work. Was each Member only to have one vote for one Bill, or to vote on each of, perhaps, 140 Bills? He was inclined to support the proposal that, after Whitsuntide, the order of private Members' Bills should depend upon the stage which they had reached. He agreed also with the remark of the hon. and learned Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) that the words "otherwise exempt" required further elucidation. If the hon. and learned Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), to whom he always listened with respect, would put down one of his alternative suggestions, the Government would give it every consideration. At the same time, he did not see how they could discriminate between the Bills of private Members except by drawing a distinction in favour of those which had already been considered by a Select Committee. He thought that a Bill

  1411
  which had gone through the ordeal of a Select Committee ought to have preference given to it over another Bill which had not gone through that ordeal.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he desired information upon a variety of points which he thought were better raised upon the general Rule rather than in discussing Amendments. He wanted, in the first place, to know what would be the position of Committees sitting upstairs if the House met at 3 instead of 4 o'clock? Did the Government propose to alter the time at which Committees upstairs should meet? Twelve o'clock had been the hour for meeting, and 4 o'clock for adjournment. Surely four hours a day were not too long, although they were certainly long enough to bestow on Business which involved such an enormous outlay and such large interests. The cost of Private Bill legislation was increasing day by day, and. it would be unwise to impose upon suitors an extra burden which would be involved in limiting the hours from four to three hours. The hon. Member for the Poplar Division of the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Buxton) had called attention to the fact that a considerable waste of time took place after Mr. Speaker took the Chair. That was a matter which was well deserving of consideration. It would be much better that the House should meet at 3.30, and Public Business to begin at 4. The proposal to allow from half-past 12 to 1 for non-political matters was unwise; but many non-political Bills were of vital importance to the country. He was of opinion that half-an-hour was not sufficient for Bills to be discussed which, like the Merchandize Marks Bill, were not of a political character. That Bill was in Committee for a considerable time late in the evening. He had a strong sympathy for the Rule that they should close the Sittings of the House at a particular hour, say 1 o'clock; but he greatly doubted whether that time was sufficient to carry out the machinery of the House in regard to what might be called political polemics. he supported the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) to do away with the proposed adjournment of one and a quarter hours, which was neither one thing or another. It was not the
  1412
  dinner hour. Hon. Members could not go to their residences, dine, and come back again within that time. The suspension of Business at a Morning Sitting from 7 until 9 was quite intelligible. It would tend to augment the number of Counts, and would spoil the tone of the House at the time Business was resumed. Then, again, he protested against interfering with the vested rights of young Members who were anxious to train themselves in the art of speaking, and availed themselves of the dinner hour for that purpose. He thought that the Speaker or Chairman should be able, as at present, to retire at any hour. It would be an admirable understanding that, when the Speaker or Chairman retired, the adjournment should only be for a fixed period; but he did not see that it was necessary, when a Speaker or Chairman left the Chair, that the whole Business should be suspended for an hour and a quarter. He thought it would be far better to say that the Public Business should begin at 4, and that any contentious debate should close at 12.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, that a great majority of the younger Members in the House were of opinion that the dinner hour should not be lengthened, and the House suspended from 8 to 9.15, as was proposed by the present Rule. It was their opinion that the proceedings should go on during the dinner hour. If it was considered desirable that the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees should retire for a certain time, that could be easily arranged. An adjournment from 8 to 9 would render it absolutely impossible for a young Member ever to have a chance of speaking in the House, and it was well known that the present dinner hour was invaluable to Members addressing the House for the first time. He agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for the Poplar Division of the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Buxton) as to the length of the speeches which were delivered from the Front Benches. They were, unfortunately, growing longer and longer; and if, in addition, private Members were to have the dinner hour taken away from them, it would be perfectly impossible for them to speak at all and to make the voice of their constituencies heard. That was, in his opinion, an important fact to consider.

  1413
  It must also be remembered that obstruction, if it could be so called by the legitimate talking of a yearly increasing number of Members, had developed to a great extent, and could not altogether be prevented. More hon. Members spoke now than ever they did before, and their constituents expected them to speak. As they were limited to those hours in the evening when the great guns were not going off, it was important that there should be no adjournment of the House for dinner. It was also desirable that there should be neither Counts or Divisions during the dinner hour, so that no scratch Division might be taken.
  MR. CRAIG-SELLARdesired to comment upon the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) on two points. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the proposal that the House should meet at 3 o'clock instead of 4, on the ground that in that case the Select Committees would sit for three hours only instead of four. That objection could be met by the Committees meeting an hour earlier. He saw no serious difficulty in Select Committees meeting at 11 o'clock in the morning instead of 12, now that the House was going to adjourn at or about midnight. As to Private Bill Committees, he hoped that the House would have some proposal from the Government for dealing with them, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) would be good enough to inform the House what the proposal of the Government was in regard to Private Bill legislation. In reference to the dinner hour, he would suggest that the time during which the Speaker or the Chairman should vacate the Chair should be limited to an hour, or, if it were preferred, to half-an-hour. He quite agreed that there should be no fixed Rule. He congratulated the House upon having come to the consideration of these Rules with an unbiassed mind, and he trusted that there might be an early prospect of transacting the Business of the country in the middle of the day instead of, as hitherto, in the middle of the night.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, he wished to draw attention to the Report of the Select Committee of 1886, which recommended that 40 Members
  1414
  should have the right to challenge a Division; and he approved this security for the publicity of the votes of Members for the information of their constituents. The principle was also affirmed by the praetise of other Legislatures, and of Municipal Corporations. He would point out that the present opportunities of private Members were very limited, and under the new Rules they would be still more so. He knew the Government had a great difficulty in keeping a House during the dinner hour; but, speaking the views of a large number of young Members, he was certainly opposed to the House adjourning for dinner. An objection had been raised by the right hon. Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Play-fair), who said that after an adjournment there would be great difficulty in making a House again, and that on some occasions the House might be taken by surprise and counted out. No doubt, under the proposed Rule, there might be a tendency in that direction, unless a time were fixed for making a House. He would venture to suggest that if, on the re-assembling of the House, attention was called to the fact that there were not 40 Members present, Mr. Speaker should suspend the Sitting for five minutes, or for some limited period, in order to prevent the House from being taken by surprise. He was of opinion that the debates might be profitably closed at 12 o'clock, and he trusted that their knowledge of that fact would induce hon. Members to be more economical in the use of the time at their disposal, and they would certainly be more readily detected by their constituents if they wasted the time of the nation.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, he should like to say a few words before the discussion closed. He thought the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter), that the House should relegate to a Committee to be nominated by the Speaker the advancement of measures, would, if adopted, be very dangerous. He was astonished that such a suggestion should have been made by his hon. Friend, who was thoroughly acquainted with the system which prevailed in the United States. In that country the Committee had absolute control, not only for the advancement of Business before the

  1415
  House, but of the fate of measures, which meant that the House did not control its own Business, but that a small Committee, or the Chairman of the Committee, controlled it, and did what the House itself should do. That the House should part with all control over legislation was altogether unsuitable to the genius of the House of Commons, and altogether dangerous. There was great danger in too much devolution. If anyone wanted to understand the dangerous tendency of devolution, he could not do better than study the history and practice, not only of the American Congress in that respect, but of the State Legislatures. The lesson to be learned was that great danger would surround any proposal on the part of Her Majesty's Government to part with any of the powers of the House of Commons in order to relegate them to a Select Committee. Another point he wished to allude to with all possible respect was the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for the Poplar Division of the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Buxton)—namely, that the Leaders of the House had absorbed, and were absorbing, a great deal too much time of the House. The object of all these proposals, and all these new forms of Procedure, was to get more time in which to transact the Business of the country. The present complaint was that the House had not sufficient time to do the Business that came before them, therefore the great object was to economize the time of the House. Speaking with all respect and deference to the Leaders of the House, and in a spirit of perfect impartiality, he was bound to confess that they would get no economy of time until right hon. Gentlemen consented to speak with the same limitations the House expected from private Members. Last year the average length of speeches of right hon. Gentlemen was at least an hour. That average had risen during the present Session until it had reached one hour and and a-quarter. Private Members meekly submitted to this usurpation on the part of those who ought to protect their rights. They would, in the end, come to this—that, no matter what Rules of Procedure might be adopted, private Members would have no rights to protect. Right hon. Gentlemen should bear in mind the bad example they were setting their fol-
  1416
  lowers. He regretted to say that that example was spreading. Only a week ago two private Members and two official Members occupied the whole of one day's Sitting—one of them, the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. J. B. Ellis), having occupied an hour and a half. He was afraid that it was the overweening vanity of hon. Members which had led to this abuse. He thought they ought to be animated by a desire to make the most of the limited time at their disposal, so that they might give all their time to the advancement of Business.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTsaid, that as an independent Member he hoped that the Government would consent to alter the proposed Rule, so as to secure to private Members the few privileges which they now possessed. He thought that if the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was to throw his suggestions into the form of an Amendment; it would meet with considerable support. The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) had spoken of the present practice of blocking Bills to prevent their coming on after half-past 12 o'clock; but he (Mr. Vincent) ventured to remind him that many useful Bills—though blocked— became law which were called on at 20 or 25 minutes past 12. Under the present automatic closure of contentious Business at midnight this advantage would be taken away, and nothing, so far as he could see, put in its place. The proposed adjournment of an hour for dinner would, in his opinion, be almost valueless. It would be altogether impossible for the majority of Members to leave the House at 8, go home, dine, and return to the House in time to take part in any discussion that was resumed at 9 o'clock.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he would not detain the House for more than a minute or two. The officials of the House would be perfectly satisfied with half-an-hour for dinner, and it was immaterial to them whether it was a fixed interval or not. He might say for himself, and he thought he might say for the Speaker, that there was no desire on their part to ask for an adjournment for an hour. It was quite sufficient that a Rule should be laid down for the retirement of the

