Commons Sitting of 10 March 1893

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
QUESTIONS.

  OVERSEERS AND THE RATE BOOKS.
  CAPTAIN FENWICK: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will take steps to ascertain why the assistant overseer for the township of West Rainton, in the County of Durham, on Thursday 16th February, refused to allow two ratepayers to look at his books after due notice had been given him; and whether he will take steps to have the law enforced in this matter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): I am informed by the overseers of Rainton that the assistant overseer of that parish received a communication asking him whether he was at liberty to permit two gentlemen to have access to the parish

  1583
  rate books. The assistant overseer referred the writer to the overseers, and the overseers informed him that if the persons referred to were ratepayers they could examine the rate book at any time between 1 and 3 o'clock on the 21st ultimo. They did not, however, so attend. If in any case the statutory provisions as to inspection of the rate book are contravened, proceedings may be taken for the enforcement of a penalty.

  CAPITATION GRANTS.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government will provide an extra capitation grant to non-commissioned officers of the Yeomanry Cavalry who, under the new Regulations, may qualify as drill instructors at the School for Auxiliary Cavalry at Aldershot; and whether any allowance will be made for the travelling expenses of such instructors when attending squad or troop drills in their own regimental districts?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): The Contingent and Clothing Fund of the Yeomanry will be increased from April by £1 per man, in order to cover, among other things, any expenses which may arise in connection with these Assistant Instructors.

  FINES FOR CATTLE TRESPASS.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN (Donegal, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that Colonel Bulboy, Resident Magistrate at Arranmore Petty Sessions, County Donegal, in June 1892, fined a number of persons in various sums of money for trespass of cattle on a mountain belonging to a gentleman whose property is at present in the Landed Estates Court; and that Mr. Orr, Resident Magistrate at Arranmore Petty Sessions, in July 1892, for a like alleged offence, imposed fines upon another number of persons; were those convictions and fines legal under 14, and 15 Vic. c. 92, s. 20; how many of those fines were paid; and will the Government order the money to be refunded?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): These were cases of trespass at the suit of the Receiver under the Court of Chancery, acting by direction of the Head Receiver of the Court. The defendants were ordered to pay trespass rates under the 14th and 15th Vic. cap. 92, sec. 20, but were not fined. In 20 out of 22 cases these rates were paid. The trespass orders are payable to the complainants, not to the Crown, and the latter cannot interfere.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN TIPPERARY.
  MR. MANDEVILLE (Tipperary, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it is a fact that representations by a number of labourers in Emly, County Tipperary, were made to the Tipperary Board of Guardians last, November, requesting that labourers' cottages should be erected in that district; whether the Memorials have been considered by the Guardians; and whether a Local Government Board Inspector has been sent down to inquire into the matter; and, if not, on what grounds?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Local Government Board inform me that application was made in November last to the Board of Guardians by a number of ratepayers for the erection of labourers' cottages in the Emly district. The matter has since been under the consideration of the Guardians, who have called for maps and specifications, &c. I am advised that no unreasonable delay has taken place on the part of the Guardians, who have already largely availed themselves of the powers given to them by the Labourers' Acts. The matter does not appear to call for any action at present on the part of the Local Government Board.

  REGENT'S CANAL DOCK.
  MR. STEWART WALLACE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the insanitary condition of the Regent's Canal Dock, the causes thereof, and remedies therefor; and, if so, will he. have immediate steps taken to have the nuisances complained of abated, and have a sufficiency of proper sanitary appliances provided without delay?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have received communications with reference to the Regent's Canal Dock, and the attention of the Port Sanitary Authority of London has been drawn to the matter. I have no reason to doubt that if they are satisfied that proceedings for the abatement of nuisances are necessary they will take action in the matter.

  SLAVERY IN MADAGASCAR WATERS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office, at the request of the French Government, has issued instructions to the officers of the British Navy and the British Consular Agents in Madagascar in no way to concern themselves with exercising a police control over the dhows of the various nationalities in the waters of Madagascar, and to abstain from searching vessels of any flag in Madagascar waters; and whether he is aware that there has been a revival of the Slave Trade between Africa and Madagascar?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The standing instructions on this subject were issued by Her Majesty's late Government in August last. They were a necessary consequence of the Brussels Act and of the general recognition of the French Protectorate of Madagascar. They did not result from any request of the French Government. The suppression of the Slave Trade in Madagascar waters is now regulated by the Brussels' Act as modified by the French Declaration appended to it, and we have no definite information from which we can infer that the trade has materially revived.

  PRISON WARDERS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take measures to secure a more careful selection and training of prison warders, in view of the grave statements made by the Manchester City Justices at their recent meeting, when they had under their notice some instances of warders trafficking with local prisoners; and were also informed from an official source that similar practices occurred in every gaol in England?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): The greatest care is exercised by the Prison Commissioners in the selection and training of prison officers, who as a body are found to be trustworthy. Of the four warders, recently discharged from Manchester Prison for trafficking, three were appointed by the Local Authorities before the prisons were taken over by the Government. Experience shows that it is difficult to provide any absolute safeguard against trafficking, but there is no reason to believe that the practice is of common occurrence.

  THE CORK MAILS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether arrangements could be made with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to run the ordinary Cork mails direct to and from Kingstown through Islandbridge Junction without going into Kingsbridge Station; whether this is now done with the Sunday American mail; and what saving of time is thereby effected?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): The-. arrangement indicated is one which concerns the Railway Company rather than the Post Office, and I am in communication with the company on the subject. As regards the incoming; American mails, the arrangement appears to be already in force, but I do not know what saving of time actually results. from it.

  THE ULSTER TENANT FARMERS ASSOCIATION.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a deputation from the Ulster Tenant Farmers' Association in reference to the question of temporarily reducing the judicial rents; and if he is now prepared to state at what decision the Government has arrived upon the question?
  MR. J. MORLEY: A number of gentlemen from Ulster have waited upon me in reference to the question of a readjustment of the judicial rents. The Government have arrived at no decision in the matter.

  THE CHANGE IN THE AMERICAN MAIL EODTE.
  MB. FLYNN (Cork, N.): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the London mails landed at Queenstown, from the steamer Servia, on the 19th February, were delivered ready sorted in London in the space of 16½ hours; and whether he can state what delay was caused by the despatch of the mails for Great Britain and Ireland from New York on 25th February by the American line steamer New York, bound for Southampton, in the delivery of American mails in the London District, the Midland Counties, the North of England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN (Cork, E.): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Queenstown Town Commissioners, complaining of the great delay in the delivery of the Irish portion -of the American mail caused by carrying it to Southampton; whether he is aware that specially addressed Irish mail matter was landed at Queenstown at 3 a.m. on Sunday, the 5th inst., from the steamship Aurania, while the remainder, which was despatched on the same day by the International liner New York, was not delivered until Tuesday, the 7th inst.; and whether, in view of the serious loss and inconvenience thus inflicted upon Irish traders, he will communicate with the United States Postal Authorities on the subject, and call their immediate attention to the consequences which must result to Irish commerce by the adoption of this route?
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Inman-American liner New York, which sailed from New York at 10 o'clock a.m. on the 25th ult., carried not merely English letters, but also the Irish mails from America, with the result that the Irish letters have been landed at Southampton; what loss of time this involved in the delivery of the Irish letters; whether the Queenstown route would also have been better for letters for the North of England; whether the Cunard liner Aurania, calling at Queenstown, left New York on the same day half an hour earlier, but only carrying specially addressed correspondence; when the Irish mail would have been delivered if lespatched by the Aurania; and whe-
  1588
  ther steps will be taken to secure that the American Post Office shall not defer the interests of the Irish mail service to its preference for an American line of steamers?
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Kerry, W.): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the mails from the United States to Ireland are to be carried in future via Southampton, instead of via Queenstown; whether, by this arrangement, the mails will reach Dublin and Cork 10 hours and 19 hours respectively later than if landed at Queenstown; and whether, in view of the serious inconvenience that would result in Ireland from the adoption of the Southampton route for the carriage of the mails, he will take steps to have them landed at Queenstown?
  MR. A. MORLEY: It will doubtless be convenient to the House if I embody in one answer my replies to the several questions asked about the mails brought by the New York and the Aurania. Those steamers left the port of New York within half an hour of each other on. the 25th of February. The New York lauded mails for all parts of the United Kingdom at Southampton at 9.40 p.m. on the 4th inst. The Aurania, carrying correspondence specially superscribed for conveyance by her, lauded mails at Queenstown at 3.45 a.m., on the 5th instant. Correspondence for Ireland was, as a matter of fact, brought by both vessels. Letters, &c, carried by the Aurania were delivered in Dublin only an hour earlier than those carried by the New York, although the last-named packet had been delayed by fog in the Channel, and her mails did not reach London till midnight on Saturday, so that letters could not be delivered in London till Monday morning, and the connection with the Saturday night mails for all parts of the Kingdom was missed. Even as it was, letters for London and for England generally lost nothing by coming to Southampton, and those for Scotland, the Northern and many other parts of England, were accelerated; but those for the Irish Provinces were not delivered till at various times from Monday afternoon to Tuesday morning, whereas the Irish provincial letters brought by the Aurania to Queenstown were all delivered by Monday morning. The United States Post Office provides the

  1589
  conveyance to this country, and has a right to select such steamers as it thinks best. In sending by its new contract-line all correspondence not specially superscribed to go by other lines it does precisely what this country does in regard to the outward mails; and it also follows the lead of this country in allowing the senders of letters to secure by special superscription the use of other steamers. It cannot be stated beforehand what will be the effect on the time of delivery in Dublin and Cork, which depends on many chances impossible to foresee. Under existing arrangements Ireland has the advantage of the latest possible posting for letters, &c, sent to the United States, but I am not in a position to secure her the corresponding advantage in connection with the homeward mails. I shall watch carefully the effect of the recent changes on the distribution of mails throughout the United Kingdom, and, should the facts justify it, I will not fail to communicate with the United States Post Office on the subject. I should add that I have received the resolution mentioned in Question No. 19 passed by the Queenstown Town Commissioners; and also, in reply to Question No. 17, that the mails brought by the Servia reached Queenstown at 4.45 p.m. on the 19th ultimo, and arrived in London completely sorted at 10.50a.m. on the 20th.
  MR. FLYNN: May I ask whether the Post Office authorities of this country are justified in incurring additional expense in carrying the mails from Southampton to various parts of Ireland when if the vessels called at Queenstown the cost would be comparatively trifling?
  MR. A. MORLEY: That is not a matter under the control of the British Post Office. The arrangements for the conveyance of the mails from the United States are in the hands of the United States Post Office, and they land the mails where they choose.
  MR. FLYNN: Has the right hon. Gentleman lost sight of the fact that the Aurania is much slower than the other vessels he named, and therefore the comparison in rapidity of delivery does not hold good?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I made no comparison. I only stated the facts.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentle-
  1590
  man to urge upon the American Government the desirability of despatching the Irish mails by boats calling at Queenstown?
  MR. A. MORLEY: If experience justifies the request I will communicate with the United States Government, with the view of having better arrangements made.

  THE SOUTH KERRY FISHING INDUSTRY.
  MR. KILBRIDE (Kerry, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state if any member of the Congested Districts Board has visited South Kerry; and, if so, when; and whether, considering the requirements of the district, and the wealth of the fish off the coast there, they intend to take any steps towards the erection of piers and boatslips, with the view of developing the fishing industry with some degree of safety to the lives and property of the fishermen?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that South Kerry has been visited by members of the Congested Districts Board, and that two of the Board's Inspectors have also been employed for some months in making inquiries there for the information of the Board. It is in contemplation to improve the harbour accommodation on the coast, but no decision has yet been come to as to the places where piers or boatslips are to be constructed.

  THE STATE OF COUNTY CLARE.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what was the actual strength of the Royal Irish Constabulary establishment in the County Clare on the 1st March, 1st April, and 22nd August, 1892, respectively; and whether the Grand Jury of the County Clare, in their resolution of 3rd March, 1892, recommended the reduction of the county establishment as stated by the Chief Secretary, or only the reduction of the extra force and the increase of the "Free" force?
  MR. J. MORLEY: In answering this question, I should like to explain I did not intend to convey the idea the other day that the Grand Jury desired a decrease of the force. What I meant to say was that they desired a decrease of the extra force, and they wanted an

  1591
  increase of the free force which was not statutorily possible. The total authorised establishment for the County Clare, including 24 men of the reserve, was on the 1st of March, 1892, 512 men. A reduction, however, in this number had teen already under consideration, and, pending the decision to be come to, steps were not taken to fill vacancies. Thus, on March 1st, 1892, the actual number in the county was 475. On the 1st of April, 1892, the actual number was 460. On the 22nd of August, 1892, the actual number was 462. The recent decision of the Government to send 50 extra men to the county has the effect of bringing the total authorised number for the county to three above the number at which it stood on March 1st, 1892, before it was reduced by the late Government.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Then when the right hon. Gentleman stated that the right hon. Member for Leeds had reduced the force in County Clare at the request of the Grand Jury, he did not mean that the force ordinarily employed had been decreased. Is he aware that the Grand Jury twice recommended an increase of the force?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not aware that the Grand Jury recommended a gross increase. I do know that they asked for a. transfer of extra force, and that was what I believe I conveyed to the House. 'There was an actual reduction of the county force by 15 under the late Government.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reduction was not owing to any action on the part of the Executive, but was an effect of the triennial re-arrangement of the Constabulary establishment?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I confess I experience some difficulty in following these details so closely. I have explained more than once what I meant to convey. I think I should have notice of any further questions.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Am I correct in saying that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman materially modifies his statement that the force in County Clare was reduced by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman did
  1592
  reduce the actual force in the county. The rest is a matter of argument.
  MR. W. REDMOND (Clare, E.): May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that the Grand Jury is an absolutely non - representative body. With regard to the fact that they advised an increase of the Constabulary force, will he remember that the Boards of Guardians and other Local Bodies directly representing the ratepayers have passed resolutions condemning the action of the Grand Jury, and taken an exactly opposite view?

  PLACES OF WORSHIP SITES BILL.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether after Second Reading of the Places of Worship Sites Bill (which was read a second time in 1892 with the assent of the present Leader of the Opposition) he will consent to its being referred to the Grand Committee on Law, &c.?
  MR. ASQUITH: So far as the Government is concerned, there will be no objection to this Bill being referred at the proper time to the Grand Committee on Law, provided that this can be done without interference with the progress of Bills for which the Government are directly responsible.

  THE OPIUM TRADE.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the testimony given to the inuocuousness of the moderate use of opium by men of long experience in India, including members of the medical profession, he will bring in a measure, or support such a measure if brought in, for the purpose of removing opium and its preparations from the operation of the Pharmacy Act, and allow it to be sold freely by licensed persons, without being marked poison, as is permitted in India, the opium bearing the stamp of Her Majesty the Empress of India? I will also ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the strict enactments of the Pharmacy Act, by which opium and its preparations are prohibited from being sold in this country, unless prominently labelled poison, and the sale of which is otherwise carefully guarded, he will state if it is intended, in the interest of Her

  1593
  Majesty's subjects in India, to put the sale of that poison under similar restrictions?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): The two questions of the hon. Member may be answered together. Her Majesty's Government have no intention of introducing or supporting any measure for the purpose described in the first question; nor have they decided to request the Government of India to place the sale of opium in that country under the restrictions mentioned in the second question.

  KERRY FISHERIES.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Kerry, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a number of fishermen have been fined for fishing in the River Owen-more, County Kerry, in parts of the liver which the Fishery Commissioners have since declared to be free; and whether, in view of the fact that these men were fined for fishing where they had a right to fish, he will use his influence with the Local Justices to have the fines and the costs attaching to them remitted?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Fishing within the limits defined by Section 44, cap. 88, of the 13th and 14th Vict., is declared to be a penal offence, unless the fishing be by a person having a "several fishery" within such limits. The circumstance of the waters being free within these limits does not touch the question, as the object of the enactment referred to is to prevent the capture of the fish at the mouths of the rivers. The fines imposed on the fishermen to whom the hon. Baronet apparently refers have been reduced to 10s. in each case with costs by the Lords Justices, and the issue of the warrants for the collection of the reduced fines is a matter for the discretion of the Local Justices, with which the Government cannot interfere.

  THE LEITRIM MAGISTRACY.
  MR. PATRICK M'HUGH (Leitrim, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that an insane patient, whom the police were about to take to the Sligo District Lunatic Asylum, was detained two days in Manorhamilton Police Barracks, owing to difficulty in finding a second
  1594
  Magistrate to sign the necessary form of committal; is he aware that out of a population of 78,618 in the County of Leitrim 71,098 are Roman Catholics, and that of 63 persons who hold the Commission of the Peace for that county only three are Roman Catholics; has the Lord Chancellor of Ireland been requested to appoint to the Commission of the Peace for the County of Leitrim certain Nationalists, whose names were forwarded to him; and will he appoint those gentlemen to the Commission of the Peace; if not, will he explain on what grounds he declines to do so?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have received a Report, from which it appears that the lunatic referred to in the first paragraph was detained in the police barrack for about 26 hours, no second Magistrate being-available to commit him. As regards the remainder of the question, the Lord Chancellor has under consideration the names of gentlemen recommended for appointment to the Commission of the Peace in the County Leitrim.

  THE ARMAMENT OF INDIAN TROOPS.
  MR. ROBERT WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in a recent issue of the Army and Navy Gazette, in which it is alleged that British Infantry battalions in India are to be re-armed with the magazine rifle, and to be supplied with Maxim guns of the calibre of the Martini-Henry rifle; whether the Maxim bullets will be about twice the size of the magazine bullets; whether, several years ago, the Martini-Henry calibre was discarded; and, in consequence of the Mawand disaster, or some equally cogent reason, it was resolved to use the same size of bullet for rifles and machine guns, so as to avoid the risk of the troops having ammunition unfitted to their weapons; and what are the reasons why the War Office is now seeking to substitute once more the double size of bore for the single in India; and if it is intended, in spite of the resolution of the Horse Guards to the contrary, to perpetuate a similar arrangement in his country?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The armament of the troops in India is not under the control of the War Department; but I may say that it is intended

  1595
  that the British Infantry should be armed with the magazine rifle and the Native troops with Martini-Henry rifles. There are two calibres of Maxim guns to be provided for India—namely, the 45 in. for land defences, and the 3.03 in. for the field. If, therefore, from any cause, the Maxim gun of Martini-Henry calibre should be sent into the field, where European and Native troops would be serving together, ammunition of both calibres would be available. There is no intention of substituting the large for the small bore for field service.

  THE FOCHABERS INTIMIDATION CASE.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the late Procurator Fiscal of Morayshire gave any, and if so what, reasons for deciding not to take proceedings against John Andrew in what is known as the Fochabers Intimidation case?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,): I learn upon inquiry that the reasons for which the late Procurator Fiscal did not take proceedings were two—(1) because there was not sufficient evidence to establish the charge; and (2) because the Lord Advocate stated in the House of Commons in July, 1891, in answer to a question, that even if the allegations put in the question had been correct, there was nothing which amounted to undue influence as defined by the Corrupt Practices Act.

  PRISON STAFFS.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether arrangements have been made to transfer redundant schoolmasters in prisons to the clerical staff; if so, whether the schoolmasters so transferred will be placed at the bottom of the clerical list for purposes of seniority, in order that the clerks, who joined the Department as such, will not have their promotion retarded by such transfer? I will also ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the present number of storekeepers and clerks in the Prison Department who have been rendered redundant by the closing of prisons or reduction of the population in others; to what number will such redundants be increased by the transfer of redundant schoolmasters to the clerical staff; and how it is intended to reduce this number
  1596
  of redundants, with a view to economy in the Public Service?
  MR. ASQUITH: Arrangements are being made under Treasury sanction to employ a few of the redundant convict prison schoolmasters as temporary prison clerks until they can be absorbed as schoolmasters. No arrangement has been made to transfer any schoolmasters to the permanent clerical staff, so that the question of seniority does not arise. I am informed that there are no redundant storekeepers or clerks.

  ILLITERATE VOTERS,
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Return of persons voting as illiterates at the General Election of 1892 will be in the hands of Members?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Return will be in the hands of Members in the course of the next few days.

  THE ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT CLERKS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the warrant for the formation of a Corps of Military Staff Clerks in the Army Pay Department is not issued?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There has, I am told, been some inevitable delay in the completion of this warrant, but I have every reason to hope it will be issued shortly.

  SOLDIERS IN MUFTI.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the Staff sergeants major in the Transport Branch are allowed to wear plain clothes when off duty, and why this privilege is not accorded to the Staff sergeants major in the Supply Branch, although the duties of both are the same; and whether this apparent inequality can be remedied?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware of any inequality such as my hon. Friend indicates. The regulations as to the wearing of plain clothes by Staff sergeants major in the Transport Branch and the Supply Branch of the Army Service Corps are identical.

  SIR R. HAMILTON.
  MR. LODER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for

  1597
  the Colonies whether Sir Robert Hamilton has resigned the post of Governor of Tasmania, or whether he is in this country on leave of absence; and, if so, whether he can state the date on which the term of his appointment expires, and when a successor will be appointed?
  SIR E. GREY (answering for Mr. BUXTON): Sir R. Hamilton is still Governor of Tasmania, and is now in this country on leave of absence. His time of office expires this month, and his successor will shortly be appointed.
  MR. LODER: Does not his term of office expire to-day?
  SIR E. GREY: That is a detail I cannot answer without notice.

  CRIME IN ENGLAND AND WALES.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of indictable offences committed in England (so far as known to the police) during the last 12 months for which Returns are complete, and the number of persons committed for trial in respect of them?
  MR. ASQUITH: The number of indictable offences committed was, in England and Wales, 39,021, and in England only, 37,587; and the number of persons committed for trial was 12,836, and in England, only 12,191.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Am I to gather from the answer that for three out of every four crimes committed, no person was sent for trial?
  MR. ASQUITH: No one was committed in 26,000 out of the 39,000 cases.

