HC Deb 18 October 1899 vol 77 cc166-81

I beg to move—"That during the autumn sittings no motions for leave to bring in Bills be given except by a Minister of the Crown, that on every day Government business do have precedence, and at the conclusion thereof Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without question put, and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 be extended to all the days of the week." I do not think that in any great part of the House there will be any objection to this motion, because even those who think it is most unjust that the Government should desire to curtail their liberty in discussing matters on the Address will not be affected by it. All the motion does is to say that when the Address is concluded the rest of the time that this autumn session may take up will be entirely devoted to the business for which we are called together. That is a plan so obviously in accordance with common-sense and so calculated to meet the general convenience of the House that I trust it will pass without discussion or division.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That during the Autumn Sittings no motions for leave to bring in Bills be given except by a Minister of the Crown; that on every day Government Business do have precedence, and at the conclusion thereof Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put; and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 be extended to all the days of the week."—


I presume that this motion, which is in itself a reasonable one, raises the general question of business, and that therefore we can upon it ask from the Government some further light as to the reason for not regarding this as a separate session.


I would point out that in strictness this motion does not raise any question relating to the Address or to the mode of dealing with the Address, but perhaps it is the general wish of the House that some latitude should be allowed.


To put it plainly, we should like to know what the advantages are which the Government think they derive from making this the commencement of the session of next year instead of having it a special session by itself. Is there any other advantage in that course than the advantage of avoiding a second Queen's Speech? And if that is the only advantage, how can the right hon. Gentleman say that, after all, we shall have all the privileges and opportunities that a second Queen's Speech would give us? The right hon. Gentleman says that as far as possible he will observe precedent. I will take the case of 1878. How different the whole position of the House in relation to its business is now from what it was then. Everyone knows now that the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne is the main opportunity which independent Members of the House possess of bringing forward those subjects which they wish to have discussed, which they wish not only to advocate and to expatiate upon, but also to take the judgment of the House upon. Whether that is a convenient system or not I need not inquire. It may be that sometimes it is carried on to such extreme length that it is exceedingly inconvenient—that is quite possible—but it is the fact that the Address forms the main opportunity of bringing up subjects for discussion. The occasions upon which separate subjects can be brought forward in Supply have been notoriously restricted. I am rather a partisan of the restriction, therefore I am not complaining of the process; but let us recognise that the process has taken place. This, therefore, is the great opportunity independent Members have of bringing forward their views and of obtaining the judgment of the House upon them. What does the right hon. Gentleman gain by not making this a separate session in itself? Does he not solely avoid a second Queen's Speech? If this had been a totus teres atque rotundus session in itself, there would have been no question with regard to voting the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, for we should then have had the ordinary opportunity of raising questions in January or February next. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to explain with a little more precision the advantage to be obtained from the course he has adopted.


I understand from you, Sir, that there is a certain irregularity in this discussion, but that it would be to the convenience of the House to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say upon the question and what I have to urge in reply. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be under the impression that I have got some dark scheme.


Not at all.


Some occult policy. The reasons which animated me in this matter are the ordinary motives by which I think every Leader of the House is animated—namely, a desire in parallel cases to follow precedent unless there seems to be some now or exceptional circumstance which makes precedent inapplicable. That really is not the case now. There are two precedents as far as I know, and only two—the precedents of 1878 and of 1885. If my memory serves me right, what took place in 1878 was this. Parliament had to be summoned in the autumn to deal with the problem of the Afghan War, just as now we are met to deal with the problem of the South African war. There was then a Queen's Speech substantially confined to the issue which had caused Parliament to be called together. The sittings terminated with an adjournment. The House met again in February, and there was a Ministerial statement. Upon that discussion arose and at least one division took place. I think there was one on the Amendment and one on the main question. The course then adopted by the Government was criticised neither by the Leader of the Opposition here or in the other House. So much for the precedent of 1878, which seems exactly on all fours with the present case. Then comes the precedent of 1885. The session of 1884 was terminated by an adjournment, not prorogation. It met again in February, 1885, when Mr. Gladstone made a short statement on the business before the House, and I think on some foreign affairs. I do not think there was a division or a discussion. The right hon. Gentleman says that since 1878 there has been a great extension of the discussion on the Queen's Speech.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

But a great curtailment of other opportunities.


I am not sure that the increase of facilities for discussion on the Queen's Speech is regarded with universal favour by those, to whatever party they belong, who are interested in the progress of public business. A Division on the Queen's Speech is never, and never can be, a Division on the merits of the question at issue, but it is a more or less successful device for turning a Government out of office. The general course of the Government has not been devised for curtailing the liberties of Members, but simply with a view to following out, in a new case, the precedents previously set, first by one party and then by another, on similar occasions in the past.