  1417
  occupant of the Chair from the House for a short period without fixing a period for that retirement to take place. It would be quite sufficient if it were understood that half-an-hour, or whatever time might be fixed, should be allowed for the retirement of the Chairman. Hon. Members would then know precisely when the Business would be resumed. He agreed with the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that the experiment which the House was about to make might not be free from difficulty, but certain of the difficulties attached to the experiment could be foreseen. Will regard to Private Bill legislation, for example, why could not Commitees sit at 11 instead of 12? He certainly felt the difficulty as to the transaction of minor Business after midnight, and he thought it might be necessary to reconsider that matter. One point to which attention ought to be drawn was the scandalous custom which permitted a great deal to be done in the House which ought not to be done in it. He referred to the arrangement of private Members' business. It was a scandal that so much time should be wasted in balloting at the beginning of every Session, with the result that the order of subjects was settled by chance, without any regard to their importance. He suggested that Members originating Motions and Bills should inscribe them in a book, and that the supporters of such Motions or Bills should then subscribe their names to them, each Member being only allowed to put his name to one such proposal. The Motion or Bill after which there was the greatest number of signatures would then be taken first, and the others in their order according to the support given to them. He did not foresee any difficulty in carrying out that plan. All the arrangements might be made in a bureau, and the system could be put in practice periodically through the Session.
  Mr. TOMLINSONsaid, that, apart from the question of susspending Business during the dinner hour, it would be a great convenience if the Chair could be vacated at an approximately certain hour. It might be that a Member of the Government, or a private Member, took a close interest in a Bill in Committee, and did
  1418
  not wish to be absent for a moment, and, in view of that circumstance, a suspension of the Sitting for a definite period might be of very great value. Perhaps sufficient consideration had not been given to the very arduous duties of the occupant of the Chair in that House; and he thought it would ease the labours of the Chair if it were possible to give the Deputy Speaker and Chairman greater powers than they now possessed for dividing the work between them. With reference to the argument of some hon. Members, who said that he opposed the suspension for the dinner hour because in that time inexperienced Members were accustomed to address the House, he thought it would be a serious danger to the progress of Business if it were to go forth that two hours— from 8 to 10—were for the special advantage of inexperienced speakers, because it would simply lead to an aggravation of the existing waste of time, he hoped, therefore, that if the proposal for a dinner hour suspension was rejected, something would be said in deprecation of the idea that after a certain hour none but in experienced speakers should address the House.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYsaid, there was no doubt that the constituents of Members expected them to take some part in the Business of the House, not merely by voting, but by expressing their constituents' opinions. It had been almost impossible for private Members during recent Sessions to lay their views before the House. A great deal of time was wasted; and he thought that it would be well to commence work from the time when Mr. Speaker took the Chair. He knew that many Members incurred great fatigue in consequence of having to remain in their places so long before Business commenced, and there were many on that side of the House who considered that 12 o'clock was a proper time for terminating the proceedings of the House. A great deal of time was, under the present arrangements, taken up by long speeches of one or two individuals; and he and his hon. Friends thought it was only reasonable that the ordinary hours of rest should be secured to everyone connected with the House. The Members of the Government had not only to attend the House for many hours, but also to do the very hard and

  1419
  important work which, had to be gone through at their various Offices; and anyone who watched the Members of the Government during the last Session must have seen how much the long hours of attendance had told on their health.
  MR. WARMINGTONsaid, he gathered that the result of the proposal of the Government would be that private Members would have no opportunity of taking part in the Business of the House. That, he thought, would constitute a great danger; because, even at the present time, private Members had no exaggerated, powers, and to adopt the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would be practically to extinguish their rights altogether. There certainly seemed to be a considerable waste of time between Mr. Speaker taking the Chair and the commencement of Public Business. It was seldom the case that the Private Business of the House occupied 30 minutes; and yet that space of time was devoted to that purpose. He could not see why Private Business should not be put down amongst the Orders of the Day, and taken in its proper place, and the Public Business commence directly it was concluded. In that way they would save 20 minutes in each Sitting, or almost two hours every week. He was in favour of that arrangement, which would in no way interfere with the course of Business or with those in charge of the Administration.
  MR. ISAACSsaid, he hoped the Government would pause before changing the hour of meeting to 3 o'clock. There were in the House upwards of 120 Members of the Legal Profession, besides many members of other Professions, and men who were connected with the commerce of this great country. Three o'clock was an unusually early hour at which to ask those Members to come down and legislate on public affairs; and it was more in behalf of the latter class than of Gentlemen of the Long Robe, who were quite able to defend themselves, that he pleaded. At 3 o'clock in the afternoon those men were actively engaged in their business matters, which were then in full swing; and it would be to them a great inconvenience to be required to come down at that hour. It should also
  1420
  be borne in mind that an hon. Member who wished to secure a seat must arrive some time before the House met on the occasion of a debate of an important or interesting nature. Members, under these circumstances, would, therefore, have to reach the House at half-past 2 to secure seats. He thought the Government would do well to reconsider the proposal to allow the House to adjourn for an hour or an hour and a-half. He certainly considered it necessary that Mr. Speaker should have a period of rest afforded him. To ask him to take the Chair at 4 o'clock, and remain uninterruptedly until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, was more than could be expected. But he thought an arrangement might easily be made that when Mr. Speaker was out of the Chair his place should be taken by the Deputy Speaker, and in that way there would be continuity in the Business of the House, which would not be interrupted. He thought it hard that new Members, who were diffident in laying their views before the House, should be deprived of the dinner hour which was found to be convenient for their purpose, and he should not like to see it taken away from them. He ventured to think that the hour for terminating Business should be 12 o'clock; and that Members who came down at 4 o'clock and remained till midnight devoting themselves to Business had done as much as the country could expect of them. It was only last night that two Members, who had to go to Woolwich, and could otherwise have gone by train, were obliged, owing to the late hour to which the House sat, to go that distance of 12 miles by carriage. He suggested that when midnight arrived the House should adjourn.
  MR. RANKINsaid, it was his intention to support the Amendment which the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had put on the Paper, if it were moved, because he thought it would be a great advantage to those Members who had to leave town to do so on Friday instead of on Saturday. With, regard to the question of the dinner hour, he thought that one hour would be of no use whatever. If they were to have any cessation for this purpose, two hours would be necessary; but that would be a serious inroad on

  1421
  the time of the House, and he should, therefore, strongly support the suggestion that for the purpose of relieving Mr. Speaker in his very arduous duties the Chair should be taken in his absence from 8 to 10 o'clock by the Deputy Chairman. He was also of opinion that the Business of the House should terminate at 12 o'clock rather than at half-past 12. With those slight alterations he should support the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House.
  DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, that if the dinner hour were abolished, the rights of private Members would be altogether extinguished. Those rights had been lately in a state of suspended animation. Even if private Members were sometimes considered to be bores, they were bores whom their constituents expected to address the House, and their only chance of speaking was to get up in the dinner hour. Speaking as a medical man, he thought it very important that the House should cease Business at 12 o'clock, because no human constitution could stand the strain of so many hours work as was required under the present system. For those who could stay in bed as long as they liked it did not matter so much; but the work was too hard for Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench and others who could not do so. He hoped they would bring back their Rules to something like common sense, and enable Members to go to bed and rise at a reasonable hour.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, that probably the majority of hon. Members would be of opinion that the views of the House on the general question had been sufficiently gathered to enable them to proceed with the consideration of the substantive Amendments to the Rule which were upon the Paper. He had no hesitation in repeating—as he had stated earlier in the evening—that the desire of the Government was to meet the convenience of the House and to provide for the despatch of Business by men who wore in a physical condition to discharge it with advantage to the country. With regard to the second paragraph providing for the suspension of the Sitting at 8 o'clock, he might state at once that, having gathered the sense of the House on that point, the Govern-
  1422
  ment would not press it. He thought it ought to be understood that in recent years it had become the practice for the Speaker to retire for a limited period between 8 and 9 o'clock, and that practice would be continued, except that the House would probably agree that the interval might very well be extended to half-an-hour. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) had referred to the proviso in the first paragraph of the first Rule excepting from the operation of the Rule as to adjournment at 1 o'clock occasions when—
  "A Bill originating in Committee of Ways and Means and proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament or Standing Order, or otherwise excepted from the operation of this Standing Order"
  might be under consideration. It was proposed to amend this provision so as to make the exceptions from the Rule of Closure at 1 o'clock perfectly clear and definite. Reference had also been made to the provision in the Rule that a Minister of the Crown might at the commencement of the Sitting move that the proceedings on any specified Business be not interrupted at half-past 12 o'clock under this Rule. It had been urged that Notice of this Motion ought to be required. It was the practice of the House that Notice should be given' of a Motion of this kind, and it was therefore unnecessary to make provision for this in the Rule. The Notice, according to the general practice, would appear on the Notice Paper of the day. Then, with regard to the provision for the suspension of the proceedings at half-past 5 o'clock on Wednesdays instead of at a quarter to 6, as at present, this was to obviate a difficulty that now existed. If a Division was taken at half-past 5 o'clock it would be over at about 20 minutes to 6 o'clock, and that would leave time for taking up the next Business on the Paper before the quarter to 6 was reached, when all Business must cease; whereas at present, if a Division was taken shortly before a quarter to 6 it was not over until after a quarter to 6, and all the remaining Business stood postponed until the next day. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had objected that if the House met at 3 o'clock and Public Business commenced at half-past 3

  1423
  o'clock the Private Bill Commitees would be seriously interfered with, but by Resolution of the House the Committees might be authorized to sit until half-past 3 o'clock; and as hon. Members would in future get to bed earlier, probably—so long as the House chose to continue the present system of consideration, of Private Bills by Members of the House—such Committees might meet a little earlier than at present. The subject of Private Bill legislation had been fully considered, and the Government would propose that a Joint Committee of Members of this House and of the House of Lords should be appointed with a view to considering the whole subject of Private Bill legislation in Committee and devising a scheme which would be for the interest of the promoters of Private Bills and of the public. It was a very complicated and important subject, and if it could be solved it would relieve hon. Members of work which at present fell upon them, and at the same time assist in securing an extension of the system of devolution of Committee work with regard to Bills which, under the present Rule, occupied a large portion of the time of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) had made some remarks with regard to the length of speeches delivered from the Front Benches. That was a matter with which the Government could not deal, but which must be left to the House itself to decide by the means which it possessed of giving expression to its feelings when unduly long speeches were made. With regard to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), he (Mr. W. H. Smith) could only say that it would be difficult for the Government to propose any scheme by which the rights of private Members would be further restricted; but when private Members brought forward any scheme on this subject the Government would consider it. As to the reference which had been made by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney) with regard to the danger of "Counts-out," during the short period that he (Mr. W. H. Smith) had had the honour of occupying his present position he had had to remain in the House throughout the whole of the Sitting, and he had noticed during the latter
  1424
  part of last Session that on the return of the Speaker attempts were not infrequently made to count the House— the attempt being repeated on some occasions more than once on the same evening within a few minutes. He hoped that those hon. Members who were in favour of the retention of the present practice with regard to the dinner hour would set their faces against this most inconvenient course, which resulted in hon. Members being called back to the House in the middle of their dinner, and also in the loss of several minutes while the Count was taking place.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of prolonging the discussion, for the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks left nothing to be desired. But there was one point — namely, that raised by the hon. and learned Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce)—to which he had given no answer. If the proposal with regard to the dinner hour were dropped and the present practice of an interval of half-an-hour were continued, then he thought that the proposal in the Rule that Business should be interrupted at half-past 12 o'clock ought to be altered to 12 o'clock.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, there was an Amendment on the Paper with regard to that point. He had already stated that the point was one with regard to which he did not desire to put any pressure on the House. He wished to carry the House with him, because he assumed that the House, as a whole, was desirous of assisting in the conduct of Public Business. For his own part, he thought half-past 12 o'clock a reasonable hour; but in that matter he was ready to defer to the wish of the House.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he understood the Government to offer no objection to the suggestion made, if it should find favour with the House at large. With regard to the suspension of proceedings between 8 and 9 o'clock, he thought the present elastic arrangement was convenient, and carried with it some subsidiary advantages. He regarded as the most important announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) the extremely satisfactory proposal to meet the difficulties felt in the House and the

