Commons Sitting of 28 April 1902

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.
ROYAL ASSENT

  COMMISSION.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went; and being returned—
  MR. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to a number of Bills. (See page 1.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing: Order No. 62 has been complied with viz. :—
  Metropolitan Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER said upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz. :—
  Rhondda Urban District Council Tramways Bill [Lords].
  Rusthall Manor Bill [Lords].
  Swansea Corporation Water Bill [Lords]
  Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORD.
  That they have agreed to Finedon Urban District Water Bill without Amendment.
  WADHURST GAS BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  DARLEY DALE WATER BILL [LORDS].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD BILL.
  As amended, to be considered tomorrow
  GARSTON AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRIC SUPPLY (TRANSFER) BILL.
  As amended, considered; Clauses added.
  GARSTON AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRIC SUPPLY (TRANSFER) BILL.
  As amended, further considered Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.

  SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  BIRMINGHAM ASSAY OFFICE BILL [LORDS],
  ISLE OF WIGHT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL [LORDS],
  LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [LORDS],
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
  SCOTTISH EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL [LORDS],
  STREET URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL [LORDS].
  Read a second time and committed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 3).
  Leave given to the Committee to make a Special Report.—(Mr. Henry Hobhouse.)
  Special Report brought up, and read.

  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
  Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 163.]

  KINGSCOURT, KEADY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  They have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the New Swindon Gas Company; to authorise the transfer to that Company of the undertaking of the Swindon Gas and Coke Company, Limited; to change the name of the New Swindon Gas Company; and for other purposes." [Swindon United Gas Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the limits for the supply of Water by the West Hampshire Water Company, and to confer further powers upon that Company for raising capital; and for other purposes." [West Hampshire Water Bill [Lords.]

  SWINDON UNITED GAS BILL [LORDS],
    WEST HAMPSHIRE WATER BILL [LORDS].
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Elland, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From Goole; Long Eaton; and Levenshulme; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from City of London, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (LONDON) BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, against (praying to be heard by Counsel); to lie upon the Table.
  FRESHWATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dunfermline, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ICE CREAM SHOPS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dunfermline, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) ACT (1854) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Dunfermline, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Sheffield; Rock Ferry; Bedford; Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Warrington; and Upper Ipsley; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Hereford, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PLUMBERS, REGISTRATION BILL.
  Petition from Leeds, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Cleland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF LAND VALUES.
  Petition from Torquay, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXIGATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Brant Broughton; Bournemouth; Buxton; Sheffield (seven); Leytonstone; Aberdeen; Bradford; Whitehaven (two); Harrogate; Peebles; Broudesbury; Wood-side; Hampstead; and Kilburn; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  REDEMPTION OF QUIT AND CROWN RENTS IN IRELAND.
  Return Presented, relative thereto [ordered 24th March; Mr. Carew]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 160.]
  SEA FISHERIES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 22nd April; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 161.]
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of the number of Evictions in Ireland for thee quarter ended 31st March, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies Presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2773 to 2777 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SOLICITORS BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, and to be Printed. [Bill 175.]
  TRAWLERS CERTIFICATES SUSPENSION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred from Wednesday till Wednesday 28th May.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Notes as to enactment" proposed to be repealed under the Bills.—(Sir John Gorst.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No 162.]

  INDIAN EXPENDITURE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Address for "Copy of Further Correspondence between the Secretary of State for India in Council and the Treasury on the subject of the Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 387, of Session 2, 1900." (Lord G. Hamilton).
(3.35.) QUESTIONS.

  South African War—Execution of Commandant Scheepers.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state when the evidence given on the trial of Commandant Scheepers, who was executed at Graff Reinet on the 19th February, will be printed and circulated in accordance with the undertaking of the War Office, given several weeks ago; and what is the reason for the delay in the publication. May I be allowed to correct my Question. It was on the 19th January that this murder was committed.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): This evidence will be printed

  25
  with the Return of Martial Law Cases which I have promised to publish, and which is in course of preparation.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information when we shall have the Return which was promised at the beginning of the Session?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Return involves constant reference to South Africa by telegraph. I cannot present an incomplete or inadequate Return.

  The Trial of Australian Officers.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office will now publish the evidence adduced on the trial by court martial of Lieutenants Handcock and Morant, which led to their conviction of the murder of twelve Boer prisoners; and, having regard to the fact that that evidence has been for a considerable time in the possession of the War Office, will he explain why it has been withheld from the public.
  MR. BRODRICK: It is not usual to publish such evidence, and I do not propose to make this case an exception.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But was not the evidence in the Press five weeks ago?
  MR. BRODRICK: I really cannot say what the hon. Member saw in the Press. It is not usual to publish evidence given by courts martial, and I do not propose to do so in this case.

  Loyal Burghers and the Coronation.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the suggestion has reached him from a well-informed quarter that if an invitation were given to representatives of the corps of loyal Burghers to attend the ceremonies of His Majesty's Coronation, such an invitation would be gladly accepted; and, if so, whether he will inform the Colonial Secretary of the nature and source of the suggestion, to assist the latter right hon. Gentleman in the consideration he has promised to give the matter.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have had no such intimation. Any such suggestion would in ordinary course be at once forwarded to the Colonial Secretary for his consideration.

  Transport of Hay to South Africa from Canada.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the steamship "Monadnock," belonging to Messrs. T. Hogan and Son, of 21, State Street, New York, has been chartered to carry hay from St. John, New Brunswick, to Cape Town; whether she has already sailed for St. John; whether there are no British-owned vessels suitable and available for such service; or for what other reason preference was given to a a foreign-owned vessel.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The Canadian Government buys and ships Canadian hay to South Africa as an agent of this Department. I am not aware of the chartering of the "Monadnock" by the Canadian Government, nor has the-High Commissioner for Canada any knowledge of such chartering.

  Shot Drill in Lichfield Gaol.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state when it came to the knowledge of the War Office that the punishment of shot drill was inflicted on prisoners in the military ceils at Lichfield till 17th February last; on how many prisoners from the time of the abolition of shot drill in the Army, in April, 1899, till 17th February last was this punishment inflicted, and for what periods in each case; who were the officers responsible for the infliction of this punishment, and what notice, if any, has been taken of their conduct, and what compensation has been given to the men on whom this shot drill has been thus inflicted; and will he state what explanation, if any, has the War Office to offer for the continuous practice of this custom at Lichfield for four years after its abolition in the Army, and in what other military prisons has this punishment been inflicted: and, whether he will cause to be

  27
  circulated the Report for which he has asked with reference to the infliction of sentences of shot drill, and the results of the inquiry he directed.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have nothing to add to the information which I have already given to the hon. Member.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: As a matter of order I wish to draw your attention Mr. Speaker to the answer I have just received. I put down a Question, not at all cognate to any I have previously asked, and the right hon. Gentleman tells me he has no additional information to give me.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman says so, the Question whether or not he should say so cannot be discussed. I cannot judge whether the answer is right or wrong. It is an answer to the Question on the Paper.

  Regimental District Clerical Staff.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any official representations have been made to the War Office with regard to the inadequacy of the clerical staff allowed to officers commanding regimental districts; and whether it is intended to remedy this alleged deficiency.
  LORD STANLEY: In some cases representations to this effect have been made. General officers have already power to grant extra duty pay to temporary clerks if there is pressure of work, and in certain cases where general officers have found it impossible to obtain adequate military clerical assistance the employment of civilian clerks has been authorised.

  Subvention of Merchant Steamers for War Service.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the terms of reference to the Committee appointed by the Admiralty to inquire into matters relating to the subvention of merchant steamers for purposes of; war; whether he can give the names, of members of the Committee; whether
  28
  the report and evidence submitted will be laid before Parliament; and whether arrangements can be made to postpone taking in Supply Vote 8, Section 3, which includes the charge for subsidies to merchant steamers, until the Report and evidence taken by the Committee are in the hands of Members.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The Committee has been appointed by the Admiralty with limited reference. It is charged to ascertain in what way, and at what cost steamers of greater speed than those now employed, and of greater efficiency for war purposes, may be obtained in return for subsidies paid, and also to ascertain and report as to what modification of the existing form of agreement, and what addition to the present rate of subsidy may be necessary in order to prevent the transfer to a foreign flag without permission of the Admiralty of any ship which receives or has received a subsidy. The names of the Committee as at present constituted are as follows:—The Earl of Camperdown, Vice-Admiral FitzGerald, Professor J. H. Biles, Mr. Robert Chalmers, C.B., representing the Treasury, Mr. Buxton Forman, representing the Post Office, and Captain Tupper, R.N., Secretary. I cannot at the present time say whether it will be possible to present the Report and evidence to the House. The question of whether it will be possible to postpone the discussion on Vote 8, Section 3, so as to allow of the discussion of the Report of the Committee must depend upon the date on which that report is received.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: May I ask whether, under those terms, the policy of paying subsidies is open to review?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir. The reference is a limited reference. Assuming the policy to be continued, the consideration of the circumstances under which that policy can be continued in the most effective way is complying with the terms of reference.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the creation of a fleet of Royal Naval Reserve Cruisers, by the adoption of a policy of subventions to merchant steamers, was recommended in 1887, by the Admiralty to the Treasury, as having pecuniary advantage by serving to limit the necessity for the construction of fast war vessels to protect the commerce of the country; and, seeing that the total amount of subventions paid in pursuance of that policy since 1887 inclusive, exceeds half a million sterling, whether he can state approximately what has been the pecuniary advantage derived from that expenditure due to limitations put by the Admiralty on the construction of fast war vessels to protect commerce, as consequence of the adoption of the policy so recommended.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Whatever may have been the original policy which led to the subvention of Merchant Cruisers, it is considered by the Admiralty that definite functions could be assigned to such steamers in a future naval war, and that they should therefore, if compatible with a reasonable expenditure, be retained independently of any such result as that which was anticipated by the Committee in 1887. In answer to the last part of the hon. and gallant Member's Question, I should imagine that the subsidising of these vessels has not had any serious effect in diminishing the expenditure upon fast cruisers, the armoured cruiser having become a specially important type of vessel capable of rendering services which could not be performed by any mercantile cruiser.

  Transatlantic Shipping Combination.
  MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the English shipping companies enter the new trans-Atlantic combination on precisely the same terms as the German and American lines.
  THE PRESIDENT OE THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I am afraid the only answer I
  30
  can give to this Question is that the Government have no official information on this subject.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government has no information whatever with regard to this tremendous event?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I said no "official" information.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade, under the general powers of control and enforcement of the Merchant Shipping Act given to the Board under Sections 713 to 723 of the Act, has power to require the disclosure of any agreement entered into by a qualified British owner of a registered British ship for the transfer or transmission of any such ship to any person or body of persons who may not be qualified under the Act to own or be registered as owner thereof, and especially power to require the production of any declarations made or to be made under Section 25 of the Act; whether the White Star and other companies who have entered into the American combination have been or will be required to disclose the terms of their agreements with the American syndicate, or to produce any declarations under Sections 25 and 26 of the Act, or other documents to show the status of the persons who will, under those agreements, acquire a share in the control or beneficial interest in the ships concerned; and whether he will take steps either to enforce the existing law or to obtain further powers by legislation to prevent evasion or infraction of the Act.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board of Trade have not, under Sections 713 to 723 of the Merchant Shipping Act, as the Department to undertake the general superintendence of all matters relating to Merchant Shipping, power to require the disclosure of any agreement or the production of any declaration such as those referred to by the hon. Member. Section 25 merely prescribes the nature of the declaration which must

  31
  be made by a transferee before he can be registered as the owner of a British ship. With respect to the last paragraph of the Question, I have no reason for thinking that further powers are required for preventing evasion or infraction of the Act, but, as I stated on Friday, the possible effects of the proposed shipping combination are engaging the serious attention of His Majesty's Government.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Section 25 does not refer to the making of a declaration when either a ship or a share therein is transferred?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I believe it does, but only where the transfer is to a British owner.
  MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Government has retained the power of utilising the vessels of the English shipping companies in time of war, and whether they have secured or will be able to secure the same right over the vessels at present in construction.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Admiralty has retained the power of utilising in time of war a certain number of vessels belonging to the Mercantile Marine. The agreements by which the services of these ships are secured also provide for a similar lien over vessels in construction for the respective companies.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the rights of His Majesty's Government be affected by the fact of these vessels having passed, if they have passed, into foreign ownership?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That Question has been already answered. We have had an assurance that these ships have not passed from the control of the Government.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Will the hon. Gentleman lay a copy of the contract on the Table of the House?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There can be no objection to that.