MR. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E)

The right hon. Gentleman bases his whole case on the two precedents of 1878 and 1885. May I be permitted to point out that they have no bearing on the present case? In 1885 Mr. Gladstone expressly disclaimed that what was done in 1878 was any precedent for what was done in 1885, because the two cases were entirely different. What was done in the autumn of 1884 is no precedent for the resolution before the House, because the Speech con- tained many topics, and the debate upon it lasted nine nights, and ranged over a variety of subjects. Moreover, private Bills were introduced, and business went on through October, November, and December in the ordinary way. Now let us go back to the precedent of 1878. It is not correct that no adverse comment was made on the action taken by the Government of the day. A statement was made by no less a person than the then Leader of the Opposition, Lord Hartington, who took the line of argument adopted now by my right hon. friend the present Leader of the Opposition. What will be the position of the general body of Members of the House in February next, when the session is resumed? I have never moved an Amendment to the Address, and I do not suppose I ever shall, but it is a valuable privilege. Suppose, during the three months we adjourn, the war goes on—and there is no doubt that it is a subject of great interest throughout the whole country—or suppose other subjects of national interest turn up, what opportunities will hon. Members have of calling attention to them? There is the vote of censure, the adjournment of the House, and there are the Foreign and Colonial Office Votes. The Leader of the House would decline to recognise a vote of censure unless moved by the Leader of the Opposition. With regard to the Foreign and Colonial Office Votes, it is within the common knowledge of the House that the First Lord of the Treasury—no doubt to the general convenience of Members—fixes the time the Votes should be taken, and the amount of time to be devoted to the discussion of them. Again, a motion for adjournment, though open to all Members, is an awkward way of raising a discussion, and, it never produces a very satisfactory debate. So that, practically, we lose all opportunity of fairly criticising any specific matter arising out of the policy of the Government at home or abroad during the next three months. I say that that is a most unfair position to put the House of Commons in. The first three days of the session are broken days, and I would suggest that the Leader of the House should assign the first three days of next session for the general discussion of public affairs; or why should not the House be prorogued in the ordinary way, and a new session begun in February? The expendi- ture of time would be some three or four days, and the gain in convenience would be great.


I do not rise to press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer now: he has very fairly stated that he is willing to consider the matter. This is a very serious question in regard to the privileges of the House, and I am quite sure, from the language and conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, that he would never desire to use the power of a majority to impair the rights of the minority. The question of the Queen's Speech is a very serious question: the Speech is a very ancient and fundamental part of the constitution of Parliament. When the Queen calls Parliament together she states in the opening of an ordinary session the objects with which Parliament is assembled. Now in this what I may call interim session, of which nobody complains, one subject, the war now proceeding, is stated as the object of calling Parliament together, and the Queen may never state the general objects of the session of Parliament. It is part of the accepted conditions of a Queen's Speech that, generally speaking, it shall state to the House of Commons what are to be the principal subjects the House is to have under discussion. The right hon. Gentleman has said that Amendments to the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech are not important—


I did not say they were unimportant. I said that a division on an Amendment could not be taken as a decision on the question specifically raised by the Amendment.


In a sense no doubt that is so; an Amendment to the Address being adopted has the effect of throwing out the Government. But Amendments to the Address are used for the purpose of bringing subjects under Parliamentary discussion, subjects that would not otherwise come under consideration, and in reference to many subjects it may legitimately be said that the debate on the Address is the birthplace of measures ultimately carried through Parliament. Now, Sir, there are special reasons why the House should not be deprived of that power of discussion. In the next session the war may still be going on, and very serious matters may arise in relation to foreign affairs, such as are often, in fact, usually, made the subject of discussion on the Address. Therefore it seems to me, so far from this being a condition of things which should diminish the right of discussion, circumstances may arise making it specially important that at the beginning of next year the House should have free and full opportunity of discussion, and, if necessary, of division. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to two precedents, but that of 1885, is directly contrary to that of 1878, and on consideration I think he will see the precedent of 1885 is rather against than in favour of the procedure he now proposes. As regards 1878, which I remember perfectly well, the impression on my mind is that the procedure adopted at the suggestion of Sir Stafford Northcote was not satisfactory. I ventured to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman just now with the remark that since 1885 opportunities for Members to raise discussions had been reduced, and that is my impression. I have myself, perhaps, been a guilty party in taking more and more time from private Members, and the demand of Governments for more time is made at earlier periods than formerly, and thus many opportunities that would otherwise arise for raising discussion are excluded. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider what appears to be his present view of the matter. I do not see what advantage would be gained by having an adjournment instead of a prorogation. In all these precedents the adjournment has been for a comparatively short period. In 1878 the debates upon the subject of the special session ended, just before Christmas, and the adjournment was to February. That is what may be called an adjournment of the House, but an adjournment from October to February can hardly be called an adjournment; it does not come within the meaning of the term. If you drop into the habit of adjourning for four or five months, why not adjourn for six, seven, eight months? Of course that is putting an extreme case. We ought to be very careful to prevent the establishment of what I call an unconstitutional precedent. An adjournment should cover a short and not a long period. It was a short period in 1878, from just before Christmas until early in February. So, in 1884, the special sitting went on until nearly Christmas, and parliament met again in February. That may fairly be called an adjournment, but from October to February, is an abuse of the term adjournment. Therefore I cannot see that we are asking the Government to place themselves or the House in any position of disadvantage or inconvenience in asking for a prorogation instead of an adjournment. It seems to me the natural and legitimate way to proceed. To take the other course would be unusual and, I think, not in conformity with the precedents referred to; it would deprive the minority of the House of opportunities which are of great value and might be of special value at the meeting of the House in February. I would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman not to announce his final decision now, and I hope he may see his way to terminate tins present session with a prorogation.


