§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster), 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. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)said, 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'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)said, 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 MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)said, 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. BEADLAUGH (Northampton)said, 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. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)said, 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. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)said, 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 HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)said, 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) (Strand, Westminster)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. ROBERTSON (Dundee)said, 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. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)said, 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. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)said, 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. PARNELL (Cork)said, 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 TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton)said, 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.
1400| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)said, 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.