  THE COUNTY MAGISTRACY.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the promised Return relating to the magistracy in England and Wales is one which has been already ordered by this House; and, if so, on whose Motion and on what day; and when is the Return likely to be presented?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): Two Returns relating to this subject have been asked for and granted. The first was moved for by the hon. Member for Sunderland on February 2, and is similar to the Return granted by the late Home Secretary in 1888. This will take possibly six months to
  1598
  prepare. The second was moved for on February 21 by the hon. Member for the Rye Division, and will probably take about three months to prepare.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Had the hon. Member in his mind either of these Returns when he spoke in this House on the 3rd instant?
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: I had both of them in my mind.
  MR. STUART - WORTLEY: Is either of the Returns calculated to elicit any information whatever as regards the political opinions of Magistrates?
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: It is perfectly impossible to ask that the political opinions of Magistrates should be stated in a Return.

  RETURNS OF CRIMES COMMITTED IN ENGLAND.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the numbers of the following crimes committed in England during the last 12 months, for which Returns are complete, namely, arson and other wilful burning; killing and maiming cattle; maliciously destroying fences, walls, &c; and other malicious and wilful damage?
  MR. ASQUITH: The numbers of the following crimes committed (so far as known to the police) during the 12 months ended 29th September, 1892, are:—

  England and Wales.

  England only.

  Arson and other willful burning

  364

  352

  Killing and maiming cattle

  28

  28

  Maliciously destroying fences, walls, &c. (Offences determined summarily)

  2,644

  2,478

  Other malicious and wilful damage:—If the heading "Other Malicious and Wilful Damage and Trespass" in Table 8 of the Judicial Statistics is referred to

  13,718

  12,493

  If the number of malicious and wilful damage cases other than the three above named is required

  16,495

  15,219

  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the numbers of the following crimes committed (so far as known to the police) in England during the last 12 months, for which the Returns are complete:—namely, murder (not including infants under one year); manslaughter; attempts at murder; shooting at, wounding, and stabbing; assaults on peace officers?
  MR. ASQUITH: The figures are as follows:—

  England and Wales.

  England only.

  Murder (not including infants under 1 year)

  73

  71

  Manslaughter

  160

  151

  Attempts to murder ("Attempts at Murder" in the question)

  86

  72

  Shooting at, wounding, stabbing, &c, to do bodily harm. (" Shooting at, wounding, and 'stabbing'" in the question)

  819

  741

  Assaults on peace officers. (Indictable offences)

  41

  40

  Assaults on peace officers, resisting, obstructing, &c. (Offences determined summarily)

  12,635

  11,947

  MR. FLYNN: May I ask if, in view of these figures, the Government have any intention of considering the propriety of extending the Criminal Law and Procedure Act to England?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether the Returns of the Prison Commission for England and Wales do not show that persons of Irish birth and parentage, who form 2 per cent, of the population, form also 10 per cent, of the prison population?
  MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Gentleman must give notice of that question.

  THE IRISH TEACHERS' CAPITATION GRANT.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the capita-
  1600
  tion grant, in lieu of school fees, will be paid to the teachers in East Donegal?
  MR. WOLFF (Belfast, E.): At the same time, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary whether, in consideration of the Irish Education Bill of last year substituting capitation grants in place of school fees, and in consideration of there being no provision made at present for payment of these grants, he will give the matter his earliest attention with a view of doing away with the great hardship now inflcited upon the National school teachers?
  MR. J. MORLEY: With regard to this question, I have stated within the past week that the issue of the capitation grant awaits the passing of the Supplementary Estimates, and that payment will be made as soon as possible after the money becomes available.

  OVERCROWDING IN RAILWAY TRAINS.
  MR. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there are any provisions of law against overcrowding in railway trains; and, if so, why they are not enforced, as they do in the case or overcrowding in tramcars and omnibuses?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): Under the bye-laws adopted by the majority of the Railway Companies any passenger persisting in entering a compartment which is full, where any person objects to his entrance, renders himself liable to a penalty of 40s. But there is no provision inflicting a penalty upon a Railway Company in respect of overcrowding. It is far more difficult to prevent passengers who are anxious to start on their journey from entering one or other of the many carriages which compose a train than it is to prevent passengers from entering an omnibus or a tramcar.

  COLLECTING FUNDS FOR MEN ON STRIKE.
  MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Henry Brierley, mentioned in The Manchester Guardian of 8th inst., who was locked up for parading the streets of Manchester with a brass band and soliciting dona-

  1601
  tions from passers-by, and discharged on giving an undertaking not to commit the alleged offence again; is he aware that Brierley is the Chairman of No. 5 District of the Amalgamated Card and Blowing Room Operatives Association, and that he, and several other officials of that Association, were collecting funds for the men who had been locked out; and is it an offence for English operatives to collect voluntary contributions in the manner described, when it is not alleged that any riotous conduct took place or obstruction was caused?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am in communication with the Magistrates with regard to Henry Brierley, but have not yet received their reply.

  SWEETENED TOBACCO.
  MR. WILLOX: (1) I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is lawful to import into this country tobacco of foreign manufacture artificially sweetened; and (2) whether British manufacturers are permitted to use sweetening matter in the manufacture of tobacco for home consumption?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): (1) Yes; sweetened cavendish and negrohead can be imported, but must be enclosed in a Customs' wrapper and an Import Duty paid; (2) Yes; in the manufacture of the above-mentioned tobacco. The operation has to be carried out under bond, and duty is charged on the finished article, which must be enclosed in a Customs' wrapper. I do not know whether without offence I might ask that in cases of this kind, not of urgent importance, gentlemen would give a day or two's notice of their questions. It is very difficult when notice is only given the night before to obtain the information required. That is the reason, perhaps, why we are obliged to ask to have some of the questions postponed. I have been able in this case, at great pains, to get the information. I am only asking that indulgence for the future.

  MYOPIA AMONG SCHOOL CHILDREN.
  MR. ROBERT WALLACE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has beeu called to a paragraph in The Westminster Gazette, in
  1602
  which it is alleged that myopia, or short sight, is greatly on the increase, being fostered by malnutrition, by working and sewing in badly-lighted and badly-ventilated schoolrooms, and by reading badly-printed books; whether he can say what progress has been made in this inquiry into the number of children compulsorily receiving education in a state of starvation or excessive hunger; and if he will inquire whether there is ground for believing that the existing conditions of school life are favourable to the increase of myopia, and take such steps as may be competent to him for checking the evil?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): My attention has been called to the paragraph in question. The Department is doing its best to remove some of the alleged causes of short sight by insisting on improvements in ventilation and lighting where these are defective. A Circular shall be issued to the Inspectors, inviting their special attention to the question of badly-printed books. Some of the largest School Boards have been asked to give their opinion on the question of insufficient food and its effects on the educational progress of the children, and their answers may be expected shortly. I propose to make further inquiry, with the assistance of competent persons, into the question of defective vision in schools.

  ZANZIBAR.
  MR. ROBERT WALLACE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, and how soon, Papers will be laid upon the Table in connection with the recent slaughter of natives in Somaliland, and with the conduct of the acting Consul General of East Africa respecting the succession to the Sultanate of Zanzibar?
  SIR E. GREY: No Report from the Company's agent has been communicated to us. It is presumed that he was too ill to write. Mr. Rodd, who afterwards visited Kismayu, has reported that all is quiet. Despatches respecting the events following the death of the Sultan of Zanzibar cannot he received for some weeks.
  MR. R. WALLACE: Is the present Sultan the legal successor of the late Sultan?
  SIR E. GREY: I must ask for notice of that question.

  HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the date on which a Circular was issued to the contractors for stationery binding to Her Majesty's Stationery Office, directing their compliance with the terms of the Resolution of the House of Commons of 13th February, 1891; whether he is aware that Messrs. Waterlow and Sons, although employing a number of vellum binders at the recognised scale of wages, employ youths and young men on Government work at wages varying from 18s. to 25s. per week, the minimum trade rate being 34s.; and whether be proposes to take any action in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The Circular in question was issued on the 9th February, 1892. I am not able to say whether the statement in the second paragraph is correct; but, as the Resolution of the 13th February, 1891, does not appear to deal with the proportion of boy labour to be employed, I do not think that I can move in the matter.
  MR. DALZIEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since attention has been called to this matter, one of the firms concerned has dismissed a number of the men at a moment's notice?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am not aware of that.
  MR. FLYNN: Has a Circular in similar terms been issued to Irish firms?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Yes; I have said so on several occasions.

  BAGOT STREET, BIRMINGHAM, WORKS.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the amount of money which has been spent at the repairing shop, Bagot Street, Birmingham, during the present financial year?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The exact figures cannot be given till the close of the year; but it is estimated that
  1604
  the expenditure at Bagot Street for wages will amount to about £17,500 for the current financial year.

  NETHER POPPLETON SCHOOL.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that an Order for the election of a School Board at Nether Poppleton, Yorkshire, was issued on 25th February without any notice of the intention of the Education Department to form that parish into a School Board district being given to the inhabitants; whether such election is ordered to take place next Monday; and whether he will suspend such election until some reasonable opportunity has been given for supplying any deficiency in the school accommodation by voluntary effort?
  MR. ACLAND: The managers of the Nether Poppleton School having given notice to the Department that they intended to close the school after the annual inspection, due this month, and there being no other school in the district, the Department issued an Order, on the 17th February, under Section 12 (2) of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, for the formation of a School Board. I understand that the election will take place on Monday next. Full notice was given to the managers of the school on 16th January that the Department intended to take this course, which is the usual one in the circumstances, and the managers stated in reply that they adhered to their determination to close the school. I see no reason to suspend the election of the School Board. There is nothing out of the ordinary course in the action of the Department.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the managers of the school are not inhabitants?
  MR. ACLAND: No; I am not aware of that. But I do know that not much interest has been shown in educational matters there, and that the inhabitants will now have an opportunity of looking after the matter themselves.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: I shall call attention to the matter on the Estimates.

  THE NEW LABOUR CORRESPONDENT.
  MR. FORWOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, when selecting Mr. James Sexton as the Correspondent of the Board of Trade in Liverpool, in regard to the opinions of the artizans and labourers in that city, he was aware of the extreme views which that gentleman entertains as to the ownership of property by private individuals, the limitation of individual incomes, and the collective ownership of all means of production, as reported in the Liverpool Courier of 9th March; and whether the Reports of Labour Correspondents will be published by the Board of Trade as the opinions of themselves individually, or as representing the views of the working classes?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have no knowledge personally of Mr. Sexton's alleged opinions. The Local Correspondents of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade have been selected without reference to their political and economic opinions for the sole purpose of supplying information on specific points; and the Labour Gazette will publish facts of interest to workmen, and not the opinions held either by Local Correspondents or by any classes of the community.
  MR. FORWOOD: Are these Correspondents to receive any remuneration?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Certainly; from £15 to £20 a year, according to the work they have to perform.

  RIFLE RANGES.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many rifle ranges there are in the United Kingdom adapted to the extreme range of the magazine rifle?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am informed that there are 41 such ranges available for the Regulars and Militia and about 110 the property of Volunteer corps.

  THE SANDGATE SUBSIDENCES.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has yet received the Report of Mr. Walton, the Local Government Board Inspector, seat down to conduct the in-
  1606
  quiry into the causes which led to the calamitous subsidence of land at Sandgate; and, if so, whether he is able to state the nature of such Report, or will he lay the Papers upon the Table of the House; whether it has been the usual practice when an inquiry involves so difficult and technical a question to send down two Inspectors; and whether it is intended to hold any further and more exhaustive inquiry?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have received the Report of Mr. Walton, the Local Government Board Inspector, who, at the request of the Local Board, visited Sandgate on Monday last. A copy of the Report has been sent to the Local Board, and I shall have no objection to lay the Report on the Table of the House if it is moved for. It has not been the practice in such a case to send two Inspectors. I do not contemplate any further inquiry with regard to the causes of the subsidences.

  EMPLYOMENT FOR DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can inform the House what objections or difficulties exist to prevent the employment of discharged soldiers, or men of the Army Reserve, as clerks in the War Office and Departmental Head-Quarters, in the place of non-commissioned officers and men who are still receiving pay for serving with the colours?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANM: The men referred to—11 in number—are only temporarily employed; and it is more convenient to obtain them from regiments than to engage for short terms men who might otherwise obtain permanent employment elsewhere.

  RAILWAY RATES IN IRELAND.
  COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state if the rates for the carriage of whisky from Galway to Dublin have been increased by the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland, and, if so, by how much? I also wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is in correspondence with the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland on the subject of their increase of charges?
  MR.MUNDELLA: No, Sir; I have received no specific statement as to the increase of rates for the carriage of whisky from Galway to Dublin by the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland. I have, however, received several complaints generally of increases of rates on that line, and I am in communication with the company through the medium of the Railway Association. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any specific statements of increase I shall be glad, on receiving them, to ask for the company's explanations.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what are the total sums to be paid during the present financial year from the Treasury to the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland for all purposes?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I do not quite understand the question. Will the hon. and gallant Member postpone it for a few days, and supply me with further particulars of what he wants?

  INVERNESS-SHIRE SALMON FISHERIES.
  MR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the Commissioners of Woods and Forests have recently let a part of the Inverness-shire coast, in the district of Arisaig, to a party who has lined it with bag nets to intercept salmon on its way to the lochs and rivers, to the detriment of legitimate sport for anglers, and likely to cause a diminution of the supply, by preventing the fish reaching the breeding grounds; and if due notification was given of the intention to let the coast for the purposes referred to?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The salmon fishings ex adverso the estate of Arisaig are not let by the Commissioners of Woods, &c. They are claimed by the ex adverso proprietor. The salmon fishings opposite the adjoining estate of South Morar have been in lease from the Commissioners of Woods for some years. A fresh lease was granted last year, but the tenant is expressly bound to fish only by legal methods, and it is not known that he is fishing by any method not recognised by law. These fishings were let by tender after advertisement in the local newspapers.
  MR. MACGREGOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that a stop is put to these illegal practices? I shall call attention to the matter on the Estimates.

  ALLEGED BOYCOTTING IN TIPPERARY.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a regular system of boycotting of Protestants prevails in the neighbourhood of Clough Jordan, County Tipperary, necessitating the formation of a Defence Association to resist it; and when the Lord Chief Baron recently congratulated the Grand Jury at Nenagh on the absence of boycotting in the North Riding of Tipperary, had he been made aware of the state +of matters at Clough Jordan by the police authorities?
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN (Tipperary, N.): Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask if it is not a fact that the relations between the Roman Catholics and Protestants in the district are of the most friendly character; and whether it was not the fact that in the town of Nenagh Protestants constitute a large majority of the tradesmen, that their principal supporters are Nationalists, and that their only complaint is that the local gentry sent to Loudon for their supplies?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I understand generally, Sir, that the relations between the Roman Catholics and Protestants of North Tipperary are very much as the hon. Member for North Tipperary has described them. The Constabulary authorities inform me that there is no system of boycotting of Protestants prevailing at Cloughjordan. Some years ago partial boycotting was carried out in this locality against two emergency men on an evicted farm, and a shopkeeper in the village who supplied them with provisions, but this ceased in July, 1891. In November, 1892, after the General Election, a Defence Union was established at Cloughjordan, but I have no information as to its special objects. It has imported a blacksmith from Belfast without necessity. A trader named Williams stated that the local blacksmith refused to shoe his horse; this the blacksmith denied, and expressed his willingness to work for him, but Williams declined to employ him any more.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Seeing that a deputation waited upon me in Dublin some weeks ago, will the right hon. Gentleman pay attention to the Memorial of those who are suffering from this boycotting, of which his police see nothing?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Certainly.
  MR. JOHNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence to show that this good relationship between the Roman Catholics and Protestants in this district has continued since the introduction of the Bill for the government of Ireland?

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, since 22nd August, 1892, he has approved of any reduction in the extra police force, Royal Irish Constabulary; and, if so, in what county; and if he can state the actual strength of the Royal Irish Constabulary of all ranks in Ireland on 22nd August, 1892, and on the 1st March, 1893?
  MR. J. MORLEY: A reduction in the extra force of County Kerry was advised by the present Government in October last, when 10 men were transferred from the extra force to fill vacancies in the free quota of the county. A proposal has been recently made and approved for reducing the extra force in County Sligo by three men, and in the South Riding of Tipperary by 15 men. The actual strength of the Constabulary of all ranks on August 22, 1892, was 12,299, and on the 1st inst. 12,302. The figures 19,299 and 12,302 include officers, head constables, sergeants, acting, sergeants, and constables. The total of 11,860 given in reply to the hon. Member for Dover was the authorised strength of sergeants, acting sergeants, and constables only.

  MURDERS IN KERRY.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many murders have taken place in the County of Kerry since 10th August, 1892; and whether anyone has been brought to justice in connection with these crimes?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Two murders, both of them non-agrarian, have taken place in Kerry since the date mentioned. In one of these two men were arrested, one
  1610
  of whom is now awaiting his trial at the next Assizes.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: May I ask if there has been any diminution of offences under the Crimes Act since August last?
  MR. J. MORLEY: According to the tabulated Reports, there has been a large decerease.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked under what category certain cases of murder (which he named) would be placed?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I must ask the hon. Member to put these cases on the Paper.

  THEFT OF COCOANUTS.
  MR. TANKER VILLE CHAMBERLAYNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the following case: That two children, aged 12 and 10, living at Totton, near Southampton, were apprehended for stealing two cocoanuts from a shop of the value of 4d.; that they were taken to an outhouse adjoining the police station and detained there through the night; and that their cries and entreaties to be taken home to their parents were heard by passers-by; and whether he will give instructions to the police with regard to juvenile offenders whose parents are well-known, and would be ready to guarantee their appearance before the Magistrates, that they be not taken out of their custody before conviction?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have received a Report from the Justices' Clerk, who reports that three boys were taken into custody in consequence of a reported robbery. They were not put into an outhouse, but into a proper cell under the same roof as the police station, which is occupied by a police sergeant and his family. There was a fire in the guard-room and some rugs properly aired, and a bed made in the hall, where the boys slept that night, and within half an hour of their being in the cell they were asleep. Beyond one of the boys crying a little when the charge was read, they were perfectly quiet. The sergeant visited the cell at midnight, when they were still asleep. I understand that the practice in the Metropolitan Police where children are concerned is to

  1611
  liberate them at once on bail, if anyone be willing to become surety. Should the children not have any friends, the officer on duty would send them to the workhouse till the morning. I should, myself, think it desirable, wherever it is possible consistently with the ends of justice, that children should not be taken out of the care of their parents before conviction, but considerable discretion must necessarily be left with the local police in dealing with particular cases.

  MAIL HEAD-QUARTERS FOR WEST CLARE.
  MR. W. REDMOND (for Mr. MAGUIRE, Clare, W.): I wish to ask the Postmaster General whether he is prepared to consider the advisability of establishing Kilrush as mail headquarters for West Clare; and whether, in that case, considering the importance of Kilkee, he would send the Kilkee mails direct from Ennis, and so cause a considerable economy of time?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The question of revising the postal service to these places is under consideration, but it involves negotiations with the West Clare Railway Company, as well as a careful examination of arrangements affecting a wide district, and some little time must, I think, elapse before I am in a position to decide upon the matter.

  TELEGRAPHISTS IN CORK.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what reason, if any, there is that the wages of several junior telegraphists of the Cork Office have not been increased according to the Rules of the Department, and will he cause the arrears due to be paid immediately; is he aware that one female telegraphist made application for a revision of her wages over 12 months ago, and that the matter has not since been arranged, although she is in receipt of a less wage than several female officers who have been appointed since she was, and that she has received no increment whatever to her wages since 1891; and is he aware that a vacancy exists in the first class of telegraphists in the Cork Office since the revision of the 20th July, 1891; and will steps be taken to have the vacancy filled at once?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I am still without full particulars on the matters to which the hon. Member calls my attention; but there has clearly been some misunderstanding, and they shall be seen to at once, any increments of salary which may be found to be due being allowed without further delay. I may say that in the cases referred to in the first paragraph, the necessary authority was sent yesterday.

  PUBLICATION OF THE HOME RULE BILL BY A NEWSPAPER.
  MR. W. REDMOND (for Mr. MAGUIRE): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a Loudon evening paper has published the full text of the Bill for the Better Government of Ireland, and sold some 50,000 copies thereof at the price of Id., and made large profits; and whether there is any copyright for the publications of the Queen's printers; and, if not, whether some provisions could not be introduced for the protection of the interests of the British taxpayer?
  MR. PARKER SMITH: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I should like to ask whether the price of the authorised version of the Bill is 3½d., what number of copies have been sold, and whether he sees his way to imitating this enterprising newspaper in the circulation of State Papers of great importance throughout the country?
  SIR J.T. HIBBERT: I think the last question should be put on the Paper. It is manifestly impossible for me to answer it on such short notice. The question of copyright in Government publications is dealt with in the Treasury Minute of August 31, 1887 (Parliamentary Paper No. 335 of 1887). It appears to the Treasury that the reasons against restricting publication are no less strong in the case of Bills than in the case of Acts of Parliament, subject, of course, to the same condition as is insisted on in the latter case—namely, that except when published under the authority of the Government, they should not purport, on the face of them, to be published by authority. For this reason, without entering into the question whether there is or is not copyright in Bills or other public documents prepared for the Government, the Treasury do not

  1613
  consider it necessary to move in the present case. I will go further, and say that I think we ought to be indebted to any newspaper which will publish the Bills either of the Government or of private Members.