  1425
  country as to the conduct of Private Bill legislation. He thought the proposal to have a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament to consider by what plan the purposes of Private Bill legislation could be carried out was extremely fair and reasonable, and one from which the House might hope to obtain a satisfactory scheme when the time arrived. He also felt the force of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that the fact that hon. Members would come down earlier made it easier to terminate Business sooner than he proposed. He (Mr. John Morley) had been a little disappointed at the treatment of the criticisms of his Friends the hon. and learned Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) and the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney), with regard to the House affording greater choice and discretion as to the Bills which it might consider and further. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes), in reply to his hon. and learned Friend, said that a private Member would be at no greater disadvantage under the present proposals than he was already under the operation of the half-past 12 Rule. But that he thought was not quite an accurate account of the matter, because, for ex-ample, the half-past 12 o'clock Rule did not preclude the furthering of Unopposed Business; again, that Rule did not apply to Bills in the Committee stage. Speaking for himself, he thought with regard to the three methods proposed by his hon. and learned Friend that there was great difficulty in the way of the first, which contemplated the appointment of a Selecting Committee by the Speaker; and next, that the proposal that the House should declare its choice and preference would be found to be a very cumbrous and unworkable method of procedure. The third plan did not appear to be open to so grave objections; that he thought might be made into a workable expedient, and he hoped that some measures would be taken to bring it into that form.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) whether it would not be well to have independent Tellers? If that arrangement were
  1426
  made they would have much more independent voting.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he did not see his way to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the Amendment he was about to move embodied no Party question. There were many hon. Members in favour of it, and it almost spoke for itself. It was intended, in a Parliamentary sense, to substitute Wednesday for Friday and Friday for Wednesday. Its effect would be that on Wednesday they should sit at 3 o'clock and continue to do so during the evening, and on Friday they would commence business at 12 o'clock and rise at 6 o'clock. He gathered that the House used formerly to sit on Wednesday all the evening as on any other day, and that it was only when the hour of rising became exceedingly late that it was considered desirable to have a break and sit in the morning. That arrangement was very desirable in view of the late hour to which the House had sat during recent Sessions. But they were going to change all that now and go to bed at a reasonable time, and he did not think they would require so long a rest as they had now on Wednesday evening. The question was, on which evening, whether Wednesday or Friday, would it be most convenient to have a holiday? No doubt a reason could be alleged in favour of Wednesday, but if they had the evenings of both Wednesday and Friday lion. Members would probably be glad of it. There were many hon. Members engaged in business, who had their houses at a considerable distance from London, and who went from town on Saturday morning and remained until Monday morning. It would be a great convenience to those hon. Members to go down on Friday evening instead of Saturday morning, and it was the same with those hon. Gentlemen who, living in London, were accustomed for their health to leave town on Saturday. The objections to his proposal were somewhat of a social character. Those who were in favour of it were told that they were going to alter the whole system of London hospitality because people were in the habit of giving dinners on Wednesday. But why should they not give their dinners on Friday? Those who were of an hospitable turn might save by this; they might give a

  1427
  dinner on Friday and use what remained on Saturday. A friend of his had raised another objection to the scheme, and said—" I want to enjoy my Wednesday." "Well," he remarked to him—" You will be able to enjoy your Friday;" but the reply was—"If the Morning Sitting is on Friday my wife will expect me home, whereas if it is on Wednesday I can stop up in London." Of course, he could give no answer to that argument. They ought to bear in mind that the Government were in no way obliged to make a House on Wednesday. If the Amendment were carried it would be desirable to alter the Rule which now required that on a Wednesday Mr. Speaker should wait until 4 o'clock unless a House was made earlier; for if a wild and reckless Bill were down on Friday, it was probable that a House would be made on that day, and it would be outrageous that Mr. Speaker should lose the whole day. He left the matter entirely in the hands of the House to decide, and he trusted that every hon. Member would decide as he thought best in his own interest, for it was not a question affecting the interest of the Government.
  MR. ERNEST SPENCERsaid, he rose to second the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). The hon. Member having spoken so ably had left him little to say on the subject, but he thought it would be a decided advantage to adopt the proposal, and he knew but of one valid objection against it—namely, that four days' continuous sitting would be a great strain on the health and strength of the officials of the House. The weight of that argument in the past would have been very considerable, but it would not be so strong now, because of the change in respect to the Sittings of the House which were about to take place. He had no doubt that the officials of the House would view this proposal with favour. The substitution of Wednesdays for Fridays would more materially affect hon. Gentlemen who lived in the country, and he was entitled to say on their behalf that they viewed this proposed alteration with considerable satisfaction, as it would enable them to devote not only more time to their homes but to their business affairs. He was also of opinion that hon. Members generally
  1428
  would gladly avail themselves of increased opportunities of seeking that change of air and scene which was rendered so very necessary by the prolonged Sessions of last and previous years.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 1, after the words "otherwise order," to insert the words "the Standing Orders relating to Wednesday Sittings shall he longer apply to the Sittings on Wednesday, but shall apply to the Sittings on Friday, and the Standing Orders relating to Fridays shall no longer apply to the Sittings on Friday, but shall apply to the Sittings on Wednesday, and."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BARINGsaid, he emphatically opposed the proposal to sit late on Wednesdays. Although he was but a new Member in that Parliament, he had sat, and satiate, in previous Parliaments, and he found that he could with the interval of Wednesday sit on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday; but he entirely objected to that interval being taken from him. A good night's sleep on one night out of four was as little as a man could get on with, especially at his age, and many Members were a good deal older. He might add that he had hitherto lived in the country, and should be glad to have Friday as well as Wednesday; but as he could not got both, he very much preferred the latter day.
  MR. CRAIG-SELLARsaid, that in the Committee which sat to consider this subject the proposal which was embodied in the Amendment was supported by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), the hon. Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool (Mr. Whitley), and by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith); and although it was lost on a Division, that Division was a good one, and it justified an appeal to the House on the present occasion. The argument of the hon. Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool was that there were a number of hon. Gentlemen engaged in business at Bristol, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, and Liverpool, and in Scotland; that those hon. Gentlemen were compelled, to a certain extent, to neglect their businesses; but that if they could get down on Friday they would be able to pay some atten-

  1429
  tion to them without neglecting their duty to their constituents. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had limited himself to the one point of the convenience of hon. Members; and the proposal was, no doubt, very much to their convenience that they should have three nights in the country instead of two. His own opinion was that the four days' continuous work would be bettor, and more work would be done, than if they had a break in the middle of the week to be followed by two more days of Public Business. If they could not get away before 2 or 13 o'clock in the morning, it would be impossible to have four continuous nights; but if they were to have the early closing movement carried out he saw no hardship in the proposal. No doubt there was something in the argument that it was difficult to make a House on Friday morning; but if the Bill to be considered were an interesting one it was certain there would be a House on Friday, just as there was now on Wednesday. It had never been found, when at the end of the Session Wednesdays became public property, that there was any difficulty in getting a House; and he had no doubt that the same would be found to be the case with regard to Fridays; and with regard to the social arrangements of London, there would only be a change to which those arrangements would easily adapt themselves.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES)said, the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Craig-Sellar) had given a very fair account of what took place in the Committee, and had very justly stated the arguments, as well as the decision, at which the Committee had arrived. The Committee rejected this proposal when it was brought before them, and he (Mr. Raikes) trusted that the influence of that Committee would not be lost on the House that evening. What they ought to look to was how the House was to be made the best working legislative machine; and, regarding the question from that point of view, would they not say that the House was likely to do its work better if it worked two full days, then half-a-day, and then two full days, followed by a rest on Saturday and Sunday, than it would if it ground away for four consecutive evenings, and then
  1430
  sat in a perfunctory manner on the Friday afternoon? They heard much talk about private Members' Bills, but he thought they would hear very little of such Bills if the only day upon which they could be taken was the Friday, no could not help thinking that his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Baring) expressed very fairly and justly the view of those hon. Members who had constant occupation in the daytime, and who yet came down to the House in the evening and gave an earnest attention to the debates. It would be impossible for such Members to give to their Parliamentary duties that full and complete attention they now gave if it was necessary for them to attend for four days without a break. He had some experience of the House, having sat in it for a good many years, and he confessed the belief that it would not be competent for hon. Members who sat on the two Front Benches to carry on their work with that vigour and that elasticity which was required of them if they were to be confronted by each other for four consecutive days. On a Wednesday Members had an opportunity, when Party feeling was highly exasperated and passions were running high, to give quiet consideration to a subject; and it no doubt frequently happened that they re-assembled on the Thursday in a much better condition to settle some great question than they were in when they separated on the Tuesday night. This question, although it was one which might not appear to some to be of great importance, was one which demanded the utmost consideration, and he asked the House to think once, twice, and thrice before it departed from a system which the experience of many Parliaments had proved to be satisfactory, and embarked on a new arrangement for which no argument had been advanced, except that it might be convenient for hon. Gentlemen to live with one leg in London and one leg in a country house.
  MR. NORRISsaid, he could not help thinking it was the continuity of the work of the House which told on the constitution; that their mental and physical powers were entirely exhausted by the continuity of the work. For himself, and he could speak for many Metropolitan Members, the interim in the middle of

  1431
  the week was of very great advantage; indeed, he was sure the existing arrangement was the best for hon. Members generally. He believed, too, that the officials of the House would be very sorry to know that any alteration had been made in the existing arrangement in regard to the rising of the House on the Wednesday.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid, he wished to re-assert the opinion he expressed on the Procedure Committee. He was sorry to hear the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes), because he recollected that the argument urged against any alteration of the hours of sitting on Wednesday was the convenience of Members and the late hours. Now, however, late hours were to be done away with, and therefore the position was altogether changed. Some hon. Members had treated the question as one between town and country. He regretted to hear the private convenience of Members quoted as an argument against the proposed change. Let the House consider for a moment what was the position the Representatives of many Provincial constituencies occupied. During the sitting of Parliament such Members had no opportunity whatever of coming in contact with their constituents, and of consulting them upon the important measures which might be introduced. He did not know anything that would be of greater advantage than the personal contact with their constituents which Members would have if they could go down to their constituencies from the Friday night to the Monday. He declined to discuss the question as one of private convenience. It was unworthy in Members of the House of Commons to cite private reasons rather than the public good in favour of the change now proposed. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) was in favour of this proposition when the Procedure Committee sat, and he (Mr. Whitley) could not understand the change in the opinion of the Government. He was quite aware the proposition would probably be opposed by the occupants of the two Front Benches; but that was no reason why independent Members, who believed that the Business of the country would be better consulted by an early adjournment on the Friday night, should
  1432
  not support the change. He cordially supported the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 167: Majority 62.