  Fleet Hydraulic Machinery.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any Regulation has been promulgated by the Admiralty depriving engineer officers of the control of electrical hydraulic machinery above deck, and giving charge thereof to torpedo and gunnery lieutenants; and whether any such Regulation has been withdrawn after a few weeks for further consideration; or, if not, what steps have been and are being taken by the Admiralty with reference to any such Regulation.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There is no foundation for the statement that the Regulation referred to by the Hon. Member has been withdrawn. When the decision of the Board to make the change was finally adopted, no orders were issued to the Fleet, because the Regulations necessary to carry the new plan into effect were being specially considered by a Committee appointed for that purpose. The Committee have now made their Report, and after it has been duly considered, the necessary Regulations will be drawn up. When that is done, orders will be issued to the Fleet in due course.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Is it the intention of the Admiralty to convert gunnery lieutenants into mechanical engineers?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is the intention of the Admiralty that they should qualify for this particular work.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: By what means?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is the matter on which the Committee reported, and the necessary Regulations are at this moment being considered by the Admiralty.

  H.M.S. "Spartiate."
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the nature of the defects in the machinery of H.M.S. "Spartiate," which have prevented her thirty hours trial being completed; and can he state

  33
  what were the revolutions of the engines and pressure on gauges at the time when the defects developed.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether H.M.S. "Spartiate" has broken down in her recent trials; and whether he can give any information on the subject.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The" Spartiate "was prevented from carrying out her thirty hours trial by the heating of the eccentric straps of the low pressure link gear. The revolutions of the engines at the time were 113.2, and the steam pressure on the low pressure receivers' gauges was twelve pounds.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Have the condensers been at fault this time?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir.

  Naval Paymasters.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that assistant paymasters in His Majesty's Navy, when promoted at thirty-one years of age to paymasters, receive 14s. per day; while engineers between the ages of thirty-one and thirty-eight receive only 12s. per day; and, seeing that doctors on entering the Navy receive 14s. 6d. per day, while the engineer after five years' experience as assistant receives 10s. per day, can he state the reason for such difierences in pay.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The statement that engineers between the ages of thirty-one and thirty-eight receive only 12s. a day is not correct, the average rates of pay of engineer officers being as follow :—At thirty-one. 11s. a day with an allowance of 1s. 6d. a day for change of engines; total 12s. 6d. At thirty-three, 12s. a day, with the same allowance, or 13s. 6d. a day in all. Between thirty-six and thirty-seven (which, as I explained to the hon. Member last week, is the average age for promotion to Chief Engineer), 16s. a day, together with the allowance of Is. 6d. a day; total 17s. 6d. Between thirty-seven and thirty-eight, 17s. a day, with the same allowance,
  34
  or 18s. 6d. a day in all. As regards the latter part of the Question, the pay of surgeons on entry has recently been raised from 11s. 6d. a day to 14s. a day (not 14s. 6d., as stated by the hon. Member), and the reasons for this increase have already been given fully to the House. The reasons were peculiar to the medical service, and therefore the increase in pay was limited to this branch of the service.

  Naval Intelligence Department.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any branch or section of the Naval Intelligence Department is exclusively employed in collecting, digesting, and tabulating all necessary information respecting merchant shipping and operations of sea commerce all over the world for the use of the Admiralty and the guidance of the senior officers of His Majesty's Fleet in the event of war; and, if so, what is the constitution of such branch or section, and what is annually spent upon it.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The special duty of collecting and tabulating information of the nature referred to in the Question is assigned to a special officer in the Intelligence Department acting under the Director of Naval Intelligence. The rank of the officer referred to is that of Post Captain, and he receives the pay and allowances of his rank. He has the assistance of the Civil Staff of the Department of the Director of Naval Intelligence, and it is further proposed to furnish him with a special assistant. Much of the information received and tabulated by this officer is furnished by the Board of Trade.

  Government Employees and Wife Maintenance.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will cause an inquiry to be made as to the refusal of Joseph McMahon second cooper, O, No. 343,437, Royal Naval Barracks, Devonport, to contribute to the support of his wife and thus prevent her from becoming a burden on the rates of the Limerick Union.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The case referred to by the hon. Member has already been brought to the notice of the

  35
  Admiralty, who have called the attention of the man's commanding officer to it. As the Admiralty have no legal power to authorise compulsory deductions from a man's pay for the maintenance of his relations, they are unable to take further action in the matter.

  Indian Famine—Irrigation in the Cutch State.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the fact that consequent on defective rainfalls Cutch and the surrounding districts have been visited during the last four years by consecutive famines, what steps have been taken or will be taken to construct canal and other irrigation works from the Indus to diminish the sufferings of the people, encourage agriculture, and restore to cultivation large tracts of and land.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I am not aware that any project for constructing a canal from the Indus to the native state of Cutch has ever been proposed, and the physical configuration of the country would probably render its execution impossible. In the British districts of Sindh, which adjoins Cutch, the question of extending irrigation from the Indus is receiving continuous attention.

  Railway Facilities in the Cutch State.
  SIR. JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he has had under consideration the question of connecting Bombay and Sindh by direct railway communication, so as to give facilities for traffic to and from Cutch, Sindh, Gujurat, Purkar, and the adjacent districts, which have suffered during the last two famines from the insufficient supply of food both for men and cattle; and, seeing that the lack of such communication prevents the development of the mineral wealth of Cutch, at present restricted to the alum mines at Muth, and that this line would reduce the distance for transporting troops and supplies from Bombay to the frontier, whether he will take care that the objections of the Rao of Cutch do not prevent its formation through his State; and whether there is reason to hope the Indian Government will
  36
  sanction the scheme, settle definitely the route through Cutch, and entertain offers from private companies desirous of taking up the construction and working of the proposed line.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by me on the 16th July last year, to a similar Question asked on his behalf by the hon. Member for Dundee, when I stated that there are other railway projects of greater urgency awaiting execution, and that I was not prepared to set them aside in favour of the proposed line through Cutch, which only promises a return of 2 per cent. upon the cost of its construction. Since that reply was given, the Government of India have allotted a sum of Rs 2 lakhs for expenditure in the present financial year on a railway, which, if continued, will form the first section of the proposed Cutch-Bombay line; but I cannot undertake to say when any further steps will be taken in the prosecution of the entire scheme.

  Service of British Troops in India.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether in the correspondence with the Government of India, the Viceroy in Council has expressed an opinion on the proper terms of service of the British troops; whether, when the correspondence is completed, the written opinions of the members of the Viceroy's Council upon the terms of service will be laid upon the Table.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Beyond a wish to extend by bounty the service of a certain number of men, no opinion has been expressed by the Viceroy in Council on the proper terms of service of the British troops, nor am I aware of the existence of any written opinions of members of the Viceroy's Council on this subject.

  Budget Proposals—Cheque Stamp Duty.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view of relieving the growing anxiety in commercial circles and preventing changes that may prove

  37
  unnecessary in methods of business, he can now state what changes he intends to make in the proposed increase of the stamp tax.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): What I propose is this. As hon. Members are aware, the stamp duty on cheques is paid for, in the first instance, by the banker, and then charged by him to his customer's account. It is the practice in London, and also very largely in the country, when a customer sends his pass book to be made up, to return to him with the pass book the cheques which he has drawn. I propose that this shall always be done—and that then the customer, on forwarding to a collector of Inland Revenue, or presenting at the nearest Money Order Office the cheques which he has drawn under £2, shall be entitled to be paid the extra 1d. on all such cheques. The result will be to relieve all cheques under £2 of the new duty.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the representatives of the Post Office or the customers will keep the cheques?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Some arrangement will have to be made for a check on postmasters, of course. I will consider that.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: May I ask whether the bankers of London have recommended this extraordinary course?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman calls it an extraordinary proposal. It is not at all impracticable, I think. It is what is done at present with regard to income tax on premiums of insurance, only it will be done in a much easier and simpler way.
  MR. BARTLEY: Will any opportunity be given of discussing the salaries of the staff required at the different offices to carry this out?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The present staff can perfectly well do it.

  Grape Sugar and the Flour Duty.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that flour is used in the manufacture of grape sugar (glucose), which is already taxed in proportion to its value as compared with ordinary sugar; whether he is prepared to make an exemption of flour so used from the proposed new duty on flour, or as an alternative to allow a rebate of the existing excise duty on grape sugar; and, whether, failing such an exemption or rebate, the effect will be that imported grape sugar will only pay £2 15s. per ton import duty against £3 5s. per ton paid by the home-manufactured article.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: My attention has been called to this matter. I do not think any exemption would be possible—but I will consider whether the alternative suggested in the Question could be adopted.

  Metropolitan Pauper Children.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of children at present in Metropolitan workhouses and infirmaries.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Walter): The Returns for the week ending 12th instant give the numbers as follows—workhouses, 1,235; infirmaries, 1,739. These totals include respectively, 670 and 647 children under three years of age.
  MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the number of children at present suffering from ophthalmia and ringworm respectively in Metropolitan Poor Law schools and institutions.
  MR. WALTER LONG: According to the latest information in my possession the number of children suffering from ophthalmia and ringworm, respectively,

  39
  was—413 and 325 in Metropolitan Poor Law schools, and 351 and 294 in Metropolitan workhouses and infirmaries.

  Paddington Telephone Service.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the Post Office telephone authorities four or five months ago laid telephone wires through the whole or a part of the Paddington district, but have not yet connected the houses, with the wires, and that the residents in the district have applied to have their houses connected, and have complained of the inconvenience caused by the delay; whether he will state the reasons for the delay and the date when it is proposed to complete the telephonic system in the district referred to.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): A Post Office Telephone Exchange is being constructed in Bird Street, Oxford Street, to serve a district bounded on the East by Regent Street, and extending between Piccadilly and Regent's Park. It will also include a considerable part of Paddington and Bayswater. Owing to difficulties in the acquisition of the premises, it has not yet been possible to commence the necessary structural alterations and additions, but it is hoped to do so in a few weeks. These alterations, and the installation of the Exchange plant, will necessarily occupy some months, and it will not be possible to open the Exchange before the end of the present year. In the meantime the work of laying and jointing the cables in the underground pipes which have recently been laid is proceeding, in order that the connection of subscribers' houses may be completed very rapidly, as soon as the Exchange is ready to be opened.

  Merthyr Post Office.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state when the lease of the present Merthyr Post Office expires; whether ground has been acquired for a new Post Office; and, so, when will the new building be commenced.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The lease of the present Post Office at Merthyr will expire on the 1st of May next, and arrangements have been made to provide a temporary office in Globe-land Street. The site for the new office in John Street has been acquired, but it is not likely that the building will be commenced during the present financial year.

  Scottish Private Bill Procedure—Local Inquiries.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Commission sitting in Edinburgh under the Private Bill Procedure Act will hold any portion of their sittings in Aberdeen; and, if not, whether any local inquiry will be held by them there.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): No, Sir, I understand the two Orders relating to Buckie and Aberdeen were first on the list for inquiry; the Buckie inquiry is now over, and the Aberdeen inquiry is proceeding at Edinburgh.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: May I ask whether an application has been made to have the inquiry at Aberdeen, and whether a large number of witnesses has been sent to Edinburgh at great expense and inconvenience.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I cannot make any further statement on this question.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to give notice that in consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I will take the first opportunity of calling attention to the matter, and protesting against the action taken.
  MR. PIRIE: May I ask whether the sole object of the Act was not to secure that these inquiries should be held locally?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order The Question on the Paper has been answered.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether there is anything in the rules made under the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Act to prevent Commissioners appointed under that Act for the purpose of inquiring into a number of private Bills from holding their sittings, for the purposes of one or more Bills, in one place, and, for the purposes of another Bill or other Bills, in another place, with a view to the convenience of promoters, opponents and witnesses; and whether, if this be the case, he will represent to the Commissioners recently appointed to inquire into the Aberdeen Tramways Bill and the Buckie Harbour Bill the desirability of their transferring their sittings to Aberdeen as soon as they begin their inquiry into those Bills.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: There is nothing in the rules or in the Act to prevent Commissioners from holding their inquiry in different places, as suggested by the right hon. Member. In fact, this course was adopted in one of last year's inquiries, which was held partly in Glasgow, to settle a Glasgow scheme, and partly at Ayr, to settle schemes in Ayr, Ardrossan, and Irvine; and another inquiry (which ultimately proved unnecessary) was appointed to be held partly in Edinburgh and partly in Greenock. Last year's experience was not considered entirely favourable to the alteration of a place of inquiry or to the holding of an inquiry away from convenient and central localities. As regards the Buckie and Aberdeen Orders, I understand that inquiry into the former has now closed, and that into the latter is now proceeding at Edinburgh.
  MR. BRYCE: I wish to say that in consequence of the answer, I shall take an early opportunity to call attention to the subject—if possible, on the Scottish Estimates.
  MR. CROMBIE: May I ask whether the Act does not give full powers to the Commissioners to appoint the place of meeting, and not to the Scottish Office?
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Act says the Commissioners.
  MR. PIRIE: In whose interests was the locality chosen? Can the hon. Member deny that it was in the interests of the Edinburgh lawyers?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. PIRIE: No. He cannot deny that it was.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Steam Trawling in Dingle Bay.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the night of 11th April damage to the nets of two boats, both fishing in Dingle Bay, was caused by one or more steam trawlers, and that the loss was properly reported at Caher-civeen; and, seeing that the ss. "Helga" is not able to patrol the whole coast, whether the assistance of another steamer will be given for the next two months at least, until the spring fishery is over.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The question of providing additional protection to the Irish fisheries against the depredations of trawlers is engaging attention.

