HC Deb 11 April 1902 vol 106 cc22-71

Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on proposed New Standing Order (Priority of Business) as amended [10th April]. "

Main Question, as amended, again proposed.

Question again proposed, "That the words 'That unless the House otherwise direct—

  1. (a) Government Business shall have precedence at every Sitting except the Evening Sittings on Tuesday and Wednesday, and the Sitting on Friday;
  2. (b) At the Evening Sittings of Tuesday and Wednesday Notices of Motion and Public Bills, other than Government Bills, shall have precedence of Government Business;
  3. (c) After Raster Government Business shall have precedence at the Evening Sittings of Tuesday;
  4. (d) After Whitsuntide, until Michaelmas, Government Business shall have precedence at all Evening Sittings, and at all Friday Sittings except the Sitting on the' be there inserted."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

(4.5.) SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)

moved to leave out the words "and fourth" and to insert instead the words "fourth and fifth." The effect would, he said, be to give one more day to private Members. It was but a small concession he was asking for, as in practice the Government now gave three Wednesdays, and he now invited them to give the equivalent of three Fridays. He asked this because otherwise private Members would have very little chance of passing slightly contentious Bills through the House. Three separate days were usually required, but under the Government proposal only two would be available, and if there were a small and well-organised body in the House determined to oppose a measure, however acceptable it might be to Parliament generally, they could succeed in defeating it even if the Government were anxious to help it forward. There was another objection to the limit of two Wednesdays. It was quite true that in the past the Government, when asking for the whole of the time of the House, had been ready to make concessions and to give the third Wednesday; but if this hard and fast rule were laid down, they would not be willing to do so in the future. Members were now able to put pressure on the Government when they were anxious to take the whole of the time of the House, and the result was that many a Bill got through which otherwise would be blocked. The right hon. Members for North East Manchester and Sleaford apparently objected to legislation by private Members, but the great majority of the Members of the House did not take that view. The right hon. Member for Sleaford had pointed out that, unless more time was reserved to private Members, the agricultural interest would be neglected. Undoubtedly, since the last General Election, little opportunity had been afforded of debating agricultural questions. The hon. Member for Finsbury, replying to that, said he was glad if that was the case, for agriculture had had more attention paid to it of late years than it deserved. Were hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were always declaring that they were the friends of the agricultural interest, prepared now to sacrifice that interest? If not, then he appealed to them to support this Amendment. Agricultural Members were well aware that the agricultural interest, at the present moment, was feeling strongly on the question of milk-blended butter. A Bill might be brought in by a non-official question to deal with the subject, and it would practically be an uncontentious measure, but the hon. Member for Finsbury, who objected to all agricultural measures, might, with some few of his friends, make it absolutely impossible to get the Bill through, and his Amendment was intended to meet cases such as that. There was, too, the social question, which had been raised by the hon. Member for East Somerset. There was a Bill now before the House affecting the great friendly societies of the country—promoted by the hon. Member for Stepney. That Bill had the general assent of the House, and had been referred to a Grand Committee, but what would be its fate if it came back to the House under the proposed Rule of the right hon. Gentleman? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley had threatened to move a number of Amendments, and one day might not be sufficient for the Report stage, and in that event the Bill would be killed. On behalf of the members of friendly societies he appealed to the House to accept his Amendment, and thus give that particular Bill a chance. This was a question they ought to look at entirely from the point of view of the unofficial Member, because undoubtedly both front Benches dealt with it in a very half-hearted way. He had noticed that throughout these debates the Opposition Whips had only issued three line Whips, thereby practically telling hon. Members it did not matter whether or not they came down to the House. The general attitude of the Front Bench, mind, was to treat private Members as a general nuisance. They seemed to think that only the legislation which they themselves proposed was necessary or desirable. He therefore suggested that Members below the gangway on both sides should unite against those on the front Benches, so as to make it impossible either for the present or future Governments to prevent unofficial Members from carrying Bills of their own, however unpretentious.

Amendment proposed— D line 11, to leave out the words 'and fourth,' and insert the words 'fourth and fifth.' (Sir, Edward Strachey.)

Question proposed "That the words 'and fourth' stand part of the Question."

(4.15.) MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden)

said he would urge the Government to make the little concession embodied in the Amendment. He admitted that under the proposals of the Government more time might be given to private Members' Bills than had been the practice in many sessions in the past; but hon. Members ought not to be expected to part with the whole of their time for Ministerial purposes, they should have some reasonable opportunity afforded them of passing their Bills into law. The House ought not to be reduced as far as their Bills are concerned to the level of a mere debating society.

MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick)

said that no doubt it would be very difficult for private Members' Bills which had got through the Second Reading and Committee stages to become law if the Rule were passed in its present form, but he did not think that the Amendment provided the best solution. One extra Wednesday or Friday would not be of much value. Members who had a special object in so acting could easily spread their opposition over three instead of over two Wednesdays. He would suggest that the difficulty might be got over by giving the Bills of private Members which obtained a Second Reading before Easter priority between Easter and Whitsuntide over Bills less advanced. That would give them a chance of passing into law-There was an old saw "Don't bite oft" more than you can chew," and it did seem to him that in using every Wednesday up to Whitsuntide for Second Readings they were biting a good deal more off than they had a chance of being able to chew. He humbly suggested to the Government that they might make this concession to private Members.


hoped that the Government would give favourable consideration to this Amendment. When Governments had proposed to take the whole time of the House, they had not always been animated by the same guiding principle. He would like to point out the divergence of view in the present Government from that of its predecessor. In 1888, when the late Mr. W. H. Smith made a proposal to the House, by which the time allotted to private Members' Bills was affected, he said his object was to give Members, who had obtained assent to the principle of their Bills, opportunity for proceeding with them. Mr. Smith considered this a question for the House to decide, apart from Party majority. It was evident from what he said on that occasion, that Mr. Smith attached considerable importance to legislation proposed by private Members. On the other hand, the present Leader of the House wished to curtail the opportunities for passing such legislation. The present proposal to add a fifth Friday after Whitsuntide was a moderate one, and if the Government allowed a free decision, he felt confident that this and many other Amendments on the Paper would be carried.

MR. FLYNN (Cork Co., N.)

thought that a strong case had been made for the Amendment, and suggested that much stronger illustrations might have been cited in support of it. To say that no legislation was of value except such as was promoted by the Government of the day was subversive of all Parliamentary traditions: yet it seemed to have become rooted in the minds of the occupants of both front Benches that private Members were to have no rights at all, and that there was to be no legislation except that which emanated from the Government of the day.

(4.25.) THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

I think it is desirable I should say a word or two on this Amendment. This topic, or a part of it, was very fully debated last night. I will not occupy the time of the House with a second speech on the subject; but there are some points I would like to put forward in an uncontroversial spirit, and with every desire to make the House understand the motives that influence the Government in the course they are pursuing. I have been represented as a tyrant anxious to deprive Members of the few remaining rags, tatters, or fragments of privileges they have the right to enjoy. I should be sorry to go down to posterity in that character, and I wish to point out that there is absolutely no basis in fact for the allegation. Under the system I have ventured to propose, I think it will be admitted that a scheme of business has been so arranged that the privileges of private Members will be preserved. I do not deny that it will be in the power of the majority to take them away for reasons which have been thought legitimate by every Government. But compare what the plan will give with what has been the habit in the past. I have had some figures taken out. I have been informed that in the course of the present session private Members will have seventeen Wednesdays. Parliament met rather before the usual time, and Whitsuntide is rather earlier. In 1888 private Members had twelve Wednesdays, in 1889, twelve; in 1890, thirteen; in 1891, fourteen; in 1892, thirteen; in 1893, seven; in 1894, eight; in 1895. fourteen; in 1896, ten; in 1897, thirteen; in 1898, nine; in 1899, fourteen; in 1900, fourteen. Under the circumstances I think I may appeal to the House to say whether there is the slightest ground for the allegation that the Government are diminishing the total amount of time for private Members' legislation. Still it is said that with only two Fridays after Whitsuntide it is extremely difficult to bring legislation to fruitful result. I have admitted all along that in that contention there is a certain amount of truth. I have said on many occasions I do not think that, as a logical or coherent system, it is possible to defend our present system of dealing with private Members' Bills.