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, J. T.

  M'Ewan, W.

  Austin, J.

  M'Laren, W. S. B.

  Barry, J.

  Mallock, R.

  Bickford-Smith, W.

  Marum, E. M.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Mulholland, H. L.

  Bolton, T. D.

  Neville, R.

  Bond, G. H.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Nolan, J.

  Brunner, J. T.

  O'Brien, P. J.

  Burt, T.

  O'Hanlon, T.

  Campbell, H.

  O'Hea, P.

  Carew, J. L.

  O'Kelly, J.

  Carmarthen, Marq. of

  Parnell, C. S.

  Clark, Dr. G. B.

  Penton, Captain F. T.

  Coghill, D. H.

  Pickersgill, E. H.

  Conway, M.

  Pinkerton, J.

  Corbet, W. J.

  Power, P. J.

  Cremer, W. R.

  Price, T. P.

  Crilly, D.

  Quinn, T.

  Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

  Rankin, J.

  De Cobain, E. S. W.

  Reed, H. B.

  Dillon, J.

  Richard, H.

  Dimsdale, Baron R.

  Roberts, J.

  Ellis, T. E.

  Robertson, E.

  Esslemont, P.

  Roe, T.

  Evershed, S.

  Rollit, Sir A. K.

  Eyre, Colonel H.

  Rowntree, J.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Russell, Sir C.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro-

  Russell, T. W.

  Finucane, J.

  Samuelson, G. B.

  Firth, J. F. B.

  Sellar, A. C.

  Fox, Dr. J. F.

  Sinclair, W. P.

  Fulton, J. F.

  Stack, J.

  Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-

  Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

  Gent-Davis, R.

  Stevenson, F. S.

  Gill, T. P.

  Stewart, H.

  Gray, C. W.

  Sullivan, D.

  Hamilton, Col. C. E.

  Sutherland, A.

  Hayden, L. P.

  Thomas, A.

  Holloway, G.

  Thorburn, W.

  Hooper, J.

  Tuite, J.

  Hoyle, I.

  Vincent, C. E. H.

  Hughes, Colonel E.

  Wardle, H.

  Joicey, J.

  Watt, H.

  Kendrick, W.

  Wayman, T.

  Kilbride, D.

  Whitley, E.

  Lafone, A.

  Wilson, H. J.

  Leahy, J.

  Woodhead, J.

  Lees, E.

  Wright, C.

  Lyell, L.

  Wroughton, P.

  Macdonald, W. A.

  Mac Innes, M.

  TELLERS,

  Maclure, J. W.

  Labouchere, H.

  M'Carthy, J.

  Spencer, J. E.

  M'Donald, P.

  NOES.

  Acland, A. H. D.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Addison, J. E. W.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Ainslie, W. G.

  Baird, J. G. A.

  Aird, J.

  Balfour, rt. hon. A. J

  Allison, R. A.

  Baring, T. C.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Barran, J.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Bartley, G. C. T.

  1433

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

  Bates, Sir E.

  Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

  Gorst, Sir J. E.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Beadel, W. J.

  Grimston, Viscount

  Bentinck, W. G. C.

  Grotrian, F. B.

  Bethell, Commander G. R.

  Gully, W. C.

  Haldane, E. B.

  Blundell, Colonel H. B. H.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

  Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

  Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

  Bristowe, T. L.

  Harrington, E.

  Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

  Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards -

  Brookfield, A. M.

  Heaton, J. H.

  Burghley, Lord

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Buxton, S. C.

  Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

  Caine, W. S.

  Caldwell, J.

  Hill, Colonel E. S.

  Cavan, Earl of

  Hoare, S.

  Channing, F. A.

  Hobhouse, H.

  Charrington, S.

  Houldsworth, Sir W. H.

  Childers, rt. hon. H. C. E.

  Howard, J.

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Howorth, H. H.

  Cobb, H. P.

  Illingworth, A.

  Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N.

  Isaacs, L. H.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Collings, J.

  Jarvis, A. W.

  Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.

  Jennings, L. J.

  Johnston, W.

  Corbett, J.

  Kay-Shuttleworth, rt. hon. Sir U. J.

  Corry, Sir J. P.

  Courtney, L. H.

  Kerans, F. H.

  Craig, J.

  Kimber, H.

  Crawford, D.

  King, H. S.

  Crossley, E.

  Knowles, L.

  Dalrymple, Sir C.

  Lawrence, W. F.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Leake, R.

  Dawnay, Colonel hon. L. P.

  Legh, T. W.

  Leighton, S.

  Dixon, G.

  Llewellyn, E. H.

  Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

  Long, W. H.

  Dorington, Sir J. E.

  Maclean, J. M.

  Buncombe, A.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.

  Madden, D. H.

  Maple, J. B.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Matthews, rt. hon. H.

  Elton, C. I.

  Mattinson, M. W.

  Ewart, Sir W.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Fenwick, C.

  Milvain, T.

  Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

  Morley, rt. hon. J.

  Morley, A.

  Field, Admiral E.

  Moss, R.

  Fielden, T.

  Mundella, rt. hn. A. J.

  Fisher, W. H.

  Murdoch, C. T.

  Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

  Noble, W.

  Fitz - Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.

  Norris, E. S.

  Northcote, hon. Sir H. S.

  Fletcher, Sir H.

  Flower, C.

  O'Brien, J. F. X.

  Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

  Parker, C. S.

  Pelly, Sir L.

  Forwood, A. B.

  Playfair, right hon. Sir L.

  Fowler, rt. hn. H. H.

  Fowler, Sir R. N.

  Plunket, rt. hon. D. E.

  Gardner, H.

  Pomfret, W. P.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

  Provand, A. D.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Gedge, S.

  Rasch, Major F. C.

  Giles, A.

  Rathbone, W.

  Gilliat, J. S.

  Ritchie, rt. hn. C. T.

  1434

  Robertson, Sir W. T.

  Temple, Sir R.

  Robertson, J. P. B.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Robinson, B.

  Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.

  Salt, T

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M.

  Trotter, H. J.

  Waring, Colonel T.

  Selwyn, Capt. C. W.

  Watson, J.

  Sidebotham, J. W.

  Webster, Sir R. E.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Weymouth, Viscount

  Smith, A.

  Will, J. S.

  Smith, S.

  Williams, A. J.

  Spencer, hon. C. R.

  Williams, J. Powell-

  Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Stephens, H. C.

  Wright, H. S.

  Stewart, M. J.

  Summers, W.

  TELLERS.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Taylor, F.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would move to insert "half-past" after "at" in line 2. The effect of the Amendment would be that the House would meet on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday at half-past 3 o'clock, instead of at 3, as proposed by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had himself given a good reason for the Amendment, because he had pointed out that Committees of the House would sit till half-past 3; and if they did so it would be difficult for Members serving on Committees to find places in the House if it met at 3 o'clock. It was all very well for Members of the Government and for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who sat upon the Front Opposition Bench to come strolling down to the House at half-past 3 and find their seats reserved for them; but, unfortunately, private Members would be obliged, if the House met at 3, to come down before 3 in order to secure a place. He had thought of putting down an Amendment in the Rule to the effect that it should not come into force until a scat was provided for every Member; but if the House was to meet at an earlier hour he hoped that the First Lord of the Treasury would agree to the modest proposal of a Committee to take into consideration whether means could not be adopted for enlarging the House so as to find seats for all its Members. That proposal was always opposed by the two Front Benches. And why was that? Because the two Front Benches had got their places; and they said to other Members—" Come down at 3 o'clock; come down and pray; come down and pray for us." Let them come down and pray for themselves, and know what it was to be dragged down half-an-hour before the House met in order to