  Monaghan Rates.
  MR. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether: he is aware that the town rates of Monaghan have not been collected for the past three years, and can he state who is responsible for this neglect in the collection of the rates.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The last town rate collected in Monaghan was in 1900, in respect of the nine months ended the 31st March of that year. No rate has since been struck. The Town Council now proposes, however, to strike another rate. The Local Government Board has no jurisdiction as regards the assessment or collection of town rates. The proper persons to take action, paradoxical as it may seem, are the ratepayers.

  Cork Land Appeals.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Land Commission in recent years have selected Killarney for the hearing of appeals coming from the rural districts of Kanturk, Newmarket, and Millstreet; and whether, in view of the inconvenience and expense caused to solicitors and clients, the Land Commissioners will consider the advisability of hearing these cases in Cork or other central place.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The localities mentioned in the Question are all nearer to Killarney than to Cork. The matter is one for determination by the Land Commissioners, who, I have no doubt, will consult the convenience of all parties concerned, so far as possible. I have brought the hon. Member's suggestion under the notice of the Commissioners.

  Ennistymon Agrarian Outrage.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any persons have been made amenable for the malicious injuries inflicted on four horses, the property of Mr. John McInerney, of Ennistymon.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Every effort has been made by the police to clear up this case. No person has yet been made amenable. I ought to add that this case was not, in respect of cruelty, akin to the revolting case to which the hon. and gallant Member for East Antrim drew attention on Friday.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there are any vacancies in the Criminal Investigation Department which would suit the Members for Antrim?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Ex-Sergeant Sheridan R.I.C.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that he saw no evidence that Sergeant Sheridan had burned Mrs. Quinlan's hay, he yet recommended compensation to the mother of Con Bray,
  44
  whom Sheridan prosecuted and convicted for the offence; and, in view of the fact that Murphy, who was imprisoned on the testimony of Sergeant Sheridan for the mutilation and killing of Michael Cregan's ass in the same locality, was afterwards compensated on the recomendation of the Chief Secretary, will he recommend that the Constabulary authorities, or whatever other Department compensated Mrs. Bray and Murphy, shall refund their respective moneys to the tax-payers which were levied on them for this compensation, seeing that the various sums can be ascertained from the books of the rate collector of that time and from the books of the gentleman who was then secretary of the Grand Jury, which are now in the custody of the secretary of the Limerick County Council.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I said. Sir, on the 22nd that I had no evidence to prove that Sheridan burned Mrs. Quinlan's hay. I pointed out the difficulty of tracing the ratepayers nearly four years ago. On the merits of whether the sums collected should be repaid to the County Council I gave no opinion, but expressed my readiness to consider a request from that Body. I have nothing more to add.
  MR. LUNDON: I will furnish the right hon. Gentleman with a complete list of the ratepayers who paid four years ago.

  Irish Fairs—Prices of Stock.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the names and addresses of the nine men who report from their observations on the fairs, for the guidance of the Land Commissioners, as to the prices of stock, and to what religous denominations these reporters belong; how many fairs in the year they attend; how many reports are they bound to furnish; and is the sum of £200 previously specified the sum paid to all collectively of the year's services, or does it mean £200 for each reporter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reports made by the Inspectors are made to the Department of Agriculture, not to the Land Commissioners. I have communicated their names and addresses to

  45
  the hon. Member. Their religious denominations are not known to the Department. Last year the number of fairs attended by the reporters was 143; the number of reports made was 308. The payments to them, collectively, average about £800 per annum, including travelling expenses.
  MR. REDDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reports of these officials are repudiated by sellers of stock?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Commitments to Irish Industrial Schools.
  MR. HEMPHILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a decision of Mr. W. E. Dunsterville, Resident Magistrate, at the Strabane Petty Sessions, on the 14th April inst., in which he refused to commit to St. Catherine's Certified Industrial School at Strabane a little girl named Mary Dempsey, who was otherwise admittedly a fit subject for such committal, on the sole ground that he had no legal power to do so because she was under six years of age, although the manager of the schools was willing to take her free of public charge; and whether, inasmuch as there is not any provision in the Industrial Schools Acts to warrant such a decision, and children under six years of age have been frequently committed to industrial schools, he will be good enough to state on what grounds this child, whose mother was then in prison, was debarred from being rescued from the streets and sent to an industrial school.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The magistrate stated the grounds for his decision in court. It is not for me to criticise its validity.
  MR. HEMPHILL: I asked on what ground the magistrate based his decision. Is there anything in the Act of Parliament to exclude children under six years of age?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have said the magistrate stated his decision. It is not for me to say whether or not he rightly interprets the Act.
  MR. HEMPHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire further. This child of four is a perfect waif. She cannot appeal from the decision, and there will be no redress unless the right hon. Gentleman sees that the magistrate is set right.
  MR. WYNDHAM: If I find it possible I will further inquire into the matter.

  Crime in County Cork.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the quarter sessions for the Midleton Division of the County Cork, held last week at Midleton, the Recorder of Cork informed the grand jury that the only case to go before them was one of petty larceny; and if he can say why the Midleton district has been proclaimed under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am afraid I cannot supplement the statement already made by me in this matter.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the object of these proclamations to create crime?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. DELANY: May I ask why, in view of the peaceful condition of Queen's County, that has not been included in the proclamation?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will undertake that, before carrying out at the expense of Irish taxpayers any of the recommendations made by the Committee which investigated the alleged grievances of the Royal Irish Constabulary, the Irish representatives will be afforded an opportunity of discussing the recommendations.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Some of the recommendations could only be given effect to by legislation, which would necessarily give an opportunity for discussion. To

  47
  carry out the remaining recommendations not requiring legislation, an additional sum of money would have to be placed on the Estimates. The Estimates for the current year contain no such provision. The Question of the hon. Member is, therefore premature.
  MR. MACVEAGH: But is it not possible that some of the changes for which legislation is not required might be made after the Estimates had been passed? In that case we should have no opportunity of discussing them.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no immediate intention of asking for any provision to be made.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many of the county inspectors of the Royal Irish Constabulary and how many district inspectors are Roman Catholics and Protestants respectively.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Four of the county inspectors are Roman Catholics and thirty-three Protestants. Sixty district inspectors are Roman Catholics and 154 Protestants.

  Irish Post Office Boot Contracts.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is in contemplation to withdraw the contract for Irish telegraph messengers' boots from Irish manufacturers; and, if so, seeing that this work is for an Irish Department, whether he will use his efforts to secure that the contracts be kept in that country.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Irish tenders for the supply of telegraph messengers' boots in Ireland were this year as much as 1.5 per cent. higher than the English tenders after allowing for the cost of carriage, and consequently the Postmaster General has felt it necessary to consider the question of placing the contract elsewhere for this year.
  MR. NANNETTI: Is it not a fact that tenders for supplying these boots have
  48
  recently been asked for, and was not the manufacturer whose tender was the lowest a Dublin firm, and will the hon. Gentleman see that the lowest Irish tender be accepted?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly not.
  MR. NANNETTI: But tenders were asked for only from Ireland, and is it not usual to accept the lowest?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; tenders were asked for from Irish manufacturers, but it was found that they were so much higher than the English tenders that they could not possibly be accepted.
  MR. NANNETTI: One further Question——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot discuss the matter now. The Question on the Paper has been fully answered.
  MR. NANNETTI: I only want to ask——
  MR. SPEAKER: I have told the hon. Member he is not in order.

  Rossminna Fisheries.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Congested Districts Board to build a pier at Rossminna, Westport, County Mayo.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board has no present intention of constructing a pier at this place.

  Ellis Estate, Limerick.
  MR. O'SHAIJGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state in how many cases were caretakers' notices served recently on the tenants on the Ellis Estate, near Abbey-feale, in the county of Limerick.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The number of such notices obtained at quarter sessions was thirty-three.

  Removal of an Irish Magistrate.
  MR. power: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Power, of Dungarvan, County Waterford, has been removed from the Commission of the Peace by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; and whether he can state the date on which Mr. Power was sworn in as a Justice of the Peace.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Power has been removed from the Commission of the Peace. Upon his election as Chairman of the Dungarvan Urban District Council, he became, ipso facto, a Justice of the Peace. He had not taken the magisterial oaths, but he was by law a magistrate, and could at any time have acted as such on taking the oaths.
  MR. POWER: Had this gentleman been sworn in as a magistrate?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have said he had not.
  DR. AMBROSE: Will pro-Boer magistrates be treated in the same way?

  Committals for Contempt of Court.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that in October, 1882, the Government of the day promised, on an early date, to introduce a measure with a view of defining and limiting the power of fine and committal for contempt of court; and, having regard to the expressions used by Lord Russell of Killowen from the judicial bench in April, 1896, in the case of Payne v. Cooper, with respect to applications for contempt of court and the decisions thereon, whether the Government will take into consideration the propriety at an early day of proposing legislation on this subject themselves or of affording facilities for the passage through Parliament of the Bill on this subject introduced by the hon. Member for North Leitrim.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I can hold out no hope to the hon. Gentleman of being able to find time for a
  50
  measure on this subject during the course of the present session, nor do I regard myself as being a universal legatee of pledges made in the Parliament of 1882.

  Municipal Trading.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will state when he proposes to nominate the Committee on Municipal Trading.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should be glad to see the Committee to which my hon. friend refers appointed as soon as possible; but I am afraid that in the present condition of public business I cannot find time for a debated Motion on the subject.

Business of the House.
MR. BRYCE: On behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state the intentions of the Government in regard to the "Whitsuntide recess; and what business it is proposed to take on Thursday and Friday and during next week.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is proposed to take discussion on the Rules tomorrow and Thursday. I can make no statement about Friday. With regard to the Whitsuntide holidays, I regret to say that I see very little prospect of our being able to extend them beyond the Thursday after Whit Sunday.
MR. BRYCE: The House would be glad to know what course the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take with regard to the Education and Finance Bills.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not gather that that is in the Question on the Paper.
MR. BRYCE: The last words were intended to cover it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, as I have already announced, we propose to take the Second Reading of the Education Bill on Monday, and the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on the following Monday.

New Rules of Procedure.
DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether only one more day is to be allowed for the consideration of the Procedure Rules; whether the House will have the opportunity of having a Third Reading debate on the Rules; and whether, in preparation for this, and in consideration of the number of changes made in the Rules as originally framed, he will circulate a revised version for the information of hon. Members.
MR. CHAPLIN: I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state, for the convenience of many Members, the order in which he proposes to take the remaining Rules of Procedure which are now on the Paper; and if it is the intention of the Government to proceed with all of those Rules, and to press them to a conclusion.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that, beyond the opportunity which would necessarily be given when the Motion is made that the new Rules be Standing Orders of the House, it is not necessary to give further facilities for a general debate. I may remind the House that we have already taken three weeks of Parliamentary time on these Rules, and perhaps more time has been spent in their discussion than is absolutely necessary. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member that the Rules should be re-printed in consequence of the numerous changes made, I think he will find all the information he desires on the Blue Paper, which is extremely complete. Of course, there would be no difficulty in re-printing the Rules, but that would lead to a multiplicity of Papers, which would be rather confusing instead of clearing the way. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, I have to say that we must evidently proceed as fast as possible with the block of Rules, which do not come into operation until they are all passed, but which do then come into operation together. As soon as that moment is reached, it will be proposed to make them Standing Orders. After the House has disposed of the one now under discussion, the other Rules of the block will be taken in the following order :—Questions, Motions for Adjournment,
52
Private Bill business, Quorum of the House, Standing Committee, and Sittings of the House. These are all embraced in the block which it is proposed to move together as Standing Orders. I do not propose, however, to place the remaining Rules before other important business which seems likely to put a heavy strain on the time and attention of the House.
MR. CHAPLIN: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say the Question Rule will betaken next, but I did not gather in what order the rest are to be taken. There are on the Paper this afternoon four Orders of the Day relating to Questions of Procedure. Do I understand that they are to be taken as they stand? It will be a great convenience to the House to know exactly in what order these Rules are to be taken.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did give the information my right hon. friend desires, but perhaps he did not catch it. [The right hon. Gentleman repeated his statement.] I propose to go on with the Rules required to complete the block of Orders relating to the arrangement of business, and I shall take them in the order I have named.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: That is the order in which they stand on the separate Paper.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that is so.
MR. CHAPLIN: You give precedence to the four Orders of the Day relating to Procedure. But the Rule relating to Questions is not mentioned there. Do you propose to take it before the first four Orders—which deal with—(1) Supply Rules; (2) Sittings of the House; (3) Second and Third Readings; and (4) Order in Debate.
MR. SPEAKER: The Government have the right to arrange their business as they choose. They put down first the adjourned debate on the proposed new Standing Order, and then it is intimated that the further proposals appear on a separate Paper. There the right hon. Gentleman will find a series of Motions to come on next.
MR. CHAPLIN: I hope that for the convenience of the House it will be possible in future to put the Rules on the Orders of the Day in the order in which it is intended they shall be taken.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the course we have adopted is the most intellgible to the House, but if the right hon. Gentleman can suggest any alteration I shall be glad to consider it.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is not in accordance with the practice of the House, immediately after the consideration of a new Standing Order, to put the Question, "That this be a Standing Order of the House."
MR. SPEAKER: Not necessarily immediately after the Resolution is passed, but before it becomes a Standing Order it must be ordered to be a Standing Order.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then do I understand that all the new Standing Orders may be lumped together and passed as one Resolution?
MR. SPEAKER: I am not clear whether that has been done before or not, but it is clear that the House could do it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It has been done before.
MR. LOUGH: Will the block of Rules which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned come into operation immediately after we have adopted them?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
Rear Admiral Charles William de la Poer Beresford, C.B., commonly called Lord Charles William de la Poer Beresford for Borough of Woolwich.
Hugh Alexander Law, esquire, for County of Donegal (West Donegal Division).