On the other hand, I do not think the form of words suggested by the hon. Member opposite is one the House should hastily adopt. In the first place, if the object is to get through controversial Bills—in which term, in this connection, I include Bills which have behind them a great volume of opinion in the House, but are violently opposed by a small section—I do not think that stub Bills would have any better chance than they now possess, and the result, so far as that class of Bills is concerned, of giving another Wednesday would be that another day would be lost. There would be that time-limit in front of the opponents of the Bill, and they would combine to en-deavour to wreck the Bill—an endeavour which would, in very many cases, meet with a large amount of success. Then, turning to Bills which not only have a large amount or support in the House, but which, if not unopposed, have only a few luke-warm critics, those measures will get through under the present system, and also under the new system, quite as well as if the Amendment was accepted. It has been alleged over and over again in the course of the debate that the only means of forcing the Government to adopt a benevolent attitude towards private Members' Bills is in the debate which takes place when the time of the House is asked for. That is an entire misconception, and I am really surprised that anybody acquainted with Parliamentary practice should have thought it worth while, except for purposes of debate, to put it before the House. Every Government is sensitive to the opinion of the House, and especially to the opinion of those on whose votes it depends from day to day for existence. But the pressure which represents the opinion of the House, and of the majority of the House, is not put on effectively in a debate of that kind. Everybody knows that the Government have means of obtaining information as to the feeling of the House on both sides, and they do their best to weigh the different views which prevail, and to shape their course accordingly. To put forward the idea that the House is going to throw out the demand for time on the ground that the Government does not grant privileges to a particular Bill, is entirely to misrepresent what has ever taken place. If that were done, it would amount to a vote of want of confidence, and no Government would attempt to continue to carry on the business of the House if they were deliberately defeated, after debate, on a question of that sort. That is not the way the thing is done, ever has been done, or ever will be done. I would remind the House that there is a far more important opportunity for making this demand than that afforded by the request for the time of the House immediately after Whitsuntide, which is a mere incident in the progress of the session. The time when these privileges are usually given to uncontroversial Bills is towards the end of the session. The announcement of the intentions of the Government with regard to the Bills to which they will give privileges is not made, as a rule, when they ask for time immediately after Whitsuntide; it is made when they ask the House for the purpose of winding up the session to consent to the abrogation of the Twelve o'clock rule for the remainder of the sittings. That opportunity remains wholly untouched by anything we propose to do.

There is one other point, to which I have referred more than once, but which I beg the House most earnestly to bear in mind in dealing with this question of private Members' Bills. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division, who has taken so prominent a part in discussing these new Standing Orders, apparently looks at the whole matter as if it concerned the fate of the Pure Beer Bill alone. But let none of us regard the matter from the point of view of one particular measure. Let us consider it in the light of the general system which we wish to see adopted in this House. I am far from denying that excellent work has been done, even in recent years, by private Members' Bills. But if the scheme of business which gives time to private Members is to be so adjusted as to enable very contentious Bills to pass through, I say most emphatically that you must alter your procedure with regard to the earlier stages through which private Members' Bills have to pass. It is surely perfectly manifest to all Members of experience that, if you are to allow private Members to carry through this House controversial Bills like those which the Government have to carry through, you must safeguard that procedure with the same safeguards as are applied in the case of Government measures. If the Government brings in a controversial Bill, you insist that there shall be a night devoted to the First Beading, three nights to the Second Beading, followed by prolonged discussion in Committee. Compare that with' the most controversial Bill brought in by a private Member. Take a Bill to repeal the Crimes Act. It would be brought in without a word; the debate on the Second Beading would probably be closured at half-past five, and the question put: and then, after three or four days before a Standing Committee, you might have an alteration in our legislation, for good or for bad, which every human being acquainted with House of Commons procedure will agree ought not to be initiated except on the responsibility of the Government of the day. Therefore, though I am far from saying that our present system is perfect, or that it ought not to be drastically reformed, I do say it would be a very hasty interference with ancient practice if we were to attempt to reform it simply by the method suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I think I reminded the House last night, but I may be forgiven for reminding them again today, that when some of us were younger, in our early days in the House, private Members at large had a very simple method of preventing the undue passage of controversial Bills—they were always talked out at half-past five or six o'clock. The only Bill in which as a private Member I was ever involved suffered that fate. I mention that simply to remind the House that you are touching a piece of machinery which ought to be surveyed as a whole before I you deal with any one of its weaknesses.

May I be permitted to recall the House for a moment to one of the realities of Parliamentary life so far as they affect the distribution of time. From listening to these debates, one would imagine there was an unlimited store of time in the keeping of the Government, which they ladled out to the various interests according to their respective merits. That is not the case. I traced out this morning how the case would stand if this new Rule passed, and it may interest the House if I give them my calculation as to the distribution of Parliamentary time as between the great topics or interests which we have to consider in the course of the session. I take a session of 120 days. I am afraid the present session will be longer, but for the purposes of this calculation I take 120 days as a good full session. That is, roughly, twenty-four Parliamentary weeks of forty hours each, giving altogether 960 hours. Those 960 hours we have to distribute amongst the various interests. I calculate the King's Speech as taking ten days, or eighty hours; Questions, on the ninety-six Question days, three-quarters of an hour a day, in seventy-two hours; private Members' Bills, fourteen Fridays—I have given what I regard as an underestimate; of the number of days they would get—making seventy seven hours: private Members' Motions, up to Easter, seven weeks at six hours a week, and, up to Whitsuntide, six weeks at three hours a week, less eight hours—that is the highest limit of the possible diminution—for Private Bill Business, altogether fifty-two hours: Private Bill Business, taking the sessional average over a good many years (this is from a Return), thirty-two hours; Supply, twenty-three counting days, to which we must add eleven days for Supplementary Estimates, and getting Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the three separate occasions on which that operation has to be accomplished, making 255 hours; extra days, consisting of Motions for the holidays. Votes of Censure, special Resolutions, Motions for adjournment and contingencies—I cannot put those at less than five or six days—say thirty-eight hours; then add for the Budget and Appropriation Bills, ten days, or seventy-eight hours; and the total, before you come to any legislation in the proper sense of the word, is 684 hours. Taking those 684 hours from the total of 960, you have left for Government legislation only 276 hours, or about six weeks. I am addressing an audience which is in the habit of spending the first fortnight of the session in bringing forward a series of Votes of Censure on the Government for not adding to their legislative programme. I ask whether it is possible to carry on the legislative work which the country desires on a less allowance of time than 276 hours in a session of 120 days. I am afraid I have detained the House upon this point, but I have endeavoured to show why it is that the Government have made these changes. We are anxious to carry out the legislation which the majority of the House, and presumably the majority of the country, desire should be carried out. I have tried to show why I think, if any alteration is made in the privileges of private Members, it should be done only after careful inquiry as to how those privileges work, and after very careful consideration of all the aspects of one of the most perplexing problems that has ever come before the House of Commons. I trust that the House will not accept the Amendment of my hon. friend.

(4.47.) SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAX () Stirling Burghs

I am sure the House will recognise and appreciate the temperate way in which the right hon. Gentleman has resumed the debate upon this question, which both yesterday and today has perplexed the House. The light hon. Gentleman has referred to a number of figures which are somewhat difficult to follow, and which I think will require a considerable amount of investigation before we altogether accept them. But still, if the conclusion he comes to is that there is not time enough for the Government to fulfil all the duties which fall upon them in the way of legislation and conducting the business of the country in this House, that is a conclusion which a good many of us have arrived at a long time ago, and we have a remedy for that unfortunate condition of things which may be called rough and ready, but which, at all events, would be an effective remedy, namely, the remedy of devolution upon a largo scale of at least half the business with which the House is at present concerned. The right hon. Gentleman has enveloped in a cloud of figures the original question, which was the treatment of private Members. The right hon. Gentleman had the whole House with him when he said that the present arrangements for private Members' legislation are indefensible. The manner in which that legislation originates is absurd in itself; the ballot is absurd, and the whole proceedings from first to last are almost ludicrous, and, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have that large question looked into by a Committee, I am sure there will be no objection to that course in any part of the House. But we are dealing with that system as it exists, and it is not necessary to have any revolutionary measure altering those arrangements. What we have to do is to see that this new Rule does not take away from the private Member anything that he now has, and that it does not alter his position for the worse; and when I say his position, it is not because of any particular liking for the unofficial Member or his projects, but with a view to securing that the House should have the opportunity of itself deciding in these matters how far those projects are to be pursued.

The right hon. Gentleman pointed out another matter, in which I am disposed very much to agree with him. He said that the mere giving of one, two, or three more fixed days for the purpose of the final stages of private Members' Bills will very likely be an illusory concession. It may be in many cases, because there is a fixed time which cannot be exceeded for these final stages, that there would no doubt be abundant opportunity and temptation for the evilly-disposed enemies of the measures to take those steps which are so obvious to them. Still here are many measures upon which the House may have bestowed an immense amount of labour—Bills which lave passed through their preliminary stages and through the Grand Committee, and been discussed at great cost of abour and time, and which are lost for want of opportunity. What we are afraid of is that the right hon. Gentleman's proposals will diminish still further those opportunities. At all events, as we pointed out last night, it will make the optional Rule of recent years a cast-iron Rule in the future. It will take away from the House of Commons the opportunity of dealing more leniently towards the private Member and his desires than we have done in recent years. That is the cause of the strong expression of feeling we have had during the last two days, and I think the right hon. Gentleman might look with some favour upon the proposal of my hon. friend, and give an extra day for the purpose, in order to prevent the possibility of the private Member and private Members' legislation being worse off in the future than in the past.

