HC Deb 19 June 1899 vol 72 cc1502-31

It certainly will be no matter of surprise, and I hope, too, no matter of regret in any part of the House, that I rise at this accustomed period of the session to ask the House to give the Government further facilities for the conduct of such legislation as it may be enabled to pass during the remainder of the session. All the pressure, indeed, that has reached me has been in the other direction, as the Notice Paper has shown day by day, and even to-day the questions indicate the anxiety of the House to proceed with certain Government Bills which have already been introduced. I have noticed in the newspapers mention of a rumour that there is a sort of general anticipation pervading the House that the session would have an end about July 25, and that at that unprecedented date we would be able to occupy ourselves in a manner more suitable to the season. I am afraid, Sir, that estimate never had any substantial foundation, nor do I think anybody could have conceived it possible that we should anticipate to any serious extent the date on which, during the last four years, we have been able to separate. I hope that date will not be exceeded, but I certainly cannot promise the House that we shall be able to shorten matters so that we shall be able to separate in the course of next month, or even in the first week of August. I do not propose to give an exact programme of what we hope to pass, because that would be impossible; nor has any one in my position, at this period of the session, ever attempted such a task. Nor, again, do I need to read through the list of Government Orders on the Paper, but I may just mention those Bills which are, I think, somewhat loosely defined by the name of departmental measures. Taking the Order Book of today, and following the order therein, the first is the Telephone Bill, which has not yet reached the Second Reading, and which, I hope, may reach the Second Reading to-morrow night. There is the Board of Education Bill, which has already passed the Lords and awaits the Second Reading. There is the Private, Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Bill, of which, I trust, we may be able to make a finish to-night; in any case, I confidently expect we shall be able to make very substantial progress with it. There is, next, the Colonial Loans Fund Bill, which ought to pass, and ought to be followed by a Bill based upon it, which will ask the House to consent to loans in particular cases. The House will remember that the Colonial Loans Fund Bill merely lays down the general outlines of the scheme for specific loans, and we think that that Bill ought not only to pass, but, as a matter of fact, there are certain specific loans we ought to have the authority of the House to make before the session closes. There is the Parish Churches (Scotland) Bill, which has passed the Lords and not yet been read a second time; there is the Small Houses (Acquisition of Ownership) Bill, which has reached the Report stage; the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill, which has reached the Report stage; and two Irish Bills—the Agriculture and Technical Instruction Bill and the Tithe Rent-charge Bill—which, I am sorry to say, have not yet passed their Second Reading; and then, finally, there is the Money-Lending Bill, which has already passed the Lords, but has made no progress in this House. I do not believe that this list will be materially added to, except in certain particulars which I will mention. There are three more Bills which, as the House is aware, we mean to introduce and deal with in the course of the session. There is the Military Works Bill, the Clerical Tithe Bill, and the Naval Works Bill. There are also Bills of my right hon. friend the Home Secretary, among them one making further amendments in the Factory Acts. There is, in addition to these, a Bill which has not yet been announced to the House, and which the House, I think, will not describe as contentious, and that is a Bill for completing the arrangements for taking over the Niger Company. The present position of affairs on the Niger has led to many embarrassments which I think ought to be put an end to. The present is a transitional and purely provisional state of things, and ought to be terminated as soon as possible. This measure, therefore, will have to be passed before the end of the session. That is the last item in the list of non-departmental measures which it is very desirable to pass. I do not, of course, say that all these measures will, as a matter of fact, pass into law before we separate, but I hope very substantial progress will be made with the list which I have just read to the House. I do not think I need justify the proposal which enables us to take Tuesdays and Wednesdays henceforth for carrying out this legislation. It has always been anticipated about this period, and even before, that that course will be taken, and I think private Members will be anxious to do all they can to help the Government to deal with the legislation which still remains, and which we can justly claim should be passed. In these circumstances I think I should be wasting the time of the House if I said more to induce it to pass the Resolution. I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That for the remainder of the session Government business do have precedence on Tuesday and Wednesday, and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to all the days of the week."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour).


The Resolution Which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed is in accordance with recent practice, and I do not imagine that there will he any large number of Members in the House who will be disposed to refuse to the Government the facilities they ask for in the circumstances. But I think it right to lay down at once what hitherto has always been prescribed as a condition for this provisional facility being given to the Government at this time of the year, and that is, that they should not use the power so allowed to them for the purpose of introducing any fresh contentious measure likely to occupy much time and to raise deep controversies in the House. The list of measures which the right hon. Gentleman has gone over contains many Bills with which we are tolerably familiar, and there are some which there is a general desire to pass with as little trouble as possible. I anticipate that that will be the case with the Scottish Private Procedure Bill, as to which we see some method of arranging the differences of opinion which have hitherto existed. But the right hon. Gentlemen named four new subjects. I think one was called the Barracks Loan Bill—a Bill which is announced in supplement, as it were, of the Army Estimates, and which was promised at the beginning of the session. Well, Sir, the only comment I would make, and the only objection I would raise to the introduction of that Bill is not that it ought not to be introduced now, but that it ought to have been introduced a good many weeks if not months ago, because when it was announced the Government surely must have had not only a general but a very close conception of what the nature of this Bill would be, and I think it is due to the House and to those who take an interest in military questions that they should have a longer time to consider the details of this Bill than the few weeks which now stand between us and the Prorogation of Parliament. As to the Factories Bill, that will probably be a measure in a direction of which we all approve, but we must wait until we see it. In regard to the Bill for taking over the Niger Company, I would also say that there is a large possibility—I am speaking entirely in the dark as to what the Bill may contain—but I think, if it contains any complications whatever, there is a considerable possibility of a difference of opinion. The right hon. Gentleman named, in a somewhat cool and calm manner, another Bill as if it was an old acquaintance that we were familiar with, and to which we already were committed—namely, the Clerical Tithes Bill. I can only say that if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that a Bill dealing with clerical tithes in any way almost, but especially a Bill relieving them from any burdens to which they are now subject—if he thinks that a Bill of that kind can pass through the House in the few weeks of July and part of August, he is totally mistaken. And there is another particular process which it may be sought to apply to this measure, to which I should, for my part, take great objection. We know that clerical influences are clamouring at the door of the Government. We know that from the papers and other sources. Is it possible that this is a Bill intended to be introduced in order to shut the mouths of the clergy, and at the same time introduced in such a manner that there will he a good excuse for saying to them, "My good gentlemen, we have done all we could for you, but a wicked Opposition and the stupid arrangements for the conduct of Parliamentary business compelled us to forego the infinite pleasure we should have felt in doing something"? I do not think that the House of Commons should be treated to a performance of that sort, and if the right hon. Gentleman brings in a Bill—I do not say I hope it will pass—at least I hope that he will bring it in with the intention of its passing, because I think it would be more befitting his own dignity and the dignity of this House and of Parliament that he should bring it in with that intention. But in any case I should strongly advise the right hon. Gentleman, if he does not wish to keep us sitting here until an advanced period of the year, not to meddle with this measure at all. It is not only that it would be discussed at great length and with great detail in all its stages, but I am afraid that the fact of its being announced, of its looming on the horizon, may induce hon. Members to take a minute and painstaking interest in all the other business, which would not conduce to the rapid advancement of the legislation of the session. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take my warning, which is not a mere accidental expression of my own opinion, for I am perfectly certain it conveys not only the feeling but the purpose of nine-tenths of the Members on this side of the House, and possibly of some others. I hope that he will take that into consideration when he thinks of proceeding with this Bill during this session. Otherwise, as I have said, I think he has not proposed anything which is calculated to startle and alarm us, and under the circumstances I am disposed to think that the House ought to afford him the facilities he asks for.

SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)

In every word that has fallen from the Leader of the Opposition I am disposed to concur, but there is one subject as to which I wish to say a few words. It is a matter to which a great deal of attention has been given in this portion of the House—I refer to the Factories and Workshops Bill, which it has been announced is to be introduced at this terribly late period of the session, although it was promised, long before the Queen's Speech was delivered, that it would be one of the principal measures of the session. We had two speeches made by Cabinet Ministers in which they appealed for the confidence of the working classes of the country, on the ground that next to the London Government Bill a Factories and Workshops Bill would be one of the chief measures of the session. I cannot but fear that the fact of keeping back this Bill till so late a period means either that it will not be passed or that it will be cut down to the narrowest possible limits. I am bound to say that I should object more strongly to the latter of the two alternatives than to the former, because if the Bill is only intended to deal with two or three points it will be a great disappointment to the country. If, on the other hand, it is to be a large Bill, then I fear the Government do not intend to go on with it, because they would not have the time necessary to carry it this year; and I, for one, would sooner have from them a distinct and clear promise that they will really make it one of the principal measures next session, instead of cutting it down to a mere shred in order to pass it this year. It has always been spoken of as a very important measure. The Home Secretary has stated that there is a very large Bill in preparation, and has made it an excuse for the delay in producing the annual report of the Chief Inspector of Workshops, with the result that we Shall have no material for a Home Office Debate this session. Now I would like to point out that the Standing Committees on Trade and Law have been idle during the greater part of this session. One has had before it the Food and Drugs Bill, and the other has had hardly any work at all. If it is now intended to revive the work of these Committees for the purpose of passing the Factories and Workshops Bill, there will he great difficulty at this period of the session in obtaining a quorum, and I am afraid the result will be that the Bill will have to be cut down to the very narrowest limits. Would it not be better to make the best of a had job, and have a thoroughly good Bill next year? There is only one other matter I will touch upon. The Government, during the last three or four years, have steadily declined, under pressure from all parts of the House, to find time at this period of the session for private Members' Bills. But there is a rumour that it is the intention of the Government to give some of the time which we are placing at their disposal to the consideration of a hotly opposed private Members' Bill—the Service Franchise Bill, which was extended into a large measure by an Amendment carried in a very thin House, which Amendment was subsequently defeated in a fairly full House by a majority of only 17. In view of the declarations of Irish Members in regard to this Bill, I think we should have some understanding from the Government that they are not going to devote any time to it.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