I must ask the House to bear with me for a third time. I have listened with great attention to the appeals made from various quarters of the House, made, I am bound to say, with great moderation, and in a tone of which I have no reason to complain. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and I think the Leader of the Opposition, would desire to see the session terminated as soon as we have finished the business for which we are called together, and a new session commenced next year; and that desire was also expressed by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, who suggested or asked me to consider another plan, by which any discussion thought desirable should not be confined to one night but should be given an extended duration. I will look into the matter, and will only now say that the last thing we on this bench desire, and everybody on this side desires, is to curtail the privileges of the House or the full liberty of discussion constitutionally enjoyed by Members. We are quite aware that under the happy institutions under which we live we find ourselves sometimes in a majority, sometimes in a minority, and none of us if so minded, if sufficiently unprincipled as to desire for particular ends to curtail the liberties of Members, are so foolish as to take action the result of which might recoil upon ourselves. The House will perhaps allow me to think the matter over and consider the various cir- cumstances of the case. I still think—I will not argue it again—that the weight of precedent is in favour of the course I suggested, but the whole matter shall have impartial consideration, and I hope on Thursday, if asked a question, to state our decision.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)

There are two questions I desire to ask. One is whether Supplementary Estimates other than those connected with South Africa will be taken, during the session.


No, Sir.


The other question is one which arose in the course of last session. With regard to Orders required to lie laid on the Table of the, House, will facilities be given for discussion in the event of a motion in reference thereto bring thought necessary?


Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will communicate with me privately. I am very anxious that the rule as to Orders being on the Table for forty days should remain a reality and not become a farce.