(4.53.) MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

agreed with the remark of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the conciliatory tone adopted in the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury. But notwithstanding that, holding the views which he did hold, he was bound to support any proposal which he thought improved the position of private Members or rendered the position: less hard than it would be under the scheme of his right hon. friend. At the same time, he was bound to say that if he had to choose between what the right hon. Gentleman opposite described as devolution—which he took to be the latest description of Home Rule—and the scheme of his right hon. friend the Leader of the House, undoubtedly he should feel it his duty to sacrifice what he believed to be the rights of the private Member. However that might be, that question, fortunately, did not arise at the present time. He entirely agreed with his right hon. friend that the Amendment as it stood would not be sufficient, and he was perfectly right in saying that it would simply lead to a useless loss of one more Parliamentary day in the great majority of cases. He should like to add to the Amendment of his hon. friend, by leaving out of the proposal of the Government the words: on the third and fourth Fridays after Whit Sunday. and insert, after "Sittings," the words: and that all Friday Sittings, except the sittings on the first six Fridays after Whitsuntide. The right hon. Gentleman had described what would happen under the Bill by the figures he had submitted to the House, and he made out that private Members would have fourteen Fridays in the future. He thought in making this statement his right hon. friend forgot to consider that private Bill legislation would be relegated to private Members' nights.


I hope to be able to satisfy the House upon that point when we come to that Rule.


said he should be delighted if that were the case, but as the Rule stood, there was no doubt that the private Members' Fridays, under the Rules as they stood at present, would be seriously eaten into by the time which would be occupied by what is known as private Bill Legislation. If his right hon. friend was going to make some other arrangement for private Bill legislation, that would, of course, alter the position. There was, however, another side to the picture, and he was perfectly right in what he stated the previous night, for this system of taking private Members' Fridays was an entire innovation. In the year 1891, under the Rule of their late lamented friend, Mr. W. H. Smith, private Members' Wednesdays were not taken until the 15th of June; in 1890 they were taken on the 17th of June; in 1889, on the 17th of July; and in the year 1888, not until the 11th of July. Now the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take Fridays after Whitsuntide, which this year fell upon the 18th of May. His right hon. friend seemed to think that he regarded this question of the rights of private Members solely from the point of view of one particular Bill, but in that he was entirely mistaken. He stated himself the other night that there were bad Bills introduced by private Members, and that there were also a number of very good and useful Bills introduced by private Members, and he cited, as an illustration, the Children's Bill, and the Beer Bill which was introduced last Session.

One of his late colleagues said that the greatest danger they had, in his opinion, would arise from private Members' Bills supposing the Conservative Party were in opposition. He believed that was an entirely erroneous notion. The real danger they had to provide against in future was from a Government which might be composed of men of extreme opinions, and with the uncontrolled power they would have over the proceedings and the whole time of the House. That was the danger which they were laying up for themselves, and it might be perhaps not so distant as a good many of his hon. friends, in the pride of their present majority, believed.

He was rather amused last night by the lecture addressed to him by the right hon. Baronet the Member for North-East Manchester upon his attitude towards the Government since he had ceased to be one of them. The right hon. Baronet had been kind enough, to write to him a letter couched in terms of kindly and almost fatherly remonstrance, but it might surprise him to learn that, not only personally but politically, upon all questions except in these Rules of Procedure his relations with his former colleagues since, to his regret, he parted from them had been universally of the most friendly character. Last night he asked the right hon. Gentleman to cite a single instance upon which he had been in opposition to the Government, and had tried to defeat their proposals, except upon these new Standing Orders. He had made some reference, and he had not been able to produce a single ease. His right hon. friend had stated in his letter that it was his manner, and the whole tone of his speeches, that appeared to give the impression that he was acting in an organised attempt to defeat the Government in these proposals, and that he was far indeed from being dispassionate. Well, he did not pretend that his manner Could ascend to the level of the right hon. Gentleman's. But that was his misfortune, not his fault. While the right bon. Gentleman was lecturing him last night he was irresistibly reminded of an occasion in this House when Mr. Horsman, who at that time was a very prominent figure, lectured Mr. Disraeli. Mr. Disraeli rose and replied that both sides of the House; acknowledged that the hon. Gentleman was "a superior person." He did not think he could do better than pass on the compliment to his right hon. friend. But even from the pedestal of his admitted superiority, he was not warranted with great respect, in imputing blame to him, either for his action or his motives, in the Debates on the Procedure. He need not, perhaps, have noticed the attack of his right hon. friend, but it would have been discourteous to ignore it, and what he said tonight would save the necessity of any S further reply to the letter of his right hon. friend.

This curtailment of the rights and privileges of private Members was greatly to be regretted in the interest of the House of Commons on totally different grounds. Even Prime Ministers and Leaders of the House of Commons had begun by being private Members themselves, and if the rights and privileges of private Members were to be curtailed in the manner that is now proposed, what opportunities would be left to young Members for political and Parliamentary training? It was his fortune to come into Parliament under the great Leaders of former days. There was nothing more remarkable, either in Mr. Disraeli or Mr. Gladstone, than the never-failing interest they took in any young Member of this House who showed ordinary aptitude, and the encouragement they gave to him to persevere in his Parliamentary work, and to induce him to take as prominent a position as he could. But how completely changed was all this. His opinion was that there never was a time since he had been in the House of Commons when there was so much political ability among the younger Members on the Conservative side of the House than at present. He spoke of this side because he knew more of it than of the other. What opportunities did they get commensurate with their deserts for taking part in the proceedings of the House? Why was it they had not opportunities? It was all due to the system of obstruction, which the Rules of the Leader of the House were avowedly not brought forward for the purpose of stopping. The Whips went round making entreaties to Member after Member on this side of the House not to speak.


I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the only Question before the House is whether there shall be two or three Fridays after Whitsunday when Government business shall not have precedence.


said he always bowed to the ruling of the Speaker. He was supporting an Amendment which was intended to strengthen and improve the position of private Members. He was endeavouring to show how unfortunate was the position of private Members at the present time, and in support of that he made the statement that it was impossible for them now to take part often in the proceedings of the House because of the obstruction which prevailed, and which these Rules would not prevent.


As a matter of personal explanation. My right hon. friend has made an attack upon me for discouraging rising talent, I suppose on both sides of the House, and certainly on this side. I never remember a case in which any gentleman came to Parliamentary eminence through bringing in Bills on a Wednesday. The truth is that these are not the opportunities by which a Member of this House has ever risen to the summit of his Parliamentary ambition.

(5.13.) MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)

said that nothing that had occurred during the whole of these debates so directed attention to the difficulties of their position as the very interesting and lucid statement which the Leader of the House had rendered this afternoon with regard to the time occupied by private Members and by Government measures. No doubt it was a great revelation to many hon. Members of the House, and he could not help thinking that oven at this late hour the Leader of the House must see how wise it would be even now to throw the whole of these Rules overboard and appoint a competent Committee to suggest some system for the re-organisation of the sittings of the House and the season of their meeting. The Amendment now proposed was exceedingly moderate, and he sincerely trusted that the House, taking an independent judgment upon it, would carry it.

* MR. VICARY GIBBS (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)

said the First Lord of the Treasury must have observed that many Members of the House on the Government side viewed these Rules with somewhat lukewarm enthusiasm. The right hon. Gentleman must be cheered by the fact that very often the objections raised to them were mutually destructive. He, for one, welcomed that callousness to the demands for the further worsening of this Rule, as he regarded it. Every hon. Member had got his own view as to the importance of the Resolution which he wished to bring before the House, or he thought that the Bill which he wished to pass was the most excellent in the world. But what the House had got to consider was whether, when private Members introduced on Fridays Bills of a revolutionary nature without proper consideration, they ought to facilitate their passage into law. He held that they ought not, and, therefore, he advocated that the fewer days devoted to that purpose the better. To increase the two days for private Members' business to three would only produce a scandalous state of things, and increase the obstruction to the proposed measures or Resolutions. He did not say that that obstruction would be wrong. Probably he would conceive it to be right, and would take part in it. He thought it would be a far less evil to stop the passage of a Bill by even unnecessary conversation than allowing it to pass into law without proper consideration. He did not think the proposed Rules would stifle rising talent. It was entirely beyond the power of the First Lord to effect that. He joined the hon. Member who had just spoken in congratulating the First Lord on the extremely interesting speech he had made, and in giving the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity of poaching on the manor of the hon. Member for Waterford and dragging in the question of Home Rule.

(5.20.) MR. BRYCE (Aberdeenshire, S.)

said that the First Lord of the Treasury had admitted that the position of private Members' business was very unsatisfactory. Why should the time of the House be taken up in discussing private Members' Bills which could not pass, and in which few Members took a real interest? This was one of the evils which ought to be inquired into and dealt with. The second difficulty was, supposing twelve private Members' Bills had been carried to a second reading, but that only two or three of these had any chance of passing into law; assuming that all those Bills went to a Grand Committee, and were carefully considered and brought into shape, the process of obstruction might be brought to bear on the first, and the remaining eleven would have no chance of passing at all. That was a waste of the time of the House which did no credit to the practical sanity of the House. The moral which they ought to draw from the First Lord's interesting classification of private Members' Bills was that there was only a limited time to consider these, and that the House ought to economise that time; in fact, that unless they employed private Members' time more usefully it was wasted. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to promise the House an inquiry, either by the Cabinet or by a Committee of the House, as to how the leakage of the time of this Chamber could be avoided. There was another grievance. Year after year the same Bills were brought forward and the same discussion took place upon them, but those Bills never got any more forward. He took, as an illustration, the Rating of Machinery Bill, which had been before the House for twenty years, and on which a great number of Wednesdays had been wasted. That Bill ought to be dealt with once for all. There was another instance—the Registration of Firms Bill, which had been discussed over and over again, and the Second Reading carried by large majorities. Here there was a limited amount of time for private Members' business, which the right hon. Gentleman had shown the House was needed for so many purposes, but which was squandered. He hoped the First Lord would take this subject into his serious consideration and institute some inquiry in regard to it, with the view of the allotment of private Members' time on a more business-like footing.