  DELAY IN TRANSMITTING A TELEGRAM.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General why no information can be obtained from the Department in reply to inquiries as to the cause of delay (two hours, three minutes) in the transmission of a telegram of great urgency and of public interest from Balallan, Plockton, Ross-shire, to London, on the 1st ultimo; and whether he will make an effort to improve the organisation of the Inquiry Department of the Office?
  MR. A. MORLEY: An official answer was sent to the hon. Member on the 7th instant (before the notice of his question appeared on the 8th instant) explaining that the delay of the message to which he refers was due to its length, to the fact that it had to be dealt with at several offices, and to a mistake having been made at one of these offices in counting the number of words. I do not think it necessary to take any steps to improve the organisation of the Inquiry Department of the Office.

  STRIKERS SEEKING HELP.
  MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the statement in The Middleton Guardian and Prestwich Advertiser of 4th March, that at Bury eight men from Royton and Oldham were lately brought before the Magistrates for seeking help from their friendly neighbours during the strike which is now proceeding in the cotton districts of Lancashire; whether it is a fact that they were all found to be genuine operatives, and that four were playing musical instruments, whilst four collected from the charitable public; whether the Magistrates were correct in telling them that they were violating the law; and is it illegal for cotton operatives to play musical instruments in the streets, and to collect funds from passers-by?
  MR. ASQUITH: According to the newspaper account as reported in The Bury Times of March 1st, the men were ostensibly collecting alms for the Oldham operatives on strike, but admitted to the police officers when arrested that they did not give the money to any Union or Society, but shared it among themselves. Upon these facts the Magistrates were of opinion—I think rightly—that an offence had been committed against the. "Vagrancy Act, 1824;" but believing that the men were not aware that they were breaking the law, they discharged them with a caution. There is no doubt that it is illegal for people to beg or gather alms for themselves in a public place.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE (West Ham, S.): Before putting my question on the Paper I want to put one arising out of the answer just given. I wish to know if the right hon. Gentleman will cause the law to be enforced against organ-grinders and others as it is being enforced against operatives on strike in Lancashire?
  MR. ASQUITH: Organ-grinders, in the Metropolis at any rate, are subject to special legislation. I think the law ought to be impartially enforced whereever it is broken.
  MR. J. BURNS: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will enforce the law, which he says should he impartially administered, to the Hospital Saturday Collection in London and elsewhere?
  MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Member will see that a distinction must be drawn. These men were convicted by the Magistrates of soliciting alms, not for a charitable purpose or for other persons, but for themselves.

  ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE TRUCK ACT.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on the 21st January, 1893, the Kellham Rolling Mill Company, Limited, Sheffield, sent a notice to each of their employés, signed by the secretary and manager, informing them that unless they joined the yard club they would be dismissed; whether such action infringes the provisions of the Truck Act; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  MR. ASQUITH: I must ask the hon. Member to postpone his question until Monday, when I hope to be in possession of the facts of the case.

  ARABI PASHA.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in The Daily Telegraph, signed Clement Scott, respecting the health and condition of -Arabi Pasha; and whether the Government can see their way to allow Arabi Pasha and his fellow exiles to return to Egypt on the conditions mentioned in the letter referred to?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): The facts stand thus: In June, 1891, there was an inquiry into the question of the health of the exiles in Ceylon. There was one of them with regard to whom it was found that a continued residence in the island was not desirable. A change was offered to him, but he refused it. The official Report with respect to the rest of the exiles says that on grounds of health there is no reason why they should be removed from Ceylon. The English Government do not feel themselves warranted in any way in endeavouring to over-rule the decision that Arabi Pasha ought not to be removed on grounds other than grounds of health. It should be borne in mind that when the sentences were originally pronounced on the exiles they only became inoperative on the condition of the exiles always remaining at a distance from Egypt.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked if it would require the assent of the Egyptian Government to remove the exiles from Ceylon to some other part of Her Majesty's dominions?
  MR. T. G. BOWLES: Is Arabi Pasha detained as a prisoner of war?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The subject of Arabi's detention has been the subject of discussion in this House before, and I do not propose to re-open it. With reference to the question of the hon. Member for Northampton, I apprehend that this subject can be considered without any reference to the Government of Egypt, but I am not
  1616
  aware that there are any grounds for taking this particular matter into consideration at the present time.

  THE PROGRESS OF BUSINESS.
  MR. BURNIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in order to expedite legislation with respect to Bills on Labour and other questions, he will after three days' Debate endeavour to secure a Division on the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill, providing he receives a requisition urging this signed by a majority of the Members of this House?
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether in the face of the very slow progress that is being made with the Government measures now before Parliament, and others which have been promised dealing with labour and social questions; and whether, with a view of preventing unnecessary discussion on the Bill for the Better Government of Ireland, Her Majesty's Government will fix a day on which they propose to take a Division on the Second Reading of that Bill?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am sensible of the strong sense of hon. Members as to the progress of Public Business which is indicated in the question's, but, notwithstanding, I do not think it would be wise or justifiable on the part of the Government to accede to the proposal now made. There ought to be a reasonable amount of time given for the discussion of the Government of Ireland Bill.

  THE CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD'S INQUIRIES.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the result of the Congested Districts Board's inquiries into the various proposals which have been submitted to them for the development of the fishing industry in West Kerry, and the decisions, if any, at which they have arrived in each case?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Board have decided to construct a landing-quay at Brandon Creek, and the work will be

  1617
  put in hand at once. Other proposals for the development of the fishing industry in West Kerry are under consideration by the Board.

  THE CARRIAGE OF IRISH BUTTER.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to a resolution unanimously passed at an important meeting of butter merchants from the South of Ireland, recently held at Limerick Junction, in which they complain of the ill-treatment of packages of Irish butter by the carrying companies, and call upon these companies to take such precautions as will ensure the delivery of Irish butter in England in as good a condition as foreign butters; and "whether he will bring the matter to the attention of the Railway and Steamship Companies concerned, so as to secure the proper carriage of Irish butter?
  Ms. MUNDELLA: No, Sir; I have not received any complaint in the matter referred to by the hon. Baronet. If any substantial grievance is brought under my notice. I will communicate with the Railway and Steamship Companies concerned, but consignors have ample remedies against carrying companies who ill-treat their merchandise.

  THE IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is now the practice in cases where special mail trains are sent from Queenstown for Kingstown to keep the special mails at Kingsbridge or Westland Row until the ordinary mail is being sent to Kingstown; whether the special mails were formerly in such cases sent on immediately to Kingstown, so that no time might be lost on the arrival of the ordinary mail in transferring the mails from train to steamer; and whether the present practice involves considerable delay in effecting the transfer on the arrival of the ordinary mail, with the result that the steamer is delayed in starting?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The hon. Member has accurately stated the case. The present arrangement does occasionally cause delay to the passenger traffic; and I will consider whether a satisfactory plan can be adopted for sending forward
  1618
  the American mails specially from Kings-bridge in advance of the ordinary mail train, whenever that course may obviate material delay.

  SAVING DROWNING PERSONS.
  MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has seen an account of an inquest held at Guy's Hospital on the 7th instant upon the body of a young woman who had been rescued alive from the Thames by the efforts of a Rotherhithe lighterman, named Robert Burridge, but that the Coroner disallowed Robert Burridge the ordinary fee, usual in such cases, because the woman was rescued alive; and will he bring in a Bill to amend the law in such a way that watermen and lightermen and others anxious to save persons from drowning would receive the same reward as if they had waited until life was extinct?
  MR. ASQUITH: As the fee referred to as the ordinary fee is one for bringing a dead body on shore which may be found in a navigable river, I do not see how the Coroner could, in this case, have authorised its payment. I am not prepared to propose legislation for the purpose of offering rewards to people who save lives.

  NEWFOUNDLAND—THE TREATIES BILL.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of the Newfoundland Government to submit afresh to the Legislature the Treaties Bill, rejected on the 13th May, 1892?
  SIR E. GREY (in the absence of Mr. S. BUXTON): Her Majesty's Government learn by telegraph that a Joint Committee of both Houses has presented a Report, the substance of which will be found in The Daily News of yesterday. That Report has still to be considered by the Legislature, and is believed to be now under their consideration.

  CONVEYANCE OF ADULTS BY INDIAN AND IMPERIAL TROOPSHIPS.
  MR. FORWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the maximum number of adults conveyed on any one voyage from the United Kingdom within the past five years, including

  1619
  crew, by any of? the Indian troopships and the Imperial troopships Orontes, Himalaya, and Tyne? I also beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the gross and net register tonnage, according to Board of Trade Rules, of the Malabar, Tyne, Orontes, and Himalaya,respectively?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The numbers are as follows:—Indian troopships, 1,703 adults; Orontes, 1,360; Himalaya, 1,385; Tyne, 602. The following is the tonnage of each ship: Gross tonnage—Malabar, 4,499; Tyne, 2,091; Orontes, 3,705; and Himalaya, 3,071. Net tonnage—Malabar, 2,715; Tyne, 1,265; Orontes, 2,271; Himalaya, 2,079.

  ANALYSIS OF BEER.
  VISCOUNT CURZON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many samples of beer were analysed during the past year; how many were found to be adulterated with noxious ingredients; and, in any samples of beer found to be adulterated, what were the noxious ingredients?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: There were 2,044 samples of beer analysed, for the detection of adulteration, during the past financial year. In no case was the existence of a noxious ingredient found.

  LIGHTSHIP AND LIGHTHOUSE COMMUNICATION.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I wish to put a question to the President of the Board of Trade which is virtually a repetition of a question I put yesterday. I desire to know whether he intends longer to delay action on the Report of the Commission on Electrical Communication between Lightships and Light houses; and whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Commissioners estimate that £8,000 would be required to carry out the work; and whether, having regard to the fact that grave disasters, involving great loss of life, have been attributed to absence of these communications, and to the fact that the Commissioners attach importance to this work being immediately carried out apart from the rest of the Report, the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that this work will be immediately carried out?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The right hon. Gentleman said he wished to ask the same question he put to me yesterday. This is not the question of yesterday. If he will put it on the Paper I will answer it.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.): Sir, I beg to present Petitions from meetings of burgesses of St. Paul's and of All Saints', in the Western Division of Birmingham, declaring that the Government of Ireland Bill, if it should become law, would imperil the unity of the United Kingdom, would expose many of Her Majesty's loyal subjects in Ireland to the fear of unjust treatment, would provoke in Ireland grave discontent dangerous to the public peace, and would unfairly increase the burdens of the taxpayers of Great Britain, and they pray the House to reject the measure.

  RAILWAY RATES.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, why a certain class of questions is not allowed to appear on the Paper? I wish to ask you if you have ruled that it is not in Order for a Member to place on the Paper questions which name the old railway rates which Railway Companies charge and the new rates the companies are now charging?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member handed in a question yesterday which contained a request for information as to whether a great number of specific rates were charged by a particular Railway Company. I informed him that I thought it was a very dangerous precedent to set, inasmuch as any hon. Member might thereafter ask whether such and such were the rates charged by a particular company, and that it would be far better for him to submit a specific case to the Government who had the matter in hand, when, no doubt, the facts would be inquired into. Of course, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to put a question of that description the whole of the rates of a Railway Company, as to the carriage of coal and iron from the North, might be set out and inquired into in the form of a question. The purpose of a question is to ask for information, and not to supply it to the House.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.): I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of a Saturday Sitting, the Debate under the Standing Order will end at 12 o'clock; and whether he will undertake not to suspend the Standing Order, so that hon. Members may not go on into Sunday with the Estimates?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: There is no question of suspending the Twelve o'clock Rule.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhapsit would be convenient if I were to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in the event—I hope the improbable event—of the House assenting to a Saturday Sitting, what is the business he proposes to take?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I will not follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman, but will say, in the probable event of a Sitting on Saturday, we propose to proceed with Supply.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Which class of Estimates?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That must depend upon what is done to-day.

MOTIONS.

  SITTING OF THE HOUSE (SATURDAY.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House do sit To-morrow; that the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 be extended to that Sitting; and that as soon as Government Business is disposed of Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put."—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)
  [The right hon. Gentleman at once left the House.]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the course the Government ask us to adopt is, as I shall presently show, unusual, certainly the method by which it is recommended to our notice is still more unusual. One would really suppose, from the procedure of the Prime Minister in merely contenting himself with touching his hat when his name was called by the Speaker, that he was suggesting an every-day procedure, and one to which this House is accustomed, under circumstances similar to these in which we now find ourselves, and which the House of Commons ought to adopt merely at the nod of one powerful Minister. The right hon. Gentleman, I suppose, is going to return?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I desire to offer an explanation. The Prime Minister is summoned at this moment to attendance on the Queen. That is the reason why he has left the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The reason given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I need hardly say, is adequate and satisfactory, but what is not quite satisfactory is that the Prime Minister should not, before he went away, have delegated to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the duty of defending and recommending to the House the Resolution which he has moved. Now, how many precedents are there for asking the House at this time of the Session, and in this condition of Supply, to sit on a Saturday? I speak now for a large number of hon. Gentlemen who have for the first time become Members of the House in the last election. They perhaps will not feel as keenly as older Members of the House what an extraordinary strain is put upon the House of Commons by the request at this time of the year, and in this condition of Supply, to sit on a Saturday, not apparently, as on a Wednesday, from 12 to 6 o'clock, but from 12 to any hour which it may please the Government to keep the discussion going. That proceeding inflicts, if the House assents to it, very great hardship on Members. It inflicts an even greater hardship on persons who, in the nature of the case, cannot make their position clear in this House, but whose convenience we are bound to remember. On the permanent officials of the House is thrown, by the ordinary course of Parliamentary proceeding, a very great, a very constant, and a very continuous strain, and that strain would be greatly augmented by requiring them to perform the unusual duty of remaining here for an indefinite time on Saturday. Though I do not for one moment doubt that they would willingly and cheerfully do any duty which this House might throw upon them, yet we on our side must recollect we ought not to throw that duty on them unless some great and paramount reason can be shown for it. Certainly no reason has been shown—good, bad, or indifferent. But we can for ourselves form some estimate of the necessity under which the Government find themselves with regard to business. What is their necessity? The Government are bound in obedience to

  1623
  the law to see that a certain amount of Supply, the Supplementary Estimates, a Vote on Account, and certain Votes for the Army and Navy are passed through the House in sufficient time for the various stages of the Appropriation Bill to be dealt with here and elsewhere, so that all the financial business may be completed by March 31. That is the necessity, and, so far as I am aware, the sole necessity, under which the Government labour, and out of these circumstances arises, if it arises at all, the justification for this extraordinary course. If my recollection serves me right, we began to consider the Supplementary Estimates last Thursday. We had some other business that night. I do not recollect what, but the time was occupied almost until you, Sir, left the Chair at dinner-time; so that we had half a night on Thursday. Friday was an afternoon sitting, and we therefore had but a brief interval between a quarter or half-past 3 and the time when the House rises at 10 minutes to 7. On the third day we had the Navy Estimates, and on the fourth the Army Estimates, and that is absolutely the whole length of time up to the present period of the Session that we have been occupied in discussing Supply. Now, with regard to the Supplementary Estimates, the total number of hours given to Supply has been 18, and, to be very precise, 35 minutes. That is the precise time the Government have accorded to us for discussing the Estimates. Of that, as I say, only a part of one afternoon and part of one evening have been devoted to Supplementary Estimates. Can it be pretended for one moment that the discussions upon the Army or Navy Estimates have been unduly prolonged? Have they not even been curtailed more than perhaps is right from the point of view of a thorough discussion of some great questions brought before us? Upon the Navy Estimates one night was spent before you, Sir, left the Chair. During the whole of that discussion—a long and important discussion—a discussion which, I must remind the House, was carried on principally by hon. Members who support the Government, not one single syllable was said either about the condition of the Navy or about the naval policy of the Government. The time was occupied, and solely occupied, from the moment the Debate began until the
  1624
  moment it concluded with most important labour questions—questions which, while they had a great deal to do with labour, had nothing whatever to do with the Navy or the naval strength of this country. Perhaps unwisely, but with a full desire to help the Government with their business, we raised no objection to your leaving the Chair on Monday night. The result of that was that when we came to discuss the Vote before the Committee next day the Chairman by his ruling—no doubt, absolutely correctly—cut out various hon. Gentlemen on this side who had very important general questions to bring forward. So much for the discussion on the Navy Estimates. How about the Army Estimates? That discussion was not listened to by so full a House as I have now the honour of addressing, but every man who listened to that Debate, be his politics what they may, will admit that no Debate by more competent speakers, more full of solidly compacted matter, or more closely addressed to vital questions of military policy, was ever carried on in this House. Can it be said that the Debate was unduly prolonged? In one sense it was, because the Government, in deliberate violation of their pledges, and without any regard to their word, a course which, I confess, I never recollect any responsible Ministry being guilty of before, failed themselves to move the adjournment of the Debate soon after 12 o'clock. I do not wish to raise that point again. Whether the Government were or were not to blame in the matter, it will be admitted that a Debate more worthy of the dignity of the House and a Debate less open to a charge of obstruction never took place. I have now brought the proceedings in Supply up to the present moment. We have had 18 hours 35 minutes given to Supply, and now, with 10 days at least—so far as my calculation goes—separating us from the time when, in obedience to the law, the Government will have to close Supply, they ask us and the officers of the House to put ourselves to the inconvenience, and worse than inconvenience, of a Saturday Sitting. I call it worse than inconvenience for the reason that a Saturday Sitting, though a painful necessity towards the end of the Session, is never a good occasion on which to carry on a serious Debate. Plans are made by Members of this House long

  1625
  before, and are legitimately and properly made, which make it extremely inconvenient to them to be in their places on Saturday. The Government come down on Thursday afternoon, and then for the first time their intentions are made known. Under such circumstances, the House that meets on a Saturday is a thin House when most valuable Members are necessarily absent, and when it is impossible to carry on adequately the discussion of important questions with advantage. In these circumstances, it may well seem that the course which the Government are pursuing is an arbitrary attempt to coerce the minority wholly without explanation or justification. I should have thought that it never could have been the interest of any Government to bring themselves into collision so early, at all events, with the declared wish of a minority not contemptible in its numbers. I can only conjecture from what has dropped from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister that they are influenced in suggesting this astonishing course to us, not in the least by the desire to get through the Business of Supply within the legal term, not in the least with the view of carrying out those duties which we all admit are imposed upon us by the law in regard to financial questions, but simply and solely by the fact that they have committed themselves to the policy of reading the Home Rule Bill a second time before Easter. For that reason, and for no other, they are endeavouring to trample upon the liberties of the House of Commons. Well, Sir, every Government naturally and properly desires to get on with its business; I do not quarrel with them on that account; but they must surely be aware that if ever there was a measure on which the minority had a right to ask that full time should be given them and their constituents for consideration it is the Home Rule Bill. I doubt whether you will find any precedent of a measure of first-class importance and of a controversial character of which the Second Reading was really completed by the 26th or 27th of March. The British Constitution alone, among the Constitutions of the world, has amongst its provisions nothing to check rash changes and unwise experiments. Our Constitution alone is not protected by exceptional majorities, by
  1626
  plans requiring the assent of two-thirds or requiring a plébiscite, or by any other devices by which all other nations have guarded the essential principles of their Constitutions. I do not ask, at all events, at this moment for any alteration of that state of things, but I do say that it is required of those who are responsible for the government of the country, of those into whose guardianship for the moment is consigned this precious trust, to see that great changes are not rushed upon an unwilling people, and that great minorities in this House are not driven and coerced in the manner in which this Government is attempting to coerce us. Sir, even that does not exhaust the reasons which make it—I will not content myself with the word expedient—indecent for the Government to follow the course they are pursuing. I asked this afternoon, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Sir M. Hicks-Beach), when the blank Schedules in the Home Rule Bill will be filled up, and the answer I received was that one of them would be filled up on the day when the Bill was read a second time, and the other on some later and wholly unspecified day.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I said probably immediately afterwards, if not at the same time.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, what are these Schedules? They concern the future position of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the great Civil Service of Ireland, and are we going to be asked to-read the Bill a second time before we know what the Government propose with regard to these great Bodies? Do not the Government know that, in addition to all the other objections we have to this measure, in addition to all the great Constitutional objections which we have, we fear that it may result in the betrayal of those great services of the police and the Civil Service, to whom we are bound by every consideration of honour? And yet we are to be kept in ignorance of the way in which they are to be treated until the Bill has been read a second time. If anything could add to the outrageous proceedings of the Government it would surely be their laches in not giving us their full scheme. They do not know their own scheme themselves, and yet we are expected to be in a position to discuss it fully on the Second Reading.