When a motion of this kind is submitted to the House one is entitled to ask for some satisfactory statement as to what the Government intend to do with the time they ask the House to give them. The list of Bills which the right hon. Gentleman read out, and upon which he based his statement for demanding the time of the House, includes three Irish Bills, all of them very important Bills and raising important questions of principle. I desire to take this opportunity of once more protesting against the conduct of the Government in introducing two of their Irish Bills this session under the Ten-Minutes Rule, especially in view of the fact that the Government have done less business than I ever remember during the 15 years I have been in the House. I think the Irish Members have very good ground for complaining that the Irish business, such as it is this session, has been treated with such scant courtesy up to the present period of the session. I say that no one of those Bills could decently have been introduced under the Ten-Minutes Rule, and that such a course is an outrageous abuse in the case of one of those Bills. The first of the Irish Bills—the Agriculture and Technical Instruction Bill—has been promised every year since the present Government took office. It is a Bill raising very large and very broad issues and issues of various kinds, because it proposes to create a new Irish Minister. Of course, I should not be in order in attempting to deal, even in the most cursory way, with the details of the Bill, but it is a Bill of first class importance, and yet we have been unable to obtain from the Government the probable date on which it will be taken; and now, when we are within about six weeks of the end of the session, we have not received a hint as to when we may expect this Bill to be submitted for discussion. I think we are entitled to demand from the Government that abundant time shall be given for the discussion of this Bill on Second Reading, and still fuller discussion in Committee. I would infinitely prefer that this Bill should be postponed until next session, and then taken at a proper period of the session, rather than that an attempt should be made to shuffle it through at the tail end of the session and force a totally unsatisfactory settlement of this question. I believe and feel convinced that in that view I have the support of the vast majority of Irishmen of all sections. Turning to the other Bills, I am entitled to ask whether the Charitable Loans Bill—a Bill of vital importance to a very large section of the people of the North of Ireland—is to be dropped out altogether. I think the Government ought to say frankly whether they propose to go on with that Bill this session or not. Now I come to the third of the Irish Bills, an all-important Bill, and I earnestly and respectfully invite the attention of the Liberal Party to this Bill, and to its connection with the Clerical Tithe Bill, which we are informed the Government intend to introduce. It appears it is impossible for the Government to allow one session to go by without putting their hands into the public purse to scatter largess among their supporters in Great Britain and Ireland. While they are about to propose some measure of relief to the clergy in England, they also intend to seize upon a large portion of the Tithe Fund and distribute it among the landlords in Ireland. As the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that possibly, if the Clerical Tithes Bill is introduced, the Liberal Party may be incited to take a great interest in other Bills, I respectfully invite them to turn their attention to the Irish Tithes Bill. They will find it very contentious as well as interesting, and they will be doing a service to Ireland if they study the subject and give some attention to it. I think we might expect from the Chief Secretary some different treatment to the very curt statement we have received in reference to this Bill up to the present. With reference to Supply, what is the condition of things at the present moment? Twenty days is the number allotted for Supply under the new Rule. On the 19th of June, 14 out of the 20 days had gone, and the Government have taken only 57 out of a total of 147 Votes on Supply. Among the Votes still to be disposed of is the Foreign Office Vote; some of the next most important are the Army and Navy Votes and the Colonial Office Vote. The First Lord has kindly consented to give two days this week for Irish Supply. I have had occasion to point out more than once that those responsible for the time of the House have not dealt favourably with Irish Supply. In the first year of the new Rule four days, and in later years three days, and now only two days. I venture to say that this year Irish Supply will demand more time than in any year since this Government came into office. There is, first of all, the Vote for law charges; then there is the Local Government Board Voter which, owing to the Act of last year, will have to be discussed at length. There is the Queen's College Vote, which should be discussed at considerable length, inasmuch as no Amendment to the Address was moved on the Catholic University Question. There is, further, the Law Charges Vote and the Constabulary Vote, and then there is a question which will undoubtedly be discussed at considerable length on the Industrial Schools Grant. That Grant used to be passed without a word, but this year it will lead to a long Debate. Then there is the Chief Secretary's Salary, and the Board of Works Vote. Here we have eight Votes in Irish Supply, upon which inevitably there will be very considerable discussion. I desire to point out that, in justice to Irish Members, a fair portion of the time now placed at the disposal of the Government ought to be given for the discussion of the important measures I have mentioned. I further desire to support the demand that time should be allowed for the discussion of the Cyprus Vote. With other hon. Members, I have taken great interest in the condition of Cyprus, and we are anxious there should be a discussion this year, because a Convention is on the eve of being concluded with the Sultan of Turkey for the conversion and settlement of the Debt, to the payment of the interest on which the Cyprus tribute is devoted. We think that those interested should have a fair opportunity of discussing this, because we are anxious that the benefits of the conversion should go to Cyprus, and not to France, Germany, or any other Power.

SIR BLUNDELL MAPLE (Camberwell, Dulwich)

I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to give an opportunity for the Service Franchise Bill to pass. The right hon. Gentleman opposite who referred to this Bill has done all that he possibly could to obstruct it. He is, I may say, practically the only Member really obstructing the Bill. On the 25th March the Bill was carried by a majority of 100, 188 voting for the Bill, whereas he and his supporters only numbered 88. The Bill at this moment is in exactly the condition in which it was introduced. It is a very important Bill, and one which will be welcomed by thousands of men who ought to have votes given them. I may say that a worse obstruction than this Bill has met with from the hands of the right hon. Gentleman opposite has never occurred to any Bill. I do not oppose the Government taking next Wednesday, although this Bill would have been first Order on that day, because I feel that the Government will realise the importance of the Bill, and the strong support it has in the country at large. I trust the Government may "star" the Bill, and allow it to be again proceeded with.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the various questions which have been put to him, I should like to ask whether he can state when he proposes to take the Board of Education Bill, and, if he cannot state that now, whether he will give same days' notice before he proposes to take the Second Reading.

MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S.W.)

There is a notice on the Paper for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the subject of municipal trading. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention that subject in his remarks, and I wish to ask whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint that Committee, for I understand there will be some opposition to the appointment. If the Government do not intend to appoint it, will the right hon. Gentleman say so now, and have the motion removed from the Order Paper. May I be allowed to join in the appeal of the hon. Member for Dulwich in regard to his Bill. I do not know whether the First Lord of the Treasury is aware of the nature of the opposition which has so far existed to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean said that this Bill was hotly opposed; therefore I think I shall be in order in pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman how hotly this Bill has been opposed. It was so hotly opposed that, when it was in front of the Bill for raising the age of half-timers the opposition was absolutely withdrawn after ten minutes or a quarter of an hour's discussion, and then this other Bill was taken. And on the following Wednesday after the Bill had been read, then, and then only, did the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends arise to the Service Franchise Bill. I believe also that several Members are not quite clear as to whether it is the intention of the Government to give a day of Supply for the discussion of the South African Vote as soon as the Papers have arrived about which the Colonial Secretary has spoken.

*MR. RECKITT (Lincolnshire, Brigg)