(5.25.) MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

said that many hon. Members had spoken as if for the first time private Members were called upon to give up their opportunities for carrying legislation. He ventured to say that in all his earlier years in Parliament the opportunities afforded to private Members were mainly with the view of bringing forward Motions for ventilating their; grievances. These took up eight hours each on Tuesdays and Fridays, while five or five and a half hours on Wednesdays were devoted to unofficial Members' legislation. He had never disguised his; feeling that private Members' time should be devoted to ventilating grievances rather than to passing measures, many of which were bad. He maintained that unofficial Members should stand by their rights and privileges to call attention to grievances, and to raise questions of general interest. Private Members should insist on a legitimate opportunity being given to them to bring forward important questions and not concentrate their attention on Bills.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

said he intended to vote for the Amendment on pretty much the same grounds that he had ventured to urge to the House with reference to another Amendment yesterday. At the same time, he confessed he preferred yesterday's Amendment, because, although it only left two Fridays after Whitsuntide, it still preserved liberty of action on the part of the House, and gave the House the power to meet anything like flagrant obstruction by giving another day to a measure which had received the sanction of the overwhelming majority of the House. But, as he had said last night, half a loaf was better than no bread. He did not think the hon. Member for the St. Albans Division was quite correct in saying that, so far as obstruction was concerned, three Fridays would be just the same as two. He thought if the House saw that there was a deliberate campaign of obstruction against a particular measure which was backed by the general feeling of the House, that some means would be devised whereby a third Friday should be used for the passage of the Bill. Therefore he thought there was a very considerable difference between three Fridays and two. He entirely dissented from the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet. He was disposed to accept the right hon. Gentleman's general attitude in hostility to mere fads and fancies. He was as much an anti-faddist as the right hon. Gentleman himself, but the right hon. Gentleman appeared to regard the majority of private Members' Bills as merely' faddists' Bills. That was not his opinion. The faddist's Bill generally met with an early death, but the kind of private Member's Bill he wished to preserve was of a very different character. He saw on the opposite Benches an hon. friend and countryman of his own, the hon. Member for Devizes, who, in a private Bill and without any Government support, but simply by his own energy", effected a very considerable and desirable change in the social and economic condition of the agricultural labourers of the country. That was a very remarkable instance of a measure carried by a ministerialist Member by the support of the House generally. That was the kind of private Bill he wished to see preserved. He mentioned last night the changes in the social condition of married life in this country, every one of which had been carried by Bills proposed by private Members, and carried through without the support of the Government of the day. He did not think the First Lord of the Treasury was quite fair in giving the repeal of the Crimes Act as the kind of private Members' Bill of which the House was thinking. That Act was passed after many weeks of Parliamentary time, in face of a fierce and obstinate opposition, and its repeal would also demand a large proportion of parliamentary time unless the House had arrived at an united opinion regarding it.


said it would obviously be a very controversial I measure.


said that for that very reason it was not the kind of measure they were thinking of in proposing three Fridays.


Very likely not.


asked if anyone imagined that a Bill of such a controversial character as the repeal of the Crimes Act could be carried on a Friday afternoon. The House of Commons had got into an unfortunate legislative habit of dealing with every question in the most piecemeal fashion. He would call, in support of that statement, the testimony of the Home Secretary. Last year the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Factories Bill, a beneficent measure, which he successfully piloted through the House. He was not going to reveal any secrets as to what occurred between the right hon. Gentleman and himself, but between them they managed to get the dockers into that Bill. The docker was within the existing Acts on one side of a vessel, and outside them on the other; one half of his body was within and the other half outside the law. That was one of those preposterous, piecemeal, tinkering Bills which the House constantly indulged in, and the only way of repairing small defects was either through the countenance and support of a sympathetic Minister like the Home Secretary, or by a private Member's Bill. Seamen were still outside the Compensation Acts, and no Government would take the question up. A private Member would have to take it up, and it was just the kind of question which a private Member could carry better than any Government. That was the kind ox legislation which the right hon. Gentleman was now trying to destroy. He joined with other hon. Members in admiration of the extremely interesting speech which had been delivered by the First Lord of the Treasury. That speech was more than interesting; it was historic. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman in the matter, because it was one of those Parliamentary accidents which would occur, but that speech should have been delivered last night, and it would have been more appropriate on the preceding Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were 960 hours in a Parliamentary session of 120 days, and then, by a series of calculations, the accuracy of which he had no means of testing, but which he was quite willing to accept, the right hon. Gentleman arrived at the conclusion that only 276 hours remained for the legislative business of the Government—276 hours for the government of one-fifth of the human race! If he had the advantage of being the proprietor of a great daily paper, he would tomorrow put the right hon. Gentleman's speech on one side of a large column in letters of gold—if the resources of the establishment permitted—and on the other side he would put the following:— The English —those were the only words not contained in the original text— are the greatest, people the world has ever seen, but whose fault is that they do not know their strength, their greatness, and their destiny, and who are wasting their time on; their minor local matters.… The American has been taught the lesson of home rule and the success of leaving the management of the local pump to the parish beadle. The right hon. Gentleman would reeognise the quotation. He does not burden his House of Commons with the responsibility of cleansing the parish drains. The present position in the English House is ridiculous. You might as well expect Napoleon to have found time to have personally counted his dirty linen before he sent it to the wash and re-counted it upon its return."† When the right hon. Gentleman paid his well-deserved tribute to the great English-man whose obsequies were celebrated yesterday in so touching a fashion in so many different parts of the world, he hoped he took to heart the great lesson which the last words of that great man taught, and to which the speech of the right hon. Gentleman tonight was a most eloquent and convincing epilogue.


pointed out that the Amendment under discussion had occupied a considerable number of hours on the previous evening. He therefore appealed to the House to bring the debate to a speedy conclusion.

†The quotation is from certain notes published in the Review of Reviews for April, 1902, and described by the Editor as "The Political Will and Testament" of Mr. Cecil Rhodes.

* MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

thought that the speech that the right hon. Gentleman had made on this Amendment required some elucidation. The right hon. Gentleman had no doubt a strong case for showing that this Rule, if passed, would make very little difference to private Members' Bills, but the suggestion of the hon. Member for Partick was that Standing Order 12—the Whitsuntide Order assigning precedence to the Committee Stages of Bills on two Wednesdays after—should be ante-dated to Easter, so that private Members' Bills which had been fortunate enough to obtain a Second Heading early in the session should really have a chance of passing through their further stages in the course of the session by having those days between Easter and Whitsuntide which were now allotted to Second Readings of private Members' Bills allotted to them. He hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would indicate whether he was favourably disposed to the solution of the difficulty of private Members which was suggested by the hon. Member for Particle. If the right hon. Gentleman were favourably disposed, he would not carry the discussion further. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Partick was a practical one. There were, in that case, two further questions he would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. First of all, would he consent to the appointment of a Committee to consider this particular point, the alteration of the present Rule, and, next, would he take steps as to the ballot with regard to Bills, in the sense which had so frequently been suggested by the right hon. Member for Aberdeen and other Members in the past? The right hon. Gentleman would do himself great credit and facilitate the passing of the Rules if he were to indicate his general approval of the scheme in some form or other of this particular solution of this question so that it might be placed upon the Paper and become a Standing Order this session. If that were done, it should be possible to place important private Members' Bills in such a position in the early part of the session as to give them a real chance of becoming law.

(5.55.) MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

said he had a very strong feeling against all encroachments of private Members' rights. The House of Commons was becoming more and more an official Registry. He remembered when the Home Rule Bill was under discussion, Mr. Courtney moved an Amendment; he wished to have a Resolution passed whereby a Cabinet Minister in one House should have a right of audience in the other, but Mr. Gladstone rose up and with some heat said that for fifty-two years he had been a Member of Parliament, and he would never sit in a House of Commons in which the smallest privilege was given to a Member by reason of his being a Minister of the Crown.


Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman must make his remarks relevant to the question before the House.


said he only wished to show that every encroachment on private Members' rights gave further power to official Members on one side or the other. The argument of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was that if this extra day were not given, no private Bill of a contentious nature had the least chance of passing. Everybody knew that there were private Bills which, though not controversial in their nature, were highly contentious, and which no Government desired to take up. For instance, there was the great class of Criminal Law Amendment Bills brought in by Sir Samuel Romilly, all of which were brought in as private Members' Bills. On the ground that if he went into the Government at all the question would become a Party question, Sir Samuel Romilly refused the Solicitor Generalship, and actually got an independent seat in order to give expression to his views. All philanthropy of that; kind, by a man who wished to hold himself independent of Party, would be utterly destroyed by this Rule. But there was a more recent illustration—


The hon. Member is going into some interesting historical reminiscences, but at the same time, I must remind him that they have nothing to do with the question before the House.


said he dared no; make a compromise with Mr. Speaker, but would he state at what time or stage it would be in order for him (the hon. Member) briefly to show the benefits that had come from private Members' Bills; and the way in which these Rules would affect that question?


said that he could not lay that down beforehand. If the remarks of the hon. Member were irrelevant he would be interrupted; he would then, exhaustively, And out whether he was in order.


said he would not venture to transgress the Rules of the House in order to find out when, by accident, he might be in the right.