  1627
  I cannot help still hoping when the Chancellor of the Exchequer recollects, in the first place, the hardship and inconvenience which will be inflicted on the Members and officials of this House by a Saturday Sitting; when he considers, in the second place, the very brief period hitherto devoted to Supply; and, in the third place, the difficulty which he himself will be placed in if he attempts to drive the Second Reading down our throats, he will pause in the career he apparently is bent upon. He perhaps has not fully realised the position in which he and his Party stand. He represents a majority of this House; he represents a minority of Great Britain. I can tell him, as far as I am justified in speaking for the majority of Great Britain, that in the case of a Bill which so vitally affects our interests, we shall not allow ourselves to be coerced by any majority of the House.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not think it is necessary that I should reply to the separatist arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. This classification of majorities and minorities, according to their geographical position, was I understood one of the things which he most loudly condemned. However, I pass that by. I am not at all prepared to deny that the proposal we make imposes a great strain on the House. I do not deny, on the contrary I assert, that it imposes a great hardship on the House, and on the officers of the House; but what this House has to consider, and what the country has to consider, is the call which is made upon us, and at whose door lies the responsibility. [Ministerial cheers and counter cheers from the Opposition.] I am very glad that the challenge is taken up. That is exactly the issue we desire to put forward. The right hon. Gentleman, with a skilful innocence, made a speech which would imply that everybody was ignorant of what had been taking place in this House—I may say, without desiring to be guilty of any breach of confidence, what has been taking place out of the House. The right hon. Gentleman said that plans are made by hon. Members. Yes; plans have been made by hon. Members, and they have transpired, and I think everybody is aware of them. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the declared wishes of the minority. We
  1628
  know what the declared wishes of the minority are; that they shall occupy the time of the House in a manner which shall prevent certain measures coming under the consideration of the House. Those are the plans which have been made by hon. Members opposite; those are the declared wishes of the minority, and the question for the House to determine is whether the majority of this House are going to allow those plans and declared wishes of the minority to overcome the majority of this House. The right hon. Gentleman spoke with great fervour and great warmth of the "monstrous" proposal of the Government to give so short an interval between the First and Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill as that proposed by the Prime Minister. Now, while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, I ascertained—I believe accurately—what took place in the year 1886. The figures given to me are, I think, important and instructive on this point. In the year 1886 Home Rule was a new question—a new question to the House, and still more a new question to the country. Since that time it has been more or less—I do not say in all its details [Opposition laughter]—I do not see what reason hon. Gentlemen find for hilarity. I always thought that details were for Committee. I was going to add that the question of the principle of Home Rule has been under the consideration of the country for seven years. In 1886 I am informed the Bill was laid on the Table on the 13th of April, and the Debate on the Second Reading commenced on the 10th of May.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: When was Easter in that year?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Well, it seems to me that argument is against the right hon. Gentleman. However, if I may be allowed to continue what I was going to say, without any objection whatever from the opponents of Home Rule, with the support, I imagine, of gentlemen who at that time dissented from the Liberal Party, the Second Reading Debate commenced. Well, what is the proposal now? The corresponding period was February 17th this year, and the day when the Prime Minister proposes to take the Second Reading of his present Bill is March 16th, which gives either exactly the same, or a little more than the

  1629
  interval given in 1886. Now, is that a proposal so unreasonable and so monstrous as the right hon. Gentleman suggests? In my opinion, the whole of that part of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman falls to the ground. [Opposition laughter.] That is an arithmetical proposition which it is impossible to deny or, I should have thought, to deride. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about the time that has been occupied, and that it is proposed to occupy, in Supply, and has referred to the Debate last night on the Army Estimates in terms in regard to which I join issue with him. He made a charge that ought not to be made without much stronger reasons than he could allege—namely, that there was a breach of faith. What are the facts? It was stated, when the Twelve o'Clock Rule was suspended, that this would not be used for a protracted Sitting. What was in contemplation was exactly what had taken place on the Navy Estimates the night before—namely, that we should go on till about half-past 12. Some interesting speeches of great importance extended rather longer than were expected, and as a matter of fact the Debate, instead of concluding at half-past 12, continued until a quarter to 1. Those, Sir, are the facts upon which the right hon. Gentleman founds a charge of the most serious character—namely, that of our having broken faith with the House of Commons. I strongly repudiate the charge. The right hon. Gentleman has complained of the short time that has been given, and is intended to be given, to Supply. He says there are 10 days more whieh may be given to that subject. Why are 10 days more to be given to Supply?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Because it is necessary.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is no necessity whatever to give 10 days further time to Supply except to carry out those plans to which I have alluded and to fulfil the declared wishes of the minority. Now let us see what were the number of days given to Supply in the presence of that factious Opposition which has now become a majority, and with a Government in power to which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will admit every consideration was extended during
  1630
  the last Parliament. [Opposition cries of "Oh!"]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was an inconsiderate opposition.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Well, let us see whether it was an inconsiderate Opposition. These are the whole number of days which were given to Supply before Easter in the years I will name:—In 1887 there were nine days; in 1888, four days; in 1889, nine days; in 1890, six days; in 1891, seven days; and in 1892, ten days, which was the highest number recorded.
  MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.): The right hon. Gentleman does not include February.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Those are the figures which are supplied to me, and which I believe are correct.
  MR. JACKSON: Those figures do not include February. The right hon. Gentleman has only got the number of days in the month of March. He will, I think, find that those numbers are not in accordance with the figures presented to the House as to the number of days occupied in Supply.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No, they give the number of days given to the Supplementary Votes and Excess Votes. ["Oh!"] Well, that is the very point. We must compare like with like. I am not speaking of the Estimates for next year, but of those that must be taken before Easter. If you wish to compare something else, do it by all means; but I am comparing the Votes which are in question, the Supplementary and Excess Votes, the first Army Vote for the year, the first Navy Vote for the year, and the Civil Service Vote on Account. Well, what is the present situation? We have already devoted six days to Supply—from February 25 to March 9—four days in Supply, and two days on going into Supply. ["No, no!"] Really hon. Members should allow me to speak. They can reply to me if they wish later on. We had, I say, four days in Supply and two days going into it. We propose, taking into account the date my right hon. Friend has mentioned for the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill, to give at least 10, or it may be 12, days to the same purpose for which in former years the number has been given which I have quoted. There is no reason why more days should be given to this

  1631
  purpose on the present occasion than have been given in the last six years. We know what the reason is according to the Opposition. It is one which the right hon. Gentleman took care not to state. Nobody can say that there is anything in these Estimates which require a longer time than in previous periods. You have had two days' Debate on the Naval Estimates, and they are not concluded yet. Everybody knows why you want so much time to discuss the Estimates this year. Everybody knows that the object is a very different one, and we object to the right hon. Gentleman laying deliberate plans to prevent the progress of Business in this House. I have endeavoured to state the matter fairly. We have given the maximum time for Supply, and we consider it ample for the purpose. That is an answer to the points brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman. All this pretence of discussing the Estimates is a pretence that deceives nobody. The right hon. Gentleman has said that his Party have a powerful minority. I do not deny that. What we object to is that this powerful minority should lay down deliberate plans to delay the Business of the House. In our opinion the duty of a majority in the House towards that majority in the country which it represents is to use such measures as are absolutely necessary to defeat these tactics. We believe that it is of immense interest to Parliament and to the country that this great issue of Home Rule should be joined at the earliest period, and we believe there will be abundance of time for bringing this matter under the consideration of Parliament and of the country, and great as the inconvenience may be, and great as is the sacrifice—and I admit it is a sacrifice—which we are asking not only from gentlemen opposite, but from gentlemen who support us, we ask them to assist us in forwarding the Business of the country against what we can only regard as a deliberate attempt to delay it.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.): The House is indebted very much to my right hon. Friend for the clearness with which he has put the issue before it. This miserable minority of 315 knows what is in store for it if the Government have their way. My right hon. Friend commenced with a statement in which I
  1632
  am very glad to be able to agree with him, that the proposal of the Government would put an immense strain upon the House and its officials, and would be the cause of hardship. I should have thought that under those circumstances my right hon. Friend would have felt that, before putting that strain upon the House, he would have to show some great emergency. Where is the great emergency? We have spent a few days in Supply, and, as has been said, there is ample time before the legal period by which Supply must be granted to carry the remaining Votes in Supply, and my right hon. Friend, I suppose, will not tell the House that he or his colleagues are in any fear that we should interpose to prevent the fulfilment of those legal obligations. Up to the present time it is impossible for him or anyone to say there has been any undue discussion on the Estimates. Why we are penalised is not for anything we have done, but for an offence which my right hon. Friend attributes to us an intention of committing. He has found in the newspapers, apparently, reports of plans which have caused him to produce this Coercive Resolution. I should have thought my right hon. Friend by this time would not have been inclined to pay too much attention to newspaper reports. We also have seen newspaper reports. We have seen it stated that my right hon. Friend proposes to do away altogether with the Easter holidays, and we have seen another report that he and his Colleagues propose to carry over Supply beyond the legal period, and then to seek for an indemnity from Parliament. We have not thought it worth while—we have not thought it dignified—to pay any attention to these reports and rumours, and I think my right hon. Friend might have waited, at all events, until he had some evidences of these intentions which he now attributes to us. The right hon. Gentleman has laid before the House an account of the number of days which on previous occasions were occupied in Supply. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is misinformed, and that, omitting the year 1890, which was exceptional, the average gives us over eight days for the past five years. Up to the present time we have spent only 18 hours in Supply. Would it not be better to wait until we have got somewhat nearer the average of eight days, which he

  1633
  admits to be a perfectly reasonable time, before proposing such a Resolution as the one which is under consideration? My right hon. Friend says that a great deal of time has been spent upon the Naval Estimates. I believe the average time spent upon the Naval Votes in previous years has been two days.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Once in 13 years.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: One day! Then the average has been one day for the Naval Estimates; and on all those occasions the time has been entirely occupied in the discussion of naval policy. So that in dealing with the Naval Estimates, we must bear in mind the exceptional circumstances which have occupied one of the days attributed to this Vote in the discussion of a matter which has nothing to do with the naval policy. What time has been taken on past occasions upon the Army Estimates? I believe three days have been given to the first Votes in the Army Estimates. Will anyone say that up to the present time one single question has been introduced to the attention of the House in regard to the Naval Estimates which was not worthy the attention of the House? My right hon. Friend, with the most childlike ingenuousness, asked what is there in the Supplementary Estimates which will justify any long discussion. The Government have been in possession of power for seven months. We have had absolutely no opportunity of questioning them or criticising them, or of calling them to account, and now, when we have an opportunity of raising questions of such vital importance as, for instance, that of the Evicted Tenants Commission or the expedition to Uganda, and other matters which are raised by the Supplementary Estimates, does my right hon. Friend pretend to tell us that we cannot raise these questions without laying ourselves open to the charge of a deliberate intention to delay the proper business of the Government? There is not the slightest pretence, up to the present time at any rate, for saying that the Opposition have shown that intention in criticising the Estimates, and nothing but the growing intolerance of the majority who, having given up coercing Ireland, have taken up in its place the idea of coercing the
  1634
  minority of this House—nothing, I say, but their intolerance would justify any such insinuation. But the right hon. Gentleman says we must go behind the time spent upon the Estimates. We are not to consider, apparently—that is the position of a Member of the Government—whether any matter arising out of the Estimates or whether the discussions which we raise are worthy the attention of this House. We take only into account the evident fact that it is our desire, and therefore our intention as far as we have the power, to prevent the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill before Easter. The right hon. Gentleman made great pretence of exposing this plot—this conspiracy. Why, his exposure was not necessary. We are, none of us, ashamed to avow openly in this House that we think it a most discreditable and most outrageous proceeding on the part of the Government to take a Bill of this kind, brought in under the circumstances in which it has been introduced to the House and the country, before Easter, and before we can have the opportunity which we desire of conferring with our constituents upon the matter. The right hon. Gentleman goes back to 1886, when, as he says, the First Reading was taken on the 8th of March, and the Second Reading on the 10th of April. Yes; but he omitted to say that in the interval the Easter holidays, nearly a fortnight, took place, and that in that interval many Members of the House had most valuable opportunities of conferring with their constituents; and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that the result was materially affected by these opportunities. We claim in the first place our Constitutional right to discuss the Estimates at reasonable length, and to deal with all questions which are worthy of the attention of the House, and we are not going to be curtailed in our rights even by the most arbitrary Government that has ever sat upon those Benches. And, further, we claim by this Debate and by many others of the same kind—to which, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman looks forward with pleasure and satisfaction—we claim to show to the country that it is the avowed intention of the Government to rush through this Bill, which would be rejected by the good sense of the people if they had time for considering its provisions.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has submitted a very extraordinary doctrine to the Government. It is that they should shut the stable door after the steed is stolen. We read the other day in The Times, which I presume is the official organ of the Opposition, a full report of the meeting which had taken place at the Carlton Club. We read there that the Tory Party were brought together and urged to obstruct as much as they possibly could. What has now occurred? Why, a Liberal Unionist is put up to say it cannot be true, because he was not there. No doubt when there is a Liberal Unionist meeting reported, some Conservative will be put up to say that as he was not there it cannot be correct. The right hon. Gentleman says there was to be no obstruction upon the Supplementary Estimates. I know something about obstruction. I have felt it my duty sometimes to—it might, invidiously, be called—obstruct the action of the late Government when I thought they were rushing the country over a precipice. I declare, having a knowledge of the matter, that there has been obstruction upon the Estimates already. I am bound to tell right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen of the Unionist persuasion that I never yet saw obstruction so badly and so inartistically practised. Why, we had two hours with the Chairman of Committees in the Chair, about the place where the new bar was to be put outside in the Lobby. The artistic way would have been to have put up some gentleman to protest against there being any bar at all, and to have raised a discussion on the whole question of temperance. You must manage—and I tell you in the most friendly way—you must manage to be plausible and to get some principle underlying your obstruction. But, as I have said, you have done it in the most inartistic fashion. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has frankly admitted that he and his friends intend to obstruct to the utmost of their power the Home Rule Bill—that they feel it their duty to do so, and that they are doing so at the present moment.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to misrepresent me. I did not say anything of the kind. I said we should do our utmost to pre-
  1636
  vent the Second Reading being taken before Easter.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: And the right hon. Gentleman has been "doing his utmost." We only differ about the word obstruction. What I call obstruction the right hon. Gentleman calls "doing his utmost." I would point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has treated the Leader of the Opposition far too seriously. The Leader of the Opposition used all the stock phrases that have been used again and again upon questions of this kind. I could not put them so eloquently as the right hon. Gentleman, but there was not a single word that the right hon. Gentleman said that I have not said a dozen times in past years. The right hon. Gentleman said it was true that you might take Saturdays at a later period, but it was perfectly monstrous to take them at this early period of the Session. And when summer comes the right hon. Gentleman will say—" You might have taken them at a time when we could not go to the country: if you had taken them at an early period of the Session we would not have complained." I have done it myself; I have done it before Easter. Yes; and I have done it after Easter. Then the right hon. Gentleman said the action of the Government was indecent. I have told the right hon. Gentleman himself that the action of his Government was indecent. The right hon. Gentleman said he was not going to be trampled upon. I have said that often; I have said I was not going to be trampled upon. I have said that a crushed worm would turn. But I got no benefit from any of these phrases. I was simply trampled upon. The thing is as clear as possible. It is admitted that there will be fair and reasonable time for the Estimates, and hon. Gentlemen are making this opposition simply and solely because they do not wish the Home Rule Bill to come on before Easter. We on our side think this is precisely the best time for the Home Rule Bill. We desire that no further time should be wasted, and that the Home Rule Bill should not perpetually stand in the way of every other business. Therefore we hope and we are determined that the Home Rule Bill will not only come on, but will be carried, before Easter. As for Saturday, there is nothing sacred about Saturday. Why are you not to sit on Saturday? We have heard of the classical story of

  1637
  the Roman sentinel dying in his place. All we wish hon. Members to do is to sit in their places. What right hon. Gentlemen ought to remember is that the business of Members of Parliament is to do the business of Parliament. We have got certain business to do. We have to carry through the Supplementary Estimates and to carry Home Rule—and, what is more, we mean to do it. If it is necessary, we will agree to sit every night until 4 in the morning; and if by that means we cannot pass the Bill before Easter we will do without any holidays at Easter at all. The right hon. Gentleman, when he talks of the rights and privileges of minorities, must remember that he is no longer what he was for six years—the head of a majority. He is in a minority; we are in a majority, and we mean to have our own way.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERrose amidst cries of "Divide!" I take the earliest opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of drawing your attention to the fact that there is an organized attempt being made to stifle Debate in this House. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] I think we are entitled, notwithstanding these disorderly interruptions, to which I certainly do not intend to submit—[Renewed cries of "Divide!"] If an attempt is made to repeat these disorderly interruptions I shall move that this House do now adjourn. I think we are entitled upon this occasion, when the Government are asking for special facilities and additional time, to consider how the facilities and the time they have already had at their disposal have been spent by them. The hon. Member for Northampton boldly argues in favour not only of a Saturday Sitting, but of a Sunday Sitting—for he says he is in favour of Sitting all night, to 5 o'clock in the morning. That is a proposal which he makes upon his own responsibility, and which the House is quite capable of discussing and considering. With regard to the immediate proposal before the House, I would ask the House to consider what claim the Government had to make this demand. The Chancellor of the Exchequer began by giving an account of an arduous night devoted to Supply on February 20 of this year. The discussion on that night, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes credit to himself for having afforded the House,
  1638
  to discuss the Estimates in Supply, in point of fact occupied about three-quarters of a minute for it, and consisted simply of a Motion by the Prime Minister that Mr. Mellor do pro formâ take the Chair. That, Sir, is a sample of Ministerial accuracy. I am bound to say that upon that occasion the business of the Government was gone through with expedition and with the unanimous concurrence of the House, and so I have nothing more to say about the 20th of February. But how did we spend the other days? The first day that Supply was legitimately before the House was on a Thursday. The business of the House did not admit of the Order being reached that day until about half-past 7 o'clock. In a very few minutes after that time the customary suspension of business for the dinner half-hour took place, and within a few minutes after its termination an hon. Gentleman who was in Committee of Supply for the first time, and who had never before seen the House engaged in the duty of voting the Estimates, moved that the Question be now put. Needless to say that the Chairman took no notice of that interruption. The discussion had scarcely proceeded many minutes more before the same hon. Gentleman, who was engaged for the first time in his life in assisting in Committee of Supply, again moved that the Question be now put. Very shortly afterwards, another hon. Member, who was likewise engaged for the first time in his life in assisting in Committee of Supply, got up and articulated a point of Order. Was there anything like it heard before in the world? In the nursery it would be called precocity. At school a harsher term would be applied to it. Here we have the time of the House occupied by supporters of the Government in raising frivolous and absolutely absurd points of so-called Order—order being a commodity of which they had no knowledge whatever. But that is not the worst of what occurred. In the course of the next Sitting in Supply a very important Vote arose involving a question of policy which required an explanation from the Head of the Irish Department. I do not see the Chief Secretary at this moment in his place. He was there a few minutes ago, and I dare say before we have much further

  1639
  proceeded he will likewise be in his place again. An answer was indispensable, but the representative of the Government in the House at the time—a most courteous representative of the Government, my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir J. Hibbert), could not, naturally—for it was not within his power or capacity—state what was the future Irish policy of the Government. It became necessary to make a Motion that the Chairman do report Progress in order to get the Chief Secretary in his place. When the right hon. Gentleman arrived I put a question to him, as I had a perfect right to do, regarding a very important portion of the policy of his Department, and the right hon. Gentleman very curtly declined to reply. Well, that was the right hon. Gentleman's own affair and not mine, and I do not urge it as a personal grievance. But what followed when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) rose to complain of his want of courtesy? The right hon. Gentleman put up his own private secretary to move the closure. Of course, I assume that the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the action of his private secretary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to deny that, but am I to understand that the Chief Secretary for Ireland has no more control over his own private secretary than he has over his own temper? [Cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to speak in that way.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHEROf course, Sir, I withdraw the remark to which you object. But am I to understand that the Chief Secretary has no influence over his own private secretary?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It did not occur.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: The right hon. Gentleman and I are at issue on a question of fact. If he refers to The Times newspaper of the following day he will find that the private secretary to the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—[At this point the Chief Secretary for Ireland returned to the House.] I see the right hon. Gentleman now in his place, and I will repeat what I have said. I was saying
  1640
  that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham rose to speak, my hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside Division (Mr. Joseph A. Pease), the very efficient and able private secretary of the right hon. Gentleman, moved that the Question be now put.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I know nothing about the affair.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: But are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has so little influence on the hon. Member who sits behind him, and who occupies so confidential a position as his private secretary—
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Question.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this is the Question.
  Mr. Hugh Hoare rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: This is an apt illustration of what I have been pointing out to the House, that our proceedings are being continually interrupted by supporters of the Government, one of whom, as I have mentioned, acts in very confidential relations with the Chief Secretary—a personal friend of mine, and a most efficient private secretary—our proceedings, as I have said, are interrupted by those hon. Members making Motions which are not calculated to advance the business of the House. I may also remark that that very same hon. Gentleman tried immediately afterwards, to the great amusement of the Committee, actually to cloture the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I say, Sir, that attempts to curtail the freedom of debate are not calculated to advance the progress of Public Business in this House. Those of us who object to the time of the House being spent in such a manner have a right to point out that meeting arguments advanced in a regular manner against the most irregular action of the Government by interruptions, articulate or inarticulate, are not creditable to the House of Commons. Now what is the case with regard to the Saturday Sitting? The hon. Member for Northampton has said, with perfect truth,

  1641
  that whether the Saturday Sitting be asked for in March or in any other month, the principle is the same. With certain reservations I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Northampton. Whether the proposal is made in March, April, May, or June, it is equally open to objection. But what I contend is that the House has; never in the past been asked to sit on a Saturday except for the purpose of dealing with some great public emergency, when time was an essential element. I do not deny that I have known of a Saturday Sitting even as early as this. I recollect that the first subject of great importance I ever heard debated in this House was on a Saturday, and on the 17th of February, It was a proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. Gladstone) in 1866, which proposal received the almost unanimous assent of the House—-to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. Nobody took exception to the extraordinary proceeding of a Saturday Sitting on a matter of that great emergency. ["Hear, hear!"] The Chancellor of the Exchequer says "hear, hear!" Nobody has alleged that if the interest of the State required it, or if it is required by the Government in order to comply with the law, that there should not be a Saturday Sitting. But we contend that there is ample time otherwise to dispose of the actual legitimate business of Supply, and that there is full opportunity of considering Government measures that can fairly be proposed to the House of Commons. I think we have a right to point out that whatever pressure may exist with regard to public business has been solely and entirely caused by the manner in which Business has hitherto been conducted by the Government and by disorderly interruptions of their own followers.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, it was generally to be observed that when a Government made use of its majority —which in this case appeared to be tyrannical in reverse proportion to its smallness—to override the rights of the House—and surely one of the first of the rights of the House was to discuss its ordinary Business on ordinary days and during ordinary hours—it was usual for the Government to point at the occupants of the Opposition Benches, and
  1642
  say, "You did exactly the same thing when you were in Office." It was a little suspicious that the Government were unable to do that to-day; and it was especially suspicious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was fond of using tu quoque arguments of the kind, was unable to say anything of that nature. It was impossible for the Government to quote any precedent for the Motion before the House, for two reasons: first, because there never had been a Government which held Saturday Sittings so early in the Session, and there never had been a Government, in recent years at least, which, having taken Saturday Sittings, did not apply to these' Sittings the Rules which governed Wednesday Sittings. The hon. Member for Southampton had asked what was there in Saturday to make it any different to the House of Commons from any other day in the week. But there were reasons which made Saturday to the House of Commons very different to other days in the week. Saturday came when the House was fagged after a hard week's work, and it was a holiday to which the House always looked. The fact that a distinct Motion had to be passed to obtain a Saturday Sitting showed that it was an unusual course for the House to sit on Saturday. Saturday was also the longest day on which the House could sit. The House might meet at 12 noon, and sit beyond midnight, for the Twelve o'clock Rule did not apply, so that the Prime Minister would obtain, if his Motion were carried, not only a Saturday Sitting but Sunday Sitting as well. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to at least follow the usual precedent and limit the Sitting to 6 o'clock, as on Wednesdays. He found that since 1886, whenever the House sat on Saturday it had always sat under the Wednesday Rules. Such a proposal as that before the House had never been made by the late Government. The House sat on Saturday, 6th August, 1887, from 12 to 5.45 o'clock; on Saturday, 13th August, 1887, from 12 to 6 o'clock; on Saturday, 20th August, 1887, from 12 to 6 o'clock. All these Sittings were late in the Session, when business was pressing and had to be got through. On Saturday, the 11th August, 1888, the House sat from 12 to 5.30 o'clock, and debate a Motion for the adjournment of the House during the whole of that time.