There is one point upon which I should like to have an announcement before we go to a Division, and that is the question of the Petroleum Bill. Members of the House who were present on the 15th March will doubtless remember that my Bill would probably have got a Second Reading had it not been for the fact that the Under Secretary for the Home Office asked the House to reject the Bill upon that occasion upon the ground that the Government were about to introduce a Bill of their own upon the subject; and that not only were they about to introduce a Bill of their own, but the Bill was in a forward state of preparation. After the defeat of my Bill the right lion. Gentleman was asked when this Bill was to be introduced, and he said, "As soon as possible or shortly after Easter." Another question was asked on 14th April, and we were then told that the Bill would be introduced "very shortly," or at ally rate "before the end of the month." I had a conversation with the right Eon. Gentleman, and he hoped the Bill would be introduced before Whitsun. But Whitsuntide has gone by, and now the Government are taking the whole time of the House and no mention has been made of the intention of the Government with regard to legislation on petroleum. I think this is a time at which I should ask what their intentions are, because I do feel that when a private Member introduces a Bill in this House and it is conceived necessary for the Government to instruct one of the Under Secretaries to oppose the Bill, and the Bill is practically defeated on those grounds, and on a pledge that a Government Bill would be introduced, that pledge should be redeemed in something like reasonable time. No one can say that it is a reasonable time to introduce a Bill which, while not of a party character, is certainly of a controversial character, at so late a period of the session as that at which we have now arrived. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make some statement as to why this Bill has not yet been introduced, because the causes and evils are still going on, the deaths and accidents are still mounting up, but apparently the Government do not wish to take any cognisance of this matter. It may be put now, I suppose, in the same category as legislation in regard to automatic couplings. I should also like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to another Bill which has not yet been introduced— the Agricultural Holdings Bill. That Bill has been mentioned in every Queen's Speech since 1895, and has always occupied more or less the same lowly position of last on the list; but the First Lord of the Treasury, when his attention was called to the matter, remarked that it did not necessarily follow that it would not have a very much earlier place when introduced for the purpose of a Second Reading Debate. We have had no mention whatever of the Bill yet, and I doubt whether the solicitude of the Government is sincere in regard to the interests of the farmers from whom they so very often derive the bulk of their support when they appeal to the country. It will, I hope, be an object-lesson to the agriculturists that the Government are in the habit of making these promises, but apparently have not the wish or intention to fulfil them. Unless I have a satisfactory answer to my question in regard to the introduction of the Petroleum Bill I am afraid I shall have to trouble the House to take a Division.


The remark of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the Government make promises which they are not anxious to fulfil is a little inopportune, because my complaint is that the Government have announced their intention of bringing in a number of Bills which were not mentioned at the beginning of the session. This is always a painful moment when the House is asked to set aside the Standing Orders, and take the time of private Members. But we can scarcely drop a tear over either the Standing Orders or the private Member; both have been almost wiped out by repeated inroads upon them. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that this motion is usually made on the ground that unless the whole of the time of the House is taken the Government will not have time in the remaining part of the session to pass all the measures to which they are pledged. But the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has gone a step beyond that, because he has announced three or four Bills of first-class importance which are to be introduced, three of which, at any rate, turn upon money. Take the Military Works Bill. There has been a great deal too much military works; you are trusting too much to bricks and mortar, and whatever these military works are that are now proposed they will mean money. Then there is the Naval Works Bill. One of the great reproaches against the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty is that, ceasing to trust in ships, he, too, has put his trust in bricks and mortar. Bricks and mortar will be the death of the Navy, unless we stop this constant expenditure upon that kind of defence. But the naval works mean money, and millions have already been spent both on military works and on naval works—millions which have been taken out of the surpluses and diverted from their proper destination. Then there is the Clerical Tithes Bill, which, of course, means money. I wish to ask whether all this money is to come out of further Supplemental Estimates. In the Debates on the Finance Bill I ventured to suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not reckoned upon any Supplemental Estimates, which, according to our present experience, meant an extra two millions a year; but he interrupted me and said that this year there would be no Supplemental Estimates. But all these Bills, which mean money, mean also Supplemental Estimates; if they do not mean that, they mean loans, so that we shall be in the position, after stopping the repayment of our public debt, of adding further large sums to that debt. The fourth Bill is for taking over the responsibilities of the Niger Company. That is an enormous new departure in policy, which may raise most serious questions. I do hope the Government will not embark upon this Bill in the spirit of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman—that it will have to be passed by the end of the session. It will be an extremely difficult Bill to pass if it in any way answers to its name. I would make one suggestion for the saving of time, and that is that Her Majesty's Government should announce that they are going to drop the Undersized Fish Bill. No harm will be done by that being left over for another year, and IT that time the undersized fish will have got a little larger, and the Government's knowledge of fish generally will have become rather greater. The supply of fish has enormously increased, so that there is no immediate pressure for this Bill, and I would respectfully suggest that it should be dropped, and that the fishing industry should not be worried by the passing of a Bill which will not prevent them catching the fish, but only prevent the sale when they are caught.


I think there is some misconception as to the Naval Works Bill.


We have not seen it yet.


The reason why there is to he a Naval Works Bill is because the money is to be raised by loan. That has been perfectly well understood since the beginning of the session. On this point I trust the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will give us some more definite information about the state of the Bill than has been furnished. The Naval Works Bill which we have had has simply been a continuation Bill. The Government suspended some of the Standing Orders of this House, and all the Standing Orders of the other House, in order to carry the Army Annual Bill, which was quite unnecesssary, and I can see no justification for the delay which has taken place in the introduction of this Bill this year. The whole of the interest is now centred in the schedule, for the principle of it has been asserted over and over again. The schedule is now the only thing to which interest attaches, and, as I understand the First Lord of the Admiralty, the schedule this year will he of special importance because it contains new items. As these items may give rise to a good deal of discussion, I think we are entitled to have from the Government a positive statement that the Bill is ready to be produced, that all the urgency that can be applied to it will be applied, and that we shall have the Bill printed at the earliest possible date at the convenience of the Government. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the House some information as to the intentions of the Government in respect to this important measure.


I rise for a moment or two to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the great importance of allowing the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Bill to pass through the House this session. There is scarcely any Bill upon which there is a more unanimous feeling in Ireland in its favour, for it has met with the warmest approval in all quarters. The right hon. Gentleman, in his statement, did not dwell with much warmth on this Bill. I know that the Chief Secretary for Ireland takes a very deep interest in the measure, and the Members of the Belfast Chamber of Commerce are most anxious that it should be passed this session, not only in the interests of agriculture, but also in the interests of the whole of Ireland. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give the House a distinct assurance that this measure will receive attention, for it will relieve the minds of many people in Ireland who take a great interest in technical instruction. I will not occupy the time of the House any longer, and I earnestly express the hope that this Bill will be carried to a successful issue this session.