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to
54
Musical Copyright." [Musical Copyright Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate, with Amendments, the enactments relating to Naval Prize of War." [Naval Prize Bill [Lords.]

NEW BILLS.
  BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To declare and amend the Law of Bankruptcy in relation to after-acquired property of a Bankrupt," presented by Sir Albert Rollit, under Standing Order 31; supported by Sir Henry Fowler; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 176.]
  COLONIAL MARRIAGES (No. 2.) BILL.
  "To amend the Law of Inheritance in the case of certain Colonial Marriages," presented by General Laurie, under Standing Order 31; supported by Mr. Rothschild, Mr. Arthur Stanley, Mr. Parker, and Captain Jessel; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]
NEW PROCEDURE RULES.
[TWELFTH DAY'S DEBATE.]
NEW PROCEDURE RULES.

  NEW STANDING ORDER (BUSINESS IN SUPPLY).
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on proposed New Standing Order (Business in Suppply), as amended [25th April], "That as soon as the Committee of Supply has been appointed and Estimates have been presented, the business of Supply shall, until disposed of, be the first Order of the Day on Thursday, unless the House otherwise order on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown, moved at the commencement of Public Business, to be decided without Amendment or Debate.
  Not more than twenty days, being days before the 5th of August, shall be allotted for the consideration of the annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account. The days allotted shall not include any day on which the Question has to be put that the Speaker do leave the Chair, or any day on which the business of Supply does not stand as first Order.
  Provided that the days occupied by the consideration of Estimates supplementary to those of a previous session or of any Vote of Credit, or of Votes for Supplementary or Additional Estimates presented by the Government for War Expenditure, or for any new service not included in the ordinary Estimates for the year, shall not be included in the computation of the twenty days aforesaid.
  Provided also that, on Motion made after Notice, to be decided without Amendment or Debate, additional time, not exceeding three days, may be allotted for the purposes aforesaid, either before or after the 5th of August.
  On a day so allotted, no business other than the business of Supply, shall be taken before midnight, and no business in Committee or proceedings on Report of Supply shall be taken after midnight, whether a general Order for the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule is in force or not, unless the House otherwise order on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown, moved at the commencement of Public Business, to be decided without Amendment or Debate.
  Of the days so allotted, not more than one day in Committee shall be allotted to any Vote on Account, and not more than one sitting to the Report of that Vote. At midnight on the close of the day on which the Committee on that Vote is taken, and at the close of the sitting on which the Report of that Vote is taken, the Chairman of Committees or the Speaker, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Vote or the Report.
  At Ten of the clock on the last day but one of the days so allotted the Chairman shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Vote then under consideration, and shall then forthwith put the question with respect to each class of the Civil Service Estimates that the total amount of the Votes outstanding in that class be granted for the services defined in the class, and shall in like manner put severally the Questions that the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy, the
  56
  Army, and the Revenue Departments be granted for the services defined in those Estimates.
  At Ten of the clock on the last allotted day, the Speaker shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the report of the Resolution then under consideration, and shall then forthwith put, with respect to each class of the Civil Service Estimates, the Question, That the House doth agree with the Committee in all the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of that class, and shall then put a like question with respect to all the Resolutions outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy, the Army, the Revenue Departments, and other outstanding Resolutions severally.
  On the days appointed for concluding the business of Supply, the consideration of that business shall not be anticipated by a Motion of Adjournment, and no dilatory Motion shall be moved on proceedings for that business.
  Any additional Estimate for any new service or matter not included in the original Estimates for the year, shall be submitted for consideration in the Committee of Supply on some day not later than Two days before the Committee is closed.
  For the purposes of this Order two Fridays shall be deemed equivalent to a single day of two Sittings.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question, as amended, again proposed.
  MR. CHANNING: I wish. Sir, to ask if the Amendment which stands in my name would, if now submitted, exclude other Amendments on the Paper referring to an earlier part of the Rule.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have ruled the other Amendments referred to out of order.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Do I understand that you rule my Amendment out of order.
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
  MR. CHAPLIN: It is extremely difficult to hear. Sir, but do I understand you

  57
  to rule both the Amendments of the hon. Member for Dundee and that which stands in my name on the Paper to be out of order?
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
  MR. CHAPLIN: May I ask on what ground?
  MR. SPEAKER: The House had already decided that no debate on a Vote on Account should go beyond the one day, and in view of that decision I hold that the question ought not to be again raised.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid that the object of the Amendment which he now had to move was to eliminate from the Rule the proposal for the automatic or guillotine closure of Votes in Supply. In moving it he wished to guard if possible the rights of other Members who might desire to move Amendments to subsequent words, and he therefore hoped that the Speaker, in putting the Question from the Chair, would do so in such a manner as not to exclude such Amendments.
  MR. SPEAKER: In regard to what the hon. Member has just said, I will take the course which he suggests, but I am bound to say that his Amendment raises almost the same question as that which was discussed last year when the system was introduced of voting on Classes of Supply. In view of that, I would suggest that there is no necessity for prolonged debate.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid he had no desire to prolong the debate, and he therefore would not enter into any lengthy argument with regard to this most important portion of the Rule. Still, he thought the argument ought to be clearly stated to the House once more, before sanction was given to that particular form of procedure. His view of the conduct of business in Supply had always been the same. He had supported the Government in assigning a given quantity of time to Supply, and he had always held that the period allotted was adequate. Still, having watched the conditions under which Supply was discussed, he had come to the conclusion that it would be far better if a more elastic method were adopted in determining the total
  58
  amount of time to be given to Supply during the session. His theory was that neither the Leader of the House nor the responsible Minister intervened with sufficient frequency in the conduct of business. He felt they ought to use more frequently their friendly and conciliatory powers of closure, which sometimes were more effective than the actual closure itself. He did not suggest that there should be fussy or dictatorial interference on their part, but he would recommend a business-like intervention suggesting that, after there had been a reasonable amount of discussion, the time had arrived for taking a division. He thought that would secure much better progress of business. He had fresh in his recollection the scene which occurred on the occasion of the first automatic closure in 1887, on the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. That seemed to him to be a most disastrous spectacle. He had previously urged his hon. friends from Ireland not to prolong the discussion so as to bring about that automatic guillotine, and he was disgusted with the scene which followed. He was doubly disgusted with the scenes which occurred on the Home Rule Bill of 1893, and when the right hon. Gentleman first introduced this Rule as a sessional Order, in 1896, he said he would never again support a Government in proposing the automatic closure of a Bill. He thought the right hon. Gentleman, and other Members of the House, had frequently pointed out that the only way in which they could secure the proper use of the time allotted to Supply was by the appointment of some representative body which should be able to determine questions of this kind, and which would have the practical assent of all sections of the House. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman must see it was an odious and undesirable form of procedure which this Rule suggested, and that it would be better to revert to the old plan of trying to carry out the business in Supply by some proper distribution of the time, and by the constant interposition of Ministers of the Crown, and of the Leaders of the Opposition, with a view to bringing about a reasonably early termination of discussion, so that all substantial issues could be raised in the course of a session

  59
  before they arrived at anything like the 5th of August, when the automatic closure was to come in force.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 35, to leave out from the word 'Report' to the word 'On' in line 53."—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That the words' At Ten of the clock on the last day but one of the days so allotted the Chairman shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the "stand part of the Question."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I take it that we are not now discussing whether the number of days allotted to Supply shall be further limited, for it has been decided by the House that twenty-three days shall be the whole period set apart for that purpose. The only question we have before us is the precise machinery by which that principle, already affirmed by the House, is to be carried into effect. I will not, therefore, repeat the arguments which have already been advanced on this point. I take it the hon. Gentleman agrees with the Government that we have allotted a suffcient time to Supply.
  MR. CHANNING: Yes, in an average year.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But he proposes to cut out certain words from our Rule—words which are intended to give effect to the Government views. If those words are cut out, what is to put in their place? The hon. Member suggested, so far as I heard, nothing except that the Leader of the House should come down every Thursday, and exercise his powers of persuasion, for whatever they may be worth, at short intervals, to induce the House to better allocate its time to the different subjects under discussion. That would be all very well if it were likely to succeed in practice, but it is quite evident that efforts by the Leader of the House to persuade hon. Members to take a particular course can be of little service. For instance, I have been doing my
  60
  best to induce the House to arrange its time for discussing these new Rules, and I have failed. My powers of persuasion have proved utterly inadequate, and it has been evident that they have had little or no good effect. I do not say that if representatives of various sections met round a table, and it was understood that not more than twenty-three days were to be given to Supply, they might not very likely come to a common-sense understanding. But I do not know that they would. It appears to me in any case that such an arrangement would be liable to break down on the smallest provocation, and at the will of the smallest body of recalcitrant Members. And, therefore, it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman's method is doomed to failure. Until some alternative proposals are put forward for bringing Supply to an end, it seems to me that the plan before the House needs very little defence.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman had treated the Amendment rather hardly. It was not so illogical as he seemed to suggest. What had been resolved was that not more than twenty days should be allotted before the 5th of August. He attached a great deal of importance to the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had argued that the Supply Rule would be no use unless the automatic closure on the last two days was continued, but that was not his (Mr. Lough's) opinion. He, on the contrary, considered that the retention of the automatic closure at the end destroyed the Rule and reduced the whole proceedings of Supply to a farce. The Rule provided that proper arrangements should be made for the discussion of Supply; that a certain time should be allotted to it—that the House should give to Supply one day in each week, and get what discussion they could out of it. That was a great arrangement to make, but unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman was not content with that. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to make his position sure, and therefore had put in that at ten of the clock this automatic guillotine should

  61
  fall upon all Supply. It was in endeavouring to make his position secure that the right hon. Gontleman had failed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the House had already decided, rightly or wrongly, that twenty days should be given to Supply, those days to be before the 5th of August, and therefore the argument of the hon. Gentleman was clearly irrelevant.
  MR. LOUGH: The words passed were "Not more than twenty days before the 5th of August."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, no—" Twenty days, being days before the 5th of August."
  MR. LOUGHsaid the right hon. Gentleman had asked what alternative suggestion could be made to the automatic closure of Supply. The answer to that was that the subject was one for investigation by a Committee. The existence of this means of bringing all Supply to an end at a definite hour of the clock had reduced the whole procedure of Supply to a farce. This was a very great change, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that there was some ground for what had been said in every quarter of the House with regard to it. The present proposal was in such a form that it was impossible to take the opinion of the House upon a single Vote. The Rule provided that each class—Navy, Army, and Civil Service—should be taken, as it were, at a single blow. The Civil Service Estimates amounted to £38,000,000, and were divided into seven classes; but all that was to be put from the Chair was that all outstanding Votes in Glass "1," or whatever it might be, should be taken. It was impossible, even by voting, to express an opinion on anything when the Question was put in that way. The same thing would occur with regard to the Navy and the Army Estimates. This procedure had no sanction of precedent behind; it was not the practice that had been adopted for years past; and for his part, he thought it was the most foolish that had ever been suggested. It was most unfair of the right hon. Gentleman to
  62
  ask what alternative could be suggested. An alternative could not be suggested in a moment. The clause should be struck out and the whole thing referred to a Committee. The Irish Estimates were closured just in the same way, and the Irish Estimates stood in a somewhat different position. Although the expenditure had greatly increased so far as Great Britain was concerned, the population and prosperity had increased, and the necessities of the country had also increased. But with regard to Ireland, that was not so. There was a great increase in expenditure, as in Great Britain; but everything else had gone the opposite way. In Ireland the expenditure was increasing, but the country, so to speak, was getting smaller: half the population had gone.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the question before the House was not the growth of expenditure, but how, after the twenty-three days, the business of Supply should be wound up.
  MR. LOUGHsubmitted that the arguments he was enunciating had not been put to the House before.
  MR. SPEAKER: The point is that they are irrelevant to the present question.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he would, in that case, not pursue them. He thought the automatic closure was the vice of the whole Rule. He was not prepared at this moment to suggest an alternative, but he considered that the Rule as it stood was objectionable, and every Member who had considered the Rule in that way ought to protest against it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESobserved that these two paragraphs were in their essence entirely new. Was there any necessity for altering the Rule that had been in operation since 1896, to make it more drastic by the addition of these two paragraphs? He submitted not. Last year the Government, without the slightest difficulty, succeeded in persuading the House to vary the Sessional Order by the adoption for that year of this procedure. Therefore, it had been proved by