  1643
  There were several other instances of the House sitting on Saturdays from 12 to 6 o'clock. Saturday, the 9th August, 1890, was the only occasion on which the House did not sit under the Wednesday Rules, but that was by the general consent of the House, and simply and solely in order that the Prorogation might take place as soon as possible. There was, therefore, absolutely no precedent for this most arbitrary proposal of the Government. And really, after all, what would the Leader of the House gain by his Motion? He had mentioned a case in which the House sat on a Saturday from 12 to 6, when the followers of the right hon. Gentleman, then in Opposition, used the whole time in a discussion on the adjournment of the House. They were not likely to follow that bad example, though the temptation to do so was much greater, for here the Motion was not to sit from 12 to 6, but from 12 to Sunday morning. The late Government had always treated the Opposition fairly, because all their Saturday Sittings were under the Wednesday Rules, but the present Government was not treating the Opposition fairly in that respect, and therefore the temptation to take up the time of the House with discussions was all the greater. What was the sole and only justification for this Motion? Could there be even a suggestion that it was due to any purposeless, needless, or unfair discussion of the Estimates. So far from the Opposition being properly charged with obstruction, all the obstruction was really done by the other side. The object of this Saturday Sitting was to get through the Estimates in order to bring forward the Home Rule Bill; and that really meant that under the plea of time being wanted to debate the Home Rule Bill they were not to be allowed proper time to discuss the Estimates. The House should remember that there never had been such Supplementary Estimates before it for many years. They had Army Estimates, which were totally in opposition to the Army Estimates of previous years. During recent years their discussions on the Navy Estimates had been governed by the Naval Defence Act. Now they had to discuss a new policy—they had to discuss the abandonment of the old policy, which had had years before it, and to discuss a new makeshift policy, to last only one
  1644
  year. In the Supplementary Estimates they had not only to discuss the subject of Uganda, but to discuss the Vote for the Evicted Tenants Commission, which the right hon. Gentleman thought of such importance that he had set a whole day apart for it. Then they had the charges for the Law Officers of the Crown, which involved new principles, and a breach of faith on the part of the Government. If there had been anything clearly understood it was that the Law Officers should have no private practice; and in addition to that breach of faith, a new Department had been set up, and it was proposed to make the salaries of that Department go back over the seven months during which the Government had been in power. If the right hon. Gentleman, under the plea of debating the Home Rule Bill, prevented them from discussing the Estimates, he would do so in defiance of the law, for the law required the right hon. Gentleman to get the Supplementary Estimates and Votes on Account by a certain time. Did the right hon. Gentleman suppose he would get the Supplementary Estimates and the Votes on Account by Thursday? But if he did not get them, and if he brought forward the Home Rule Bill on that day, and went on with it day after day, how was he going to comply with the law in regard to the financial arrangements? They objected to the discussions on the Estimates being curtailed for the Home Rule Bill; they desired to have that Bill freely and completely discussed by their constituents at Easter, after it had been kept secret from them for seven years. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman, in bringing forward this Motion, was the real obstructor, and was also going against all precedents of the House, and, in order to bind the right hon. Gentleman to follow the precedents set in regard to Saturday Sittings, he begged to move his Resolution.
  Mr. Owen rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. SPEAKERcalled on Major Rasch.
  MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)said, he begged to second the Amend ment of his hon. Friend. He failed
  MR. OWEN: I beg to move that Question be now put.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but he must be aware that this Question was moved only a quarter of an hour ago.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid he failed to see why the Government should accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Preston. The Government could not complain of the length of the Debates. Last night they had had on the Army Vote a most important question briefly discussed. The same thing had occurred on the Navy Votes. He represented a maritime constituency, and the men who had sent him to the House of Commons wished, through him, to lay certain grievances before the Admiralty. But so anxious was he to facilitate business that he did not intervene in the discussion. What was his reward? They were kept there until 2 o'clock, and even when they got a Saturday Sitting they were deprived of any advantage from it. He begged to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  After the word "To-morrow," to insert the words "subject to the Standing Orders which regulate the Sittings of the House on Wednesday."—(Mr. Hanbary.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)did not rise so much for the purpose of debating this question of a Saturday Sitting as to ask the Prime Minister what he really expected to gain by a proceeding of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman was the oldest Member of the House, and he must know that any attempt to ride rough-shod over a minority, and especially a minority of the character of the present minority, ended in disaster to those who attempted it. He (Mr. Russell) had been in the House for six or seven years, and he never yet saw any good whatever arise out of these all-night Sittings, or these extraordinary Sittings for special purposes. They had been told by the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that there had been obstruction on the Estimates. Now, the simple matter of fact regarding the Estimates amounted to this: that up to the present there had been four Sittings
  1646
  —and not full Sittings—devoted to these Estimates, the time occupied being only 18½ hours upon the Supplementary and Army and Navy Estimates, and because of the expenditure of such a limited time as that the right hon. Gentleman, after having suspended the Twelve o'clock Rule on five different occasions, after having already had one Saturday Sitting, proposed now to take another, and they had hon. Members coming to the House and absolutely requesting the Minister to put a gag on the House and close the Home Rule Debate after three days' discussion.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is my duty to point out that by the Amendment before the House, the question is limited to whether, if the House sits to-morrow, it shall be for an unlimited time, or whether it shall be under the provisions regulating a Wednesday's Sitting.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that if the Sitting were to be so limited his argument as to the utility of the Sitting became stronger than ever, because if hon. Members belonging to the Opposition were animated by the spirit which their opponents declared they were—and which he did not believe—then nothing was simpler and easier than to make the Sitting a nullity. The hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare) said that the closure was available, but he did not think that any Member contending for legitimate discussion of the Estimates could fairly be closured by the House. All he could say as regarded the Supplemental Estimates was that, whether they were discussed at the Saturday Sitting or not, he intended, so far as he was concerned, on the Irish Estimates to exercise his right to the fullest extent to legitimately discuss them.
  MR. COURTNEY: I should like to say one word on the special Amendment before the House. I presume the Prime Minister will not accept the Amendment, because it is clear if the Amendment were accepted, if the Opposition were animated by the feelings which the Chancellor of the Exchequer attributed to them, the object in view might be defeated by its operation. If you have a fixed term at which a discussion must come to a conclusion it would be quite easy by many processes to prevent any Vote from being taken. I remember a Saturday Sitting of which

  1647
  the whole time was occupied by a Motion for Adjournment made by the hon. Member for Northampton, so that it did not come to the real question for which the Sitting was appointed. The Prime Minister, however, might I think say a few words which might have an effect, not merely on the present Amendment, but on the attitude of the House towards the proposition itself, with reference to sitting late to-morrow. I do not wish him to lay down any fixed rule or limit as to the Sitting, but if the right hon. Gentleman were to give some intimation as to the amount of work which he expects from the House to-morrow— if he would indicate the number and character of the Votes which he desired the House to agree to—we might then come to some understanding which would not expose us to the chance of an unlimited Sitting, and might at the same time act as a sort of stimulus to hon. Members to condense the Debate as much as possible. With a view, then, to expediting business and coming to some practical agreement, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to state the amount of work he expects from the Committee to-morrow, and such an intimation might obviate the necessity of dividing on the present Amendment.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid, he thought they had a right to complain that subjects in which English Members took a lively interest should be discussed at the late hours of the very last day of the week. It was bad enough that they should be asked to sit on Saturday at all, but surely it was only reasonable that if they did undertake that additional burden the Government should not prolong the Sitting to the very extreme limit. It was not very long since in that House they listened to a most eloquent profession of respect and almost of reverence for the political equality of all the Members of that House. That profession came from the Prime Minister, but was he carrying that profession into effect? The right hon. Gentleman said they were all to be politically equal without distinction of rank or talent or any other distinction, but he must have made a mental reservation. He must have ignored the distinction of race, for it appeared that every English Member of that House was not to be allowed the liberties or facilities which were accorded
  1648
  to those who sat for constituencies in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. The only reason for this demand was that measures affecting Ireland and Wales had been given a place to which they were not entitled on any just estimate of their claim. No appeal had been made in this matter to their reason or courtesy; they had been treated with indifference and contempt. [Ministerial cries of "Order!"] That was so. The English Members had not been treated with courtesy during that Debate. They had been threatened with the closure, and Ministers declined to reply to just and fair arguments. If he made this protest he did so knowing that he, at any rate, had not trespassed upon the indulgence of the House during the Session, but he had felt that he, as a Member sitting for an English constituency, had a right to protest against the neglect of all English interests by the Government, and to protest especially against English interests being discussed at the fag-end of the week, and every advantage being accorded the interests of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not rise, Sir, to join in the general Debate within the limits you have properly laid down for the discussion of the Amendment. One remark I wish to make in answer to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, because I should feel very deeply hurt indeed if I felt within myself there was any foundation for his charge that we—I mean the Government—who are under special responsibilities, have not treated English Members—that is to say, three-fourths of the whole of the House—with courtesy. The prime and capital article of the creed of courtesy is to exercise patience and self-restraint, and to abstain from offensive imputations. Speaking for myself, I have felt a necessity for exercising some of that self-restraint. I may appeal to every hon. Gentleman who hears me, and I believe I may say the same of my colleagues, that we have not used a single word of imputation with regard to motives. That is the principle on which I have acted, and on which I shall continue to act. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bodmin Division wishes to know what is our special object in the demand we now make on the House. I may say that I did declare in an early part of the evening that there would be

  1649
  no attempt or effort to encroach on the day of rest. But independently of that, my right hon. Friend wishes to know what is our special object in the demand we have made to-morrow on the grounds of the interest of the Public Service and the best arrangements of Public Business. Our main object, I might almost say our sole object, is to dispose of the Army and Navy Votes. Then I think there are some non-contentious Votes on the Supplemental Estimates which we shall be glad to take, but we do not propose to make any serious demands on the time of the House with regard to them.
  MR. COURTNEY: Then I understand my right hon. Friend proposes to take the first Vote of the Army and Navy Estimates and any non-contentious Vote?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Yes.
  MR. HANBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman include the Army Supplemental Estimates?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes.
  MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square): I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wishes to show all personal courtesy to the House and every hon. Member of the House, but from the Parliamentary point of view I do not think that the House has been treated with courtesy during this Debate. No Minister has submitted grounds for a Saturday Sitting at all. The right hon. Gentleman was necessarily absent during the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not even lay the foundation for a Saturday Sitting, much less for a Saturday Sitting prolonged beyond 6 o'clock. We have nothing before us except that these extraordinary measures are necessary on the dictatorial ipse dixit of the Government, and on nothing else. We have not been informed why these extraordinary measures are necessary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer dwelt for a moment upon some newspaper report be had seen, but I challenge the right hon. Gentleman or his colleagues to show in all the history of Parliament that a Saturday Sitting has ever been asked for without a statement of the motives for such a Sitting. While I acquit the right hon. Gentleman of discourtesy, I say that the Parliamentary minority have not been treated accord-
  1650
  ing to the traditions of the House. Seeing that this is an invasion of all Parliamentary practice, and that not an attempt has been made to prove that it is in accordance with Parliamentary practice, we-have a right to ask—Is this to be a precedent for the future that Saturday Sittings are to be prolonged until midnight because Her Majesty's Government desire to see a Bill, not urgent, passed by a particular day? Why in some future Session should not a Bill equally dear to the right hon. Gentleman be put in the same position? Is not this, therefore, a breach of Parliamentary practice and Parliamentary privilege? Surely it would have been decorous for Her Majesty's Government to lay some foundation for this course. We are obliged to contend—for there can be no other view of the matter—that Her Majesty's Government are so determined not to allow the Easter Recess to intervene before the Second Reading of the Bill that they are ready to put you, Sir, to the inconvenience, and the whole. House to the inconvenience, of a Saturday Sitting lest the country during the Easter Recess should have an opportunity, which it has not had as yet, of pronouncing an opinion on the Home Rule Bill before the House is asked to give it a Second Reading. We are asked to have a Saturday Sitting in order to take this. Bill on Thursday next, even though the Schedules are not printed, and although important questions on the measure have failed to elicit any information from the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to say I think this is rather travelling from the scope of the Amendment.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The connection between the two I was showing is. this:—That we are to sit not only to 6 o'clock, but to any hour of the night— till 12 o'clock—in order to compass the object which I have attempted to describe; but, of course, after your ruling,. Sir, I will say no more on that point, but will address myself to the particular point which the right hon. Gentleman rose to inform us of. He did not give us any reason why we are to tit till 12 o'clock; he abstained entirely from any arguments, but he told us that on Saturday we are to conclude—sitting to any hour —the Army, Navy, and Supplementary Estimates. Does the right hon. Gentle

  1651
  man know how long we have discussed the Navy Estimates formerly, and does he think, the Speaker not yet being out of the Chair, that both they and the Army Estimates could fairly be taken on a Saturday? Is the course he proposes just to this House or conducive to the service of the country? Is it just that these Estimates should be taken on a Saturday at hours which the right hon. Gentleman knows are inconvenient to everybody in the House? It is as utterly unreasonable as it is unprecedented, but the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters is well shown by the idea that it is totally unnecessary for Army or Navy men to speak on the Army or Navy Estimates at all. I venture to submit that if the right hon. Gentleman by means of his majority gets us to sit on Saturday, it is quite unreasonable to expect that the discussion on these Votes shall be concluded before we are released from our labours for the night. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the decision at which he has arrived, for I am sure it will not further the business of the House if he insists on this course.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Sir, I feel in great difficulty because I am unwilling to strain any point, but to follow the ruling which you, Sir, have just laid down. I have, no doubt, misunderstood it, but I understood the right hon. Gentleman to discuss on this Amendment the whole question of the sitting on a Saturday, and to call for a justification for such a course. He says that "the Government have not shown any necessity for a Saturday Sitting except their own dictatorial ipse dixit" Is it not an elementary duty of this Government, and of every Government, to form the best estimate they can as to the arrangement of Public Business, and likewise as to the time which the respective subjects of discussion may be reasonably expected to occupy? And when they have done that, and stated what they propose to do, the right hon. Gentleman, who has sat many years in the Government, himself calls it a dictatorial ipse dixit. It is the simplest and most elementary duty of a Government, and any Government which omitted it would be liable to the just censure of the House. And then, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman says that all this matter
  1652
  has grown up because of the desire to pass a Bill which is not urgent. Well, Sir, as to this Bill, which he says is not urgent, his mention of it suggests to me that his own warm antagonism to the Bill a little perverts the integrity of his judgment with respect to the magnitude and necessity of the measure. I have heard it described by the right hon. Gentleman himself as a Bill which alone is sufficient to occupy—
  MR. BARTLEY(interposing): Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is speaking to the Amendment, which you have ruled to be limited?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) who last spoke rather transgressed the limit which I laid down, and it is to those remarks the right hon. Gentleman is now replying.
  MR. BARTLEY: Shall we be at liberty to discuss it?
  MR. SPEAKER: As a matter of fact, the discussion is limited to the particular question whether, if the House sits to-morrow, it shall act under the conditions which regulate a Wednesday's Sitting. If this Amendment is disposed of it will then be proper to discuss the Main Question.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It is due to the right hon. Gentleman that, in some shape or another, I should reply to the question put to me. If it is in conformity with the feelings and wishes of the House that the House should give its judgment at once upon the Amendment, it would, perhaps, be far better than for me to pursue an irregular discussion.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 231; Noes 252.—(Division List, No. 27.)
  Main Question again proposed.
  Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE and Mr. HENEAGErising together, the SPEAKER called on the former right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am very sorry to appear discourteous, even for a moment, to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Heneage), but in fact I was in the middle of a suspended speech when that speech was postponed in order that the Amendment might be disposed of. I

  1653
  have already said that I felt it was the duty of the Government to form the best forecast that it could of the course of Business, and of how to divide the time, and especially that portion of the Session between the meeting of Parliament and Easter. That duty we have endeavoured to perform, and I will describe to you how it has been presented to us. It appeared to us that, although Easter was early, the meeting of Parliament was also somewhat earlier than it had been of late years. Three things were indispensable for us to aim at, and, if possible, for us to effect, between the meeting of Parliament and Easter, if it were found that Parliament were satisfied with the usual and ordinary employment of its powers. One of these, of course, was to dispose of the Supplementary Estimates and the other preliminary Votes which are necessary to start us on the financial year. Another was the introduction of Bills, and especially of Bills that might be considered non-contentious in the ordinary sense, and which referred to Great Britain, because we felt after the long discussions and the active state of public opinion during the six years of the last Parliament, that however vital to Imperial interests the Irish Government Bill might be considered by the majority of the House, yet that Great Britain would not consent to dispense with honest and energetic effort on our part to pass beneficent legislation for this important part of the Empire. That was the second division of the two divisions of time that came before us between the assembling of the House and Easter. And the third portion was that which, if not required for the Supplementary Estimates and for the introduction of Bills, appeared to us to have the highest claims upon it, as was expressly admitted by some speakers on the other side—namely, the claims for the Bill for the purpose of establishing a local Parliament in Ireland. Well, Sir, that measure is a measure which has been the main one in the view of the country for six years, and in our view and our opinion was the burning question of the principal part, if not the whole, of the elections that have taken place. [An hon. MEMBER: Grimsby.] The hon. Member need not interpose in that way. I am not endeavouring to describe the state of his mind, but to give the motives that
  1654
  actuated us. It appeared to us to be an absolute and indispensable portion of our duty to introduce this Bill. But I think it will be felt by the whole House that if we were to grapple with a subject of that magnitude and difficulty it was our duty to grapple with it in earnest, and not to lose a single moment in getting into such a position in relation to the other Business of the Session that we might confidently reckon, humanly speaking, upon passing it through the House, not in the dregs of the Session, but at a time when the full attention of the House and of the country could be given to it. We therefore gave notice of the introduction of the Bill for February 6. The prolongation of the Debate on the Address prevented the fulfilment of that intention. On February 13th the Bill was introduced, and it was our full conviction that it was possible to dispose of the Second Reading of the Bill before Easter. So far from being a mere ipse dixit of our own, it is our absolute duty to submit that plan to the judgment of the House, and by that judgment we shall be guided. My right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said we were in dread lest light should be let in upon this Bill, as if we were at Easter to have some thing like a great illumination, a light that the Bill could not get at any other portion of the year. But the light we have had cast upon the Bill is a larger light than ever was cast upon any Bill introduced by the late Government. Our duty was to allow an ample time between the introduction of the Bill and the Second Reading. The introduction of the Bill was moved on February 13, and the Second Reading stands for March 16. I believe that that is a longer period than has ever, so far as my recollection goes, been allowed upon a great measure which it was intended seriously to discuss, and if possible to carry There were these three branches of business which it was the duty of the Government to grapple with. Am I right or am I wrong in saying if we were to encounter the difficulties in so important and complex a measure as the Irish Government Bill, it was our absolute and plain duty to give it the earliest position in the business of the Session, so that we might be enabled to pass it through its stages at a time when opportunity of discussion