I intend to be very brief in the remarks I shall address to the House. want the right hon. Gentleman to forget for the moment that he is the First Lord of the Treasury, and to look at this question from the point of view of what is honourable between man and man. The subject I am raising is one which commands much sympathy upon both sides of the House. I want to know when the Government intend introducing legislation for the regulation of limited companies. This measure has been promised four times already, and yet a Bill has not been introduced in reference to it, although nearly all the Members of this House have expressed themselves in favour of doing away with the gigantic system of fraud which under the present state of legislation is rendered possible. It is little short of a crying scandal that in the month of March, 1898, the Lord Chief Justice stated that 24,000,000 of money were squandered every year because no amendment had been made in the law, The right hon. Gentleman will recollect the incident when I moved an Amendment to the Address dealing with this very subject, when it received the careful attention of the House, and I may add that, at the time, not a single newspaper took exception to legislation being intro- duced upon this subject, and if ever there was legislation that was popular—except with guinea pigs and company promoters—it is this. Why has this Bill not been introduced? I would like to see any hon. Member of this House standing before his constituents and saying that he is not in favour of this Bill. Is the influence of the guinea pigs in the Lobby too strong for the Government, or is there a majority of company directors in the Cabinet? I desire to ask for a clear explanation of this. It may he said in reply that legislation has been introduced in another place. I do not know whether that is so or not, but it has not come down to this House yet. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as a matter of fair dealing between man and man, why has the promise in reference to this measure not been fulfilled? Is it because—as a Tory Member has said—this House is honeycombed and moth-eaten with company promoters? Is the company promoting interest in this House so strong as to prevent legislation being passed to stop a gross system of mean, cowardly, and debasing fraud? Here we have the strongest Government of this century, with a majority of 150 behind them, practically confessing that they are unable to deal with this subject. And why? Is it because they are only in favour of legislation for selfish and guinea-pig interests?


I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say whether some further opportunity will be given for the discussion of Scotch business. Friday night's discussion elicited a very strong expression of opinion, which was shared upon both sides of the House, upon a point which I need not mention now. The discussion was not ended, and no conclusion was come to. I therefore wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will he good enough to bear in mind, when he is considering the question, the enormous importance of this subject to Scotland, and to state to-day when he will afford a further opportunity for the continuation of the discussion which was carried on on Friday night last. The discussion to which I refer was upon the question of the Education Minute, and both sides of the House then argued very generally and strongly in a direction adverse to the Government upon this point. I may also point out that there are several other Scotch Votes on which there has been no opportunity for discussion. As the Half-timers' Bill has now reached a very forward stage in Parliament, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is a similar measure on the Paper in the name of a private Member. There is a very strong feeling in Scotland that this is a question of much less scope and less difficult to deal with than in England, and I do ask the First Lord of the Treasury to consider the unenviable position which Scotland has been left in with regard to this matter, which is one which has excited a good deal of interest in Scotland.

MR. COGHILL (Stoke-upon-Trent)

I desire to urge upon the Government the necessity of proceeding with the Clerical Tithes Bill. I am surprised at the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to this measure, for he seems to have reserved all his opposition for this particular measure. I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will not be frightened by the threats of the Leader of the Opposition, and that he will persist in bringing forward this Bill, which I am sure will give great satisfaction in the country.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

I have no doubt the measure alluded to by my hon. friend will give great satisfaction in the country, especially to those who wish to see the downfall of the present Ministry. One might have supported the Government at this stage of the session if the right hon. Gentleman had limited his proposals to the measures which were contained in the Queen's Speech, for in regard to some of the very useful measures to which he referred no exception could be taken. We know perfectly well what the present proposal of the Government means. It means that useful Bills, like the Money Lending Bill—which is of great importance to the country—the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill, and other important Bills, will be imperilled in order that the Government may be able to spring a certain Report upon the House of Commons and rush through this House, by the force of their great majority, what is nothing but the appropriation of public money and the rating of other people for the relief of one particular class of their supporters. I hope hon. Members will take a Division against this proposal, if only as a protest against the policy of the Government in endeavouring to repeat the experiment which they carried out in reference to the Agricultural Rating Act.

*MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Nottingham, Mansfield)

I do not rise for the purpose of championing the cause of private Members, for they seem to me to be past praying for. What I wish to point out to the Government is this—if the House passes this Resolution the Government will have a considerable amount of time placed at their disposal. Therefore they could use some of that time in trying to pass a measure which the Home Secretary has stated was practically ready, and which he is anxious to introduce. I refer to the Bill for giving practical effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Burial Grounds. The majority of that Committee was composed of Ministerial Members, but both Churchmen and Nonconformists. were represented. Now, that Committee has arrived at conclusions which would form the basis of a satisfactory measure. I do not say that the subject is considered to be wholly uncontentious, but it is no longer a Party question. I know hon. Members on the other side are as anxious as we arc on this side for an early settlement of the question, and it seems to me that it will be a great pity for the Government to lose so favourable an opportunity of dealing with the subject. If the measure be introduced, it will occupy a great deal less time and cause much less trouble than the Bill to give a large amount of public money to the clergy of the Church of England. I hope the Government will introduce the measure, even if they fail to pass it this session, as I believe it would hasten the close of a very painful and protracted struggle.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I am afraid we shall at this time of the session have to leave the dead to bury its dead. Apart from all questions of political differences, it does seem to me a mistake, at the advent of that happy moment when we shall cease to have the pleasure of each others' society; to suddenly spring three or four new Bills on the House. I do not think the Leader of the House ought fairly and honestly to do it unless he can show that it has been rendered necessary by circumstances which now exist, and which are different from those which obtained at the commencement of the session. The Leader of the Opposition did not exaggerate in the least when he said that if this clerical Bill is brought in we shall take a most exhaustive and minute interest in even other Bill, with the deliberate and open intention of defeating this Bill so far as we can possibly do it by effluxion of time. I never conceal the fact when I am obstructing. Under the circumstances, if a Bill of this kind is brought in at the close of the session, we shall have a right to render it, so far as we possibly can, impossible for the Government to pass it. We on this side may differ from the views of the Government, but they have a large majority, and if they brought in a Bill at the commencement of the session I should not attempt to obstruct it; but this Bill was not alluded to in the Queen's Speech, and I certainly gathered from the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a deputation a little while ago that it was not intended to legislate on this matter this year. As a matter of fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would not include the money required for it in his Budget, and he did not give the slightest hint that this Bill was to be brought in. Under these circumstances it does appear to me to be a mistake—and I say it not from any Party feeling—to bring in at this time of the session a Bill of such a very controversial nature. There was one Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, but he did not say he would attempt to pass it, and that is tin Money Lending Bill. That Bill is in a very different position. The subject was referred to a very able Committee last session, many witnesses were heard, and a Report which I believe was unanimous was communicated to the House. The Bill was alluded to in the Queen's Speech. I refer to the matter myself because I very much regret that my hon. friend who took such an active and able interest in it is away. The Bill has already passed the House of Lords, and I do not think it would take a very long time to pass through this House. It would do a very large amount of good, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he is not going to push forward this clerical Bill, of which we know nothing at present, and that he will give facilities—for it is a Government measure—for passing the Money Lending Bill.

*MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe)

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the Board of Education Bill, if he cannot name the time when he proposes to introduce it, whether he would tell us how much notice he will give. I wish also to associate myself with all that has been said as to the undesirability of springing on the House of Commons on this the 19th day of June such a controversial matter as the Clergy Bill. I go further than my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, and say that no really controversial Bill should be announced or brought forward by the Government after Whitsuntide. I yield to no man in my admiration of some of the qualities of the Leader of the House, but I am bound to say that, compared with some of his predecessors, of whom I have seen five or six, he fails sometimes—I say so with all respect—as regards the ordinary, everyday, humdrum business of the House in the matter of procedure. The only way in which we can have that reasonable certainty which everyone desires is for the Government, between Easter and Whitsuntide, to get forward with the Second Readings of their larger Bills and some of their minor Bills, to utilise the Grand Committees in the way suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, and then to proceed as rapidly as possible with nothing but Committee work after Whitsuntide. The right hon. Gentleman has given a great measure of reasonable certainty with regard to Supply—I congratulate him very much on it—and he gives us a reasonable notice of a week or ten days as to what Supply is to be taken on Fridays. I would venture to very respectfully suggest whether he would not give us next session a reasonable certainty also in regard to other business. The worst thing any Government can do is to announce in the later days in June a Bill which will be a very controversial measure.

MR. ARTHUR J. MOORE (Derry City)

I desire, before the right hon. Gentleman answers all these questions, to join with the hon. Member for South Belfast in urging on him the extreme necessity of pressing forward the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Bill. This is of the very greatest import ance, and anyone who has any knowledge of the magnificent work done by the hon. Member for South Dublin, without any Government assistance, must see that there is a great future on the same lines which this Bill proposes. I daresay it will be necessary to consider the Bill very closely, and to press on the Government certain modifications in Committee, but I earnestly hope that this Bill may not be abandoned. It is a very important Bill, which is earnestly desired, not only by the large towns, particularly in the North of Ireland, but also by the agricultural districts in the West of Ireland. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will he able to assure us that he is in a position to fix an early date for the further consideration of the Bill.


I have had a large number of critics—kindly critics I admit—in the course of this Debate, and they belong to various classes. There are gentlemen who think we have brought forward too many Bills, there are gentlemen who think we have not brought forward enough of Bills, and there are gentlemen who think that it is our bounden duty to press through certain Bills in which they are interested, but who at the same time say that the Bills would require very close scrutiny. We all know that that is a House of Commons euphemism for a considerable amount of debate. The hon. Member who spoke last but one—the Member for the Rushcliffe Division—complains of the method in which Government business has been arranged in the course of the present session, and says we have got into a tangle.


I said before Easter.


I do not remember a session in which Government business was less entangled, and I have less hesitation in making the observation because I attribute none of the credit to myself, and I gladly recognise that both sides of the House have seconded the Government in carrying out the work. The Government business has, as I think both before and after Easter, gone through with remarkable smoothness. The hon. Gentleman further says that all Bills which we hope to make progress with ought to be read a second time before Whitsun, and he specially referred to the Clerical Tithes Bill of which so much unexpected notice has been taken by hon. Members opposite. I think there might be a good deal to be said for that course, and I might in the innocence of my heart have assented to and easily fallen in with it. But now it appears everything is to be stopped until the Bill is withdrawn, and I therefore congratulate myself that I did not carry out the policy of the hon. Gentleman and read the Bill a second time before Whitsuntide. I am not, of course, discussing the provisions of the Bill, though I must say they loom too largely in the somewhat heated imagination of hon. Gentlemen opposite. But there is one criticism of which I really must complain. Hon. Members talk as if no notice or hint had been given that the Government desired to deal with this question. It was perfectly well known that the Government desired to deal with it, and so well Was it known that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean asked me a question last week on the subject, and I made no concealment, and framed my answer in such a way that anybody listening to me would know that it was one of the subjects which the Government were anxious to introduce. It is a measure not quite of the first importance in a Parliamentary sense, but it is a very much needed act of justice. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo, and some other hon. Gentlemen also, asked me a great many questions about the distribution of the time for Supply. I do not think that the Debate on this resolution is on modern conditions a very fitting opportunity for discussing the allocation of the time for Supply. It is imposssible for the Government to give more time under the Sessional Order than they have given, and I do not think pressure ought to be put upon us in this Debate to distribute such time as we have got more favourably to one section of this House than to another. But I must observe that the hon. Member for East Mayo has chosen this opportunity to raise again the criticisms he has more than once delivered on the introduction by the Government of Bills under the Ten-Minutes Rule. It appears to me that any Bill which is not of a long and complicated character may properly and wisely be introduced under that rule. In common with every private Member in the House, he has the right to introduce a Bill of the greatest con- ceivable importance and complexity, not only without the amount of discussion and explanation which is avoided under the Ten-Minutes Rule, but without any discussion or explanation at all, and practically without even the power of taking a hostile vote. I maintain that in these circumstances, when the Government are introducing Bills not of great complexity, and which can be easily explained in the compass of the Ten-Minutes Rule, it is really a judicious and wise saving of the time of the House that that Rule should be taken advantage of. I grant, of course, that there may be great constitutional issues—like the London Government Bill—which ought not to be dealt with under that Rule, but, on the whole, I hope the general feeling of the House is in favour of proceeding under that Rule rather than reverting to the more antiquated and complicated procedure which is justified in some cases, but which only should be used when absolutely necessary. The hon. Gentleman has told us what view he takes of the Irish Agriculture and Technical Instruction Bill, and these differ fundamentally from those of other hon. Gentlemen from Ireland who have spoken strongly in favour of it. The Bill is not a large measure, but it is an important one. I believe all classes in Ireland desire that that Bill should be passed except the hon. Member for Mayo.