  1435
  get a seat. He trusted that whether the hour of meeting was 3 or half-past 3, his suggestion as to the appointment of a Committee would be acceded to. There was a subsequent Amendment placed on the Paper by an hon. Gentleman that the hour of meeting should be 4 o'clock, but at present the House met at a quarter to 4; and he thought that it would be a reasonable proposal to split the difference and make the time of meeting half-past 3. Moreover, if they were not to have the hour's relaxation in the middle of the Sitting, even if they were to meet at half-past 3, the Sittings would last longer than the First Lord of the Treasury originally suggested. That was not a Party question; but one on which Members on both sides of the House ought to vote for what was best for the country and what was best for themselves.
  Amendment proposed, in line 2, after the word "at," to insert the words "half-past."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'half-past' be there inserted."
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, he had an Amendment upon the Paper providing that the House should continue to meet at 4 o'clock. It might be convenient to discuss his Amendment in conjunction with that of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere); and, therefore, he hoped the Speaker would see his way to put the Question, "That 'three' stand part of the Question."
  MR. SPEAKER: It is not in my power to do that. I must put the Question, "That the words 'half-past' be there inserted." If the Question is negatived, it would be competent for the hon. Gentleman to move his Amendment.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, he did not propose any change in the existing arrangement. In spite of what the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) said, he asserted that the proper thing to do was to insert "4 o'clock," because he saw that on their Agenda Paper there was the Notice that the Speaker would take the Chair at 4 o'clock. [" No; a quarter to 4!"] Then he asked permission to move "a quarter to 4," so as not to alter the existing arrangement. He presumed that if "three" or "half-past three" were adopted, that would be prayer time, and the result would be very inconvenient
  1436
  for a large number, almost all the Members of the House. In the first place, the convenience of business men must be consulted, and it must be borne in mind that in these democratic days there were many more men of business in the House than formerly. Again, the expenses of Committees would be largely increased if the time for holding Committees was cut short. If hon. Members had to run away to secure seats, even though the Committees might agree to sit after the House had commenced Business, there would practically be a diminution of the time Members could give to Committee Business. [Cries of "Agreed, agreed!"] He should be very glad if the House would agree to his proposal. In any event, he hoped they would not agree to meet at 3 o'clock.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had any knowledge of the work which Members of the Government had to do, he would hardly talk of them strolling down to the House. It would undoubtedly be a convenience to a great many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen if the hour of meeting were fixed at a quarter to 4 instead of 3 o'clock. But the Government had to consider, in proposing Rules to govern the Business of the House, the convenience of the House, as a whole, and what time it was necessary to allow for the transaction of Public Business. The Government felt that when they asked the House to agree to conclude the Sittings at a given hour, they should also ask the House to meet somewhat earlier, in order that the time for discussion might not be unduly limited. Inasmuch as they proposed that the transaction of Opposed Business should cease at half-past 12, they thought it would be right to ask the House to meet at 3 o'clock. The question, however, was one for the House to decide. The Government could not take upon themselves the responsibility of seriously limiting the period for the transaction of Public Business; and, on the whole, they thought it right to adhere to the proposal to meet at 3 o'clock. Reference had been made by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) to the serious inconvenience which might arise from the time allowed for the Sittings of Committees being cut short. His hon.

  1437
  Friend could hardly have been present when the question was raised in the general discussion which preceded the debate upon the first Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), or he would know that it was generally thought it would be reasonable, if the House rose earlier, that the Committees should meet earlier than now.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he thought a way out of the difficulty raised by his hon. Friend's Motion would be found by agreeing to the proposal which he (Mr. John Morley) made when he addressed the House a short time ago, and which the First Lord of the Treasury did not look exactly unfavourably upon. The objection to meeting so early as 3 o'clock would to a considerable extent be met, if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to conclude Opposed Business at 12 o'clock, instead of half-past 12 o'clock, because then they would be rewarded for their virtue in coming down—strolling down or otherwise—at 3 o'clock, by being able to get away at 12 o'clock, so far as great debates were concerned. His right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had pointed out that half-an-hour would be too short a time for the House to get through the Legislative Business which was non-contentious, but which was, nevertheless, important and necessary. If the First Lord of the Treasury would accede to the suggestion to substitute 12 o'clock for half-past 12 o'clock, 1 o'clock might still remain in the paragraph at the bottom of the page, which would give an hour in which to get through the non-contentious Business on the Paper.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, he had much pleasure in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), as he considered it a fair compromise. Four o'clock was, no doubt, a very convenient hour of meeting for a large number of Members. Speaking, as he did, on behalf of those who were men of business, it would be very inconvenient to come down to the House earlier than 4 o'clock. It would, too, be inconvenient for many Members of the Legal Profession to come down before that hour.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that the First Lord of the Treasury did
  1438
  not sit upon a Committee more than once in five years, and therefore it was all very well for him to suggest that Committees should meet before 12 o'clock. He (Colonel Nolan) strongly objected to Committees being required to meet earlier. If Members were to get an hour's exercise after breakfast, it was absolutely impossible for them to meet before 12 o'clock. If they did not meet before 12 o'clock, the Sittings of Committees would be cut short, which would be most unwise. He trusted the House would see its way to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere).
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the First Lord of the Treasury had said that the first business of the House was to consider the convenience of its Members. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) submitted it was even more important to consider how Public Business was to be carried on. If the House was to sit from 3 o'clock until half-past 12 that would allow of nine and a-half hours' discussion, but it would seriously curtail the hours during which Ministers had to transact their Departmental business. It was hardly possible for Ministers to get down to their offices before 10 o'clock, and that would allow them five hours in which to do their Departmental business, which was to be criticized in the House. He should be glad if the Leader of the House could see his way to make some such concession as that suggested.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, it was necessary to bear in mind the important question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) —namely, at what hour Public Business should close at night, because upon that one point many others depended. He was anxious that Public Business should close at midnight. Not alone would it be better for the House itself, but it would be striking a blow in favour of better hours for London generally. Moreover, if they closed Business at 12 o'clock, the advantage to the Press, particularly the country Press, would be very great; indeed, it would be a been which would be recognized and appreciated the country through. Reference had been made to the possible inconvenience of Ministers in respect to their Departmental work. Speaking as a business man, he believed that one hour

  1439
  spent by Ministers in their Departments before 12 o'clock was infinitely more useful than two hours hurriedly spent after 12 o'clock. Not only would Ministers be able to do their own work better, but they would be able to see the work in their Departments was done better. But if they closed Opposed Business at 12 o'clock, it seemed to follow inevitably that the House should meet at 3 o'clock. He did not see that there need be any curtailment of the time given to Committee work upstairs. Committees could meet at 11 o'clock, and in future it would be quite as easy for Members engaged in Committees to meet at 11 o'clock as to meet at 12 now, considering the late hours to which the House was often kept sitting.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir Robert Fowler) that it would be impossible for business men to attend upon the House at 8 o'clock. The custom of the House was that to secure a seat a Member could affix his card to it if he were present at prayers. The House was not large enough to accommodate all its Members, and therefore the result of meeting at 3 would be that every business man and every man engaged in the law would be unable to secure a seat. He trusted that the First Lord of the Treasury would yield to the suggestion that they should meet at half-past 3 o'clock instead of 3.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, they had not only to consider the convenience of the House, but the question of the despatch of Business. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) had suggested that they should fix 12 o'clock as the hour at which Opposed Business should cease. If the Government accepted 12 o'clock instead of half-past 12, it appeared to be absolutely necessary they should adhere to the proposal to meet at 3 o'clock. His hon. Friend (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) had mentioned a difficulty with which he (Mr. W. H. Smith) fully sympathized. It was, of course, a matter of very considerable importance that hon. Members who frequented the House should be able to obtain a seat, and if any method could be found by which seats could be secured for Members who took an interest in the
  1440
  House without requiring them to come down at 3 o'clock he should be very glad to adopt it. But the paramount duty they had to discharge was to secure the due order of Business in the House under conditions which would conduce to its efficiency. After listening to the arguments which had been advanced on both sides of the House, he had come to the conclusion that 12 o'clock should be fixed as the hour when debate on Opposed Business should conclude. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had referred to the Business which might follow Opposed Business. His (Mr. W. H. Smith's) impression was that the interval they had provided was sufficient in which to dispose of Unopposed Business. The right hon. Gentleman was under the impression that there might be discussion upon Business which was not opposed. If the right hon. Gentleman would put on the Paper any suggestion which would conduce to the transaction of Unopposed Business between 12 o'clock and a later hour, whether half-past 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock, he (Mr. W. H. Smith) would give it his best attention. He saw some difficulties in the way of the suggestion made, because it was exceedingly difficult to detect the character of any observations which might be made in reference to a Bill.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he greatly regretted to find himself on this question at variance with the occupants of the two Front Benches. He was in favour of eight hours' work for all men engaged in physical labour. The hon. Member spoke just now of the exhaustion of brain and body produced by the work of the House. The hon. Member's brain must be of a very weak kind. The brain work entailed in the case of the majority of Members in following the debates of the House was of the lightest possible description but, in his opinion, the physical labour was of a very severe and exhaustive description. He thought there ought to be a law in every country where it was necessary confining physical labour to eight hours out of the 24, and he did not see why they, legislators, who were undoubtedly condemned to work of the most laborious kind, should be required to have far more than eight hours a day. There was one point upon which they ought to have a thorough understanding, and

  1441
  that was what course the Government were going to adopt with regard to the proposed adjournment for dinner. Was that abandoned? [Cries of"Yes!"] He was very glad of that. From 4 o'clock until 12 o'clock was eight hours, and in his opinion it was sufficiently long to keep the House occupied.
  MR. OSBORNE MOEG ANsaid the hon. Member for the Uxbridge Division of Middlesex (Mr. Dixon Hartland) and the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir Robert Fowler) had dwelt upon the great inconvenience which would result to business men and lawyers if the House met before four o'clock. What, however, they had to consider was the convenience of Members generally; and it seemed to him a monstrous thing that some 300 men of comparative leisure should be obliged to waste half the day and sit up half the night in order that 30 or 40 lawyers and bankers might make enormous incomes.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he should like to have a distinct understanding from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury as to the construction he placed upon the term "unopposed Business." There were two classes of what might be technically called "unopposed Business." There was the class of Business which, not being blocked, was allowed to be taken after half-past 12 on an ordinary night, and which consisted of measures of practical import, Government measures and other measures, and the carrying of Bills through stages of Committee which had previously passed the second reading. Practically, all second class Bills were now passed through Committee after half-past 12 o'clock at night. There was the other class of unopposed Business which occurred after a quarter to 6 on Wednesdays, when it was in the power of any individual Member of the House to stay all further progress in respect of that Business. Was he correct in understanding the First Lord of the Treasury to mean that after 12 o'clock, or half-past 12, it would be in the power of any individual Member of the House by saying "I object" to put a stop to all the Business upon the paper; because if so, he did not hesitate to say that the Business of the House would be brought to a standstill. It would be impossible to carry on
  1442
  either the legislation or the administration of the country if they put it in the power of any individual Member—and during the time he had been in the House there had always been individual Members ready to exercise that power, Members well known for their tendencies and powers in that direction—it would be in the power of any individual Member to stay progress in the case of 20 or 30 Government Orders and Bills of the greatest importance. If they were to do work after 12 o'clock, which, was now done after the close of a big debate, an hour was the very least time that ought to be allowed them.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman could hardly have read the last paragraph of the Rule, which stated that no opposed Business was to be taken after the close of the debate. He did not entertain the fears the right hon. Gentleman appeared to entertain as to the course of Public Business, or as to the course of Government Business. It would be in the power of the Government to ask the House to consider early in the evening measures which were now taken at the end of the evening, so that consideration might be given to them in the manner, and to the extent to which he was sure the right hon. Gentleman thought consideration should be given. As far as Private Bills were concerned, he trusted that the House would exercise due discretion and due judgment in reference to Bills promoted by private Members. If there was a fixed hour of closing, the danger which the right hon. Gentleman referred to must, under any circumstances, be encountered. It would be obviously quite possible for any two or three Members to occupy, in the discussion of any Bill, all the time allowed in order to shut out all other Business. There must be on the part of the House a desire fairly to promote the progress of Business.
  Question put.
  The House divided:— Ayes 100; Noes 214: Majority 114.—(Div. List, No. 14.)
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name, and he would like to say a few words in support of it. His proposal was as follows:—In line 3