  1655
  could be enjoyed by the House, and without it being carried to a period of the year when attention is deeply exhausted, and a full attendance of Members could not reasonably be expected. These are the grounds for the computation which we made; these are the grounds for what has been called our dictatorial ipse dixit. We felt that after Easter the Budget must come on, and that the miscellaneous and general Estimates must be proceeded with, and that the rational and practical method of dealing with the time, and the extraordinary exigencies of the present Session, depended upon our acting upon the plan that I have described, and upon that also which I believe I may claim on our behalf—namely, that we should not ourselves waste the time of the House by producing frivolous discussions, but produce our measure in the most effective and most economical manner, and so as to produce the largest possible net results for the benefit of the country.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am in precisely the same position as the right hon. Gentleman in this respect—that I was in the middle of a suspended speech when you, Mr. Speaker, thought I was transgressing. I said the right hon. Gentle-man was proceeding on his own ipse dixit because he had not made the speech which he has now made. The right hon. Gentleman has given the House his reasons for proceeding as he proposes. He speaks of the emergency of the present position, but he has not even yet shown that there is any emergency. Therefore we are driven to this position— that not having been shown any emergency there is some special reason for taking this Bill before the other Government measures and before the Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand that this question can be further illuminated by anything that may happen in the Easter holidays; but the Easter holidays which intervened between the First and Second Reading of the Bill of 1886 threw a great deal of light upon the Bill; indeed, it threw so much light upon the measure that it was defeated on the Second Reading. Therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman has no reason to depreciate the efficacy of Easter light. Why must this Bill be taken before Easter rather than any other Bill? The right hon. Gentleman said more light had been thrown upon this Bill than upon
  1656
  any Bill of the late Government; but his own friends do not understand the Bill as yet. There are not 10 Members in this House who understand the financial proposals of the Bill, and it is in vain that we ask the right hon. Gentleman or his Colleagues for further light upon these proposals. If the right hon. Gentleman is asked questions he replies with such merciless rhetoric as to suggest that he thought he was on an Edinburgh platform being heckled by his constituents rather than being asked perfectly proper questions by hon. Members in this House. Let me repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that we complain that we have not even got the Schedules of the Bill, that we are asked to pass the Second Reading. Can the right hon. Gentleman recall a case where such important matters connected with a Bill have been kept in the dark until the very morning of the Second Reading? There is the question of the Customs and Excise. Why is it thought necessary to proceed with a Bill when the Government are not in a position to fill up the Schedule, and when they have not yet formed a plan on the financial part of the scheme? The right hon. Gentleman has now put before us the reason why he takes this Bill; but he has not shown any reason whatever why this particular Bill should be placed before others. I can see why he takes Saturday. It is because Labour Members are beginning to complain that Ireland once more blocks the way. There were two questions from Labour Members on the Paper to-day. These hon. Gentlemen wanted to proceed with social and labour questions rather than with this question of Home Rule. Why do they not put pressure on the Government to postpone, as we wish to postpone, till after Easter this particular Bill? Then we can all be satisfied, and no time will be lost. That does not suit hon. Gentlemen from Ireland; but it would suit hon. Members from other quarters, if they are sincere. The fact is, right hon. Gentlemen opposite are playing into the hands of the Irish Members, and in order to make peace with the Labour Members they are invading the privileges of Parliament by organising Saturday Sittings in a manner unheard of before. We cannot be surprised that a Government which is prepared to pull the Constitution to pieces in the future are not so sensitive

  1657
  as we are with regard to the proceedings of Parliament at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman has offered no reply whatever to the point which I put with regard to whether this is to be a precedent. Are Saturday Sittings to be taken for Government business early in the Session?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The remarkable circumstances must be taken into account.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The remarkable circumstance is that, of a group of legislative measures, one measure must be put before the others without any reason. Why, Sir, if lives and property of people were at stake, then certainly it would be necessary to proceed at once. But the difference is between a Bill which will imperil life and property and a Bill which is to protect life and property. If the right hon. Gentleman brought in a measure which he thought absolutely necessary to pacify Clare we should be ready to give him time for it, and he would have our support as well as that of his own supporters. One other point I would put to the Government. It is a very simple point: whether in the history of Parliament a Motion such as this has been pressed in the face of a majority of 21 only. Surely the Government will see that in the face of such a majority it is preposterous to proceed on the lines which they seem to have laid down for themselves, and that, while they will not achieve the object they desire, they will cause the House infinite embarrassment.
  MR. HENEAGE: I do not desire to go into the question of the Home Rule Bill, but I think the constituencies of the country require a great deal of illuminating in regard to that Bill. I do not think there is anyone in this House who has a right to speak with more certainty on that question than I have. For a whole week I was engaged addressing six or seven meetings a day at Grimsby. A great number of Irish Members and others had teen down trying to illuminate that constituency, but they were still entirely in the dark. At that time people were laying 4 to 1 on my opponent. In the course of three or four days we changed that opinion, and when I went
  1658
  to church on Sunday I was informed that they were laying 2 to 1 on me. They were good judges. My objection to this proposal is, that I entirely object to any new precedent without good and grave reason for it. Some four or five years ago we took a great deal of trouble with the Rules of the House, and endeavoured to prevent hon. Members being worn out by unearthly hours. What was the good of Standing Orders if they are to be suspended in this way? Private Members have been deprived of their days, the Twelve o'clock Rule has been suspended, and now we are to have Saturday Sittings. I think, instead of wasting the whole of this Sitting, which they have taken from private Members, the Government should have done what work they could to-day. The Motion is absolutely and entirely unnecessary. If the Government have not time for both Supply and the Home Rule Bill before Easter, whose fault is it? I will tell them what the constituency of Grimsby thinks. They think the Government have muddled away their time in bringing in a lot of still-born Bills for which the people do not seem to have any great affection. The Government have no right to ask the House to sit on Saturday when they have muddled away the time they had. Why are we to have the question of the Evicted Tenants Commission forced upon us on Monday? In order that the country may not know the contents of the Report, and that hon. Members must discuss it without having it in their hands. The wise course would be for the Prime Minister to withdraw this Motion now, and to take the Estimates on Monday and Tuesday next, postponing the discussion of the Evicted Tenants Commission Report until we have had fair time for digesting it. If that were done, they would get all their Estimates, and would conclude the discussion on this Report within the next week or 10 days. But if we are to have the Home Rule Bill put first we shall have no discussion on the Estimates, and we shall have to be closured on Home Rule. I hope the House will reject the Motion— as they very nearly rejected the Motion just now. If the Government proceed with Motions of this kind they will find that their majorities will become smaller even than they are now.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.): As no hon. Member of the Party to which I belong has addressed the House, perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words. The Prime Minister appears to think that we are asking an unreasonable thing when we demand that there should be delay before the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill is taken. Now, I should like to read a very short quotation which will have great effect with the right hon. Gentleman. This is what his own Attorney General said on the 12th of January last at Cambridge, before the Bill was introduced. He said—
  "He believed that after the First Reading of the Home Rule Bill the country would desire, and it had a right to, a long interval of time for its grave and quiet consideration. The Government would utilise that time in pressing on some of their own legislative measures, which they regard as a key to this, such as the reform of the Registration Laws and the affirmation of the principle of 'One man one vote.'"
  Now, that is just what we say. We say the country has a right to a careful and quiet consideration of this measure. Is it not strange that since this speech was delivered by the Attorney General the views of the Party opposite have entirely changed? The very moment the Bill is introduced and its details are considered, it is then seen to be an absolute and imperative necessity to carry the Second Reading of the Bill at a rush. We have considered it our duty to try to curtail the velocity of that rush. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said, with great accuracy and truth, that be did not believe in insinuations. I do not believe anybody can lay such a use of insinuations to his charge; but, unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman was absent when the Deputy Leader of the House was speaking.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I was summoned away by command.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Quite so. We are, unfortunately, aware of that, and we know that the right hon. Gentleman was unavoidably absent, but if he had been present he would have seen that his Colleague had not the same objection to insinuations. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer deliberately insinuated that we had made a concerted plan to obstruct the conduct of business in this House.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said so.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham absolutely repudiate any such intention. The hon. Member for Northampton said he had read in The Times that at a meeting of the Conservative Party held at the Carlton Club it had been deliberately determined to obstruct the Business of the House. The only thing I thought when I heard the hon. Member say that was that it might very well have appeared in another journal, with which he is connected. All I can say is that I was present at that meeting, and no idea of obstruction was entertained for one moment. Certainly, if we can, we intend to prevent your reading your Home Rule Bill a second time. We do not do that with the object of obstructing; we do it with the object of giving the country an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the details of a Bill the like of which has never been presented to this House before. I think the Government look at this question through Grimsby spectacles. They recognise, now the Bill is before the country, that a Second Reading after Easter may have the same disastrous effect upon the Bill as was experienced in 1886. It is because we desire that effect that we oppose your Saturday Sitting, and try to do our best to prevent your forcing this pernicious measure through the House before Easter.
  MR. J. PARKER SMITHwho was interrupted on rising, said he only wanted to address a few words to the House, and if he was not heard without interruption he should have to move the Adjournment. The whole case for the Motion had been put on the ground of the Home Rule Bill. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when referring to what occurred in 1886, forgot to inform the House that a longer period elapsed between the First and Second Readings of the Home Rule Bill on that occasion than it was proposed should elapse on the present occasion. He omitted to tell them that the period embraced between the two Readings covered the Easter Recess. He omitted another thing also. The Second Reading Debate was not taken from day to day. There were altogether

  1661
  12 nights, and those were spread over from the 18th of May to the 7th of June, There were long intervals, and the Debate lasted for a month. There could not be any objection to the Debate commencing before Easter, provided the Government followed the precedent set on the former occasion, and provided that a due interval was allowed to elapse before the Second Reading was really taken. He held that they were absolutely entitled to go down to their constituents to discuss this Bill, and that, therefore, it should be allowed to stand over—or at least that the Division on the Second Reading should not be taken—until after the Easter Recess. How did it come that there was so much pressure in regard to this Bill? It was the action of the Government that had brought about the pressure, for at the beginning of the Session, instead of dealing with matters of urgent importance, they spent the time in the introduction of measures which were of no importance. Why did not the Government summon Parliament if they were in such a hurry? The Government had promised that they would summon Parliament early in the year—in January. They did so; but, while they kept their word of promise to the ear, they broke it to the hope—they broke it in every other way, for they only met the House on the last day—the 31st January. No doubt new Members were disposed to do a great many curious things, and he did not know what they were to say with regard to the manner in which the time of the House was being occupied; but he had to remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman the other day said that he considered that the only duty of Members was to "Vote, vote, vote!" He wondered if the right hon. Gentleman expected that each hon. Member should be like Sir Joseph Porter in the opera, who—
  "Always voted at his party's call, And never thought of thinking for himself at all."
  There was, however, a higher duty than voting. They had the duty of bringing forward grievances, of bringing forward questions that affected all parts of this country. It was laid down as the duty of the House of Commons to take up the discussion of grievances on Supply; and he could say that, while the discussion could do the Government no good, it was the
  1662
  determination of Members to bring forward the questions in which they were interested for discussion in the House of Commons.
  Mr. Roby rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes 252; Noes 230.—(Division List, No. 28.)
  Main Question put accordingly.
  The House divided:—Ayes 256; Noes 220.—(Division List, No. 29.)
  Resolved, That this House do sit To-morrow; that the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 be extended to that Sitting; and that as soon as Government Business is disposed of Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put.— (Mr. Gladstone.)
  It being Seven of the clock, Mr. Speaker suspended the Sitting until Nine of the clock.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Are we to take the Army Estimates to-morrow?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Yes.

EVENING SITTING.
  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

    THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
    MR. FRANCIS EVANSwho had given notice of the following Amendment:—
    "That, whilst fully recognising the obligation in this country to protect French subjects in the enjoyment of their fishing rights, under the Treaty of Utrecht, on the western and northeastern shores of Newfoundland, this House deems it equally incumbent on the Government to protect Her Majesty's Colonial subjects in the general use and enjoyment of all their territorial and maritime rights on these coasts; that the terms of arbitration having proved unacceptable to Newfoundland, it is advisable that the arbitration be withdrawn or its terms reconsidered with the assistance of the Government of Newfoundland; and that means should meanwhile be sought to relieve the Colony from the depression consequent on the existence of these unsettled differences, and on account of the heavy losses sustained in the recent calamitous fires,"

    1663
    said, the questions involved in his proposal were now under discussion in the Newfoundland Legislature, and he was informed by Her Majesty's Government that the premature discussion in the House of Commons of those questions might be, and probably would be, prejudicial to the public interests of the people of Newfoundland and the people of this country. It was his earnest desire to facilitate as much as he could the friendly settlement between the Colony of Newfoundland, Great Britain, and France of the various claims and obligations they were under in relation to the Treaty of Utrecht and subsequent Treaties, but he was by that consideration precluded from proceeding with his Motion. He trusted he might express the hope that Her Majesty's Government would, in consideration of the postponement of the Motion, give their attention to the urgent and pressing needs of the people of Newfoundland, and remember the distress from which they were suffering from the recent calamitous fires, and from the existing condition of things in relation to the difficulties in France.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he had intended seconding the Motion, and inasmuch as the hon. Member had run away from it, and he (Mr. Bowles) considered it extremely urgent, he wished to know from Mr. Speaker whether it would be in Order for him to move it?
    MR. SPEAKER: No; a Motion of this kind is the exclusive property of the hon. Member who has put it down, and in whose name it stands.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it was evidently impossible for the hon. Member to go on with his Motion in face of the declaration of the Government that in their opinion a discussion upon it would be contrary to the interests of the country and the Colony. At the same time, the ground given was only that the matter was under discussion in the Legislature of Newfoundland, and not the usual reason, that negotiations were going on with any Foreign Powers. The discussions which were proceeding in Newfoundland showed that pressure was being brought to bear in the Colony by the threat of an Act of the Imperial Legislature. He could only say that there were many Members of that House who
    1664
    would give the hottest possible opposition to any measure for the coercion of the Newfoundland Legislature.

  UNOFFICIAL MEMBERS' BUSINESS.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.),in rising to call attention to the great and growing difficulties in the way of Legislation by Unofficial Members of this House under the present Rules of Procedure; and to move—
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether any, and, if so, what, changes should be made in the present Rules of Procedure in order to enable Unofficial Members to make better use of the time at their disposal for bringing their Bills and Motions before the consideration of the House, and to obtain precedence for important subjects,"
    said, the difficulties which lay in the path of private Members desiring to pass Bills or even Motions in the House of Commons were only too obvious to all those who were acquainted with Parliamentary proceedings. Unless a private Member were fortunate enough to obtain a very early place in the Ballot, which occurred within two hours of the meeting of the House, it was certain in the great majority of cases that he would practically have no opportunity of bringing his measures under the consideration of the House. The First Reading of a Bill was an empty form in the case of a private Member's measure, and might very well, he thought, be dispensed with. The Second Reading had to be taken, if at all, sub silentio, at the penalty of an immediate objection from some Member who did not wish to listen to the reasons which the Members in charge of a Bill had to argue in favour of the Second Reading. The cases in which Bills which passed the Second Reading received proper consideration at the hands of Select Committees or Grand Committees were very rare indeed. They all knew that discussion in Committee of the whole House was, in the case of a private Member's Bill, a farce, and resulted in Bills being passed without proper consideration, but possibly with a few Amendments imposed by the Government, or Amendments which, though unacceptable in themselves, had to be accepted at the hands of other private Members to save the Bill from being altogether destroyed. Many Bills, sometimes of an important character, came

    1665
    down from the Upper House, but they had no chance of getting precedence of any kind, because they could not he included in the Ballot at the beginning of the Session, and consequently could not pass into law except with the unanimous approval of the House. The consequence was that many most important measures were kept from the consideration of the House of Commons from year to year. He need only mention one or two such measures. The Bill for conferring the franchise on women was one which interested a very large number of Members of the House, although he was himself personally opposed to it. Year by year that Bill had been excluded from discussion in the House of Commons by defects in the Rules of Procedure. There were other measures, such as Temperance Bills, the Bill for Legalising Marriage with a Deceased's Wife's Sister, and other Bills which would command a majority in the House, but would not be passed for the reasons he had mentioned. There was also the absurd Rule that Motions on questions of great political interest could not be brought forward if there happened to be on the Order Book a Bill relating to the same subject. These difficulties were not only great, but had been growing with great rapidity during the short period of seven or eight years in which he had been a Member of the House. Private Members had lost the very fair chance they had on Tuesday evenings of bringing their Bills under the notice of the House after the Motions had been disposed of, and the much better chance they had of getting their Bills considered after 12 o'clock at night. In former days, also, the system of indiscriminate objections to Bills, not on account of the merits or demerits of the measures themselves, but on account of the supposed demerits of the politician who moved the Bill, was less prevalent. Then a few years ago private Members' Bills, when once in progress in Committee, could not be blocked. At the present time they could be blocked by a single Member objecting after 12 o'clock. The result of the various changes had been in the first place to diminish the quantity of private Members' legislation. He believed that last year only 15 Bills promoted by private Members passed into law. Another and much worse result had been to deteriorate the quality of private
    1666
    Members' legislation. The few Bills that passed were either swallowed whole on the recommendation of some influential Members of the House or passed into law in a maimed, incomplete, and sometimes illogical shape. The reason was that the only means of proceeding with the Bill was to buy off the opposition by the adoption of Amendments. Such a state of things was neither creditable to Parliament nor satisfactory to the nation at large. Of course, some Members would deny that there was much advantage in private Members legislating at ail. He contended, however, that the experience of the recent past showed clearly enough that there were many subjects on which it was not only legitimate and proper for private Members to initiate legislation, but it was actually better for them to legislate than for the Government of the day to do so. Various important Bills had in recent years been passed into law by influential Members, amongst them being the Married Women's Property Act, the Guardians of Infants Act, the London Parochial Charities Act, the Technical Education Acts, the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, the Charities Enquiries Act, the Welsh Sunday Closing Act, the Irish Sunday Closing Act, and Mr. Ritchie's Act for the Regulation of Off Licences. Of course, questions of Government grants of money, or the reorganisation of a Department, or any great constructive scheme naturally fell into the hands of the Government to deal with. But there were great advantages in leaving to private Members the subjects which did not fall into this category, one of them being that such strong Party suspicions and prejudices would not be excited against a Bill introduced by a private Member as against a Bill which was entrusted to the Government of the day. He asked for a Committee to inquire into the subject for two reasons. In the first place, the only way in which an Amendment of the Rules of Procedure could be properly considered and presented to the House in an authoritative way was by referring it to a Committee. It would be useless for a few private Members to put on the Paper a string of Resolutious. He thought it would be presumptuous in them to do so—they certainly would not be able to obtain a discussion. It was before a Select Committee, a small and well-chosen Com-

    1667
    mittee, that proposals such as this could be thoroughly threshed out, and discussed and presented afterwards to the House in an operative and well-considered form. Secondly, they asked for a Committee on this ground, that although there was an important inquiry into the Rules of Procedure some years ago, yet that Committee, presided over by Lord Hartington, did not consider the effect of the Rules of Procedure on private Members' legislation. It dealt with them far more from the point of view of the Government of the day, and the only proposal it made which assisted private Members was that in all cases their Bills should be referred to a Grand Committee, and should there have precedence. That proposal was only incidental to a general scheme for dividing the House into four Grand Committees, but that plan was never proceeded with. If they looked back to the discussions following upon the inquiry of the Committee, they would see that so long as the interests of the Government were involved, and so long as the Government were anxious to get an alteration of the Rules of Procedure, time was given for their consideration, but that directly it became a question of what alteration should he made in the Rules for the benefit of private Members, the discussion was brought to an end. As those who had watched the procedure of the House for the past six years could testify, the net result of the inquiry and of the alteration in the Rules that followed it was distinctly injurious in various ways to the interests of private Members. There had only been one Rule passed, so far as he knew, to benefit private Members—namely, the Rule of arranging Bills according to the stage they had reached after Whitsuntide; but even that Rule was deprived of a large proportion of its value by the discovery made soon afterwards by the ingenious mind of the Member for North Louth, that without any Question put Mr. Speaker must leave the Chair when the Committee stage was called, and that every Bill which had an Instruction put down to it must immediately go into progress in Committee. The consequence was that after Whitsuntide all Bills in Committee, whether they had been discussed or not, stood on the same footing, and they had had a recent instance of a Bill being discussed at great
    1668
    length, and finally talked out on a Wednesday after Whitsuntide, because it was known that if it was talked out it could not come on on the following Wednesday. It might be asked if this Select Committee was appointed, what proposals would be brought before it. In the first place, there were many valuable proposals for the improvement of Rules of Procedure already on the Notice Paper of the House, for the consideration of which time had never been found. In the second place, there were many authorities now in Office, and some out of Office besides—official as well as unofficial Members—who could give valuable suggestions on the subject. There were, for instance, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Bryce), and the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Solicitor General (Sir E. Clarke), and the Member for Bodmin. If this Committee were once appointed they would have many valuable suggestions to consider. For himself, being a comparatively junior Member of this House, he felt it was somewhat presumptuous to give his own personal view. At the same time, from the position he occupied to-night, he thought he ought to sketch out the lines on which he thought the Rules of the House could be improved for the benefit of private Members. He and those who agreed with him had two main objects in view. In the first place, they wanted to utilise the time at the disposal of private Members better. At present the uncertainty of the time which was at their disposal very much prevented proper arrangements being made. They had, nominally, three private Members' days a week, but the larger part of two of those days was usually taken up by Government business. It would be far better for private Members to have less time given them by the Rules of Procedure if they were more sure of that time. He ventured to suggest that if they could be certain of the whole of Tues days throughout the Session the Government might take the whole of Fridays. That, after all, would only be reverting to the old practice. Supply was the first Order on Friday, and it was only owing to a recent alteration of the Rule that he was able here to-night to make his Motion on the Question that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair. By the omission of a few words in the existing