What I said was that the Bill was exceedingly defective, and that it would require very full discussion. I further said that I would rather see a good Bill passed next year than a bad Bill this year.


Whether the Bill can be improved or not I will not anticipate. I am sorry the hon. Member takes the view he does, and I am sure that only a small section of House share the hon. Gentleman's opinion.


All I ask is reasonable time for the discussion of the Bill.


We may differ as to what reasonable time is. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire asked me a supplemental question to that put to me from this side of the House in regard to the Secondary Education Bill. I greatly desire to see that Bill passed into law this session, and I will give adequate notice as to when it comes on. I would not like to pledge myself, however, as to the number of days' notice which I will give when the Bill is to be taken. I do not know that I need discuss the views of the hon. Member for Brigg, who has expressed a desire for the introduction of the departmental Bills, and, still further, that a Bill should be introduced on petroleum. If the hon. Gentleman wants to see the Bill, I might be able to arrange with my right hon. friend.


I only asked that the pledge given at the time by the Under Secretary for the Home Department, who made a speech against the Bill introduced by a private Member, should be redeemed. On more than one occasion, in answer to questions in the House, the promise was made that that pledge would be carried out.


I was not aware that a promise had been given, and I should like to see the terms of the promise. But if a promise was made to introduce a Bill in the course of the present session, that, promise of course, must be kept. I certainly cannot undertake to give the time for that "reasonable discussion" which the hon. Member for East Mayo desires for the Irish Bill in which he has expressed an interest. I do not think I need say anything about the Naval Works Bill, except that when criticisms have been passed on the Government for not bringing it in earlier in the session, I would remind the hon. Gentlemen that the later it is brought in the more possible is it to foresee the works which will have to be carried out under the Act when the Bill becomes law. I do not think I need say anything more. We have been told that there is not time to pass the Bills on the Paper, and we have been also pressed to bring in and pass a great many more Bills; but these two criticisms are mutually contradictory. It_ is impossible, at the present stage of the session, to foresee what amount of business we shall get through. But, in spite of the threat or the gloomy prophecy of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I hope the House will continue the discussion of the Bills for the remainder of the session in the same business like way it has shown hitherto.


What about the Company Promoters' Bill?


That is one of the Bills that I am urged to introduce by the very Gentleman whose friends tell me that I cannot pass the Bills already on the Paper.


It is in the Lords; why don't you bring it down here?


We are now discussing the business of the Commons, and we have neither the right nor the title to go beyond that. My hon. friend and colleague in the representation of Manchester asked me whether we could find time for discussing the Committee on Municipal Trading. I cannot promise to find time for that.


What about Private 'Members' Bills?


It is far too early to consider whether the Government could conceivably take under their protection any Private Members' Bills, and certainly I cannot be betrayed into expressing any view on that subject. Indeed I have not any view upon it; and if I had I should be much too wise to express it at the present stage of the session.

MR. TENNANT (Berwickshire)

What does the right hon. Gentleman say about the Factories Bill?


The right hon. Baronet the member for the Forest of Dean says he would rather see a large and complete measure introduced next

year, or in some subsequent session, than a deficient and incomplete measure this session. I will consult my right hon. friend the Home Secretary on that question; but I may say, in the meantime, that I understood from him that, useful as a Bill dealing with dangerous trades would be, a good deal has been done since last year in framing rules governing these dangerous trades, and that the necessity of introducing a measure is not nearly so pressing as it was when we had a discussion on the subject last July. But I will consult with my right hon. friend whether, after the observations of the right hon. Baronet, anything would be gained by introducing a Bill this session.


As the Notice of Motion for the Select Committee on Municipal Trading is put down every day, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to take it without giving us notice when he will take it?


It seems to me that that is one of those resolutions which the Government are surely justified in taking at any opportunity they have. It is greatly to be regretted that the inquiry is blocked in any part of the House; but I do not think that, in submitting to such an inconvenience, I am called upon to give a day's notice of the time at which the discussion will be brought on.


Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Clerical Tithes Bill will come on?