  1443
  to leave out the words "One of the clock a.m.," and insert "half-past Eleven of the clock." He would ask the right hon. Gentleman's attention to his principal reason for moving this Amenedment, and it was that the later hour named in the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would still leave the evils which the right hon. Gentleman complained of unremedied and untouched. His (Mr. Broadhurst's) object in desiring that the adjournment should take place at an early hour was to give all Members of the House opportunities of selecting their own means of returning home, which they did not possess at present. Up till now all hon. Members had either to walk home or to pay expensive cab hire. The latter might be within the reach of right hon. Members, but there were a number of Members who could not indulge in it, such number being rather on the increase than the decrease in future elections. It was a curious fact that nearly all the train services in the metropolis ceased at 12 o'clock, or very near that hour, and that omnibus services ceased at somewhere about the same time. If Members could leave the House at half-past 11, or certainly not later than 12, they would be able to travel comparatively long distances for a small sum, and would be able to occupy much cheaper residences than could be obtained within easy walking distance of the House. Then there were a great number of people employed in the House who were not Members, to whom it was of still greater importance that they should leave earlier in order to proceed home by train, or a cheaper mode of transit than a cab, and in their name, as well as in the name of many hon. Members, he pressed his Amendment upon the House. He did not believe in the argument used by the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), nor in the fears entertained by right hon. Members opposite—namely, that it was possible to coerce Members of the House into a more expedient mode of transacting their Business by Rules or hours of sitting. It would be necessary to trust to reason, and he entirely endorsed the remarks of his hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Dillon) that eight hours work of the kind transacted by Members of Parliament was quite sufficient, and was quite as much as could be done
  1444
  efficiently and to the satisfaction of the country. While the Government were engaged in this sensible re-arrangement of the Rules of the House, he hoped they would freely work and do it thoroughly. He was certain of this, that in a very few Sessions, if not at once, the House and the country would find that they had lost nothing by reducing their hours of labour, but that they had added greatly to the efficiency of the work they are doing. He believed they would in the future be able to do quite as much work as they had done in longer hours in the past. He had no fear that the arrangement proposed would result in lengthening the Session. He did not believe that the proposal of the Government, even if his (Mr. Broadhurst's) Amendment were accepted, would add a fortnight to the length of the Session, but thought, on the contrary, it would rather have a tendency to shorten it. The lessening of the number of hours they sat would certainly be a great blessing to every Member of the House, both physically and mentally, and he believed that the legislation passed by the House would be more thorough, because it would be performed by men who were more competent than hon. Members were at present by reason of late sittings. On that subject he had received a great number of promises of support from both sides of the House, and he hoped that, should the First Lord of the Treasury not agree to accept his Amendment, he would at any rate assure his Followers that they were perfectly at liberty to vote as they chose on the question, and were not to be guided by the Whips at the door as they entered the House to take part in a division. He would not trespass on the House more than to express a hope that hon. Members fully gathered his reason for moving the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in line 34, to leave out the words, "One of the clock a.m.," and to insert the words, "half-past Eleven of the clock p.m."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, that he was in favour of the Amendment which had been moved; but there was

  1445
  also an Amendment of his own that the hour of closing should be 12 o'clock, subject to the disposal of unopposed Business. Perhaps it would be convenient for the First Lord of the Treasury to tell the House now whether, 3 o'clock having been adopted as a time of meeting, he did not propose to accept his Amendment to terminate opposed Business at midnight.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that it was understood, when the hour for commencing Business was fixed at 3 o'clock, that the Amendment would subsequently be agreed to providing for the termination of opposed Business at 12 o'clock. That was his answer to the Amendment. It was obvious that they could not adjourn the House at half-past 11, unless they agreed to close their debates at a much earlier hour. What had taken place in the House was, he thought, sufficient to show that the feeling and sense of the House was against the closing of opposed Business earlier than 12 o'clock. Much as he desired to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Broadhurst) and the convenience of those he represented, he was compelled, in the interests of the convenience of the House itself, to adhere to the Rule he proposed, and to ask the House to close its Business at 12 o'clock. As the hon. Member was aware, the hour would remain as in the original Resolution, unless the Amendment were withdrawn and another Amendment were proposed. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) did not attach any great importance to leaving the hour for adjournment at 1 o'clock, because, as hon. Members would see, the meaning of the Rule was that the House should meet at 3 o'clock, and continue until 1, unless previously adjourned. If, therefore, the House decided to conclude its opposed Business at 12 o'clock, the House might adjourn at any moment thereafter that the unopposed Business was got rid of, provided it was before 1 o'clock. The House would adjourn at 1 o'clock in any event — whether the unopposed Business was disposed of or not. The House would see that it was not material that they should alter the hour from 1 o'clock to any earlier hour, although the fact that they had practically agreed in concluding opposed Business at 12 o'clock might appear to leave it open to doubt that they would sit till 1 o'clock.
  1446
  Of course, the House would adjourn as soon as the Business was got through.
  DR. CLARKsaid, he thought it meet that they should understand what the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury meant by the word "opposed." At the present time, they could not oppose a Bill after it had got into Committee. They could oppose a Bill on second reading, and on going into Committee; but when once it got into Committee, he presumed it would be taken as unopposed Business. If the Government meant by "opposing," the opposition of any one Member to a measure or a Motion, the House was aware that that opposition practically meant that five minutes after the hour fixed for the adjournment of the debate, all kinds of Business on the Paper would be disposed of. Did the Government mean that a Bill, on getting into the stage of Committee, or any later stage, could be opposed as measures could now be opposed, after a quarter before 6 on Wednesdays? Did they mean that any one Member could prevent any Business being proceeded with?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that it was, perhaps, not in the power of the First Lord of the Treasury to pronounce on this matter more authoritatively than any other Member of the House. What was opposed Business was perfectly well understood, especially in relation to Business taken after a quarter before 6 o'clock. The same understanding would apply in connection with Business taken between 12 and 1 o'clock in future, whether Bills were in Committee or not. If a Motion was made to proceed with any Bill, and if a Member got up in his place and merely said "I object," further progress would be stopped; not only in the case of the second reading, but in the case of a Bill in Committee if a Member challenged a Division, it at once became opposed Business, and could not be dealt with. Therefore, it was probable, if the House were to stop opposed Business at 12 o'clock, and the present Order was maintained, in the course of 10 minutes all Business on the Paper would be got through, unless there was a great change in the authoritative ways of independent Members. It had been argued that it would be convenient to alter the hour for the adjournment of the House

  1447
  from 1 o'clock to an earlier hour; but he (Mr. Courtney) did not agree with those who expressed that opinion, and he did not think the House would suffer anything in having the later period fixed. The House would rise when its Business was disposed of. They were making a great experiment, of which no one could quite foresee the working, and it might come to pass that, after a little time, they might find that the necessary Business of the House could not be done under these Rules. Then it might be found convenient to alter the principle about to be laid down. He would suggest that the hour of 1 o'clock should be maintained, and that the question should be left open for some definition of the Business to be done between 12 and 1 o'clook. He would urge that the word "One" should be maintained, although that hour might never be reached, or anything near it.
  MR. BROAD HURSTsaid, that if it was the general wish of the House that the hour of 12 should be fixed, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid he desired to move the omission of the following paragraph: —
  "That at Eight of the clock the Speaker or Chairman, as the case may be, shall suspend the sitting by leaving the Chair until Nine of the clock. If, after the resumption of Business, at Nine of the clock, and before a quarter-past Nine, notice be taken that 40 Members are not present, the Speaker or Chairman shall, unless 40 Members are sooner present, suspend the sitting until a quarter-past Nine, when he shall count the House or Committee."
  These words constituted a portion of the Rule providing for the dinner hour, and it had been understood that he would not press them.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, that if these words were left out, he would be precluded from moving an Amendment to them. Could he bring on his Amendment as a substantive Motion later on?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member's Amendment would be in keeping with a later part of the Resolution and could be moved later on.
  Amendment proposed, to omit from the proposed New Rule
  1448
  lines 8 to 13 inclusive.—(Mr. W. B. Smith.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed new Rule," put, and negatived.
  Mr. W. H. SMITHsaid, he wished to omit in line 14 the words "half-an-hour after."
  Amendment proposed, in Rule I, line 14, to omit the words "half-an-hour after."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Rule," put, and negatived.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORDsaid, he wished to move the following Amendment:—
  Rule I, line 16, after "interrupted," leave out to end of line 25, and insert, "and the question then under consideration shall be put, unless at the times before mentioned a Motion shall be made, 'That the Debate be now adjourned,' which Motion shall be decided without Amendment or Debate. If such Motion be resolved in the affirmative, the Business under consideration shall stand adjourned until the next day on which the House shall sit. If the Motion be resolved in the negative, the Question under consideration shall be put forthwith."
  He said the Amendment he had to move was a very simple one, but he thought it required a few words of very brief explanation — more than any of the Amendments which had preceded it. The object of his Amendment was to decide what was to become of the Business under consideration at the close of the evening, and whether the arrangement proposed by the Government was best, or whether another was not more desirable and more natural and even more consonant with the spirit of the whole Rule which they were discussing. He should like to point out to the House that if the Rule remained exactly as it stood, every night in the week would become the same as the Wednesday was at present. Whatever Business was under discussion at the close of the day would stand adjourned until the following day; and they all knew from experience that the Procedure on Wednesdays frequently led to a great waste of time, and was a great inducement to the practice of talking out Business. Accordingly the object of his Amendment was to produce what had been described as an

