CLASS II. (Hansard, 6 September 1893)

§ MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)
said, he would ask that this Vote should be postponed, for the purpose of obtaining fuller information than was given last night. The promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not clearly understood by Members of the House, and they should have a fuller statement. He was prepared to move the Adjournment of the Debate in order that they might have a more definite statement.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, he could not agree to any postponement of this Vote, as it was included in the Ways and Means Bill, which must be introduced this evening. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, he thought, given a very fair answer last night, having offered to confer with the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee.

§ MR. ANSTRUTHER (St. Andrew's, &c.)
said, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman was not able to assent to the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Cremer). But he hoped, at any rate, the matter would be made clear. As he understood it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be willing to confer with the Kitchen Committee on the question of accommodation. But the hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. S. Herbert), as Chairman of the Committee, made a request for an extra sum to meet the necessities of the case. They would like to know whether it was intended that this sum should be granted to meet the views of the Chairman of the Committee? They should have a little more definite information. They should know whether, whatever sum might be granted, it was to go to structural alterations, or, if not, what the money was to be applied to?

§ MR. MARJORIBANKS
said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly stated that he was not prepared, upon the present Vote, to go into the question of structural alterations in the Kitchen and Dining Room. He said he would confer with the Chairman of the Committee as to granting of an extra sum of money, which he said he would be personally anxious to see granted, and he thought it was understood that the money so granted would go to an improvement in the waiting staff and kindred matters.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
said, he might further object to grants, but he did not object to structural alterations. The question was not altogether as to the accommodation for Members, but also as to the accommodation for servants. What was wanted was that the Government would promise to consider the question of structural alterations, so that both Members and servants could have proper facilities. He did not rise to continue the discussion now, but he begged to move the adjournment of the Debate.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
hoped the hon. Member would not press the Motion. They always recognised the reasonable nature of his views; but this matter had been discussed at considerable length. He thought the House should be satisfied with what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, it was perfectly well-known that, while complaining of sweating outside, they were sweating the people in the Kitchen downstairs, and that in a worse way than anything that existed outside. They should look after their own House before troubling with outsiders' houses, for theirs was much worse.

§ MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)
said, it would be for the benefit of the Members if they had better accommodation in the Kitchen and Dining Room. They should adjourn the question for consideration.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, he would point out the uselessness of adjourning the question. If they succeeded in discussing the matter on this Vote, as some hon. Members wished, they would be unable to deal with the matter of structural alterations.

§ MR. S. HERBERT (Croydon)
said, he was sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt) was not present. He said that the right hon. Gentleman's reply last night was somewhat sympathetic, for half a loaf was better than no bread. The question now raised was one of accommodation, and he thought it was clear that they were unable to give accommodation to all the Members who wished to dine unless they got better facilities both as to space and as to service. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said went some way to meet their views, and his statement had been endorsed by the Secretary to the Treasury or the Patronage Secretary. He should like to have had a more definite statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but as the right hon. Gentleman was not now present, he would press the Secretary to the Treasury to go a little further and say something more definite. They (the Kitchen Committee) had to make arrangements for the future, and it was but fair that they should know exactly how they would stand. He hoped, in the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. T. Hibbert) would not press the Vote through to-night.

§ MR. MARJORIBANKS
said, he would point out that, under the Resolution recently passed, no dilatory Motion was permissible unless proposed by a Minister of the Crown.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
Mr. Deputy Speaker, were not Wednesdays excluded?

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER
Order, order! I had not the terms of the Resolution before me when I accepted the Motion for Adjournment to be discussed. The Motion of the hon. Member for Peterborough is clearly out of Order. It refers to a matter of Government Business.

§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
said, he objected to the attitude of the Government on this question—[Cries of "Time!"] He was not going to occupy the time of the House—[Renewed cries of "Time!"]

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER
Order!

§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT
said, he merely wished to enter his objection to the attitude of the Government in refusing to adjourn this matter. He thought there was reasonable ground for complaint in the absence of a definite statement.

§ MR. ANSTRUTHER
wished to know, on a point of Order, whether the Question of Adjournment could be out of Order, since the Motion for Adjournment had been put from the Chair?

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER
I proposed the Question from the Chair, but did not put it to the House.

§ MR. ANSTRUTHER
said, with great respect, he would ask what question were they discussing—the Report of the Vote or the Question proposed from the Chair? [Cries of "Order!"]