  63
  demonstration and experience that the Government did not require these two paragraphs, because if there were particular pressure in any year they could always do as they did last year. The variation was most disastrous. It resulted in twenty-six Votes being passed by one Resolution; ninety-six Votes being got rid of by ten Resolutions; and £67,700,000 of public money being voted without any discussion whatever. These two paragraphs, if passed, would embody the most outrageous view of Parliamentary procedure. The object of "Supply" was, of course, to discuss the subject of the Votes, and if they were taken in classes that could not be done. Suppose the House were told: "There is no time for discussion; we must call upon you to vote "—then common sense would suggest that they should at least vote upon each subject separately. By one Question being put upon a whole class, Members might be driven, in order to oppose a Vote with which they did not agree, to oppose also a Vote with which they had no quarrel. If they were to take, as was the case in the previous year, ninety-six Votes and swallow them as a whole, why not take all the Votes together and put them in one question from the Chair? He considered these two paragraphs represented a most outrageous attempt on the part of the Government toget rid of the business of Supply by getting a Vote without allowing the House any voice whatever in it. The alternative he would suggest would be to carry out the Sessional Order as it was now, and as it appeared in the Order Book of the House. That was bad enough, but it did allow the House to have a voice. Therefore, if the hon. Member went to a division, he should feel bound to support him. His object was not to prolong the discussion, but, if the House were to have them, to make these Rules as good as possible. If the Government were determined to adhere to the Rule as it stood, the responsibility, blame, and discredit must rest with them and the pliant followers who supported them. The merit of the proposal he had intended making was that it would have made the paragraph identical with the present condition of the Sessional Order; but as he was not at all desirous of
  64
  multiplying Amendments or divisions, he would take the opportunity, on the present Amendment, of voting for the excision of these two paragraphs.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had stated with perfect accuracy that there were only three methods open to him for the purpose of winding up Supply, viz., the taking of all outstanding Votes with or without a single division, the taking of the outstanding Votes in separate classes, or a return to the system which existed from 1896 to last year. Of those three methods, the right hon. Gentleman had chosen the worst. There were two objects the Government should desire to attain—first, to secure the judgment of the House upon each individual Vote, and secondly, to secure that judgment within a reasonably short time. The Leader of the House anticipated that if a division were taken upon each outstanding Vote, the second object would be altogether sacrificed; but it appeared that under the present proposal the opportunity of the House to express its judgment would be sacrificed just as much as it would be if all the outstanding Votes were put together. Under the latter arrangement, Members would at any rate be saved the trouble of marching through the Lobby ten times. Unless each individual question were put from the Chair, the division was certain to be a mere Party vote. He should certainly support the excision of these two paragraphs. The House could then either go back to the position in which they were from 1896 to 1901, or make a new proposal to take all outstanding Votes in one division. For himself, he would have preferred to go back to the old system. During the five years it was in existence, no unreasonable time was wasted in divisions, and Members had an opportunity of expressing an opinion which, while it might be adverse to their own Party, would be in conformity with their own views on the subject. That opportunity would be altogether lost under the present proposal, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, if his fears as to a protracted period of divisions were serious, to cut the Gordian knot, and adopt the alternative system of taking all the outstanding Votes in one division.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that Members must face the facts of the case. The House of Commmons was in such a condition that no Government, however great its majority, or however preponderatingly the sense of the House might be in its favour, would ever be able to get its Estimates through at all unless it had some such, power as was here proposed. The right hon. Gentleman had asked for an alternative. All he would say on that point was that, until means were adopted to stop or control the making of dilatory speeches in all parts of the House, it would be impossible to conduct the business of the House without some stringent Rule such as that now being criticised, and which led to the unfortunate results which all deplored. That being the position, he should support the Government on the present occasion.
  MR. LAMBERTthought nothing struck the coutry more vividly than the fact that so many millions of money were passed without a word of discussion at the close of the session; and when attention was called to the increased expenditure of the country, it was largely put down to the use of the closure. The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to work out some alternative to this proposal. He had passed over somewhat lightly the suggestion that a Committee should consider this matter, because certainly the present system was the worst possible The Leader of the House had said it was a question cither of having the closure, or of discussing matters until utter weariness supervened. Sometimes, however, wren matters were discussed until the Minister was weary, a concession was made; but even that would now be impossible. He did not agree that the House should go back to the system of voting on each individual Vote. It was intolerable that the House should be called upon to keep passing through the Lobbies in that way, and it was well known that many Members came down simply with the intention of taking part in a number of these divisions in order to secure a decent average of appearances in the division lists. That was not conducting the business of the House of Commons in a proper or respectable way, and he
  66
  would much prefer that at the end of the session all outstanding Votes should be lumped together, and put at once. An incidental advantage of this plan would be that an additional hour, at least, might be devoted to discussion.
  MR. FLYNNhad more sympathy with the suggestion of the hon. Member for King's Lynn than with the speech just delivered. It would not be at all necessary for each individual Vote to be divided upon. He certainly had a very strong objection to voting for or against the Votes as a whole. There might be matters of which he was in favour, together with others to which he was opposed; and to give such a vote was utterly illogical and absurd. The system of automatic closure was originally applied to a number of clauses in the Bill in 1893; but, while it was all very well to apply the system to Certain clauses in a Bill which had been discussed on Second Reading, it was quite a different thing, and a much more obnoxious proceeding, to apply it to Votes in Supply which had not been discussed at all. If the right hon. Gentleman desired an alternative, the suggestion of the hon. Member for King's Lynn would meet the difficulty. The automatic closure and the voting of Supply in classes could not be defended in reason or common sense. It was not in accordance with the power which this House ought to have in the last resort, when further discussion was impossible, of offering the only protest they could offer against any particular item without voting against a whole class.
  MR. DILLONsaid this Rule had been in operation for six years, and the present proposal, making a radical alteration, was never in the original Rule, and was never put into force except as an emergency proposal last year. And what was the emergency? On the 7th of August last year, the First Lord of the Treasury said the House was in the extraordinary position that on the following Thursday there would remain ninety-seven Votes which had not been discussed. He said that rumours had appeared in the newspapers

  67
  that it was the intention of the Nationalist Members to divide upon every one of those ninety-seven Votes, and the right hon. Gentleman calculated that if this course were persisted in, it would interfere with the entertainment at Blenheim. That, from the point of view of the Leader of the House, was an "emergency," and the House spent five hours carrying this proposal through the House. The result was that they had seventeen or eighteen divisions on the Thursday, instead of ninety-seven. There was no foundation whatever for the rumour that the Irish Members intended dividing ninety-seven times, and throughout the working of the Rule the Irish Party had systematically divided only against the Votes to which they objected, and they had never availed themselves of the right to divide against every Vote. That was the true and honest history of the origin of this extraordinary proposal, which never before entered into the mind of a Minister, except as an emergency proposal last year. Under this Rule hon. Members, if they wished to vote against any particular Vote, would be compelled to vote against the whole class, although they might be in favour of every other item in the Vote but one. It would be quite as fair to put the whole balance of Supply not disposed of in one lump sum and vote it in that way; for that would be a more rational course than offering hon. Members the hypocritical pretext of an opportunity of voting upon each class. The First Lord of the Treasury had challenged them to produce some other alternative. He was irreconcilably opposed to the automatic closure. The right hon. Gentleman told them that there were three courses open to them—first, to revert to the old method of voting on each individual Vote; second, to accept his present suggestion; and third, to vote the whole balance of the money of the year in one lump sum. Of all those three courses, the right hon. Gentleman had taken distinctly the worst. He thought they ought to go back to the old method, which would preserve to them the right of giving their judgment upon each individual item of Supply. Failing that, he should much prefer that at midnight on the last Supply day the Chairman should put the whole balance of the Votes in one lump sum, and then they would not be put to the idiotic performance of going through ten divisions which
  68
  were perfectly meaningless. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford spoke about the necessity of stopping dilatory speeches, but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman opposite, himself, had been behind in that respect. They had no legislation or Votes now which were anything like so contentious and difficult to pass as those which used to be submitted to the House year's ago; and yet the Ministers of those days, with larger schemes to deal with, and greater difficulties in the way of obstruction—for they had no closure—did not need any of these special Rules. He himself once spoke for three and a half hours, but he had not done that in recent times. There was no closure, and no power of bringing speeches to a conclusion, in those days; and yet Ministers did not raise this argument as to the impossibility of getting Supply through, and they did not make these enormous invasions into the rights of the House. He believed those invasions were due not to dilatory speeches, becfause they had enormously decreased, nor to the spirit of obstruction, which had been greatly mitigated; but they were due to the fact that hon. Members were infinitely more anxious for their ease and comfort than those who constituted the House of Commons when he first came into it; and the. Ministers and the Whips of those days would have turned a deaf ear to the complaints which had given rise to the present proposals.
  MR. POWERsaid he wished to corroborate the statement of his hon. friend that the Irish Members had no intention of forcing on the House any vexatious divisions last year. Nothing was farther from their thoughts. He also corroborated the statement that speeches were now a great deal shorter than in former days. There was not now that wish for prolonged debate which previously existed. The Government had already sufficient powers for bringing discussion to a close. If the Government had a majority, they would always be able to attain what they reasonably proposed. If any Government proposed at the end of a session to do by sessional Order what they now proposed to do by Standing Order, their majority would support them. His hon. friend the Member for North Cork had told the House what would happen if they adopted this Standing Order. By the

  69
  system proposed, the House would be compelled to vote upon a whole batch of questions, some of which they approved of, while they disapproved of others. What was the present state of things with regard to Supply? It was notorious that there were many important Votes which were never discussed. Were they to be told that if the Government did not care to put these down at an early stage of the session, when they could be discussed, they were never to be discussed at all? He thought the Government had failed to make out a case for this Standing Order.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the question before the House was simply this—which of the two absurdities pro-posed was the more absurd? He would not add anything to the arguments already addressed to the House, but he would feel bound to vote for the Amendment simply as a protest against a scheme which, while professing to retain the control of the House over expenditure, made that control absolutely impossible.
  (5.33.) Question put.
  The House divided;—Ayes, 221; Noes, 158. (Division List No. 138.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Denny, Colonel

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hoult, Joseph

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Howard, John Kent, F'versham

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Doughty George

  Hutton John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Arnold-Foster, Hugh O.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Kimber, Henry

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Knowles, Lees

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

  Lawson, John Grant

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Finlay, Sir Robert, Bannatyne

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Farehan)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Fitzroy, Hon. Ed ward Algernon

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Forster, Henry William

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fosrer, Philip S. (Warwick. S. W

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bigwood, James

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Bill, Charles

  Gardner, Ernest

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)

  Blundell, (Colonel Henry

  Garfit, William

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin&Nairn)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Brassey, Albert

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Calmont, Col. J (Antrim, E.)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Malcolm, Ian

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Gretton, John

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire

  Guest, Hon Ivor Churchill

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hain, Edward

  Milvain, Thomas

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Mitchell, William

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Chapman, Edward

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfrd

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsb.

  Coddington, Sir William

  Haslam Sir Alfred S.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mount, William Arthur

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Heath, James (Stanbrds., N. W.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray. C

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hehler, Augustus

  Murray, Rt Hn A. (Graham) Bute

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Herm on-Hodge. Robert Trotter

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Higgin bottom, S. W.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Myers, William Henry

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Dairymple, Sir Charles

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Parker, Gilbert

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Vincent, Col Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Pease, Herbert Pike (D'rlington

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Percy, Earl

  Scott, Sir S, (Marylebone, W.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Purvis, Robert

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Spear, John Ward

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Stanley, Ed ward Jas. (Somerset

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R (Bath)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Stroyan, John

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Thorburu, Sir Walter

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Younger, William

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Round, James

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Sir William Walrond and

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Valentia, Viscount

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Crae, George

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Field, William

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Ambrose, Robert

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Asher, Alexander

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Koan, John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Gilhooly, James

  Murphy, John

  Bell, Richard

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Blake, Edward

  Grant, Corrie

  Newnes, Sir George

  Boland, John

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Harmsworth, R. (Leicester)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Caine, William Sproston

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Caldwell, James

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Dowd, John

  Cameron, Robert

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Holland, William Henry

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Partington, Oswald

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Joicey, Sir James

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Crean, Eugene

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cremer, William Randal

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, Robert John

  Crombie, John William

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Rea, Russell

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Reddy, M.