    1669
    Rule the Government could have the whole of Friday for Supply and other Government business, and if they had that he thought they might leave Tuesday—for the larger portion of the Session at all events—to private Members. If Tuesdays were thus left to private Members, it would be a great advantage to them to be able to bring on Bills as well as Motions. This would pretty well double the time at their disposal. If a Bill came from the other House and was taken up by a private Member, precedence might be obtained for it. After Easter Motions would tend to disappear from the Order Paper, and then, instead of discussing vague Resolutions, they might on Tuesdays as well as Wednesdays discuss more definite proposals in the shape of Bills. It ought to be the rule, and not the exception, that Bills which had been read a second time should be referred to a Committee of some kind. After Whitsuntide the Bills might be arranged on Tuesdays and Wednesdays according to the stage they had reached, and it might be determined to make progress with certain Bills before taking up others. Then, again, he thought some machinery should be devised for obtaining precedence for the more important subjects of legislation. Very valuable suggestions on this subject had been made by hon. Members, and had not been carefully considered by any Committee. What ought to be aimed at was, not to give a majority of unofficial Members the power to bring forward a subject over the heads of a substantial minority, but to insure discussion to a Bill which had a substantial amount of support. A book might be provided in which Members could subscribe their names to a Bill or Motion, and if a certain number—100 or more—did this, it should be marked as having precedence. Whatever proposals were made, they could be discussed carefully by a Committee. He did not expect much sympathy from those who regarded the Government of the day as the inspired source from which all legislation must come, but he appealed to the unofficial minds on all sides of the House. This was the beginning of a new Parliament in which more Members than ever were anxious to legislate, and it therefore seemed not an inopportune time to institute an inquiry that might probably
    1670
    produce results which would enable unofficial Members in future Sessions to take a useful and advantageous part in the work of legislation.
    MR. J. E. ELLISsaid, he rose for the purpose of seconding the Resolution, and he did so as a pledge of his opinion that reform of some kind was necessary in the interests of private Members. His interpretation of the Motion was that, being limited in its scope, it did not demand that any more of the time of the House should be given to private Members. He brought forward a Motion on the subject last year, when he pointed out to the House that if the Government would keep their hands off Wednesdays they might be free to take either Tuesdays or Fridays. There could be no question that in the present day, with the enormously-increased demand for legislation and for Government action, the existing Rules did not give the Government sufficient command of the time of the House. Happily there was no necessity now to look at the punitive aspect of the matter, for disorderly conduct was amply provided for by the changes made in 1887 and 1888. It might be objected that the inquiry indicated in the Resolution would be too limited in its scope, and, if that were so, there would be no objection to enlarge it, so that it should include the allocation of time as between the Government and private Members. The changed conditions of political and social life, the increase in the number of subjects demanding attention, and the increase in the number of Members who desired to take an active part in the work, of the House, had rendered many of the present Rules more or less obsolete. The changes in procedure made in 1888 had worked a revolution in the progress of Business. Whereas at one time there were about 18 opportunities for raising Debate in the passage of a Bill through the House, those had now been reduced to five or six. But the alterations made in 1888 had been for the benefit of the Government of the day, and they had stopped short of anything being done for the unofficial Members. There was no more pathetic spectacle than was witnessed on the second day of every Session of Parliament, when troops of unofficial Members brought up Bills, nearly every one of which was doomed to the fate of never being heard of again. He had before

    1671
    him a list of Bills so introduced in previous Sessions, from 1888 up to last year, and it was melancholy to find that so many useful measures had to be withdrawn or dropped at once in consequence of the treatment of private Members. He held that private Members' rights ought to be more clearly taken into account, because by the absence of due recognition of their importance grave public wrong was very frequently committed. Of the long list of Bills to which he had referred only two received the Royal Assent and more than 40 never had any discussion at all. This was enough to show that the proceedings on the second day of the Session were a perfect waste of time. There was a portion of the time of the House of which, with a small readjustment of the Rules, some use might be made. Under the Rules the House sat till 1 o'clock, but no opposed Business could be taken after 12. He was not in favour of late Sittings, but he was in favour of business being done, and there was no question that the operation of the Twelve o'clock Rule had been entirely to the detriment of unofficial Members. He had placed on the Paper a Resolution which read as follows:—
    "That whereas, when it is the evident and general sense and desire of the House to proceed with any particular business it is inexpedient that a single Member should have the power of preventing this, it is resolved that Standing Order I. (Sittings of the House) be amended as follows— namely, page 2, line 2, leave out 'opposed,' and insert after the word 'business' the words 'to which, on the Order relating to it, being called. 10 Members shall have objected by rising in their places.'"
    That proposal had received the sanction of hon. Members of greater experience in the House than he could lay claim to. There was certainly an amount of contentious legislation involving principle that should not be brought on late at night; but, on the other hand, when legislation of a more or less useful character was brought forward after 12 o'clock it was too much to place in the hands of any hon. Member, by lifting his hat or using the two words "I object," the power to stop Bills of that kind. Therefore, whenever he obtained an opportunity he would move that Resolution, though he did not bind himself as to the number of Members. He proposed, in conclusion, to deal with the principles and the spirit which ought, as it appeared to him, to underlay any
    1672
    changes that they might make in the procedure of the House. As reported by the Committee which sat in 1848—a Committee consisting of some of the ablest men in the House at that period— the Government of the day must be mainly responsible for the Private Business of the House. He had not himself used the term "private Members"; to his mind the phrase was a misnomer. In the prayers at the commencement of their proceedings they were asked to lay aside all private interests; and borrowing a phrase which had been used with great effect byLordPalmerston,he would say that private Members' right might often be public wrong. They were there for public objects and public needs; they were servants of the public in that Assembly, and therefore, personally, he had also an objection to the term "private Members." As he had said, the Government of the day should have entire power with regard to the allocation of business, and the responsibility for the use of that power. They must always recognise the power of majorities. There was a great deal of nonsense about the rights of minorities and the rights of majorities. He would point out that the Act of Union between England and Ireland was carried in the first instance by a majority of one; the Reform Bill of 1832 was carried by a majority of one; the Dissolution of Parliament in 1841 was carried by a majority of one; the Public Education under the Privy Council was set up by a majority of two; The Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Gladstone) in 1873 had a majority of three against it; Lord Russell's Administration in 1866 was turned out by a majority of five, and Lord Melbourne was defeated in 1839 by a majority of five. These were very small majorities, but they were majorities that had led to enormous consequences. They must, therefore, respect the principle absolutely and entirely that the majority must rule in the House of Commons. He thought there ought to be some further limitations to opportunities of Debate on particular measures. He greatly preferred that course to a curtailment of the freedom of Debate when they had entered on the consideration of a measure. Members also should have a greater certainty of knowledge as to when particular business

    1673
    would come on. A great part of the strain and stress of that Assembly arose from the want of certainty with respect to when measures would come on; and he would also point out that whatever control they gave the Government of the business of the House, if the Government was not seconded by the Opposition in the endeavour to bring about the discharge of business undoubtedly their efforts must fail. Therefore, they must all hold that an honourable co-operation between the Opposition and the Government was essential to the furtherance of their proceedings in the House. So much for the principle. With respect to the spirit which ought to underlie all these matters, he thought he could not do better than repeat the words which had been uttered by Mr. Disraeli, who had been saturated by a true instinct with regard to the conduct of the business of the House when he liked. Speaking on the 18th April, 1864, he said—
    "What makes the House of Commons so influential in contradistinction to the popular Assemblies of other countries is this: that when there is any great question of difficulty the country feels that we are solving it not merely by the present thought and existing intelligence of the Members of the House, but that we come down to its consideration fortified by precedent, and bringing to bear upon it the accumulated wisdom of the eminent men who have preceded us."
    To that sentiment he ventured most humbly and heartily to subscribe. The House had great traditions and great precedents, and there were good reasons for the origin of all their Rules and procedures. He remembered very well the words uttered by Mr. Speaker in 1886 before he was called to the Chair. Mr. Speaker had said—
    "As one who has sat in this House for 20 years, may I remind those hon. Gentlemen who, conversant as they are with business of great importance outside this House, are yet taking their places in this Assembly for the first time, may I remind them, as I wish to do without presumption, that the Rules, and Forms, and proceedings of this House are wedded to remote antiquity, that many of them which seem to be new are developments of the old; and that while we have adopted new Rules to suit the supposed requirements of the day, we have even been influenced by a regard for precedent and old times. Many of our Forms and Rules are old, some are new, some are girt with the prescriptive dignity of immemorial custom."
    He thought the House could not do better when it came to reform its procedure than to inspire itself with the spirit tha animated these eloquent words. It was
    1674
    because he believed that some of their Rules might be altered with great advantage and to the increased efficiency, and greatness, and dignity of the House of Commons, that he, with pleasure, seconded the Motion before the House.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether any, and, if so, what, changes should be made in the present Rules of Procedure in order to enable Unofficial Members to make better use of the time at their disposal for bringing their Bills and Motions before the consideration of the House, and to obtain precedence for important subjects,"—(Mr. Henry Hobhouse)
    —instead thereof
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): Mr. Speaker, I am most anxious to answer at the earliest moment that I can do so my hon. Friend the Seconder of this Motion, who desires to know what view Her Majesty's Government take on this subject. In doing so I shall certainly not approach the matter in a spirit of partisanship. It is a question of extreme interest. The whole matter of the Business of the House has become, not only an important but a capital subject for our consideration. I will pause for a moment to say—though it is a matter on which difference of opinion will exist—that I do not hesitate on this occasion to adhere to the opinion which I have always expressed, that the greatest, most effectual, and only relief which can open the door to anything like a complete solution of this very difficult subject is to be found in the disposal of the Irish Question. The relations between England and Ireland are so strained, and these relations con e up for consideration and discussion so frequently, that—though I do not say it is a reason for declining secondary remedies—I say that the grand remedy is only to be found in the direction of settling this difficulty. Unfortunately I missed the opportunity of hearing the speech of the hon. Mover of the Motion through a pure accident, for I had been credibly informed that the Motion had been dropped and was not coming on. But I heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Seconder of the Motion, and I am bound to say that I have great sympathy

    1675
    with the most part of what he has said on the subject. My position and that of my Colleagues is this—I am not prepared to accede to the Motion proposed in its present form. The proposal is that a Committee shall be appointed for the purpose of considering what can be done to facilitate the work of legislation in the hands of private Members. I would ask the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, first, whether they are prepared to undertake the conduct of that Committee; and, secondly, whether they have a plan which they are ready to submit to that Committee, and upon which they wish to take its judgment. I have not gathered either from what I have heard with my own ears, or from what has been reported to me, that they have an affirmative answer forthcoming to either of those questions.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: As the right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said, I wish to repeat that I feel sure that if the Committee were appointed many Members of the House will be only too glad to offer suggestions for the alteration of the Rules and Orders, and I have traced out a few of the suggestions which I myself would be willing to submit to the Committee.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for giving me that explanation, but it does not in the slightest degree remove my difficulty in the matter. He says that he has not a plan of his own, but that he and other hon. Members will make suggestions. On that point I agree with him altogether. There will, doubtless, be a multitude of suggestions. Suggestions will crop up like mushrooms, and like mushrooms they will quickly disappear, owing to the nature of the ground from which they spring. I can understand a Committee being appointed to consider a strong and definite proposition urged upon it by persons of ability who are prepared to work it out and to bring forward all that can be said in its favour. But that is a different state of things from merely entertaining an opinion—a benevolent opinion I will admit—that a multitude of suggestions will be forthcoming, and that the hon. Member himself is prepared to make a contribution to the stock of these suggestions. Sir, that affords me little hope. This proposal is that the Government, which is charged up to the full
    1676
    extent of its powers, and as all opponents and some friends think beyond its powers, with engagements already, shall in cold blood—for undoubtedly we are now sitting in cold blood, after the heat and excitement of the Morning Sitting— undertake a new engagement without any minute calculation of their powers of redeeming it. That is a serious difficulty. But there are other difficulties. My hon. Friend who seconded the Motion has given a touching description of what may be called the Ballot scene. I feel most sincerely, I may say profoundly, for the difficulties of the private Members—nay, more, I will say, as a citizen and not merely as a Minister anxious to shirk duties that can be honourably avoided, I look with some jealousy and regret at the constantly and rapidly-growing tendency to throw all legislation into the hands of the Government. I cannot forget that not only many useful suggestions have been made in a rudimentary form by the Bills of private Members, but that also Bills of great importance were proposed and carried by private Members. I take the case that crops up first in my mind—the great Currency Bill of Sir Robert Peel, which placed our currency substantially on the footing which it has ever since retained for 70 years. Another Bill was that proposed by Lord John Russell in 1828 for the relief of the Nonconformists from the disabilities they suffered under, and which he succeeded in inducing the House to sanction by a vote against the Government of the Duke of Wellington, which was afterwards taken up by the Government, and which became law. I look with great satisfaction on that department of work of the House of Commons, and I wish it could be restored. But is it in course of being restored? Does it subsist without change? No, Sir, on the contrary, almost every week of the Session gives indications and proofs of an increasing desire on the part of various sections and classes of the community in various divisions of the country to see the particular subjects in which they are interested taken up by the Government, and taken out of the hands of private Members. If it were necessary to go behind the scenes and speak of the particular measures now in the hands of the Government, there are some which I, for one, should be

    1677
    most happy to see in the hands of private Members, and which I think may even have had a fair chance of progress in their hands, because so long as legislation is in the hands of private Members it is less marked with the character of Party than when it is in the hands of the Government. That seems to me a very important consideration. My hon. Friend made a remark which I cannot pass without comment. It was a proposition which might have for its effect the tendency of increasing public expenditure. I am glad that the House should keep a tight hand on Supply, but, as far as I see, most of the influence now exercised in Supply by the House of Commons is influence which tends in the direction of increasing and not diminishing the expenditure. That is a very serious matter, but it is not a matter for our consideration at the present moment. But I see no evidence that there is a plan prepared by the Proposer and Seconder of this Motion which would help us in a Committee and which might afford hope of a settlement. It is a difficulty which, with the engagements we now have, I do not think we as a Government could add to by adding a new engagement in carrying through a Committee on a subject of this kind. I hope my hon. Friend will not think me captious when I say that I do not think this is quite the time of the year for the appointment of a Committee. In my opinion, the question of procedure does not advantageously mix with the general business and policy of the House; and a subject of this nature, if it is to be entertained, should be entertained at the beginning of the Session and before the House has got so involved, I may say entangled, in a mass of general business. It is almost idle for it to think of making additions of an extraneous character to that mass of business. I frankly agree that the arrangements of business at present are not satisfactory either in the view of the Government or in the view of private Members—I will not say in the interests of the Government or in the interests of private Members, because neither the Government nor the private Members ought to have any interest at all in the matter except the promotion of public interests and the despatch of business. I do not think that at the present moment the arrangements are good for one or the
    1678
    other. What are the arrangements? If you take the available time of private Members and the results which they are enabled to achieve, the question is most unsatisfactory and requires consideration. At the same time, how far do the rights of private Members go? Let us see what they are. Setting aside occasional proposals for sitting on Saturday— which can never become a rule except for special purposes of Supply—there are five days in the week. What is the condition of the private Members, and what is the condition of the Government on Paper, in principle with regard to those five days? There are five days available to the Government and private Members. Private Members have Question time. We are apt to consider Question time as a trifle. I have no means of stating it precisely, but on three or four days a week Questions as a rule occupy an average of an hour, or at any rate the time approaches an hour. To whom does that hour belong? Why, to private Members. The average sitting of the House—and Heaven knows nobody would like to prolong it—is nine hours. That one hour is a tax of 11 per cent. upon the Sittings of the House. I take the four days which are considered principal days. Well, there are five days. Two of these are devoted to Motions which are in the hands of private Members. Tuesday is absolutely so devoted, and Friday has changed its condition. When the present system with respect to Friday was first recommended it was expected and anticipated that the casual Motions of Members would only occupy a portion of the evening, and that a large part would be realised and turned to account by successive Governments for purposes of Supply. Now, for a long period, I believe I may say that as to the ordinary Fridays the Government has had no direct or separate interest in them whatever. That is a second day for private Members out out of five. Then comes Wednesday, which is absolutely the property of private Members. On the two days, Monday and Thursday, upon the first entry into Supply, by a Rule of this House, the propriety of which I do not call into question, the private Member is entitled to anticipate the proceedings of the Government by proposals which delay the entrance into Supply. Then there is another subject,

    1679
    in my opinion of great importance, to which it is absolutely necessary upon an occasion like this to recall attention—and that is the case of the Address. An immense change—in my opinion, a most disastrous change—has taken place with regard to the Address. Some old-fashioned people like myself have endeavoured, when they could, to make some kind of protest in favour of, or have wished to secure adhesion to, the ancient practice of passing the Address with only passing comment, except on the rare occasions when it might be right to make it the subject of serious challenge amounting to a Vote of Want of Confidence. But now the Address occupies, as it did this year and in some former years, two weeks, or about a tenth part of the Session, and without any result of a substantive or tangible kind beyond the airing of complaints and propositions without the possibility of doing anything. If you look at the case of the private Member from that point of view he is indeed the favoured child of fortune, and there is nothing but shreds and fragments left for the Government of the country. That is the picture drawn by an impartial, if a feeble hand, of the private Member as he stands with regard to his abstract rights and possessions. But I am far from saying that the proposal now before the House is irrational, or that there is no cause for complaint. Just as the rich man is subject to the incursions of the pickpocket and burglar so the position of the private Member makes him the object of the covetous desires of the Government, and from a sense of public duty the Government is continually running in upon the private Member and taking away his privileges. I think the portion taken from him in the last Parliament was larger than had ever been taken before —I mention it not as a matter of blame, but as a fact—and it is very likely that there will be an increasing tendency in that direction. It appears to me that, whatever the private Member has, he ought to have some reasonable certainty as to his time, and that it would be idle to appoint a Committee to cut and carve these large domains at present appropriated to the private Member unless that uncertainty can be removed. I am by no means sure that the procedure by Committee is the best method of procedure, and, for my own part, I would
    1680
    far rather see some proposals of a definite character, on the responsibility of the Government if you like or on the responsibility of any body of independent Members ready to press them forward with the whole weight of their influence. In order to understand this question we should have in view what is the relative importance of the sphere of private legislation and the sphere of public legislation at the present moment. As I have said, I am not one of those who are contending for the maintenance of the sphere of Government legislation at its present extent. I am sincerely sorry that the sphere of Government legislation has been so largely extended. Whether it can be contracted I will not say. I do not despair of seeing the activity of private Members made more profitable by some judicial arrangement of the time which the House may be disposed to give. The division of time between the Government and what are called private Members gives you a basis upon which you can proceed. I do not want an indefinite postponement in this matter; in fact, I am anxious for an early settlement. But private Members will never get the certainty that I speak of as long as in the abstract they are entitled to this long and imposing list of privileges, which leave so little to the Government. Therefore, I would really point out to the Mover and Seconder that, to take things in their right order, the first and absolutely essential condition of progress in this matter is that at the proper time—which I do not think is the present moment, when we have gone through nearly one-fourth part of the ordinary Session, and are engaged in the thickest of our business—when the House sees its way to giving a free and independent attention to the subject, some practical proposal may be made. It is quite evident that it is necessary to make some arrangement a great deal more rational than the one we have at present. I think the nominal division of time gives too much to private Members, but gives it in a manner so unsatisfactory, so uncertain, and so liable to continual aggression, that no tolerable result remains, when you take into view the uncertainty and the capricious manner in which it must necessarily work. The main bar in our way is the condition in which we stand, and the state of business is such that we are obliged to do what we

    1681
    have done to-day—without praise or blame to anybody, I refer to it—that is, to spend a whole day in discussing what we shall do on the next day. I am bound to say I hold firmly to two propositions— first, that the Government ought to have charge of the conduct of an inquiry of this kind; and, secondly, that it would be idle to consider the division of time, and the liberties now nominally allotted to private Members, until we know that we have arrived at something like a final decision as to the grand question of the division of the entire time of the House between the two great claimants—namely, the Government on one side, and the body of private Members on the other. I hope I have not been wholly unsympathetic with the object of the Motion; I have only endeavoured to show that in its present form it would be inconsistent with our public duty at the present moment to recommend it to the House.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.): I hope it will not be thought impertinent on my part if I follow the Prime Minister, for I am one of the few Members of the House who can carry his Parliamentary life back to some of the periods to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I remember particularly the time when the change was made, by which private Members surrendered so large a possession of the time at their disposal. The right hon. Gentleman will remember when, in Lord Palmerston's Government, the present arrangement was made that private Members should move Amendments to Supply on Friday. Previous to that the Government had only had two days in the week for their business, of which Monday was one and Friday nominally the other. But on Fridays private Members enjoyed the privilege of speaking on the Motion at the commencement of business—" That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until Monday next." That Debate was frequently carried on for a long time, and the time at the disposal of the Government was very short indeed. I remember very well when Lord Palmerston pointed out to the House that it was impossible the Public Business of the country could be got through with the large amount of time devoted to private Members. Thereupon private Members were called upon to give up Thursday to the Government, while the Government had Friday nominally for
    1682
    Supply, subject to Amendments put down to that Motion. That constituted a considerable diminution of the rights, as they were called, of private Members, and I doubt very much if private Members could have foreseen at that time how largely their rights would be curtailed, whether they would have agreed to the change with so much unanimity. The result has been that the time left to private Members has been very short, and even that has been considerably curtailed from time to time by the exigencies of the Government. These exigencies are not likely to diminish. The demands of the country for legislation are constantly increasing, and, year after year, a larger proportion of the time of private Members is appropriated by the Government until, at last, the chances of private Members for legislation are very small indeed. If the hon. Member who has made this Motion, and the Seconder, had bad no other success than to have elicited the speech of the Prime Minister, to which we have just listened, they would have no reason to regret it. It must always be a great pleasure to the House to listen to the reflections of the right hon. Gentleman when a question quite apart from Party is before the House, as in his disquisition on the procedure of the House, so largely of a discursive and academical character. But I am afraid that much of a practical conclusion would not be arrived at from the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has treated the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the period of the Session is unfavourable, and that if the proposal had been made at an earlier period of the Session we should have had more time to consider if. He has also said that he does not consider a Select Committee would be the most convenient way of dealing with it. It occurred to me, when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, that if a Select Committee was not the most convenient way of considering this question, I could hardly imagine how it could possibly be brought to a practical solution. I have generally found, looking over a considerable experience, that all great changes in the procedure of this House have been proposed by Select Committees. Such was the case in 1886. It is not for me to say whether it will suit the convenience of the Government to institute an inquiry at