I think I had better not say anything about that.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 119. (Division List No. 195.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Barry, Rt.Hn.A.H.S.-(Hunts) Blundell, Colonel Henry
Aird, John Bartley, George C. T. Bolitho, Thomas Bedford
Anson, Sir William Reynell Barton, Dunbar Plunket Bond, Ed vard
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bathurst,Hon.Allen Benjamin Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Bristol Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-
Bailey, James (Walworth) Beach, W. W. B. (Hants.) Boulrois, Edmund
Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness) Beckett, Ernest William Bousfield, William Robert
Baird, John George A. Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn
Balcarres, Lord Beresford, Lord Charles Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Man.) Bethell, Commander Brookfield, A. Montague
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds) Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Brown, Alexander H.
Banbury, Frederick George Biddulph, Michael Burdett-Coutts, W.
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Blakiston-Houston, John Butcher, John George
Campbell, RtHn.JA.(Glasgow) Heaton, John Henniker Nicholson, William Graham
Cavendish, R. F- (N. Lancs.) Henderson, Alexander Nicol, Donald Ninian
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich) Hoare, E. Brodie (Hamstead) Pease, Herb. Pike(Darlington)
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Philphotts, Captain Arthur
Chamberlain, RtHonJ (Birm.) Hobhouse, Henry Pierpoint, Robert
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Holland, Hon. Lionel R.(Bow) Pilkington, R. (Lancs,Newton
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Charrington, Spencer Howard, Joseph Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Chelsea, Viscount Howell, William Tudor Pretyman, Ernest George
Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth) Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Hozier, Hn.James Henry Cecil Pryce-Jones,Lt.-Col. Edward
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Purvis, Robert
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.) Pym, C. Guy
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Rankin, Sir James
Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Compton, Lord Alwyne Jessel,Captain HerbertMerton Renshaw, Charles Bine
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Johnston, William (Belfast) Rentoul, James Alexander
Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow) Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Ridley,Rt.Hn.SirMatthew W.
Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Ritchie,Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Cranborne, Viscount Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H. Robertson, Herbert, (Hackney
Cripps, Charles Alfred Kimber, Henry Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Cruddas, William Donaldson Laurie, Lieut.-General Round, James
Curzon, Viscount Lawrence,SirE.Durning-(Corn Royds, Clement Molyneux
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Russell, Gen. F.S.(Chelten'm)
Dalkeith, Earl of Lea, SirThomas(Londonderry) Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lecky,Rt. Hon. William E. H. Rutherford, John
Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)
Denny, Colonel Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Sasson, Sir Edward Albert
Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P. Leighton, Stanley Savory, Sir Joseph
Digby, John K D. Wingfield- Llewelyn, Sir D.- (Swansea Seely, Charles Hilton
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Sharpe, William Edward T.
Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Simeon, Sir Barrington
Doxford, William Theodore Long, Col C. W. (Eversham Smith, Jas. Parken (Lanarks)
Drage, Geoffrey Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Spencer, Ernest
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Lorne, Marquess of Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Lowe, Francis William Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)
Fardell, Sir T. George Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. Lucas-Shadewell, William Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Fergusson, Rt Hn SirJ(Manc'r) Lyell, Sir Leonard Stock, James Henry
Finch, George H. Lyttleton, Hon. Alfred Stone, Sir Benjamin
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Macartney, W. G. Ellison Strauss, Arthur
Firbank, Joseph Thomas Macdona, John Cumming Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.
Fisher, William Hayes M'Arthur, Charles (Liv'rpool) Thorburn, Walter
FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose- M'Calmont, Col.J.(Antrim, E.) Thornton, Percy M.
Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. M'Iver,Sir L (Edinburgh, W.) Tollemache, Henry James
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Malcalm, Ian Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Fletcher, Sir Henry Manners, Lord Edward W. J. Tritton, Charles Ernest
Flower, Ernest Maple, Sir John Blundell Usborne, Thomas
Fry, Lewis Marks, Henry Hananel Valentia, Viscount
Galloway, William Johnson Martin, Richard Biddulph Verney, Hon. Richard G-
Garfit, William Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E. Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Gibbs, Hon, Vicary (St Albans) Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)
Giles, Charles Tyrrell Melville, Beresford Valentine Warr, Augustus Frederick
Gilliat, John Saunders Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Middlemore, J. Throgmorton Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Goschen, Rt.Hn.G.J.(StGeo.'s) Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J. Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)
Gourley,Sir Edward Temperley Milner, Sir Frederick George Wilson, J. W. (Worcester, N.)
Graham, Henry Robert Milward, Colonel Victor Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Monk, Charles James Wodehouse, Rt.Hn.E.R (Bath)
Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) Montagu, Hn. J. S. (Hants) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Woodall, William
Greene, W. Raymond.(Cambs.) Moore, Arthur (Londonderry) Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Greville, Hon. Ronald More,Robt.Jasper(Shropshire) Wyndham, George
Gunter, Colonel Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'ths.) Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo. Morrison, Walter Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W. Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) Young, Commander (Berks,E.)
Hanson, Sir Reginald Mount, William George
Hare, Thomas Leigh Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Heath, James Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Sir William Walrond and
Myers, William Henry Mr. Anstruther.
Allan, William (Gateshead) Hammond, John (Carlow) Paulton, James Mellor
Allison, Robert Andrew Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- Perks, Robert William
Ambrose, Robert Hazell, Walter Pinkerton, John
Austin, M. Healy, Thomas J. (Wexford) Power, Patrick Joseph
Barlow, John Emmott Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H. Provand,Andrew Dryburgh
Billson, Alfred Horniman, Frederick John Richardson, J. (Durham,S.E.)
Blake, Edward Jacoby, James Alfred Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Johnson-Ferguson,JabezEdw. Robertson, Edm.(Dundee)
Caldwell, James Joicey, Sir James Robson, William nordon
Cameron,SirCharles(Glasgow Jordan, Jeremiah Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Carew, James Laurence Kearley, Hudson E. Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Carvell, Patrick G. Hamilton Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Causton, Richard Knight Kitson, Sir James Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)
Cawley, Frederick Labouchere, Henry Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Channing, Francis Allston Langley, Batty Souttar, Robinson
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.) Leese,SirJoseph F.(Accrington Spicer, Albert
Clough, Walter Owen Leng, Sir John Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Commins, Andrew Lewis, John Herbert Steadman, William Charles
Crombie, John William Lloyd-George, David Stevenson, Francis F.
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Lough, Thomas Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Dalziel, James Henry MacAleese, Daniel Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles MacNeill,JohnGordonSwift Tennant, Harold John
Dillon, John M'Ewan, William Thomas,Abel(Carmarthen,E.)
Donelan, Captain A. M'Ghee, Richard Trevelvan, Charles Philips
Doogan, P. C. M'Kenna, Reginald Ure, Alexander
Duckworth, James M'Leod, John Wallace, Robert
Dunn, Sir William Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Walton, J. Lawson, (Leeds, S.)
Evans, SamuelT. (Glamorgan) Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Warner Thos. Courtenay T.
Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton) Montagu,Sir S. (Whitechapel) Wedderburn, Sir william
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Morgan,J Lloyd(Carmarthen) Weir, James Galloway
Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.) Morgan, W P. (Merthyr) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Fenwick, Charles Morton,Edw J.C.(Devonport) Williams, John Carvell(Notts.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Moulton, John Fletcher Wills, Sir William Henry
Flavin, Michael Joseph Norton, Capt. Cecil William Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Wilson, John (Govan)
Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis O'Connor,James(Wicklow, W. Woods, Samuel
Gibney, James O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Oldroyd, Mark TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Gold, Charles O'Malley, William Scott and Mr. Harold
Gurdon, Sir William B. Palmer,SirCharlesM.(Durham Reckitt.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and agreed to.