  Delany, William

  Labouchere, Henry

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-shire

  Lambert, George

  Rigg, Richard

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Dillon, John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Leamy, Edmund

  Roche, John

  Doogan, P. C.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Russell, T. W.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Leigh, Sir-Joseph

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Leng, Sir John

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Edwards, Frank

  Levy, Maurice

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Ellis, John Edward

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lundon, W.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Macneill, John (Gordon Swift

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Sullivan, Donal

  72

  73

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Young, Samuel

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. E.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Ure, Alexander

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Mr. Channing and Mr.

  Wallace, Robert

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Edward Morton.

  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that he thought there was very considerable substance in the Amendment he now intended to move. It was quite conceivable that only eighteen or nineteen days would be allotted to Supply. The limit was a superior limit, and there was no minimum limit. The words he proposed to add appeared in the sessional Order, and he could not understand why they had been omitted from the proposed Rule. He thought the intention was that the automatic closure should only come into operation where the twenty allotted days had been exhausted; without the words he proposed it seemed to him that the Government would be able, alter sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, or nineteen days had been allotted to Supply, to bring the automatic closure into force. In fact, it would come into force automatically. He did not think that that was the intention of his right hon. friend. He thought his intention was to give at least twenty days; and his right hon. friend, with his experience, must know that hitherto it had always been found necessary to give the three additional days also. He could not see any objection to his Amendment; the words had always been in the sessional Order, and their omission might have been accidental.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 45, after the word" day, 'to insert the words not being earlier than twentieth of the allotted days.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not quite sure that I perfectly apprehend what would be the result of my hon. friend's Motion; but perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong. As I understand it, he wishes to make it obligatory to take twenty days for Supply.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that his right hon. friend might take any number of days he liked, but if he took less than twenty, the automatic closure was not, in that ease, to come into operation. That was the intention of the words as they stood in the sessional Order.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should have thought my hon. friend's Amendment was not necessary, because, of course, if the Government finished Supply in eighteen days there would be no question of automatic closure. As the limit would not be reached, the Amendment would not meet that case. The only case I can conceive my hon. friend having in view is the Government not giving twenty days, and trying to closure after eighteen days. That would be a gross abuse, and I confess I should have thought it an impossible point of view to take. I do not, however, see any objection to the Amendment.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he desired to amend the Amendment, it would read better in the following form—,
  "To leave out in line 45 the words 'allotted day' in order to insert 'not being earlier than the twentieth of the allot led days'"
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I confess I have not studied this Amendment as I ought to have studied it, but may I ask my hon. friend if he thinks it possible, with these words in the Rule: "At ten of the clock on the last allotted day," that the Speaker can put any other Question.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE(Bristol, E.) said that the allotted days might be sixteen or eighteen.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, no.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman would look at line, he would see it was stated that "not more than twenty days" should be allotted. That did not mean that twenty days should be allotted.
  MR. BLAKEsaid it was clear that the allotment was a maximum, and that fewer days might be allotted. The "last allotted day" would be the last of the allotted days.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he would like to move the Amendment in the words as they appeared in the sessional Order, viz. to omit the words "allotted day" in order to insert "not being earlier than the twentieth of the allotted days."
  MR. A. J. PALFOUR: I shall not oppose the Amendment.
  The Amendment as originally proposed, was, by leave, withdrawn, and the following Amendment made—
  "In line 45, by leaving out the words 'allotted day,' and inserting the words 'not being earlier than the twentieth of the allotted days.'"
  MR. CLANCYmoved the omission of lines 53 to 56, as being now unnecessary. The paragraph anticipated that a Motion for the adjournment, or a dilatory Motion, might be made on the days appointed to conclude the business of Supply. He confessed he could not understand the object of the Government in introducing that paragraph. Why the anxiety of the Government to preserve those last two days should be so great he could not imagine. The hon. Member for King's Lynn drew a distinction between a Motion for the adjournment and a dilatory Motion. Perhaps there was some distinction, and he had no doubt the hon. Gentleman would be able to explain it. The Government had nothing to gain by retaining the paragraph he proposed to omit, because they would get their Supply at ten o'clock, even if the entire sitting up to that hour had been devoted to a Motion for the adjournment or to a dilatory Motion. On the other hand, it would easily be understood that on the very morning of either of the last two days a great public emergency might arise, in which hon. Members on both sides were interested; and it would be ridiculous if hon. Members were prevented, by a Rule of the House, from discussing it for even five minutes.
  76
  In this matter. Ministers, no matter to which side of the House they belonged, were always apt to consider Motions to be dilatory which were not so intended by those who initiated them, and which were only initiated to attain some useful object. Both these opportunities of discussing important matters were to be swept away. He could conceive no reason why the Government should resist this Amendment, for the Rule would be just as beneficial to the Government without these words as with them. He begged leave to move to omit the words.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 53 to leave out from the words; 'On the' to the word 'business,' in line. 56, both inclusive.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'On the days appointed for concluding the business of Supply' stand part of the Question."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The-words which the hon. Gentleman proposes to leave out were not introduced to facilitate Government business, but simply to meet what were thought to be the general views of the House, and I still think that they carry out a useful object. It would be extremely inconvenient that the last remaining hours of Supply should be interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment. Under the arrangement embodied in another of these new Rules, such a Motion would not come on till nine o'clock, and could only last for an hour, between nine and ten in the evening, and could not serve any useful object. I, therefore, hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked for some explanation of the observation that the Motion for the adjournment of the House could only last from nine o'clock till ten.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On these particular nights. The closure is at ten, the Motion for the adjournment is made and assented to at three, and comes on at nine.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he thought it was reasonable that on these last days business should not be interrupted by

  77
  a dilatory Motion. He had an Amendment himself a little lower down, which he hoped would be accepted; if it was not accepted, he thought some explanation should be given of the reason why it was not. He was rather of opinion, with regard to this Amendment, that the Government were entitled to have the last two days without interruption.
  MR. DILLONhoped his hon. friend would go to a division upon
  this. If some question of great public interest arose on the last day of Supply, he did not see why the House should not have its choice between discussing a Motion for the adjournment and discussing Supply.
  (6.15) Question put.
  The House divided :—Ayes, 250; Noes, 138. (Division List No 139.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Allhusen, Aagustus H. Eden

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Horner, Frederick William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Hoult, Joseph

  Arrol, Sir William

  Doughty, George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

  Austin, Sir John

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Faber, (George Denison (York)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir. John H.

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Horusey)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

  Keswick, William

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Kimber, Henry

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Finch, George H.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Kitson, Sir James

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Knowles, Lees

  Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Laurie, Lieut. General

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Law, Andrew Bornar Glasgow)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lawson, John Grant

  Bigwood, James

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lecky, Rt Hon William Edw. H.

  Bill, Charles

  Forster, Henry William

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Foster, Philip S. Warwick, S. W.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Brassey, Albert

  Gardner, Ernest

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Garfit, William

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Bull, William James

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albtns)

  Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin& Nairn)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Butcher, John George

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Malcolm, Ian

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r.

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd'x

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Maxwell, W J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Coddington, Sir William

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Collings Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Mitchell, William

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

  Montagu, (J. (Huntingdon)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  More, Robt.-Jasper (Shropshire)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Holder, Augustus

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamsto'

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Morgan, Hn Fred. (Monm'thsh.).

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Mount, William Arthur

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Round, James

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Valentia, Viscount

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Russell, T. W.

  Vincent, Col Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Myers, William Henry

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Warr, Angustus Frederick

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C. E (Taunton

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Parker, Gilbert

  Seton-karr, Henry

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Shaw-Stewart, H. M. (Renfrew

  Whitmoro, Charles Algernon

  Percy, Earl

  Simeon, Sir Harrington

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Wilson, John Glasgow)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Purvis, Robert

  Spear, John Ward

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Stanley, Ed ward Jas. (Somerset)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wylie, Alexander

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Stroyan, John

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Younger, William

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. (Chas. Thomson

  Thornburn, Sir Walter

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Sir William Walrond and

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Asher, Alexander

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Murphy, John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gilhooly, James

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Newnes, Sir George

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Grant, Corrie

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Blake, Edward

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Boland, John

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hammona, John

  Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Brunner, Sir, John Tomlinson

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  O'Bien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Burns, John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Helme, Nerval Watson

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Caine, Willam Sproston

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Caldwell, James

  Holland, William Henry

  O'Dowd, John

  Cameron, Robert

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Malley, William

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Mara, James

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Channing, Francis Allsten

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Joyee, Michael

  Partington, Oswald

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pirie, Duncan, V.

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Kinloch, Sir John (George Smyth

  Power, Patrick, Joseph

  Crean, Eugene

  Lambert, George

  Price, Robert John

  Cremer, Willam Randal

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Crombie, John William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rea, Russell

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Reddy, M.

  Delany, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rigg, Richaid

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Leng, Sir John

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Dillon, John

  Levy, Maurice

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roche, John

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lundon, W.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Dunn, Sir William

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Elibank, Master of

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Ellis, John Edward

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  M'Crae, George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M 'Fadden, Edward

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Kean, John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Field, William

  M 'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mather, William

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mooney, John J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  80

  81

  Weir, James Galloway

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Young, Samuel

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE(6.28.) MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE moved an Amendment to provide that, on the days appointed for concluding the business of Supply, the business should not be interrupted under any Standing Order. The House would recognise that in the event of the voting not being concluded by midnight, unless it were provided against, there might be an interruption of business, which would be very disastrous.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the Amendment of the hon. Member was an improvement, and was therefore prepared to accept it.
  Amendment made
  "In line 56, after the word 'business,' by inserting the words 'and the business shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order.'"
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESreminded the House that an Amendment had already been accepted by winch any new service not included in the ordinary Estimates for the year was to be excluded from the twenty days computation. The paragraph now before the House dealt with the same kind of matter in a somewhat different way. It dealt not only with new service, but also with new matter, and it provided that any additional Estimate for any now service or matter not included in the original Estimates for the year should be submitted for consideration in the Committee of Supply on some day not later than two days before the Committee was closed—by which was meant, he presumed, the last day but one of the allotted days. The House having already provided, in the manner he had described, for Estimates dealing with new services, he proposed to move the omission of the words "service or" from line 56.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURintimated his willingness to accept the Amendment.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought he would also have to ask for the insertion of the words "other than one of the
  82
  allotted days." Such a provision had been made with regard to new services. The effect of that, in conjunction with the Amendment already agreed to, would be that a new service not provided for in the ordinary Estimates for the year would be entitled to a day other than one of the allotted days, and would necessarily fall outside the automatic closure; and nothing the Government could do would prevent its discussion. In the case of something which was, not a new service, but new matter—such, for instance, as the purchasing of a piece of land for a new War Office which would be new matter, but under an old service —he thought it was right that it should be submitted two days before the Committee closed. That would probably be a satisfactory arrangement, though it was a little open to doubt.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the House had already decided that new matter, as distinct from new service, should not be excluded from the allotted days. The second part of the hon. Member's suggested Amendment would, therefore, not be in order.
  Amendment proposed.
  "In line 57, to leave out the words 'service or.'"—(Mr. Gibson, Bowles.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. DILLONstrongly objected to the Amendment. The House had discussed the distinction between "service" and "matter," and expressed much doubt as to whether "matter" ought not to be included in the previous concession, and so be exempted from the automatic closure. It would be very unfortunate now to introduce a distinction which might be used to limit the concession already made. He would suggest that the whole of the paragraph should be omitted. It was not only wholly unnecessary, in view of the concession they had obtained, but absolutely ineffective.