I did not suggest that the hon. Member would wilfully transgress.


said he would endeavour, by some species of ingenuity, when the Rule as amended was put

from the Chair, to bring forward the point he desired to lay before the House. The First Lord had throughout gone on the assumption that he was taking care of the interests of the House as a whole. If that was so, why did he not divest the proposals of their Party character, and allow Members to vote according to their independent views? As long as the Government Whips were put at the doors each, Motion became a vote of confidence, and Members were obliged to vote according to Party. That was not the way to pass Rules which were supposed to be for the regulation of the House as a whole. Probably hon. Members were better judges of their own House than the First Lord himself—

(6.6.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes, 196; Noes, 136. (Division List No. 100.)

Acland-Hood, Capt, Sir. Alex. F. Churchill, Winston Spencer Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby -(Salop
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Coddington, Sir William Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Line)
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Arkwright, John Stanhope Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Goulding, Edward Alfred
Arrol, Sir William Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cranborne, Lord Grenfell, William Henry
Bain, Colonel James Robert Cripps, Charles Alfred Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Baird, John George Alexander Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Gunter, Sir Robert
Baldwin, Alfred Croasley, Sir Savile Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Dickinson, Robert Edmond Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds Dickson, Charles Scott Han bury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.
Banbury, Frederick George Dixon-Hartland Sir Fd. Dixon Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor Dorington, Sir John Edward Hare, Thomas Leigh
Bartley, George C. T. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Harris, Frederick Leverton
Bignold, Arthur Duke, Henry Edward Haslett, Sir James Horner
Bill, Charles Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Hay, Hon. Claude George
Blundell, Colonel Henry Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley
Bond, Edward Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Helder, Augustus
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Henderson, Alexander
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter
Brotherton, Edward Alien Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Higginbottom, S. W.
Brymer, William Ernest Finch, George H. Hogg, Lindsay
Butcher, John George Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside
Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow Fisher, William Hayes Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Fison, Frederick William Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil
Cautley, Henry Strother FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Hudson, George Bickersteth
Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Forster, Henry William Johnston, William (Belfast)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Garfit, William Knowles, Lees
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lon. Lawrence, Wm. F. C. (Liver pool
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Lawson, John Grant
Chapman, Edward Godson, Sir Augusts Frederick; Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Ed. H.
Charrington, Spencer Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elign&Nairn Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)
Leigh Bennett, Henry Currie Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath Spear, John Ward
Leveson-Gower, Frederick, N. S. Myers, William Henry Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Nicol, Donald Ninian Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Lowe, Francis William Parker, Gilbert Stone, Sir Benjamin
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Penn, John Thornton, Percy M.
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Platt-Higgins, Frederick Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Tritton, Charles Ernest
Macdona, John Cumming Bryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Valentia, Viscount
Maconochie, A. W. Purvis, Robert Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield
M'Calmont, Col H. L. B (Cambs. Randles, John S. Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Ratcliff, R. F. Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton
Majendie, James A. H. Reid, James (Greenock). Whitmore Charles Algernon
Malcolm, Ian Remnant, James Farquharson Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Martin, Richard Biddulph Renwick, George Willox, Sir John Archibald
Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir. H. E (Wigt'n Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Middlemoro, Jno. Throgmorton Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Mildway, Francis Bingham Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Wilson-Todd, Wm. H (Yorks.)
Mitchell, William Ropner, Colonel Robert Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Royds, Clement Molyneux Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Moore, William (Antrim, N.) Russell, T. W. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
More, Robert. Jasper (Shropshire) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Wyndham-Quio, Major W. H.
Morgan, Hn Fred. (Monm'thsh. Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Younger, William
Morrison, James Archibald Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Morton, Arthur, H. A. (Deptford Sharpe, William Edward T. TELLERS FOR THE AYES,—Sir William Walmond and Mr. Anstrnther.
Mount, William Arthur Simeon, Sir Barnington
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Furness, Sir Christopher Nolan, Joseph (Lough, South)
Allan, William (Gateshead) Gilhooly, James Norman, Henry
Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc, Stroud Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herb't Jn. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Ashton, Thomas Gair Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Atherley-Jones, L. Grant, Corrie 0'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary M.
Austen, Sir John Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Haldane, Richard Burdon O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hammond, John O'Dowd, John
Bell, Richard Harmsworth, R. Leicester O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Black, Alexander William Hayden, John Patrick O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)
Blake, Edward Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- O'Malley, William
Brigg, John Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. O'Mara, James
Broadhurst, Henry Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) O'Shee, James John
Burns, John Horniman, Frederick John Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)
Came, William Sproston Jacoby, James Alfred Partington, Oswald
Caldwell, James Jones, D'vid Brynmor (Swansea Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Pickard, Benjamin
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Jordan, Jeremiah Power, Patrick Joseph
Causton, Richard Knight Joyce, Michael Price, Robert John
Channing, Francis Allston Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth Priestley, Arthur
Cogan, Denis J. Lambert, George Rea, Russell
Condon, Thomas Joseph Layland-Barratt, Francis Reddy, M.
Crean, Eugene Leigh, Sir Joseph Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Lloyd-George, David Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Louth, Thomas Robert, John H. (Denbighs.)
Delany, William Lundon, W. Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Roche, John
Doogan, P. C. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Roe, Sir Thomas
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Schwann, Charles E.
Dunn, Sir William M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Sheelan, Daniel Daniel
Edwards, Frank M'Crae, George Shipman, Dr. John G.
Elibank, Master of M'Govern, T. Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) M'Kean, John Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Farquharson, Dr. Robert M'Kenna, Reginald Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants
Fenwick, Charles Mansfield, Horace Randall Stevenson, Francis S.
Fergusson, B. C. Munro (Leith Markham, Arthur Basil Strachey, Sir Edward
Ffrench, Peter Mather, William Sullivan, Donal
Flynn, James Christopher Mooney, John J. Tennant, Harold John
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Murphy, John Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.
Fuller, J. M. F. Nannetti, Joseph P. Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.
Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan Yoxall, James Henry
Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings Weir, James Galloway
Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Trevelyan, Charles Philips White, Patrick (Meath, North) TELLERS For THE NOES Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Walton, Jn. Lawson (Leeds, S.) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

(6.18.) Question put accordingly, "That the words 'and fourth' stand part of the Question

The House divided:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 140. (Division List No. 101.)

Acland-Hood, Capt, Sir. Alex, F. Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Finch, George H. Macdona, John Cumming
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Maconochie, A. W.
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Fisher, William Haves M'Calmont,'Col. H. L. B (Cambs
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fison, Frederick William M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinbnrgh W
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire
Arrol, Sir William Forster, Henry William Majendie, James A. H.
Atkinson, Et. Hon. John Gardner, Ernest Malcolm, Ian
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy Garfit, William Martin, Richard Biddulph
Bailey, James (Walworth) Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lon. Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n
Bain, Colonel James Robert Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton
Baird, John George Alexander Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Mildway, Francis Bingham
Baldwin, Alfred Gordon, Hn J. E (Elgin& Nairn) Mitchell, William
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Gordon, J. (Londonderry. S.) Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby (Salop Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Banbury, Frederick George Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby (Line) More, Robert, Jasper (Shropshire)
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'ths.
Bartley, George C. T. Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Morrison, James Archibald
Bignold, Arthur Goulding, Edward Alfred Mort on, Arthur H. A (Deptford)
Bigwood, James Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Mount, William Arthur
Bill, Charles Gremell, William Henry Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute
Bond, Edward Gunter, Sir Robert Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Myers, William Henry
Bowles, Gibson (King's Lynn Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x Nicol, Donald Ninian
Brotherton, Edward Allen Han bury, Rt. Hon. Robert Win. O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Brymer, William Ernest Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Butcher John George Hare, Thomas Leigh Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow Harris, Frederick Liverton Parker, Gilbert
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Haslett, Sir James Horner Penn, John
Cautley, Henry Strother Hay, Hon. Claude George Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Devonshire Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Helder, Augustus Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Henderson, Alexander Purvis, Robert
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter Randles, John S.
Chapman, Edward Higginbottom, S. W. Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Charrington, Spencer Hogg, Lindsay Ratcliff, R. F.
Churchill, Winston Spencer Hope, J. F. (Sheffi'd, Brightside Reid, James (Greenock)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Remnant, James Farquharson
Coddington, Sir William Hozier, Hn. James Henry C-cil Renwick, George
Collums, Et. Hon. Jesss Hudson, George Bickersteth Ridley, Hn M. W. (Stalvbridge
Corbett, A. Cameton (Glasgow) Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Johnston, William (Belfast) Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Knowles, Lees Ropner, Colonel Robert
Cranborne, Lord Laurence, Joseph (Monmouth) Royds, Clement Molyneux
Cripps, Charles Alfred Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Lawson, John Grant Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Crossley, Sir Savile Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H. Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles
Denny, Colonel Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead) Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Legge, Col. Hon. Heneaga Sharpe, William Edward T.
Dickson, Charles Scott Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Simeon, Sir Barrington
Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Dorington, Sir John Edward Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Spear, John Ward
Duke, Henry Edward Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S) Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwick)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lonsdale, John Brownlee Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Lowe, Francis William Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Lowther, Rt. Hn. Jas. (Kent) Stewart, Sir Mark T. M'Tazgart
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Loyd, Archie Kirkman Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Thornton, Percy M. Whitmore, Charles Algernon Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Tritton, Charles Ernest Willox, Sir John Arshibald Younger, William
Valentia, Viscount Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffi'd Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Wason, Jno. Cathcart (Orkney) Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Abraham, Win. (Cork, N. E.). Hammond, John O'Malley, William
Allan, William (Gateshead) Harmsworth, R. Leicsstor O'Mara, James
Allen, Chas. F. (Glouc, Stroud) Hayden, John Patrick O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- O'Shee, James John
Atherley-Jones, L. Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D. Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)
Austin, Sir John Hothouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) Partington, Oswald
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Hope, John Deans (Fife. West) Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Horniman, Frederick John Pickard, Benjamin
Bell, Richard Jacoby, James Alfred Power, Patrick Joseph
Black, Alexander William Joues, Day, Brynmor (Swansea Price, Robert John
Blake, Edward Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire Priestley, Arthur
Brigg, John Jordan, Jeremiah Rea, Russell
Broadhurst, Henry Joyce, Michael Reddy, M.
Bryee, Rt. Hon. James Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Burns, John Lambert, George Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Caine, William Sproston Layland-Barratt, Francis Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Caldwell, James Leigh, Sir Joseph Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Lloyd-George, David Roche, John
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Lough, Thomas Russell, T. W.
Causton, Richard Knight Lundon, W. Schwann, Charles E.
Channiag, Francis Allston MacDonuell, Dr. Mark A. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Cogan, Denis J. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Shipman, Dr. John G.
Condon, Thomas Joseph MacVeagh, Jeremiah Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Crean, Eugene M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) M'Crae, George Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan M'Govern, T. Stevenson, Francis S.
Delany, William M'Kean, John Sullivan, Donal
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles M'Kenna, Reginald Tennant, Harold John
Donelan, Captain A. M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.
Doogan, P. C. Mansfield, Horace Rendall Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Markham, Arthur Basil Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)
Dunn, Sir William Mather, William Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings
Edwards, Frank Mooney, John J. Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Elibank, Master of Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Moulton, John Fletcher Walton, Jno. Lawson (Leeds, S.)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Murphy, John Wason, Eugene (Cackmannan
Fenwick, Charles Nannetti, Joseph P. Weir, James Galloway
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Ffrench, Peter Norman, Henry White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Fitzmaurlce, Lord Edmond Norton, Capt. Cecil William Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Flynn, James Christopher O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Yoxall, James Henry
Gilhooly, James O'Brien, P. T. (Tipperary, N.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jno. O'Connor T. P. (Liverpool)
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Grant, Corrie O'Dowd, John
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Haldane, Richard Burton O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