I am extremely gratified that Her Majesty's Government have not finally committed themselves to an adjournment of the session. The rule of Parliament allowing Amendments to the Address adequately meets the present position, but it may be that in February new emergencies may arise justifying other Amendments to the Address. We are now engaged in a sad and serious enterprise of great moment, and when Parliament meets again in February events of great gravity may require Parliamentary discussion through the medium of the reply to the Queen's Speech. These things should weigh very strongly with the right hon. Gentleman in reconsidering the matter as to whether the method of prorogation should not be adopted rather than that of adjournment. There is another consideration which has been suggested to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Plymouth; that is whether, in the case of a mere adjournment to a definite date, if any emergency should arise rendering the calling together of Parliament again necessary, you would have any method of doing so. I very much question whether you would have any power of calling Parliament together to consider that emergency. I hold that, on the whole, the preferable way will be to prorogue instead of to adjourn, to give us a second Queen's Speech, and a second opportunity for hon. Members opposite to put down Amendments to the Address with regard to matters which may have then arisen. I would now refer to the Resolution before the House. Nobody is more convinced than I am of the necessity of maintaining the rights of private Members; nobody is more convinced than I am that those rights are taken away with increasing frequency and increasing severity; and 1 must say that when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House tells us that the opportunities for discussing the Estimates have increased I am somewhat startled, because I remember that something like 50 out of a total of 150 Votes were closured automatically, without any discussion whatever upon them, during the last days of the session recently concluded. But strongly as I feel about the rights of private Members, I do as strongly feel upon this occasion that Her Majesty's Government have a most complete and unanswerable case for asking to be given the whole of the time of the House during this special session. Therefore I shall have no hesitation in voting for the motion. But there is one point to which I should like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention. He proposes that Standing Order 56 should apply to every sitting of the House—that is that you, Sir, should leave the chair, whenever Supply is to be taken, without question put. In an ordinary session that is saved by the clause that on the first day of Supply, on the Votes for the Army, Navy, or Civil Service, an Amendment may be moved on your leaving the chair, in order that grievances may be brought forward referring to either of the classes of Estimates intended to be considered. That is a vindication of the ancient and most important rule of Parliament, that grievances should precede Supply. But if no such Amendment is to be allowed upon this occasion we should have Supply before grievances—Supply first, and grievances afterwards, or not at all. I understand that the method by which Her Majesty's Government propose to proceed is by that of Supplementary Estimates. Upon Supplementary Estimates there is no first leaving the chair, because you are supposed to have left the chair when the original Estimate was raised, of which these Supplementary Estimates are the corollaries. But, in this instance, the Supplementary Estimates arise from serious questions of policy; it is not an addition to the Army which we ask for in the ordinary way; it is an addition to the Army from a new state of things, a new war, an entirely novel enterprise. Therefore, what I would submit is that practically the House will be deprived, first of all, of its general power of making grievances precede Supply, and then I am not quite sure that the House will not be precluded, when Members come to consider the Supplementary Estimates, from criticising the policy out of which those Supplementary Estimates arise. Discussion on Supplementary Estimates is strictly confined to the Estimate itself, and usually questions of policy are excluded. I believe, however, it is the rule that although in the ordinary course of events Supplementary Estimates do not give rise to any right to discuss the policy on which the original Estimates are founded, nevertheless, if those Supplementary Estimates are such as to involve a new departure in policy, that policy may be discussed. The question here will be as to which of those two rules the Supplementary Estimates come under. My own opinion is that these Supplementary Estimates do disclose and are founded upon n new policy which has not been previously submitted to the House, and consequently that it will be proper that the House should be allowed to discuss that policy. If that be not so, then under the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the House will be deprived of its ancient right to make grievances precede Supply.


Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would kindly permit me to suggest this for his consideration. The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, perfectly aware that when the House stands adjourned it stands adjourned on the action of the House itself. Adjournment is absolutely distinct from prorogation. The latter is the act of the Crown applying to both Houses, while adjournment is the act of the House itself and applying to that House alone. If this House ten days hence stood adjourned till the 13th or 14th February I believe that no power, not even that of the Crown, could be legally exercised to call Parliament together before that day. Even in regard to prorogation to a definite time by the act of the Crown, it was not possible for the Crown to summon Parliament in the interval until some early statutes were discovered by which the difficulty was surmounted.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman to finish his motion at the word "precedence"; that would only compel him to move the adjournment of the House. No one can assert that the asking of a question on the motion for the adjournment of the House has ever been used for the purposes of obstruction. It cannot be brought forward for that reason. On the other hand, if the motion is passed in the form proposed the House will be prevented

having control over the large and increasing number of Orders which have to lie on the Table of the House for a number of days. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that some modification is required, and he has told the right hon. Baronet that he will consider some method by which those Orders can be considered by the House. Under these circumstances, unless the right hon. Gentleman can give satisfactory reasons, I beg to move the elision of the words after "precedence."

Amendment proposed— To leave out the words from the word 'precedence' to the end of the Question."—(Dr. Clark.)