    1683
    the present time; but I cannot imagine that any changes such as are suggested can be conveniently arrived at without preliminary inquiry by a Select Committee. The number of competitors among private Members is now so great that there must be a number of disappointments, and it must be admitted that the number of gentlemen who were anxious and capable of speaking with intelligence on many subjects is infinitely greater than it used to be some years ago. Therefore, under any conceivable mode of procedure, the number of questions that can be disposed of on the initiation of private Members is constantly increasing, and these increasing demands are less capable of being dealt with. There are many measures introduced by private Members which are carried to a successful completion. The right hon. Gentleman will remember, among others, how some very useful measures were carried by the late Mr. Henley. If hon. Members are fortunate in gaining possession of the House early in the Session, there is no reason at all why they should not be successful in carrying useful measures. We need go no further back than the time of the late Mr. Bradlaugh, who carried measures, although with the assistance of the Government of the day. But the attainment of anything like a distribution of the time of the House between private Members and the Government must always be subject to the exigencies of the Government of the day, as has been shown in recent Sessions. I doubt much that the present Bill will result in getting the Irish Question out of the way. The demands of private Members must be ever increasing, and as the competition goes on it must lead to disappointment. But perhaps some means may be found by the institution of a Committee by whom a selection may be made of the measures of which the great majority of the House approve and attach importance to, and by which the inferior measures may be eliminated, and the attention of the House concentrated on those which have a chance of passing. The desire of all who really wish this House should continue to be the great instrument of good to the country, to give satisfaction to the legitimate aspirations of the people, must be directed to simplying our procedure and securing adequate discussion of those measures calculated to be for the public good, and
    1684
    any Members who can contribute to such a desirable result must deserve the gratitude of the House, and the fullest attention for the measures they propose. I fear the discussion of this evening can lead to no practical result, but I venture to think, with all submission and with the greatest respect for the experience and opinion of the Prime Minister, if we are ever to arrive at a solution of this great question it must be obtained by the medium of a Select Committee.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid he must confess it really appeared to him that though the Prime Minister did not see his way to accept the Motion, the greater part of his speech was in support of it. The right hon. Gentleman did not quite appreciate the object they had in view, which was not a desire to appropriate any more time of the Government. It had been pointed out how many great measures had been inaugurated and carried to a successful conclusion by the exertion of unofficial Members. They knew that the great questions of Reform and Free Trade were in the hands of private Members before they were taken up by the Government, and, in addition to those and many others, he might mention the Free Libraries Act and the whole of our law in relation to bills of exchange and cheques. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to complain of the tendency to throw the whole duty of legislation upon the Government. That was exactly the tendency which his hon. Friend complained of, and one great object of the Resolution that bad been moved was to some extent to relieve Her Majesty's Government of that great burden which they felt so acutely, and to give to unofficial Members the opportunity of assisting them in this respect. On both these points, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman agreed with the argument laid before the House by his hon. Friend. It must be admitted that of late years private Members bad been subjected to great difficulties in bringing on questions in which they were interested. Of course, the Twelve o'Clock Rule interfered with all legislation to some extent, though in many respects it pressed more heavily upon private Members than upon the Government, because they all knew it was continually suspended with refer-

    1685
    ence to the legislation of the Government, and he did not remember that it had ever been suspended for the advantage of any measure brought forward by a private Member. Another point his hon. Friends did not allude to, and that was the practice of putting down Private Business on private Members' nights, the result of which was to further circumscribe the time of private Members. But the right hon. Gentleman scarcely did justice to the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. Henry Hobhouse) and the Seconder of the Resolution by assuming they had not made any practical suggestions, because both hon. Gentlemen had made suggestions which they believed would have the effect of increasing the usefulness of time at the disposal of private Members. They balloted now on the first evening of the Session for places for the whole period of the Session, and his hon. Friend made proposals worthy of consideration, whether they might not assimilate the Rule for balloting for Bills to that for Motions, and limit those to a certain period. His hon. Friend also suggested that Bills might take their place with Notices of Motion on a Tuesday, and that would be another step that would facilitate the opportunities private Members had for bringing forward Bills for discussion in this House. His hon. Friend referred also to the extraordinary power they gave to individual Members after a certain hour, and suggested they might alter the rule very simply by limiting the power to, say, 10 Members. If that were done it would very much increase the opportunity of private Members carrying legislative measures which, under the existing rule, it was almost impossible for them to do. Moreover, even when they did so it was often much impaired in its character. It was, of course, necessary to make friends on all sides of the House, and to agree to matters disadvantageous in themselves, thus to buy off opposition in order to make any progress at all. It was urged by his hon. Friend, and the view was supported by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Sir J. Fergusson), that there was no way of seriously considering this question except by a Committee of this House. The Prime Minister suggested the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. Henry Hobhouse) should formulate his proposals, and then bring them before the House, but he (Sir J.
    1686
    Lubbock) would ask what chance his hon. Friend would have of bringing them before the House if he did formulate his proposals? How, at the present moment, would it be possible for them to consider all the details and all the different questions affecting them with advantage? They all knew that in all the important affairs of life they could not draw up Reports and consider rules in large meetings; they referred them to small committees, who brought them forward in a satisfactory form so that they might be fairly considered. He felt himself very strongly the diadvantages in which, under the present rules, private Members were placed. Many of them were deprived of the opportunities which they wished to enjoy of bringing forward measures in which they were interested. The present Rules sadly diminished the opportunities of private Members, and although he quite admitted that it would not be desirable to take up more of the time of the House, or deprive the Government of any of the time now at its disposal, he thought most of them felt that a better distribution of the time, and a better set of rules in reference to that time, without taking up the time of the House, might enable the private Members to use that time to better advantage. It was on these grounds he regretted that the Government did not see their way to grant a Committee. Though the conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman was unfavourable, his speech throughout was an encouragement to persevere. The right hon. Gentleman was in favour of the proposal, but said the time was not suitable. They had brought it forward at the earliest time, and he. was afraid in no future Session were they likely to get an earlier opportunity of bringing forward a Motion of this kind, and though they would have been glad to do so sooner, still they had a considerable time at their disposal, and he thought that if a Committee were granted they need not despair of bringing it to a satisfactory conclusion. Even the right hon. Gentleman thought they should not despair of seeing some better distribution of the time of private Members. The right hon. Gentleman complained that the Government were overweighted with work, but if the Committee were appointed, the conduct of the proposal might be left mainly to private Members. At present much of the time of

    1687
    private Members was wasted, and he believed that a Committee would be useful to economise the time allotted to them, especially having regard to the disadvantage at which they were placed by the Twelve o'Clock Rule.
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, that the private Members sitting on that side of the House were very much touched by the description given by the Prime Minister of the extraordinary advantages they possessed. That was news to them, because they were really under the impression they never got anything as private Members. The right hon. Gentleman was a great master of quotations from the Latin poets; might he recall to the recollection of the House the Latin verse—
    "O fortunati nimium, sua si bona norint."
    The private Members were too fortunate if they could only be made to see their good fortune. The right hon. Gentleman truly remarked that things appeared different in this House according to the point of view from which Members regarded them. Forinstance, the right hon. Gentleman spoke apparently with some interest of the Parliamentary fortnight taken up this year in the Debate on the Address. Surely that practice of occupying the first two weeks on the Address was not originated by the Party to which he (Sir E. Temple) belonged, but it was really carried through by the Party who now sat opposite, and now they were "hoist with their own petard." Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman remarked upon the great increase of business which came to the Government in taking up Bills, but had he forgotten that he himself was the greatest offender, because this Session he had crowded the House with Bills of the most contentious character. When the right hon. Gentleman complained of the Government being made more and more to take up Bills at the instance of private Members, it should be remembered it was because private Members had come to think that it was only Bills taken up by Government at the instance of a private Member that had any chance at all, nor had it. Now, having listened carefully to what had been said by the hon. Mover and Seconder of this Resolution, he should like, as a private Member, to make a few remarks upon the existing practice and Rules of the House, and perhaps
    1688
    he was particularly qualified to do so, for no Member knew better than he did the wearied vigils in the small hours of the morning in watching over Bills that struggled on through an unhappy existence only to be massacred at the end of it; but when he came to think of it, the difficulties of passing private Members legislation did seem to him to operate as a very useful check, and he would invite any conscientious private Member to look at the Order Book of the House and consider the number, the great number, of private Members' Bills brought in every Session. He asked what would become of the country if all those Bills had any chance of passing into law? He did not believe he should be overstating it if he said that upon the average 400 or 500 Bills every Session were introduced into this House. He believed that would be found to be the average during the seven or eight years he had been in Parliament, and if they were to pass in any large numbers, would there not be a great danger of over legislation? He was very much impressed with what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, who was now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Bryce). No doubt there were a great number of Bills passed into law at the instance of private Members, and it was a great pity that Members like the Member for the University of Loudon (Sir John Lubbock), who had just spoken, should have been hampered and hindered in much of the beneficent legislation they introduced; but still, all Members must be aware that numbers of the measures were pressed on their attention by their constituents or sections of their supporters, and they were obliged to introduce them, though perhaps they were measures that ought not to pass into law. They did their duty to their friends outside, they satisfied the requirements of public opinion, and it was for the House to decide upon them. But there was no doubt that private Members now had no chance at all. In the first place the Government generally took up the whole time, or a great portion of the whole time, of the House very soon after the Session began. Secondly, they must admit that they themselves were very neglectful, because when private Members did get an evening for themselves, unless the Government kept a House they had no chance. Private Members would not stand by one

    1689
    another, and the consequence was that without the support of the Government there would be a premature count out. Then one great difficulty before them was this, that when a private Member did get the first place on a list he would monopolise the whole time of the House, the whole time of that afternoon or evening. For instance, Wednesday after Wednesday Bills that stood first on the list were brought forward. The Bill might not be of great interest, but it would probably be debated the whole afternoon, and without the slightest mercy or compassion to those who came after. Of course if they were to be a little more considerate to those that stood second, third, fourth, or fifth there might be a chance, but what happened was this, the man who got first place took up the whole afternoon. Much had been said about the working of the ballot at the beginning of the Session. He had taken part in those scenes that had been described as much as anyone. But he must admit the ballot could be made to operate in a satisfactory manner, because it was in the power of any large number of Members who were interested in any particular measure to ballot for that one measure, and if 20 or 30 would do that they were sure to secure the first place on some convenient day, so that the ballot did give a power to private Members which, if judiciously exercised, would relieve it from that discredit which the hon. Mover and Seconder endeavoured to throw upon it. Take such a measure as Women's Suffrage, if a sufficient number could be induced to ballot on the first day of the Session for that particular measure it would be introduced under the most favourable circumstances. The reason why that had not been done was because though there were many Members who were the friends of the measure, every one of them had measures of his own, which, owing to his particular promises and obligations, he was bound to ballot for first. Had it not been for that there was no doubt that such a measure would, Session after Session, obtain a most favourable place. So, if they came to think of it, by combining their forces the best Bill will be ballotted for by the greatest number of Members and would secure a place. The same remark applied to ballotting for Resolutions. If there was any subject which a great number of hon.
    1690
    Members desired to Debate they certainly could, by concentrating their ballot, by combination at the ballot, secure a place. He believed the process by little syndicates had become well-known amongst Members of this House. He thought he heard the phrase, now common amongst them, of "rigging the ballot." He understood the phrase to mean that a great number of hon. Members combined would ballot for a particular Resolution or particular Bill. Let them take one or two instances. Look what a favourable place the Railway Rates Resolution got the other day. No doubt that was because a great number of Members simultaneously and collectively ballotted for it, and he had no doubt if the real history of the Rating of Machinery Bill were known it was owing to the same cause. Hon. Members from Ireland had not ballotted much this Session—but last Session and the Session before it was notorious that whenever Members from Ireland wished to bring forward a particular matter they were sure to get the best place, and that was done by the process he had described, which was quite legitimate, and a process they had the right to exercise and carry into action. English and British Members might well follow their example, and in that way a precedence could readily be obtained, and obtained in a secret, silent, and unobjectionable manner. He submitted that was far better than the procedure suggested, which he understood to be that Members should be invited to subscribe their names to a list or some "round robin" process in favour of Bills they supported. They knew how that would work, there would be touting, and the result would be that certain Bills would be supported by some Members because they in turn would get support for some other measure. That, in his opinion, would be open to greater objection than the ballot, which was satisfactory if hon. Members chose to combine, and would settle the mode and method of that combination. Then he listened with great attention to what was said by the right hon. Member for the London University (Sir John Lubbock), about the rule that now existed of an individual Member being able to object to a Bill after a certain hour in the evening. The hon. Member proposed that it should he necessary for 10 Members to object, that was to say, that unless 10 Members rose in their places or lifted their hats the

    1691
    objection should not bold good. He had no doubt that would operate in favour of the first Bill that stood on the Notice Paper; the first Bill of which the title was read by the Clerk of the House would undoubtedly be favoured by that process, but they would get no farther. That particular question would at once be brought forward, the Question would be put by Mr. Speaker "That the Bill be now read a second time," it would then be debated and the Debate would last as long as the House would consent to sit, because after all there would have to be some limit of time. At present the limit of 12 o'clock held good, but if this rule about the 10 Members was introduced they would have to fix a limit of time.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: One o'clock is the limit already fixed by the Rules.
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid in that case the Bill would go on until 1 o'clock, but all the others would get no chance; in fact, the process would be a miniature reproduction of what went on upon a Wednesday, when, as they all knew, only the first Bill stood any chance, unless a rude prevailed, a sort of unwritten law, that the man who stood first would try and give a chance to him who came next, but at present he saw little signs of any reciprocity. Of course with all this cutting up of the time of private Members, with all this destruction of their opportunities, they must take their revenge. There seemed to be a sort of fate, a sort of providence sitting up aloft like one of the three fates in the story, that always had the scissors in her hand for the purpose of cutting off the lives of the Bills of private Members. That being the case they must have their revenge somewhere, and there was a great deal of truth in what the Prime Minister said, that the first means was by the process of questioning. Questioning in this House would become a very important feature in our national life. They were appealed to by their constituents to put questions, and accordingly they did so, and he believed that had an excellent effect. To him it was a highly gratifying spectacle to see the attention given by hon. Members to everything that went on, not only in the United Kingdom, but all over the world, from India to Peru. He believed that questions exercised a most potent check
    1692
    on every Government and every Front Bench, whether that Front Bench was filled from their Benches, or from the Benches of hon. Gentlemen opposite. And their second mode of revenge was discussion in Committee of Supply. He quite admitted that as a financial discussion their Debates in Supply were beneath criticism, but in reference to general policy they did the House infinite credit. As for the proposal to appoint a Select Committee upon the subject, if the Mover and Seconder chose to amuse themselves in that way they were welcome to do so. But he knew from experience that such an inquiry as was proposed would come to nothing. He was in favour of the rights of private Members, but that would not get them out of the difficulty that was now the subject of complaint.
    MR. COURTNEY: I wish to congratulate the hon. Baronet on the optimistic view he takes of everything that has been arranged in this best-of-all possible worlds. Perhaps his satisfaction is not unconnected with the fact that he has been able, after some years of labour, to bring to a successful conclusion a great work which he undertook in connection with elementary education. But that does not mean all the work we have to accomplish, and it may be that if we put our business on a rather better footing, we may be able to attain the same result with less expenditure of labour and less weariness than the hon. Baronet must have suffered before his ideal was reached. Sir, I feel in some difficulty in entering into this Debate. The Prime Minister did not hear the speech of the opener, but he made a very amusing and interesting speech in reply; but I have a difficulty in replying to the right hon. Gentleman in his absence. My right hon. Friend assumed that my hon. Friend the Member for East Somerset laid no plan before the House. But he did lay a plan before the House. The right hon. Gentleman said that private Members had a great deal of time. It is not a question of a division of time. The whole question is, given the quantity of time allotted to private Members, is that time well organised? The Prime Minister did not meet that question at all. There is a great deal of time at the command of private Members, and they are not apt to give it up without remonstrance.

    1693
    Then the right hon. Gentleman referred to the time consumed in questions. Is that time well organised? How much of it is wasted? Is there not a demand there for inquiry in that direction? And we will not set the matter right unless there are some parties to consider that among other things. Hon. Members will join with my hon. Friend the Member for East Somerset in admitting some curtailment of private Members' time, if only the time that was left to them might be better administered and more economically used. The right hon. Baronet opposite, in the optimistic view he took of the situation, said we were able to avoid the chances of the ballot by the secret organisation of hon. Members amongst themselves, so that those interested in a particular question may join in balloting for a place. The right hon. Baronet prefers that things should be done in that way rather than by some regular machinery. It is a mere matter of hazard whether certain questions are discussed or not, and methods ought to be devised to ensure, with every regard for the rights of minorities, that subjects should be brought forward in order, according to their relative importance and the interest which they excite. For example, we should arrange: first, that a Bill in which interest is felt should be brought forward in its turn, and then for the prosecution of that Bill to the end, so that time would never be wasted in ineffectual discussion. Under the rules and customs of the House it is possible for a single Member, in a fantastic and arbitrary way, to stop the progress of a measure. Is not that a matter for which a practical remedy can be found if the subject be investigated? Years ago I suggested that about once a fortnight we should have a short Bill night for the discussion and prosecution of short-Bills, to which a certain definite number of hon. Members should not have signified opposition beforehand. By such means beneficial changes in the law might be effected which now it is possible to have postponed year by year by the action of some irresponsible Member. The First Lord of the Treasury told us that this is not the proper time for making the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman did not hear and did not understand. My right hon. Friend had great gifts which we all admire, and has given them this evening another illustration of his
    1694
    charming capacity of dealing with large public subjects in a pleasant familiar way. But I am bound to say that my right hon. Friend has one faculty which is open to criticism. There is a French word banalité which perhaps describes the right hon. Gentleman's method of treating certain questions. When the right hon. Gentleman told us that this is not the time for approaching this subject and that the proposed way of dealing with it is not the right way, one wondered when the right time would be and what would be the proper way. Is it too late in the Session to bring this subject forward? I venture to say that had it been brought forward a fortnight ago we would have been told that it was too early, and that if it had been delayed to the end of the Session, we would have been told that it was then too late. If the hon. Member for East Somerset's Motion does not produce any immediate result, it will at any rate prepare the minds of hon. Members for the changes that must sooner or later be effected. Given a limited amount of time at our command and a diversity of objects to be prosecuted in that time, surely we ought to ascertain how best to employ our opportunities. Now everything is left to chance. What the hon. Member for East Somerset asks is that the mind of the House should be brought to bear on the subject. He proposes a plan, and the Prime Minister says this is not the time or the way to undertake the business, but probably the House will be able to undertake it at no distant date. The mere sense of disgust which one sees growing among the new Members who are not accustomed to the dilatory forms of the House, at the way the time of the House was wasted, will sooner or later claim consideration of the matter, and will, I would hope, lead to some practical steps for doing away with a state of things which is really a matter of public scandal.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKE: The few minutes (hat are left to me I wish to take the opportunity of saying a few words on the subject—a subject which I have myself more than once brought before the House. The objections made to the appointment of a Select Committee by the Prime Minister are certainly curious. First he said the Motion was not made at the beginning of the Session. But it has been brought forward at the earliest opportunity.

    1695
    Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said the Government would have imposed upon them the duty of dealing with the arrangements of the Select Committee. I do not think that that would be the case. If the House were to agree to this proposal, there would be no duty or obligation laid upon the Government, for the House itself would constitute the Committee. Another objection by the Prime Minister was that there was no specific plan proposed in the Motion before the House. If there had been a specific proposal in the Motion it would have been made the groundwork of debate, and upon the merits of the proposal a whole. evening would have been spent. I have more than once expressed a belief to the House that it would be wise to bring about a change of practice so as to make the procedure of the House of Commons similar to that of all other legislative Assemblies in the world in this respect—that the unfinished business of one Session should be carried on and taken up in the next. I believe that would be found to be the true remedy for the difficulty. But whatever the remedy may be, it is a little hard on the part of the Government that they should set themselves steadily against the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the matter. I do not say that the result of a Committee would be satisfactory in all respects, but the proposal is one which the Government ought, in the circumstances, to accept. It is time that we should establish some system by which the House itself would be able to decide what measures it will entertain and what Bills it will pass into law. I do not know whether it is intended to press this Motion to a Division, but I hope the subject will not be lost sight of, notwithstanding the attitude of the Government.
    MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, he had to express deep regret at what had fallen from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, as he thought the Government might have agreed to the appointment of this Committee. He, at any rate, had done his part in regard to this matter. Having brought it forward and having elicited most interesting views upon it, he was not disposed to press his Motion to a Division; but he hoped the discussion would bear some fruit in the future.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    SUPPLY.—Committee To-morrow.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to the Trade Union Provident Funds Bill, without Amendment.

  DAY INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of contributions towards the expenses of children sent to Day Industrial Schools, not exceeding; one shilling per head per week in the case of children sent by order of a court, and not exceeding sixpence per head per week in the case of children sent without an order of a court, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the establishment of Day Industrial School-in Scotland, and to amend the Education (Scotland) Acts 1872 to 1888.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  BARBED WIRE FENCES BILL.—(No. 176)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 3.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, at beginning of line 1, to insert the words "Where there is on any land adjoining highway within the county or district of a local authority a fence made with barbed wire or in or on which barbed wire has been placed and such barbed wire is dangerous to persons or animals using such highway."—(Mr. Henry H Fowler).
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES.)
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure: Sir George Russell, Sir: Thomas Esmonde, and Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth; and had appointee in substitution: Mr. Wootton-Isaacson Mr. Maurice Healy, and Sir Henry Roscoe.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  House adjourned at twenty minute after Twelve o'clock