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

Amendment proposed— After line 11, to add the words—' (e) At the Evening Sittings at which Government Business has not precedence Notices of Motion shall have precdence of the Orders of the Day.'" (Mr. Caldwell.)

Amendment proposed—

After the words last added, to add the words—(f) At all Afternoon Sittings the House will first proceed with Petitions, Motions for Unopposed Returns, and Leave of Absence to Members, giving Notices of Motions, and Unopposed Private Business.' "—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)

(6.35.) MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

, in moving the next Amendment, said it would be observed that the proposed Standing Order began with the words— "Unless the House otherwise direct." He thought the Rule was too cast iron, but the House having made it, he wanted to take care that the Government—he did not say this Government, but some Government—should not unexpectedly move to suspend the Standing Order and sweep the whole thing away, or direct otherwise than as the Standing Order directed. He did not want a Motion to be sprung upon the House suspending the whole of the Standing Order or altering a portion of it. He was quite prepared to accept any other wording, and if there was any good reason why the addition should not be accepted, he should be glad to hear it.

Amendment proposed— After the words last added, to add the words—'And no Motion to the effect that the House shall otherwise direct than is in this Order provided, or for the suspension of this Order, shall he moved, unless it has appeared at latest on the Notice Paper circulated two days before that to which it applies.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."


said that he could not accept this Amendment. The hon. Member wished two days notice for any relaxation of the Rule. He did rot know why there should be longer notice for the relaxation of this Rule than for suspending the twelve o'clock Rule. All Governments, he believed, endeavoured to meet the convenience of the House of Commons so far as they could.


thought the proposal that two days notice should be given in this matter was a very moderate requirement.


said he saw no reason why two days notice should be given. There might be occasions on which it would be extremely inconvenient to give two days notice. He hoped that his hon. friend would not press the Amendment.


Would one day's notice not be sufficient?


No. Sir.


said there had been in the past great uncertainty when particular items of business would come on, and he understood that the right hon. Gentleman laid great stress on the necessity for removing that uncertainty. His hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn did not at all wish to prevent the Government from varying the Order; he merely insisted upon reasonable notice. He did not know whether his hon. friend would divide the House, but he had done a great service in calling attention to this matter.

(6.43) Sir ROBERT REID" (Dumfries Burghs)

said this Rule was one which largely interfered with the rights of private Members. It was reasonable, with regard to such of those rights as were left, to ask for some security that they would not be taken away. The hon. Member for King's Lynn, modest and unassuming as he always was, merely wished reasonable notice of what the Government intended to do. He could not understand why in little things of this sort the right hon. Gentleman seemed disposed to be obdurate in a degree which was scarcely warranted.


said that the observation of the right hon. Gentleman was quite uncalled for, and he hoped that the discussion would not be continued much longer. He was convinced that he was appealing in this case to the general convenience of the House.


said he hoped that the hon. Member for King's Lynn would force his Motion to a division, if only for the one reason that it would teach the First Lord of the Treasury that he was the servant, and not the master, of the House. He maintained that the Notice Paper had hitherto not been considered part and parcel of Parliamentary procedure, but the effect of the Motion under discussion would be to make it so.

MR. McKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)

said that if the First Lord of the Treasury would only look at this question from the private Member's point of view, he would see that there was much more in it than he apparently imagined. Suppose that he were fortunate enough to win a first place in the ballot for a Wednesday morning sitting. Now a Member must devote a considerable amount of time to get up his subject—say the previous Monday and Tuesday—and he maintained that they ought to have reasonable warning that they need not waste their time if the Government were going to take that Wednesday.


said that there might be an arbitrary Government in power, which might wish to prevent a discussion on some great question affecting, say, the trade of the country; and it was only reasonable that Members should have notice that the Government were going to deprive them of their day.

MR. GEORGE WHITE LEY (Yorkshire, W. R., Pudsey)

said he supported the Amendment if for no other reason than that it would be a very good training for the Government Departments to look two days ahead, which was a faculty that seemed to be at present dormant. If they could only look two days ahead there would be a wonderful awakening and smartening of the business of the House, and he was sure that the First Lord of the Treasury would find it a very great convenience to himself and to the efficiency of the House in getting on with its business.

(7.0.) MR. LODER (Brighton)

said he was not sure that it was possible for the Government to alter the Standing Order without notice. If that were so, this Amendment was not necessary, but he thought the House ought to be protected by some provision of this kind. At the same time the suggestion of the hon. Member for King's Lynn requiring two days was too much. But inasmuch as Ministers had to give notice of their intention to suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule, they ought also to have to give notice with regard to this Rule.

MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)

expressed the opinion that as private Members of the House had surrendered most of their privileges, the few remaining to them should be properly safeguarded, and that, if those few remaining privileges were to be taken away, they should only be taken away after duo notice. If the first Lord of the Treasury applied the argument that notice should be given as to the work the House was to do on particular days to this case, he would find that the Amendment was a most reasonable one. But the First Lord of the Treasury had been instrumental in depriving the House of its privileges, and so far as he could see, the right hon. Gentleman had no inclination to give the House any assurance that their few remaining rights and privileges should be safeguarded and preserved.

* MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)

asked whether, in the event of the Amendment not passing, the House would be entitled to the ordinary one day's notice.


said that would be so. Notice might be given on a Monday, and it would appear in the Paper on Tuesday morning, and the Motion made on the Tuesday.


pointed out that there was nothing in the Standing Orders which required notice to be given, and that the decisions given by Mr. Speaker with regard to notice would be based on the traditions of the House.


said it was the well-established immemorial practice to give notice of such Motions.


said he assumed that it would be necessary, and in that case the House was entitled to what might be called the ordinary one day's notice. He thought it was not an unreasonable thing that there should be a somewhat longer notice. This was a part of the new scheme of the right hon. Gentleman I for giving greater certainty and security to hon. Members with regard to the order of the business with which they would be called upon to deal. Such notice as this Rule gave was notice only as from the morning, and that only to; those Members who received their papers; at their own houses, which certainly did not leave the House much security. He recognised the view which the First Lord had rather adumbrated than stated, that there might be occasion on which so short a notice was all that could be given without great inconvenience, such as, for instance, the illness of a Minister in charge of a measure. Under these circumstances he would suggest the Amendment to the Amendment now before the House by adding, after the words, "notice paper" the words "unless in case of sudden emergency," which would have the effect of preserving the

power of the Government to act on shorter notice when it must.

(7.8.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 129: Noes, 187. (Division List No. 102).

