COMMITTEES (ASCENSION DAY). (Hansard, 2 May 1894)

§ MR. W. ALLEN (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
said, he rose to oppose the Motion. Last year the Government had a majority of 70 in favour of it, largely composed of their own supporters, and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Gentlemen opposite had given as their reason for supporting the Motion that Ascension Day was a feast of the Christian Church, and that they desired to attend Divine service instead of sitting in the Committee Rooms. A number of those gentlemen, however, had not gone to Church, but had spent the morning in roaming through the Park. Some hon. Members who voted for the Motion last year opposed it on other occasions when their Party was not in power. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, he believed, was one of those. Another reason for opposing the Motion was that it would inflict great hardship on those who had Bills before Committees, and who had to keep their witnesses in town and to pay them and the counsel engaged. He saw no reason why, because the Christian Church used in the past to observe this feast, litigants before the Select Committees should have a fine imposed upon them.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT, Derby)
I have thought it right to put this Motion upon the Paper. It is a Motion that is usually made in this House. Last year, as the hon. Member has said, it was accepted by a large majority, whence I conclude that a majority are still in favour of it. I see no reason why the Government or the 142 House should depart from the opinion that they have expressed on this subject in the past. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian stated last year, the Motion is not proposed in any sense as a Party Resolution. It is entirely a matter for hon. Members to decide whether they desire to adhere to the former practice of the House. In these circumstances, I leave the matter in the hands of the House to decide.

§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)
said that, in regard to the suggestion that witnesses and others would be at a disadvantage if the Motion were accepted, there was no doubt that Committees could prolong their sittings if they chose.

§ MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)
said, he objected to the Motion, but not altogether on the same grounds as the hon. Member (Mr. Allen). He objected to it on the ground that it was illogical and unnecessary. Committees could sit if they chose, and could use their own discretion in the matter. There was no necessity to impose on the promoters of Private Bills unnecessary expense to which they might object. He should certainly oppose the Motion now and on every other occasion.