  83
  When the point was granted some years ago, it was thought to be a valuable concession; but when, last year, for the first time, it was sought to be brought into operation in connection with the loan to the Viceroy of Wu-Chang, the ruling of the Chairman of Committees was that, inasmuch as the loan had been placed on the Notice Paper two days before the automatic closure came into operation, it satisfied the provision as to being submitted to the consideration of the Committee, although the Committee had not had an opportunity of saying a word on the subject. By that ruling, the whole effect of the provision was nullified, and the proper course would be to omit the entire paragraph.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the history of this paragraph was that the right hon. Gentleman opposite asked the House to put this provision in the sessional Order to prevent some new Estimate being sprung upon the Committee which had never been dealt with at all. This year they had gone a step farther with regard to new services. They deliberately excluded new matter from that special treatment, and he thought, therefore, that they would be going back if they now said that new matter might be introduced without any notice at all. It was in order to preserve "matter" that he thought this paragraph, in the amended form, ought to be retained in the Bill. He thought that in the interests of the House as distinguished from the interests of the Government of the day, anxious to get through the Estimates without friction, it was desirable that the paragraph should remain in, and that the word "matter" should remain. This was a safeguard which was not without its value. The House should not part with that safeguard, and as it was a small matter, as there really were no rights of private Members involved, he thought they might decide it without a division.
  Question put and negatived.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved an Amendment to the paragraph providing that two Fridays should be deemed equivalent to a single day of two sittings. The House might desire to have a sitting occasionally on
  84
  a Saturday. He admitted that it was net a very important point, but as this was going to be a permanent Order, he thought they ought to provide for all the cases which they could fairly foresee.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 61, to leave out the word 'Fridays', and insert the words 'days of one sitting.'"—(Mr. Gibson Boweles.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Fridays' stand part of the Question."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he hoped the hon. Member would not press this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that when the Rules were considered in 1896 there was a most distinct promise made in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider the working of this Supply Rule. That Select Committee had never been appointed. The merits of the Amendment he had to submit were clear, and needed no further explanation; and, unless the Government undertook to do something in this direction, he should take a division. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  The Amendment was—
  "In line 62, after 'Sittings,' to add—'But these Resolutions shall not take effect until the House has adopted a scheme allotting a due proportion of the days for Supply to each of the different classes of Estimates.'"
  MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid, after hearing the hon. Member, that I must rule his Amendment out of order, which proposes to suspend the operation of this Resolution.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEreminded Mr. Speaker that a Resolution very much to this effect was allowed to be considered in 1896, on the 28th of February, and that was the reason why he had proposed this Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have not referred to that case, and there may be some difference between the two, but I must adhere to my ruling now.
  Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
  MR. JOHN ELLISsaid that before this Rule was finally passed he wished to say a few words. The first paragraph allocated a particular day to Supply, and he agreed with the fixing of a particular day in each week for Supply. Indeed so far back as 1892 he moved a Resolution which contained a recommendation to that effect. But when they came to the second paragraph, which allocated a certain number of days for Supply and the carrying of a large number of Estimates by closure at the end of that period, his opinion of the Rule was a very different one. He had watched the operation of this Rule since it came into operation in 1896, and he felt that it had lowered the character of the House and had not conduced to efficiency in the discharge of its business. In all respects he believed the operation of this limitation and closure part of this Rule had been disastrous. The Government had been relieved of that incentive and motive which every Government used to have, and ought to have, of seeing to the proper conduct of the business of Supply. It mattered little or nothing to the Government under this Rule how the time in Committee of Supply was occupied, because they knew that at a certain moment they would get all their Votes automatically. Nobody would deny that this was having a very serious effect upon the character of discussion in Supply. The whole merit and efficiency of the Rule from the point of view of the House depended upon the minute and constant attention given to its working by the Leader of the House.
  The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had several times suggested that a Committee should be appointed to consider this question of allocating the Votes to be considered, upon which should sit a majority of Members of the Opposition. He was entirely opposed to that course, for the Government of the day must retain the whole responsibility for all the Supply they brought forward and for the days and the manner in which Supply was brought forward. This Rule had certain elements of success in it, if the Leader of I the House gave his mind to the matter, and was careful that each session the various items of Supply had their proper
  86
  chance. He was one of those who had watched the application of Standing Order No. 25 to the business of the House with the greatest jealousy. The closure was a kind of thermometer of the incapacity of the Minister who was conducting the business of the House. He believed it only irritated the House. But another most grave objection to the Rule existed. This proposal came to them in a form which would not have been dreamt of a year or two ago. Towards the end of the session each class of Votes was to be put to the House en bloc. The different Votes in each class varied to a most remarkable extent, and the putting of them in that form reduced the thing really to a perfect farce. But, after all, the House had a great deal of human nature in it, and it was not by Rules of this kind, not by drastic arrangements, with regard to business, that the business of the House could be conducted. It was to the tact and temper of him on whom was cast the onerous responsibility of arranging the order of business-and conducting it through the House that they must really look for the successful conduct of business. The desire should animate all Members of the House to facilitate business. He was one of those who held that any man who willingly in any way lent himself to proceedings which unduly delayed business in this House was guilty of a high Parliamentary offence. He had never done that himself, and never would think of doing it. On the other hand, such a Resolution as they were now about to pass, in his opinion, offended against the greatest and dearest privileges of the House as to the full freedom of debate in examining the great financial questions which came before them.
  SIRHENRY FOWLER: I think that grave questions are raised by the Rule now under consideration with reference to the responsibility which it devolves on the Leader of the House, not personally but officially. I, for one, hold that it is impossible to devote more of the time of the House to Supply than is already devoted to it. Last year the House was in Committee of Supply thirty-six days, and I cannot conceive that anybody will

  87
  reasonably maintain, unless he is pre-pared to abandon legislation altogether, that the House can afford to give a greater amount of time than thirty-six days to the operation of this Rule. But the real friction that has arisen about this Rule, and think the bulk of the dissatisfaction that has been expressed with regard to it, have arisen from having no system, no scheme, no regulation as to the allocation of the time—I am not blaming anyone in the matter—for Votes to which it would have boon desirable last year that an amount of time should have been given. Great questions, which deserved the fullest and amplest consideration, have been overlooked altogether by the pressure of this inexorable closure. Since the First Lord proposed this Rule to the House he has in every way endeavoured to meet the convenience of the Opposition, and of Members in every part of the House. If he has erred at all, he has been, perhaps, too facile in endeavouring to comply with the wishes of individual Members, and it would have been better for him, perhaps, to have assumed a sterner attitude, having regard to the other Votes before the House. I hold that the view which the right hon. Gentleman pressed upon us again and again that this was a matter which he should devolve to some extent on the Opposition—which was a fair minded attitude for him to assume is absolutely impracticable. I hold that the Leader of the House is responsible for the conduct of the business of the House, and during my experience I have never known any Leader abuse that trust. Whatever Party may have been in office, and whatever may have been the irritating circumstances of the moment, that duty has been fairly discharged with due regard to all interests. I think the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct when he said the other evening that he did not anticipate that the principle which has hitherto guided the Leader of the House would be varied by any of his successors. But with that trust also devolves a responsibility.
  Now, nobody knows better than the Leader of the House what the business is that is to be brought before the House, and that is one reason why he should be trusted with the arrangement of the work the House has got to do. The House, in twenty-three days, and a
  88
  large number of additional days which are not included in the twenty-three, has to pass something like 150 Votes, outside of the Supplementary Estimates from the preceding year. Well, of course, the time allotted seems a very small amount to be allocated among so many Votes. I am going to make a suggestion to the First Lord of the Treasury. I am going to ask him to undertake the duty of allocating the time to be given to the different branches of Supply himself believe the right hon. Gentleman will do it with perfect impartiality. Let him submit, either for the residue of this session, or at the commencement of this session, a scheme to be in operation for next session, and that session only, as the scheme, not in the form of a Resolution or Standing Order, on which he proposes to proceed in Committee of Supply. Now let me put an imaginary case must give figures, of course, to make the case intelligible to the blouse; but I wish it to be understood that they are imaginary figures, to show how this might be dealt with. There are three great divisions—the Military, the Naval, and the Civil Services of the country. I am now speaking with reference to time of peace, and not of time of war. In time of peace the necessary provision for both the Naval and the Military Services, I think, must take the first place in the allocation of Supply. Suppose that the Army should have four days and the Navy four days allotted to them. In addition to that, on the Motion for the Speaker leaving the chair there would be two days devoted to them for a general survey both of the Army and Navy. I think it is an unfortunate thing when a portion of that time is devoted to the consideration of some not very important Amendment affecting one or ether of those services, and which by chance obtains a precedence to which it is not entitled. I know that last year a great many more days were necessary, and the Government provided them from time to time, as the occasion arose. That would dispose of eight days out of the twenty. I take as coming next, as having the first claim on the Government, the case of Ireland. I think that under our system of the government of Ireland at the present day, it is our

  89
  duty—and the First Lord of the Treasury himself has recognised it—that Ireland should have a larger share of time than proportionately she would be entitled to, and certainly a larger share than Scotland. Suppose that four days were given to: the Irish Estimates and three days to the Scotch Estimates—I am only putting imaginary figures—that would absorb fifteen days, leaving five days for the Civil Services of the country in addition to the general discussion on the Speaker leaving the Chair and on votes, on account. The First Lord would, in addition, have a reserve in his bank, so to speak, of three extra days, to be allotted from time to time according to special emergencies which might develop in the course of the session.
  I am only putting that as a skeleton scheme by which the House at the commencement of the session would know what would he the time allotted to the ordinary business of the House, always subject to the emergencies which might arise. These would arise again and again, according as the judgment of the House would decide. What the House wants to know is how the time is to be allocated; we want a sort of time table, we want to know how much time is to be given to this service or to that service. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I am stating my opinion. I have had some experience of the working of Supply in this House, and I am quite sure that part of the evil which has arisen, and which ha; caused the breakdown of the existing Rules—and they have broken down when £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 have to be voted without discussion—is because there has been no previous allocation of time for the purposes of Supply. I do not wish to press the First Lord of the Treasury to be bound by any cast-iron Rule. I think the Leader of the House should undertake the responsibility for this regulation of the business of the House. The House would very soon see how it would work, and would have opportunities of expressing satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the scheme. I think a scheme based on these principles would secure what is really the first duty of Supply, namely, control of the Executive. I do not consider that much money is ever saved actually in Supply. I have seen a Return, which was issued a few
  90
  years ago, showing that during a large Portion of the century very small reduction has ever been made on the Estimates in Committee of Supply. I have a Return, which has been presented to the House, with respect to the last ten years. I find that the only reductions carried in the House were three sums of £500, each on the buildings and offices of the Houses of Parliament and the celebrated charge of cordite, the reduction of the War Office expenses by £100, which terminated the existence of the late Government. I think their successors re - voted that £100 so that the Secretary for War should not be punished. But the scrutiny and control of Supply is to pre-vent extravagance. It is the fear inside of the offices and of the heads of Departments as to what the defence will be in respect of any increase of expenditure, and how the Minister in charge will be able to justify it, which is useful. I take it that the most frequent question put by the Parliamentary head to the permanent head of a Department with reference to any increase is How am I to defend that in the House of Commons? That is the real control which the House of Commons has over expenditure. The House of Commons is always proposing increases of expenditure. I think Mr. Childers made a calculation, and, taking 500 proposals made in Supply during the time he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, a very small number, certainly not twenty, were for reductions, and all the rest were in favour of increases of expenditure. Therefore, I do not attach very much importance to our discussing expenditure by dealing with separate items, but I attach enormous importance to the control of expenditure by the House of Commons, and the control of the administrative acts of the various Departments. Our only wish is to secure that they shall be brought under the review of the House of Commons. You cannot review every Department every year, but it would be one of the duties devolved on the right hon. Gentleman to see that two years did not elapse without all the great Departments in their turn being subjected to the control of the House. If there has been a thoroughly exhaustive discussion of a Department one session, it is not necessary that it should be repeated the next session, having regard to the other matters which claim precedence. I have not taken much part in the discussion of

  91
  this Rule, because I think a specific day set apart for the discussion of Supply has been a very great improvement on what took place in the past. My recollection of what took place twenty years ago amounts to this: that there was very little discussion during the session at all, and then it was piled up in a huge agony at the end of the session, and if it was not voted by means of the closure, it was voted by means of the determination of Members to get Supply finished and when the House is in the mood for voting money, it is marvellous what an amount of business it can transact in a short space of time. I do not quarrel with the principle of a weekly discussion of Supply, but I do think that a great deal of the dissatisfaction which has undoubtedly arisen on both sides of the House with reference to the working of this Rule has been due to the absence of a controlling hand.
  MR. BLAKEsaid he believed the proposed crystallisation of the system which had been adopted during the last few years was the absolute abrogation and abolition of a most important function of the House of Commons. He thought that at a time like this those who had the public interest at heart should see that the old system which had fallen into desuetude should be revived. The most important duty of the House of Commons was in reference to the granting of money for Supply, but now the only right which was to remain was simply that of demanding the redress of grievances in Committee of Supply, and there would not be even power to do that efficiently. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton that it was important to maintain the effective right of the House to discuss details of expenditure as a means of checking the extravagance of public Offices and Ministers. It was important to maintain the effective right of the House of Commons to discuss details. In the old days they had a day for effective Supply when details might be discussed and another day for non-effective Supply when grievances might be brought up, but they had only the latter day now. What was going to happen when they finally removed the check which existed
  92
  upon permanent officers of public Departments and Ministers? What was going to happen if they did not give the watchdog an opportunity to bark?
  The House of Commons as a whole had never been very fond of economy. Why was it that no Votes could be proposed by an individual Member, and that every Vote had to be proposed upon the responsibility of the administration of the day? It was because, if each individual Member was permitted to propose a Vote, there would be Votes proposed all the time, there would be log-rolling, and economy would become absolutely impossible. But there used to be a small body of economists who did good work. [Cries of "Divide, divide!"] The worst thing in this Rule was that they were stereotyping and determining a Rule for putting an end to the function of that economical section of the House in ventilating the details of expenditure, and he maintained that this was not the time when such action should be taken. The function of the economical section of the House would be put an end to by the carrying of this Rule. Their utility was not to be measured by the few cases in which estimates were reduced on motion. The dread of criticism used to prevent extravagant estimates; but now that criticism was to he permanently discarded the check would disappear. This, above all others, was not the time at which to do this thing. It was true that in one sense expenditure depended upon policy, and if they had a great system of imperial expansion they would have expenditure upon a large scale. The more expansive the policy the greater would be the demand upon the Treasury, and the more important, therefore, that the details should be scrutinised; for extravagance in details would render still more burdensome the execution of large Imperial schemes. They could not waste at bunghole and spigot both. But by the system now proposed they rendered it impossible for the details of that expenditure to be scrutinised. He wished in a word to see revived the old system of voting public money.
  The House at the present moment did not vote public money in any intelligent sense. They had a debate upon the reduction of a Minister's salary, but none at all in reference to the