Abraham, William (Cork, X. E.) Hammond, John O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Allan, William (Gateshead) Harmsworth, R. Leicester O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud) Harden, John Patrick O'Malley, William
Ashton, Thomas Gair Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- O'Mara, James
Atherley-Jones, L. Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Austin, Sir John Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) O'Shee, James John
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Palmer, George Win. (Reading)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Horniman, Frederick John Partington, Oswald
Bell, Richard Jacoby, James Alfred Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Black, Alexander William Jameson, Major J. Eustace Pickard, Benjamin
Blake, Edward Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Power, Patrick Joseph
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Price, Robert John
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) Jordan, Jeremiah Priestley, Arthur
Brigg, John Joyce, Michael Rea, Russell
Broadhurst, Henry Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth Reddy, M.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Lambert, George Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Burns, John Layland-Barratt, Francis Raid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)
Caine, William Sproston Leigh, Sir Joseph Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Caldwell, James Lloyd-George, David Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Lough, Thomas Roche, John
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent Schwann, Charles E.
Channing, Francis Allston Lundon, W. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Cogan, Denis J. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Mac Veagh, Jeremiah Stevenson, Francis S.
Crean, Eugene M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Strachey, Sir Edward
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) M'Crae, George Sullivan, Donal
Delany, William M'Govern, T. Tennant, Harold John
Denny, Colonel M'Kean, John Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)
Donelan, Captain A. Mansfield, Horace Rendall Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Doogan, P. C. Markham, Arthur Basil Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Dunn, Sir William Mooney, John J. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Elibank, Master of Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Moulton, John Fletcher Weir, James Galloway
Fenwick, Charles Murphy, John White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Ffrench, Peter Nannett, Joseph P. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Flynn, James Christopher Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Norton, Capt. Cecil William Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Fuller, J. M. F. O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Furness, Sir Christopher O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Gilhooly, James O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir. Gibson Bowles and Mr. M'Kenna.
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Haldane, Richard Burdon O'Dowd, John
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds Cautley, Henry Strother
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Banbury, Frederick George Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Bartley, George C. T. Cayzer, Sir Charles William
Arkwright, John Stanhope Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Bignold, Arthur Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Arrol, Sir William Bill, Charles Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Blundell, Colonel Henry Chapman, Edward
Bailey, James (Walworth) Bond, Edward Charrington, Spencer
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy Brotherton, Edward Allen Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Bain, Colonel James Robert Brymer, William Ernest Corbelt, A. Cameron (Glasgow)
Baird, John George Alexander Bull, William James Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Baldwin, Alfred Butcher, John George Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Cranborne, Lord
Cripps, Charles Alfred Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Houston, Robert Pate, son Purvis, Robert
Dewar, T. R. (T'r H'mlets, S. Geo. Hudson, George Bickersteth Handles, John S.
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Dickson, Charles Scott Johnston, William (Belfast) Ratcliff, R. F.
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Knowles, Lees Reid, James (Greenock)
Dorington, Sir John Edward Lawrence, Joseph (Monmou'h) Remnant, James Farquharson
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Renwick, George
Durning-Lawrencs, Sir Edwin Lawson, John Grant Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge
Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H. Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas, Thomson
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Ropner, Colonel Robert
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Royds, Clement Molyneux
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Russell, T. W.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Finch, George H. Leder, Gerald Walter Erskine Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S) Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Fisher, William Hayes Lonsdale, John Brownlee Sharpe, William Edward T.
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Lowe, Francis William Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Forster, Henry William Loyd, Archie Kirkman Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Gardner, Ernest Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Spear, John Ward
Garfit, William Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond. Macdona, John Cumming Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Maconochie, A. W. Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin&Nairn) M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Store, Sir Benjamin
Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Majendie, James A. H. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop Malcolm, Ian Thornton, Percy M.
Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line) Martin, Richard Biddulph Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n Tritton, Charles Ernest
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Middlemore, John Throgmorton Valentia, Viscount
Goulding, Edward Alfred Mildmay, Francis Bingham Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Mitchell, William Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Green, Walford D (Wednesbury Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Gunter, Sir Robert Moore, William (Antrim, N.) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. More, Robert. Jasper (Shropshire) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd'x Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow Willox, Sir John Archibald
Han bury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford Morrison, James Archibald Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Hare, Thomas Leigh Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford) Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)
Harris, Frederick Leverton Mount, William Arthur Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Haslett, Sir James Horner Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Hay, Hon. Claude George Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Helder, Augustus Myers, William Henry Younger, William
Henderson, Alexander Nicol, Donal Niman
Hormon-Hodge. Robert Trotter Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Higginbottom, S. W. Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Hogg, Lindsay Parker, Gilbert
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Main Question, as amended, proposed.


said that, as the Resolution which had now been put from the Chair would in a very short time be added to the Rules of the House, he would like to make a few observations upon it. He had taken no part at any time in the numerous wails of lamentation which had been raised, not without reason, he thought, by private Members upon the question of their time being taken away, and the position of extreme impotence to which they had been reduced; but he had watched the thing go forward, and since the time when he first entered the House great changes had taken place. Then private Members had two days a week for Motions and the whole of Wednesday, and if he was not mistaken, whenever the Government attempted to take away, even at a belated period of the session, a considerable portion of the time of the House, it always accompanied its suggestion with something like a pledge, in 1880 that tradition was strong in the House. It was not a mere ministerial chamber, as was at present the case, but it was a place in which the minority were on titled to a hearing. It was not considered then, even in the official view, that the constituencies represented by 250 Members were of no account as a legislative body. The life and occupation in this House of private Members had been changed. In these latter days nothing could be done by them except to vote or to take part in demonstrations inside the House, or occasionally to take part in debates against the Government, because if they took part in support they were apt to suffer great discouragement. The change which was about to be made now would set the final seal of humiliation upon private Members. Certain figures had been given, extending over a number of years, showing the number of days taken by private Members and the time which had been taken by the Government. But there were certain other figures given by the right hon. Gentleman. The number of hours left to the Government, although they took—and he fully acknowledged they were bound to do so, if they meant to go on with Government business—more and more time from the private Member, was 276 hours, or about six weeks in the whole course of the session. The Government themselves had not sufficient time for debating and transacting the business of the House. They had practically extinguished the private Member, and they had now come to the point at which the iron pot, having crushed the earthen vessel, was finding itself in a similar difficulty. He would not mind the time for debate being shortened if it merely meant putting an end to useless talk and obstruction, for which he had no inclination or taste. But business was scamped, and the House was often unable to hear the valuable views of gentlemen on the other side who, from loyalty to the Government, did not take part in debates. In addition to that, many questions were not taken up in the House—questions which the Government would be wiling to take up, which they placed year after year in the King's Speech, and, no doubt sincerely, declared to be of great importance to the vital interests of the country. Moreover, controversial Government business, as well as the private Member, was practically extinguished. It was impossible to get through the House a long measure, of any kind unless it was uncontroversial, or if more than six or eight Members opposed it. The Government were obliged constantly to repeat the same proposals, with assurances of their importance, and then towards the end of the session to make the humiliating confession that they had not time to carry them into effect.

The House were now discussing a Rule, the purpose of which undoubtedly was largely to curtail the rights and opportunities of private Members. But trumpery little economies of time here and there would do nothing, The right of private Members could not be resuscitated as long as the House remained charged with all the duties it had taken upon itself. The reasoning of the First Lord had carried him a great deal farther than he wished to go. It came to this—that the House of Commons as a legislative machine, so far as private Members were concerned, had actually broken down, and that so far as Government business was concerned it had largely broken down. The more the House realised how complicated and difficult were the immense problems with which they had to deal, how much time and care they required, and how much mischief might arise from the mistakes made by the House, the more they must realise that the instrument they had to use was ineffective for the purpose. It answered the purpose of our forefathers, but it was not adequate to the needs of the present time. That state of things would not be altered by any Rules of Procedure. He was not leading up to the Irish question; the Irish question led up to itself. In regard to England, quite as much as in regard to Ireland, it was impossible, in the House of Commons alone, for Members to do anything effective to redeem the pledges made to their constituents. That tended to create a certain amount of insincerity when Members went to their constitutents, because, when they were asked about certain proposals it was very difficult to say it was impossible to carry them. Until the House recognised the difference between business which it could delegate to other quarters and business which could not be delegated and confined itself solely to the latter, it would never again become the powerful engine of the State that it used to be. That was the real moral of the figures given by the First Lord of the Treasury. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman would be historic, because, although not designed for the purpose, it was an explicit admission on the part of the Government that the House was not competent to discharge, not merely the private business of private Members, but the public business of the Government.


could not refrain from taking the opportunity to enter his protest against this new Standing Order. It marked a serious parting of the ways in Parliamentary life, freedom, and efficiency. For two months the Rules had been under discussion, and; the proposal now being considered was most destructive as against the liberty of the House of Commons. The opportunities of private Members would be almost nil. The Labour Party had been endeavouring for some time to secure opportunities for bringing forward Motions connected with the Labour

movement, but even with the liberties hitherto enjoyed the chances had been very few. AH through the session they had been trying to bring forward Motions of the utmost importance, concerning the very existence of trade combinations, the safety of their funds, and the protection of the aged, the widows, and the orphans dependent upon those funds, but they were absolutely powerless. They were rapidly approaching the time when the "Mother of Parliaments" would be a mere machine. It was already regarded as an offence to criticise the Government.