  1449
  "automatic closure." That was an object which had no pretension to novelty. Indeed, he was surprised that no other hon. Member had put an Amendment on the Paper to this effect. When the Rules of last year were under the consideration of the House, there was an Amendment to the same effect in the name of an hon. Member, and he knew that other hon. Members and that a right hon. Gentleman of great experience on the Front Bench had favoured the idea, and had in previous years devoted attention to it. The difference between the proposed new Rule and his proposal was simply as to what was to be the ordinary Rule. His proposition was that, as an ordinary Rule, a debate should continue until 12 o'clock, at which hour the question under discussion should be put, and the debate concluded; but that it was to be open to any Member of the House to move the adjournment of the debate, if there was a desire that the debate should be adjourned, and the question of adjournment would be decided without Amendment or debate. The proposal of the Government, on the other hand, was that, as an ordinary Rule, there should not be an immediate conclusion of the Business under discussion. He did not think it had been made quite clear what was the meaning of the Speaker ascertaining by the majority the voice of the House. It contained the admission that it might be very inconvenient for Business to be adjourned till next day, and he thought it would be much more consistent if the opinion of the House were taken at the close of the evening, unless there were reasons to the contrary.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 16, to leave out from the word "interrupted," to the word "day," in line 25 inclusive, in order to insert the words "and the Question then under consideration shall he put, unless at the times before mentioned a Motion shall be made 'That the Debate be now adjourned,' which Motion shall be decided without Amendment or Debate. If such Motion be resolved in the affirmative, the Business under consideration shall stand adjourned until the next day on which the House shall sit. If the Motion be resolved in the negative, the Question under consideration shall be put forthwith."—(Mr. Donald Crawford.)
  Question,
  "That the words, 'and, if the House be in Committee, the Chairman shall leave the Chair, and make his Report to the House; and if a Motion has been proposed for the Adjournment
  1450
  of the House, or of the Debate, or in Committee, That the Chairman do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, that every such dilatory Motion shall lapse without Question put; and the Business then under consideration, and any Business subsequently appointed, shall tie appointed for the next day on which the House shall sit,' stand part of the Question."
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the Government, in framing these Rules, had fully considered the proposal which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had made; but it was found that there was a serious objection to it. It was exceedingly probable that a question might be brought under the consideration of the House at a very short time before the hour for closing the debate had arrived. It might be a Bill, a Motion, or a Vote in Supply, and by the Rule proposed by the hon. and learned Member automatic closure would immediately take place. It would be a very inconvenient thing to introduce a Rule which would in many cases force a premature closing of the debate on an important question. The Government were, therefore, of opinion that the question should be raised in a formal manner, that the closure of the debate should take place. The words of the Rule had been fully considered and duly weighed by the highest authorities, and, under all the circumstances, he thought it best to adhere to the Rule as it stood.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORDsaid, that by the words he proposed the Question could be put, "That the Debate be adjourned," and if carried there would be no Division on the Main Question. The decision would rest with the House, and not with Mr. Speaker.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the proposal of the hon. and learned Member would give the majority the power of closing the debate without discussion, which was a thing he should hesitate to recommend.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in line 23, to leave out from the word "sit" to the word "day," in line 25, inclusive.—(Mr. Francis Powell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he regretted that the Amend-

  1451
  ment he was about to move—which, was of some importance—was not on the Paper. Under the Rule as it stood, when 12 o'clock was reached they might be in this position—that the second reading of a Bill having been moved, an Amendment might have been proposed to leave out "this day" and insert "this day six months," and the Question might be "That the words proposed to be left out; stand part of the Motion." If then, the Closure was to apply to that, and that alone, the result would be that the House might take a Division on the Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion," and then stop. But he (Mr. Courtney) thought the House ought to be allowed to proceed to the Question "That the Bill be read a second time." He believed the intention of the present Rule was to apply the Closure Rule of last year in its entirety at the suspension of Business at 12 o'clock. If that was the case, he submitted that the Rule should be read thus—
  "The Speaker or Chairman shall not leave the Chair until the Questions consequent thereon, and any further Motion as provided in the Rule 'Closure of Debate,' have been decided."
  Amendment proposed, in line 29, after the word "thereon," to insert the words, "and on any further Motion."— (Mr. Leonard Courtney.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had not the least objection to the Amendment. He was under the impression that the object of the hon. Gentleman was already provided for in the Rule, but it was better always to avoid the possibility of a difference of opinion arising in future.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in line 31, to leave out the words "half-past."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  Question proposed, "That the words ' half-past' stand part of the Question."
  MR. HENEY H. FOWLERsaid, the House had decided that the Main Question under discussion should cease at 12 o'clock, and it was also decided that they were willing to sit until a quarter to 1 o'clock to deal with what was called the routine business of the evening. The
  1452
  right hon. Gentleman had also said that if they were to have a Rule for closing the Sittings of the House at a fixed hour, there must be an intervening period during which unopposed business could be taken. To that he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) assented. He asked the House to concede that the interval between 12 o'clock and a quarter to 1 should be available for carrying on any business on the Paper, and not at the mercy of any individual Member who might put a stop on the Paper. He would propose that the Rule should read thus—
  "After the Business under consideration at a quarter before 1 has been disposed of, no fresh opposed Business shall be taken."
  If the Rule remained, as at present, it would result that nothing but great measures would be carried during the Session; Bills and Motions relating to the ordinary Administration of the great offices could not be proceeded with because they would be at the mercy of private Members. He feared that if the Rule remained in its present form it would break down completely in five or six weeks, and they would be in a worse position than at present.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the House had already decided that the Business of the House should close at 12 o'clock. The effect of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would be to prolong opposed Business till a quarter to 1. He believed that the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman wished to obviate could be met by a judicious arrangement of Public Business. The Government would put down minor Bills of a contentious character as the first Business of the evening, and they would be considered between half-past 3 and half-past 4 or 5 o'clock. His experience was that a Member who desired to prevent the third Order, for instance, being taken, would prolong the discussion on the second, and by that means the time would arrive when the Rule for closing came into operation. He was afraid that, having adopted the early closing Rule, they must submit to the conditions attached to it. While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the assistance which he desired to render the Government, he (Mr. W. H. Smith) was obliged to express his opinion that this proposal was not a practicable one, that it would not work to the right hon.

  1453
  Gentleman's satisfaction, and that it might be availed of for the purposes of obstruction.
  MR. W. A. M'ARTHURsaid, he thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was a very useful one, and should certainly give it his support.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that what he understood his right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) to propose was that between 12 o'clock and a quarter to 1, the Business which the present half-past 12 o'clock Rule admitted to be taken should continue to be taken. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) and his Colleagues, whether that was not a very reasonable proposal? Under the operation of the present half-past 12 o'clock Rule Business of great value was taken, Business which in one sense might be opposed, but which in another sense was unopposed. He thought the Government would do well to accept the proposition of his right hon. Friend.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) to suggest that the Business which was at present unblocked, and was taken after half-past 12 o'clock, should be taken between 12 o'clock and a quarter to 1 o'clock if it was opposed. It was obvious, then, that any Member who really opposed the Business would have the power of stopping it.
  MR. HENEY H. FOWLER: Not if the Bill has passed a second reading, and the Speaker is out of the Chair.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would see that if there was a real disposition to oppose Business, it should not be proceeded with. He recalled the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the House had practically decided to conclude Public Business, so far as opposed Business was concerned, at 12 o'clock, upon the understanding that the House met at 3 o'clock. If three-quarters of an hour, or an hour, were allowed afterwards for the transaction of the Business on the Paper, his impression was that if there was the
  1454
  slightest opposition to any measure, it would not be possible to pass it through any stage at all. It was an easy matter to occupy three-quarters of an hour in what was called "reasonable discussion." There was opposed Business and there was unopposed Business. If Business was unopposed it would pass, but if it was opposed, the fact that they had got an absolute closure at a quarter to 1 o'clock would make it quite certain that they would make no progress with the Business, but they would all be kept there until a quarter to 1 o'clock.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. HENEY H. FOWLERsaid, he did not intend to put the House to the trouble of a Division. This was an experiment, and they would all see how it would work.
  Proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, he proposed to omit the words "by a Minister of the Crown," in line 35. He understood that the object of this paragraph was on the occasion of great debates to give an opportunity of extending the time for discussion on probably the concluding night only. It seemed to him there was no reason for limiting the making of that Motion to a Minister of the Crown, and on general grounds there was no precedent for a Rule of this kind. Besides, the expression "a Minister of the Crown" was somewhat ambiguous. He did not know how far it would include hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Government Bench or not. The only kind of precedent there could be for anything of the sort was that it was only one of Her Majesty's Ministers who could make a Motion which would put a charge on the Public Revenue. But that was a totally different matter to this. During the discussions on the Rules of the House, especially on the question of closure, the House negatived the idea that the Motion for Closure should be limited either to a Minister or a Privy Councillor, preferring that it should be competent for any individual Member of the House to move the Closure, and, as they all knew, private Members had moved it. Upon Constitutional as well as pracitcal grounds, he was of opinion that these words ought to be omitted.

  1455
  Amendment proposed, in line 35, to leave out the words "by a Minister of the Crown."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'by a Minister of the Crown' stand part of the Question."
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that these words were inserted in order to provide that a competent Member of the House should be the person to make the Motion. There was no desire to restrict the making of the Motion to a Minister of the Crown as a special privilege. It was usual, when a Motion of this character was to be made, that it should be made by a responsible Member. It was a customary thing for a responsible Member of the Opposition to ask whether it was the intention of the Government to suspend the Standing Order, and it was afterwards understood that if a Motion for the suspension of a Standing Order was made, it would be made by the Minister who was responsible for the conduct of the Business of the House of Commons for the time being. If it was the feeling of the House that the words "by a Minister of the Crown" should be omitted, he had no objection to offer. Of course, it must be borne in mind that a Motion could only be made after Notice of it had been placed upon the Paper. He trusted that this explanation would satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, he desired to ask if it was not a fact that there was absolutely no precedent for a limitation of this kind upon the rights of individual Members?
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, he would remind hon. Members that the words "Ministers of the Crown" were inserted by the then Government in the Rules proposed in 1881. Similar words were also inserted in Rules passed in the time and upon the recommendation of the late Lord Beaconsfield.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would advise his hon. and learned Friend not to persevere with his Amendment, as it was quite understood that the words meant the Leader of the House or someone representing that Gentleman.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that these words raised a very important question. There were many Ministers of the Crown who would not trench on the time of the
  1456
  House by asking for this kind of indulgence. If, however, the power were exercised very often it would become an absolute abuse, and they would be in precisely the same position as before the Rule was passed. A great debate might last for three or four nights, and upon each night it might be asked that the debate should be continued beyond 12 o'clock. If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) gave them the assurance that it was only on some extraordinary occasion that it was intended this Motion should be made, he saw no objection to these words remaining in the Rule.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had no hesitation whatever in giving his hon. and gallant Friend the assurance he required. He could hardly suppose it was probable a Minister of the Crown could desire to prolong debates beyond the period decided for the closing of Business. The object in view was to afford the opportunity of closing a great debate in a manner which would conduce to the proper conclusion of very grave and important questions. It would be obviously improper that the Minister or the Member of the Opposition who had to wind up a very important debate should be exposed to the necessity of crowding his observations into a few minutes.
  MR. HALDANEsaid, they were told that the words meant the Leader of the House for the time being. But the words as they stood said something quite different. They included any Junior Lord of the Treasury, and he objected strongly to leave the House at the mercy of any irresponsible Member of the Government. They had perfect confidence in the present Leader of the House; but it was reasonable to suppose the right hon. Gentleman would not always be the Leader of the House.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the Government had adopted words which they believed would lead to the protection of the House, If these words be omitted it would give the right to any hon. Member to get up at half-past 4 o'clock, and move that the proceedings on a particular Bill in which he was interested should not be concluded at 12 o'clock. The privilege might be exercised by hon. Members very much to the inconvenience of the House. He did not think the hon. and learned Gen-