Main Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 279; Noes, 48. (Division List, No. 3.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin) Farquharson, Dr. Robert
Aird, John Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward
Allen, William (Gateshead) Causton, Richard Knight Fenwick, Charles
Allhusen, Augustus Henry E. Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Finch, George H.
Allsopp, Hon. George Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh. Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Fisher, William Hayes
Arnold, Alfred Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. Fison, Frederick William
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose
Arrol, Sir William Channing, Francis Allston Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Clare, Octavius Leigh FitzWygram, General Sir F.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth) Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness) Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Fletcher, Sir Henry
Bainbridge, Emerson Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Flower, Ernest
Baldwin, Alfred Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole Folkestone, Viscount
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Man) Colville, John Forster, Henry William
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)
Banbury, Frederick George Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D. Galloway, W. Johnson
Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith-(Hunts Cranborne, Viscount Garfit, William
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Gedge, Sydney
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Gibbons, J. Lloyd
Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants Cruddas, William Donaldson Giles, Charles Tyrrell
Beckett, Ernest William Cubitt, Hon. Henry Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbt. John
Bethell, Commander Curzon, Viscount Goddard, Daniel Ford
Biddulph, Michael Dalkeith, Earl of Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Bigwood, James Dalrymple, Sir Charles Goldsworthy, Major-General
Bill, Charles Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon
Billson, Alfred Denny, Colonel Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo. s
Blakiston-Houston, John Dewar, Arthur Goulding, Edward Alfred
Blundell, Colonel Henry Doughty, George Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley
Bolitho, Thomas Bedford Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Graham, Henry Robert
Bond, Edward Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Green, Walford D. Wednesbury
Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) Doxford, William Theodore Gretton, John
Brassey, Albert Drage, Geoffrey Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)
Brookfield, A. Montagu Duckworth, James Gull, Sir Cameron
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Haldane, Richard Burdon
Burt, Thomas Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George
Butcher, John George Ellis, John Edward Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.
Buxton, Sydney Charles Emmott, Alfred Hanson, Sir Reginald
Caldwell, James Fardell, Sir T. George Hare, Thomas Leigh
Harwood, George Maclure, Sir John William Scott, Sir S. (Marlleybone, W.)
Haslett, Sir James Horner M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs. Seeley, Charles Hilton
Heath, James M'Crae, George Sharpe, William Edward T.
Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H. M'Iver, Sir L (Edinburgh, W.) Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Helder, Augustus M'Kenna, Reginald Sidebottom, William (Derbys.
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. (Chas. H. M'Killop, James Simeon, Sir Barrington
Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter Maddison, Fred. Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire
Hickman, Sir Alfred Malcolm, Ian Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol) Martin, Richard Biddulph Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstd. Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Yorks. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Hobhouse, Henry Middlemore, J. Throgmorton Spencer, Ernest
Holland, William Henry Monk, Charles James Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Horniman, Frederick John Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)
Hudson, George Bickersteth Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart
Jackson, Rt. Hon. Win. Lawies Morrell, George Herbert Strachey, Edward
Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) Tennant, Harold John
Jenkins, Sir John Jones Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) Thornton, Percy M.
Jessel, Captain Herbert M. Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Tomlinson, Win. E. Murray
Johnston, William (Belfast) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Myers, William Henry Usborne, Thomas
Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Newdigate, Francis Alexander Valentia, Viscount
Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) Nicholson, William Graham Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Kay-Shuttle worth, Rt. Hn. Sir U Nicol, Donald Ninian Wallace, Robert
Kenyon, James Northcote, Hon Sir H. Stafford Wanklyn, James Leslie
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Nussey, Thomas Willans Warr, Augustus Frederick
King, Sir Henry Seymour Oldroyd, Mark Webster, Sir Richard E.
Kitson, Sir James O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Knowles, Lees Parkes, Ebenezer Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Lafone, Alfred Paslton, James Mellor Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Lambert, George Pease, Herbert T. (Darlington) Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn Penn, John Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.
Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Pilkington, Sir G. A (Lancs, S W) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Lea, Sir Thomas(Londonderry) Platt-Higgins, Frederick Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Purvis, Robert Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Leighton, Stanley Pym, C. Guy Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E R. (Bath
Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans'a Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R. Randell, David Woodall, William
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Rankin, Sir James Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Renshaw, Charles Bine Woods, Samuel
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool) Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.) Wrightson, Thomas
Lowe, Francis William Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l Wyndham, George
Lowther, Rt. Hn. J W(Cumb'l'nd Round, James Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Royds, Clement Molyneux Wyvill, Marmaduke d'Arcy
Lucas-Shadwell, William Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenh'm) Younger, William
Macartney, W. G. Ellison Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Macdona, John Cumming Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
MacIver, David (Liverpool) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Maclean, James Mackenzie Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth) Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Birrell, Augustine Jacoby, James Alfred Pirie, Duncan V.
Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow) Jordan, Jeremiah Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Labouchere, Henry Redmond, William (Clare)
Cawley, Frederick Leuty, Thomas Richmond Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Commins, Andrew Lewis, John Herbert Roberts, John H. (Denbighsh)
Crilly, Daniel Logan, John William Steadman, William Charles
Daly, James Lough, Thomas Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Davitt, Michael Macaleese, Daniel Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Dillon, John MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Q'n's C. Tuite, James
Donelan, Captain A. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Wedderburn, Sir William
Doogan, P. C. M'Ghee, Richard Weir, James Galloway
Field, William (Dublin) M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Gibney, James Norton, Capt. Cecil William Yoxall, James Henry
Gilhooly, James O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Hayden, John Patrick O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.) Mr. Thomas Bayley and Dr. Clark
Healy, Thomas J. (Wexford) Pickard, Benjamin

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That during the Autumn Sittings no Motions for leave to bring in Bills be given except by a Minister of the Crown; that on every day Government business do have precedence, and at the conclusion thereof Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put; and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 be extended to all the days of the week.