(7.43.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes. 160; Noes, 104. (Division List No. 103.)

Acland-Hood, Capt, Sir Alex. F. Dickinson, Robert Edmond Higginbottom, S. W.
Agg, Gardner, James Tynte Dickson, Charles Scott Hog, Lindsay
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Dorington, Sir John Edward Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Arkwright, John Stanhope Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Houston, Robert Paterson
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Dyke, Rt Hon Sir William Hart Hudson, George Bickersteth
Arrol, Sir William Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Johnston, William (Belfast)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. (Manc'r Keswick, William
Bagot, Capt, Josceline Fitz Roy Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Law, Andrew Bonar
Bain, Colonel James Robert. Finch, George H. Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lawson, John Grant
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Fisher, William Hayes Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Banbury, Frederick George FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Leveson-Gower, Frederick, N. S.
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Forster, Henry William Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Bartley, George C. T. Gardner, Ernest Long, Rt. Hn. Waller (Bristol, S.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Garfit, William Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Bignold, Arthur Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond. Lowe, Francis William
Bill, Charles Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Blundell, Colonel Henry Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Bond, Edward Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Gordon, J. (Londonderry. S.) Macdona, John Cumming
Brotherton, Edward Allen Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby -(Salop M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W
Ball, William James Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Line) M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Majendie, James A. H.
Cautley, Henry Strother Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Malcolm, Ian
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) Goulding, Edward Alfred Middlemore, J'hn Throgmorton
Cavendish, V. C W. (D'rbyshire Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Mitchell, William
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Green, Walford D. (W'dnesbury Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) More, Robert, Jasper (Shropshire)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Morgan, David J. (W 'lthamstow
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.
Chaplain, Rt. Hon. Henry Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x Morrison, James Archibald
Chapman, Edward Han bury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)
Charrington, Spencer Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford Mount, William Arthur
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Harris, Frederick Leverton Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Haslett, Sir James Horner Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hay, Hon. Claude George Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Myers, William Henry
Cranborne, Viscount Helder, Augustus Nicol, Donald Ninian
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Henderson, Alexander Orr-Ewing. Charles Lindsay
Dewar, T. R. (T'r H'mlets, S. Geo. Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Parker, Gilbert Ropner, Colonel Robert Thornton, Percy M.
Penn, John Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Tritton, Charles Ernest
Platt-Higgins, Frederick Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles Valentisa, Viscount
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Purvis, Robert Sharpe, William Edward T. Willox, Sir John Archibald
Randles, John S. Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. (Bath
Ratcliff, R. F. Spear, John Ward Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Reid, James (Greenock) Stanley, Lord (Lanes.) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Remnant, James Farquharson Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Renwick, George Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William, Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge Stone, Sir Benjamin
Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Harmsworth, R. Leicester O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Allan, William (Gateshead) Hayden, John Patrick O' Kelly, James (Roscommon. N
Allen, Charles P,(Glouc, Stroud Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- O'Malley, William
Atherley-Jones, L. Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. O'Mara, James
Austin, Sir John Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Barry, E. (Cork. S.) Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) O'Shee, James John
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Jameson, Major J. Eustace Partington, Oswald
Bell, Richard Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Black, Alexander William Jordan, Jeremiah Pickard, Benjamin
Blake, Edward Joyce, Michael Power, Patrick Joseph
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth Priestley, Arthur
Brigg, John Layland-Barratt, Francis Rea, Russell
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Lloyd-George, David Reddy, M.
Burns, John Lough, Thomas Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Caldwell, James Lundon, W. Reid, Sir. R. Threshie (Dumfries)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Causton, Richard Knight MacVeagh, Jeremiah Roche, John
Cogan, Denis J. M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Schwann, Charles E.
Condon, Thomas Joseph M'Crae, George Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Crean, Eugene M'Govern, T. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) M'Kean, John Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Delany, William M'Kenna, Reginald Stevenson, Francis S.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Mansfield, Horace Rendall Strachey, Sir Edward
Donelan, Captain A. Markham, Arthur Basil Sullivan, Donal
Doogan, P. C. Mooney, John J. Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Elibank, Master of Murphy, John Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Nannetti, Joseph P. Weir, James Galloway
Fenwick, Charles Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Ffrench, Peter Norton, Capt. Cecil William White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Flynn, James Christopher O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Furness, Sir Christopher O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Gilhooly, James O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Broadhurst and Mr. Channing.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Hammond, John O'Dowd, John

(7.53.) Main question, as amended, put accordingly.

The House divided:—Ayes, 160; Noes, 101. (Division List No. 104.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Bignold, Arthur Chapman, Edward
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Bill, Charles Charrington, Spencer
Arkwright, John Stanhope Blundell, Colonel Henry Ceilings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Bond, Edward Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)
Arrol, Sir William Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Brotherton, Edward Allen Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Bull, William James Cranborne, Viscount
Bain, Colonel James Robert Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r) Cautley, Henry Strother Dewar, T. R. (T'r H'mlets, S. Geo.
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds) Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) Dickinson, Robert Edmond
Banbury, Frederick George Cavendish, V. C. W. (Deby shire) Dickson, Charles Scott
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Cayzer, Sir Charles William Dorington, Sir John Edward
Bartley, George C. T. Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Penn, John
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Houston, Robert Paterson Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Hudson, George Bickersteth Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Johnston, William (Belfast) Purvis, Robert
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Keswick, William Randles, John S.
Finch, George H. Law, Andrew Bonar Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth) Ratcliff, R. F.
Fisher, William Hayes Lawson, John Grant Reid, James (Greenock)
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie Remnant, James Farquharson
Forster, Henry William Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Renwick, George
Gardner, Ernest Loder, Gerald Waller Erskine Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge
Garfit, William Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S) Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson
Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond. Lonsdale, John Brownlee Ropner, Colonel Robert
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Lowe, Francis William Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Loyd, Archie Kirkman Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn) Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop Macdona, John Cumming Smith, Abel H. (Hortford, East)
Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line) M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Spear, John Ward
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Majendie, James A. H. Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Goulding, Edward Alfred Malcolm, Ian Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Middlemore, John Throgmorton Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury Mildmay, Francis Bingham Stone, Sir Benjamin
Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) Mitchell, William Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Moore, William (Antrim, N.) Thornton, Percy M.
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. More, Robert. Jasper (Shropshire) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd'x Morgan, David J. T. Walthamstow Valentia, Viscount
Han bury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh. Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford Morrison, James Archibald Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Harris, Frederick Leverton Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Haslett, Sir James Horner Mount, William Arthur Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Hay, Hon. Claude George Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley) Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Helder, Augustus Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Henderson, Alexander Myers, William Henry
Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter Nicol, Donald Ninian
Higginbottom, S. W. Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Hogg, Lindsay Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Parker, Gilbert
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Gilhooly, James Norton, Captain Cecil William
Allan, William (Gateshead) Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud) Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Atherley-Jones, L. Hammond, John O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, X.)
Austin, Sir John Harmsworth, R. Leicester O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Hayden, John Patrick O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Bell, Richard Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- O' Dowd, John
Black, Alexander William Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N)
Blake, Edward Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Jameson, Major J. Eustace O'Malley, William
Brigg, John Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) O'Mara, James
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Jordan, Jeremiah O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Caldwell, James Joyce, Michael O'Shee, James John
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth Partington, Oswald
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Layland-Barratt, Francis Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Causton, Richard Knight Loagh, Thomas Pickard, Benjamin
Channing, Francis Allston London, W. Power, Patrick Joseph
Cogan, Denis J. MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Priestley, Arthur
Condon, Thomas Joseph MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Rea, Russell
Crean, Eugene MacVeagh Jeremiah Reddy, M.
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Delany, William M'Crae, George Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles M'Govern, T. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Donelan, Captain A. M'Kean, John Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Doogan, P. C. M'Kenna, Reginald Roche, John
Elibank, Master of Mansfield, Horace Rendall Schwann, Charles E.
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Markham, Arthur Basil Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Fenwick, Charles Mooney, John J. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Ffrench, Peter Murphy, John Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Flynn, James Christopher Nannetti, Joseph P. Stevenson, Francis S.
Furness, Sir Christopher Nolan, Joseph (Louth., South) Strachey, Sir Edward
Sullivan, Donal White, Luke (York, E. R.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Broadhurst and Mr. Charles Hobhouse.
Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Weir, James Galloway Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

The new Standing Order (Priority of Business), as finally adopted, is as follows:—

That, unless the House otherwise direct

  1. (a) Government Business shall have precedence at every Sitting except the Evening Sittings on Tuesday and Wednesday, and the Sitting on Friday.
  2. (b) At the Evening Sittings of Tuesday and Wednesday notices of Motion and Public Bills, other than Government Bills, shall have precedence of Government Business.
  3. (c) After Easter Government Business shall have precedence at the Evening Sittings of Tuesday.
  4. (d) After Whitsuntide, until Michaelmas, Government Business shall have precedence at all Evening Sittings, and at all Friday Sittings except the Sittings on the third and fourth Fridays after Whit Sunday.
  5. (e) At the Evening Sittings at which Government Business has not precedence Notices of Motion shall have precedence of the Orders of the Day.
  6. (f) At all Afternoon Sittings the House will first proceed with Petitions, Motions for unopposed Returns, and Leave of Absence to Members, giving Notices of Motions, and Unopposed Private Business."