  1457
  tleman (Mr. Haldane) need, have any fear that the power would be exercised by any Junior Lord of the Treasury.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, line 38, leave out "half -past."— (Mr. W. B. Smith.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Rule."
  MR. C. T. D. ACLANDsaid, he would like to ask what would be the position of the House in reference to the blocking of Bills? As he understood the matter, the present custom of blocking would be entirely done away with. Would a notice of opposition to a Bill be considered to render that Bill an opposed Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the present process of blocking would entirely disappear under the new system, but it would be quite open to any Member to give Notice of opposition. A Notice of opposition did not of itself constitute opposition.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. HOWORTHsaid, the proposition he had now to make was one suggested to him by several hon. Members on both sides of the House as being one likely to be extremely convenient. It would be in the recollection of the House that very often last Session the House sat in Committee to a very late hour of the morning, and that it was necessary for the Speaker to sit up the whole night in order to perform the mere perfunctory duty of closing the Sitting. It seemed to him (Mr. Howorth) it would be well if the House, like every other Legislative Assembly in Europe, empowered its Speaker to appoint a Deputy to perform a perfunctory duty of this kind. It would be distinctly a great relief to the Speaker if he could depute the Chairman of Committees to perform this duty. If there were any occasions on which it was necessary that the Speaker should be recalled for the purpose of assisting the Chairman of Committees, that was provided for by the words he had inserted in his Amendment. If he might, he would add another clause to the Amendment, providing that the Speaker should be able to depute someone to take the Chair between 8 and 10 o'clock at night.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Question, to add the words —" That whenever the House is in Committee at half-past Twelve of the clock a.m. the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means may, at the request of Mr. Speaker, take the Chair as Deputy Speaker, for the purpose of concluding the Business of the Sitting."—(Mr. Howorth.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was inclined to think that his Amendment, which came next, was better than that of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton was much wider than that proposed by the hon. Member for Salford.
  MR. HOWORTHsaid, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Question, to add the words—"That the Chairman of Ways and Means do take the Chair as Deputy Speaker when requested so to do by Mr. Speaker without any formal communication to the House. And that Mr. Speaker do nominate, at the commencement of every Session, a panel of not more than five Members to act as temporary Chairmen of Committees when requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. BARINGsaid, he entirely concurred in the object of the Amendment, but thought the hon. Gentleman should insert words which would bring it into force in the Session already begun.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that if the House desired it, he would accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton. It appeared to be a very reasonable proposal; it would be an improvement in their procedure that the Speaker himself should nominate five Members to act as temporary Chairmen of Committees.
  MR. HOWORTHsaid, he wished to know whether the Amendment enabled Mr. Speaker to depute the Chairman of Committees to close a Sitting?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Amendment did not mention that, but of course Mr. Speaker would be able to depute such power to the Chairman of Committees.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he hoped he should not be misunderstood in what he was about to say; but he thought the second part of the proposal a considerable innovation in the practice of the House. No doubt, the choice Mr. Speaker would make would be excellent; but the House appointed its own Speaker and Chairman, and he would ask whether it would not be a great revolution in their established customs by a single Rule to invest the Speaker with authority to appoint five additional Chairmen?
  MR. RAIKESpointed out that Mr. Speaker was able, by the existing Rules of the House, to appoint five Deputy Speakers, and if he was competent to do that, surely he was more than competent to appoint five Deputy Chairmen.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had the following Amendment on the Paper:—
  Rule 1, leave out lines 8 to 13, inclusive, and insert,—" That if, during the first quarter of an hour from the resumption of business after the Speaker or Chairman has retired from the Chair, notice be taken that 40 Members are not present, the Speaker or Chairman shall, unless 40 Members are sooner present, suspend the sitting until the termination of the said quarter of an hour, when he shall count the House or the Committee."
  He proposed to alter the Amendment by leaving out the words "from the resumption of business," and by substituting the words "returned to" for "retired from." The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) had pointed out the inconvenience and trouble that would often occur from some hon. Member taking it into his head to move a Count directly Mr. Speaker returned from his temporary retirement. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed a hope that hon. Members would not put the House to this inconvenience; but it seemed to him (Mr. Labouchere) that it would be well for them to prevent it as far as they could. This Rule would be a great advantage to the Whips, who, as a rule, had great difficulty in keeping hon. Members during the dinner hour. The greatest trouble would be at about 9 o'clock.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Question, to add the words.—"That if, during the first quarter of an hour after the Speaker or Chairman has
  1460
  returned to the Chair, notice be taken that 40 Members are not present, the Speaker or Chairman shall, unless 40 Members are sooner present, suspend the sitting until the termination of the said quarter of an hour, when he shall count the House or the Committee."— (Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, he had given Notice of an Amendment which he thought would effect the desired object better than the words of the hon. Member for Northampton. By his Amendment no notice would be taken that 40 Members were not present between 8 and 10 o'clock, but if on a Division between those hours it should appear that 40 Members were not present, Business would be suspended until 10 o'clock, at which hour notice could be taken that 40 Members were not present. The House had done something to give Mr. Speaker a rest, but it had done nothing as yet to take rest itself. It would give hon. Members a rest if they knew that between 8 and 10—just as between 12 and 4 on a Wednesday—the House could not be counted. He would submit his Amendment to the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: The House already has an Amendment before it. If that Amendment is unsuccessful, of course it will be competent for the hon. Member to bring his on.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: Would the hon. Member for Northampton accept his (Mr. Gedge's) Amendment in place of his own?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he understood the hon. Member for Northampton to propose that if on the Speaker's return to the Chair notice should be taken that there were not 40 Members present, and there should not be that number of Members in their places when the House was counted, the Sitting would be suspended for a quarter of an hour with Mr. Speaker in the Chair. It would be rather hard on Mr. Speaker that he should be kept in the House for that time while hon. Members were being brought in to form a House. There would be practically a suspension of Business during which the Speaker only would suffer, and he would surfer very often, for 40 Members would have no inducement to enter the House before

  1461
  the expiration of a quarter of an hour, for there would be no danger of the House being counted. The Member interrupted by the Count would be left in the House; and he and the Speaker would have to sit looking at each other for a quarter of an hour, which would hardly be a dignified condition of things. He certainly could not consent to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport, which would only add to the difficulties of the case.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought his proposal, if accepted, would obviate a good deal of trouble. But if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House did not think so, he would not press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That, unless the House otherwise order, the House shall meet every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, at Three of the clock, and shall, unless previously adjourned, sit till One of the Clock a.m., when the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put, unless a Bill originating in Committee of Ways and Means, or unless proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament or Standing Order, or otherwise exempted, as hereinafter provided, from the operation of this Standing Order, he then under consideration.
  That at midnight on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, except as aforesaid, and at half-past Five of the clock on Wedesdays, the proceedings on any business then under consideration shall be interrupted; and, if the House be in Committee, the Chairman shall leave the Chair, and make his report to the House; and if a Motion has been proposed for the Adjournment of the House, or of the Debate, or in Committee That the Chairman do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, every such dilatory Motion shall lapse without Question put; and the business then under consideration, and any business subsequently appointed, shall be appointed for the next day on which the House shall sit, unless the Speaker ascertains by the preponderance of voices that a Majority of the House desires that such business should be deferred until a later day.
  Provided always, That on the interruption of business the Closure may be moved, and if moved, or if proceedings under the Closure Rule be then in progress, the Speaker or Chairman shall not leave the Chair, until the Questions consequent thereon and on any further Motion, as provided in the Rule "Closure of Debate," have been decided.
  That after the business under consideration at Twelve, and half-past Five respectively, has been disposed of, no opposed business shall be taken; and the Orders of the Day not disposed of at the close of the sitting shall stand for the next day on which the House shall sit.
  1462
  That a Motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of Public Business, to be decided without Amendment or Debate, to the following effect: "That the proceedings on any specified business if under discussion at Twelve this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order 'Sittings of the House.'"
  Provided always, That after any business exempted from the operation of this Resolution is disposed of, the remaining business of the sitting shall be dealt with according to the provisions applicable to business taken after Twelve o'clock.
  Provided also, That the Chairman of Ways and Means do take the Chair as Deputy Speaker when requested so to do by Mr. Speaker without any formal communication to the House. And that Mr. Speaker do nominate, at the commencement of every Session, a panel of not more than five Members to act as temporary Chairmen of Committees when requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  MR. CRAIG-SELLARsaid, he should like to ask whether the Rule came into operation on Monday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It comes into operation at once.

  EAST INDIA [PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCTION OF RAILWAYS].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the Secretary of State in Council of India to raise in the United Kingdom a sum not exceeding £10,336,048 16 s. 8d., for the purchase of the Oude and Rohilkund Railway."—(Sir John Gorst.)
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again:"—(Dr. Clark.)— Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  1. Resolved, That it is expedient to authorize the Secretary of State in Council of India to raise in the United Kingdom a sum not exceeding £10,330,048 16 s. 8d.,for the purchase of the Oude and Rohilkund Railway.
  2. Resolved, That, it is expedient to authorize the Secretary of State in Council of India to raise in the United Kingdom a sum not exceeding £10,000,000, for the purpose of constructing, extending and equipping Railways in India through the agency of Companies.
  3. Resolved, That it is expedient to make provisions for raising the said sums, and to charge the same on to the Revenues of India.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before One o'clock till Monday next.