HC Deb 05 June 1891 vol 353 cc1720-2
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he proposes to take the Factories and Workshops Bill next week; and, if so, on what day?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,) Strand, Westminster

I desire to give as full notice as possible of when the Bill will be taken. I am afraid the Bill cannot be taken next week, but I have great hope that it may be taken on the Monday in the following week.

MR. ROBY (Lancashire, S.E., Eccles)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will be able to afford facilities for the discussion of the Motion in favour of an eight hours day for miners on Tuesday the 9th, or any subsequent day?

MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the Bill which stands upon the Paper promoted by the Trades Union Congress and standing in my name, will interfere with the discussion on the hon. Member's Motion?

MR. W. H. SMITH

There can be no doubt, if the Bill is on the Paper, it will most seriously interfere with the discussion of the Motion.

MR. ROBY

There are two Bills on the Paper dealing with the hours of labour; one is general, and the other applies to miners only.

MR. W. H. SMITH

The Bill to which I referred is the Bill which provides for an eight hours day for miners. No Motion could be entertained by the House prior to the Debate on the Second reading.

MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM

Will the Bill which stands in my name and which is general be a bar to the Motion?

MR. W. H. SMITH

It is not for me to say what the ruling of Mr. Speaker would be, but I am speaking of the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM

Then I must ask your ruling, Sir, on the question whether the Bill promoted by the Trades Union Congress to enforce eight hours in all trades would prevent the discussion of the Motion?

MR. SPEAKER

The Bill which deals specifically with miners would be a bar to the Motion, but not the Bill which deals with the hours of labour generally.

MR. ROBY

I understand from two of the Members whose names are on the back of the Eight Hours Bill that it will be withdrawn. Under these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities for the discussion of the Motion on Tuesday?

MR. W. H. SMITH

I should be glad if the Motion could come on, but I am afraid I cannot give any special facilities. The Land Purchase Bill must be passed through the stage of Report before I can do so. The House will see that I cannot again postpone the consideration of the Land Purchase Bill. If, therefore, the Land Purchase Bill still stands for consideration on Thursday the other matter cannot be taken.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

Is there any truth in the rumour that the Government contemplate an Autumn Session?

MR. LABOUCHERE

May I ask what arrangements the right hon. Gentleman contemplates in order to carry out the assurances he has frequently given that the House will have ample time to discuss the Estimates?

MR. W. H. SMITH

Her Majesty's Government contemplate that they will receive the cordial co-operation of the hon. Member and hon. Gentlemen behind him in securing that the Government measures are discussed for a reasonable time, and a reasonable time only, in which case I feel satisfied there would be ample time for the discussion of the Estimates. As to the question of the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) I should have thought that the very fact that those reports are circulated would have shown the hon. Gentleman that there was no foundation for them.

MR. JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)

Is the House to understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no Autumn Session?

MR. W. H. SMITH

The hon. Member has been a Member of the House for some years. Does he suppose that it is possible for the First Lord of the Treasury to say on the 5th of June what will happen in November?