  93
  money which had been spent; and this system was in operation at a time when the public expenditure was doubling, and when it stood at a figure which ten years ago would have been thought quite impossible and incredible. He would not enter further into this subject at the present time. In his view he could not overstate his opinion of the mischief which was done by the system of automatic closure. He belived that the business of the House of Commons would never be well done under a system of extensive closure. The ordinary business methods on the part of those who conducted the business were the only methods by which they could succeed, and automatic closure and the use of closure in other ways might be an instrument by which a Minister for a time might drive, but it was an instrument by which he never could lead the House of Commons. An instrument like this in the hands of Ministers made them neglectful of those considerations which conduced to the good conduct of business. He had seen Ministers who led the House and Ministers who drove it. There was one Minister who was well known to be averse to the using of the closure, and when he brought forward his measures this fact was recognised on all sides of the House, and it conduced to the progress of business. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, with all his charms of leadership and his desire to lead the House in the sense and spirit he had indicated, had for years wanted to throw the conduct of the business in Supply upon his opponents. The right hon. Gentle man knew very well that twenty-three days would end the matter as far as he was concerned. He fully recognised that at the end of that time he would get all his money, and he practically said to the Opposition, "I have no interest in this matter, and you can arrange it amongst yourselves." But the right hon. Gentleman was not only responsible to the whole House, including his own followers as well as the Opposition in this regard, but he had a much higher responsibility in regard to the country at large.
  It was clear that even the present Rule was bad, since the House had heard
  94
  a suggestion from the right hon. Member-for East Wolverhampton that there should be a scheme for further sub-division of business under a time-table. By adopting this suggestion, the Government would make the business of the House as confusing as the pages of "Bradshaw." His opinion was that they ought to preserve what measure of elasticity remained. It was the function of the Leader of the House, as occasion arose, to take certain responsibilities which devolved upon him. He had obtained from the House the limitation of twenty-three days, but his responsibility to the House and to the Country could not be carried out by allotting four days to one great subject, and five days to another, and so on, for the allocation of time ought to be made having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. Opposed as he was to any other method of conducting the business than that which he had tried to describe, he argued that even when they had established a system of automatic closure there must be some system as elastic as possible. He spoke with special feeling upon this subject, because the country he represented was the very poor partner of a very rich neighbour. Ireland regarded with the greatest alarm those enormous increases in the expenditure which it had to share in a degree far beyond its resources. In conclusion he regretted that the House of Commons should be asked that night to abandon for ever its prerogative of scrutinising the national expenditure with a view of checking extravagance in the administration of the country.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Three hon. Gentlemen have spoken on this Rule as a whole, and, while they all agree that the time allocated to Supply is not too small, they are all dissatisfied with the manner in which that time is allocated to the different Votes, and they all differ as to the way in which the present allocation should be reformed. The right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton asks me to draw up a time-table for Supply; but he forgets that though the Leader of the House has power to say when the discussion of a subject should begin, he has no power to say when it

  95
  should end. I would undertake, if I were given that power, to make an excellent allocation of the time given to Supply, and to take care that the twenty-three days were used to the best of my judgment to the public advantage. But when it is only given to the Leader of the House to say when a discussion shall start, and not when it shall close, it is obvious that the blame cannot be put upon him if the time for Supply is not properly distributed. Then it is said that this closure by Departments is bad and never ought to be put in force, but that by the exercise of tact and temper everything desired could be done; that when the Leader of the House considers that the discussion has gone on quite long enough an appeal to the House, properly made, would always bring it to a close. I propose immediately to put that theory to a test. I do earnestly appeal to the House in this matter. In the debates on this Rule the same issues have been raised again and again. I do not believe there is anything to be said on this Rule which
  has not been said. I am quite sure I have no argument to advance upon it that I have not already advanced, and I doubt whether the fertility of my hon. friend behind me could find anything new to say upon it. With all the tact and temper with which Providence has endowed me, I make this appeal—which I am told is all that is necessary that this debate should now be brought to a close, and that we should go on to the other business—those other Rules which in the interests of the House I think ought to be passed without delay, in order that our new scheme of business shall come into operation in the near future. It will be something in the nature of a Parliamentary scandal if we cannot in the next few days finish this block of Rules on which we are engaged.
  (7.33.) Question put.
  The House divided :—Ayes, 222;Noes, 138. (Division List No.140.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Garfit, William

  Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin&Nairn)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Arrol, Sir William

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Austin, Sir John

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Guest, Hon. Ivor (Churchill

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hamilton, Ht Hn L'rd G (Midd'x

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Dalrymple, Sir (Charles

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Han bury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Balfour, Kenneth B. (Christch.

  Dewar, T. R (T'r H'mets, S. Geo.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Dickson Charles Scott

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Bhownaggree, Sir. M. M.

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Doughty, George

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bigwood, James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Bill, Charles

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Heath, James Staffords, N. W.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hedler, Augustus

  Brassey, Albert

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Henderson, Alexander

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Faber, Edmund B. Hants, W.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Bull, William James

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Hope, J. F. Sheffield, Brightside

  Butcher, John George

  Fergussou, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Hoult, Joseph

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Finch, George H.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Howard, Jno. (Kent, Faversham

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Hozier, Hon. (M. James Henry Cecil

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Forster, Henry William

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Kimber, Henry

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Stock, James Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Knowles, Lees

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Stroyan, John

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Myers, William Henry

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Lawson, John Grant

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Leveson-(Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Percy, Earl

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Lader, Gerald Waller Erskine

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Trition, Charles Ernest

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Purvis, Robert

  Wauklyn, James Leslie

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portmouth

  Rankin, Sir James

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Ratigan, Sir William Henry

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

  Macdona, John Cummig

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne

  Maconochie A. W.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Renwick, George

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wilson, J. W, (Worcestersh. N.)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Ropner, (Colonel Robert

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Milvain, Thomas

  Round, James

  Wortley, Rt. Hn.C. B. Stuart-

  Mitchell, William

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wylie, Alexander

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Younger, William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Skewes-Cox. Thomas

  Morgan, David. J. (Walth'mstow

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.

  Smith, HC (North'mb, Tyneside

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Spear, John Ward

  NOES.

  Abraham, Williams (Cork, N. E.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Levy, Maurice

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Asher, Alexander

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Mailstone

  Lloyd-George, David

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Evans, Samnel T. (Glamorgan)

  Lundon, W.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Earquharson, Dr. Robert

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Bell, Richard

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Blake, Edward

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Boland, John

  Field, William

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Bowles, T.Gibson (King's Lynn

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Crae, George

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Burke, E Haviland-

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Kean, John

  Burns, John

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Caine, William Sproston

  Grant, Corrie

  Mooney, John J.

  Caldwell, James

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Morgan, Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hammond, John

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Murphy, John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Newnes, Sir George

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Brien, K'ndal (Tipperary Mid

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Hobhouse, C. E. H (Bristol, E.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Crean, Eugene

  Holland, William Henry

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Jones, William (Carn'rvonshire

  O'Connor, James (Wicklo' w, W.)

  Crombie, John William

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Delany, William

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  O'Dowd, John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Dillon, John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Leamy, Edmuud

  O'Malley, William

  Doogan, P. C

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  O'Mara, James

  Dunn, Sir William

  Leng, Sir John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  98

  99

  Partington, Oswald

  Russell, T. W.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Weir, James (Galloway

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Reddy, M.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Young, Samuel

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Reid, Sir R. Thireshie (Dumfries

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants

  Rigg, Richard

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Sullivan, Dona

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Mr. John Ellis and Mr. Lough.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Roche, John

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  The new Standing Order (Business in Supply), as finally adopted, is as follows :—
  That, as soon as the Committee of Supply has been appointed and Estimates have been presented, the business of Supply shall, until disposed of, be the first Order of the day on Thursday, unless the House otherwise order on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown, moved at the commencement of public business, to be decided without Amendment or debate.
  Not more than twenty days, being days before the 5th of August, shall be allotted for the consideration of the annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account. The days allotted shall not include any day on which the Question has to he put that the Speedier do leave the Chair, or any day on which, the business of Supply does not stand as first Order.
  Provided that the days occupied' by the con sideration of Estimates supplementary to those of a previous session or of any Vote of Credit, or of Votes for supplementary or additional Estimates presented by the Government for war expenditure, or for any new service not included in the ordinary Estimates for the year, shall not be included in the computation of the twenty days aforesaid.
  Provided also that on Motion made after notice, to be decided without Amendment or debate, additional time, not exceeding three days, may be allotted for the purposes aforesaid, either before or after the 5th of August.
  On a day so allotted, no business other than business of Supply shall be taken before midnight, and no business in Committee or proceedings on Report of Supply shall be taken after midnight, whether a general Order for the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule is in force or not, unless the House otherwise order on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown, moved at the commencement of public business, to be decided without Amendment or debate.
  Of the days so allotted, not were than one day in Committee shall be allotted to any Vole on Account, and not more than ort" silting to the Report of that Vote. At midnight on the close of the day on which the Committee on that Vote is taken, and at the close of the silting on which the Report of that Vote is taken, the Chairman of Committees or the Speaker, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Vote or the Report.
  At Ten of the clock on the last day but one-of the days so allotted the Chairman shall forthwith put the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote then under consideration, and shall then forthwith put the Question with respect to each, class of the Civil Service Estimates that the total amount of the Votes outstanding in that class be granted for the services defined in the class, and, shall in like manner put severally the Questions that the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy, the Army, and the Revenue Departments be granted for the services defined in those Estimates.
  At Ten of the clock on the last, not being earlier than the twentieth of the allotted days, the Speaker shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Report of the Resolution then under consideration, and shall then forthwith put, with respect to each class of the Civil Service Estimates, the Question, That the House doth agree with the Committee in all the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of that class, and shall then put a like Question with respect to all the Resolutions outstanding in the Estimates of the Navy, the Army, the Revenue Departments, and other outstanding Resolutions severally.
  On the days appointed for concluding the business of Supply, the consideration of that business shall not be anticpated by a Motion of adjournment, and no dilatory Motion shall he moved on proceedings for that? business, and the business shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order.
  Any additional Estimate for any new matter not included in the original Esttmate for year shall be submitted for consideration in the Committee of Supply on some day not later than Two days before the Committee is closed.
  For the purposes of this Order, two Fridays shall be deemed equivalent to a single day of two sitttings.

  QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS.
  Standing Order No. 20 read as followeth:—
  That notices of Questions be given by Members in writing to the Clerk at the Table, without reading them vivâ voce in the House, unless the consent of the Speaker to any particular Question has been previously obtained.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In moving the Amendment standing in my name, may I say, as I think I stated on a previous occasion, that I proposed this plan for dealing with Questions as a substitute for that which I originally introduced in order to meet what I conceived to be the general wish. I suggested it rather in the form of a compromise, and I hope the House will consider it in that spirit.
  Amendment proposed—
  "At the end of the Standing Order to add the words—
  'On days when there are two sittings of the House, Questions shall be taken at a quarter-past Two of the clock. No Questions shall be taken after five minutes before Three of the clock, except Questions which have not been answered in consequence of the absence of the Minister to whom they are addressed, and Questions which have not appeared on the Paper, but which are of an urgent character, and relate either to matters of public importance, or to the arrangement of business.
  'Any Member who desires an oral answer to his Question may distinguish it by an asterisk, but notice of any such Question must appear at latest on the Notice Paper circulated on the day before that on which an answer is desired.
  'If any Member does not distinguish his Question by an asterisk, or if he is not present to ask it, or if it is not reached by five minutes before Three of the clock, the Minister to whom it is addressed shall cause an answer to be printed and circulated with the Votes, unless the Minister has consented to the postponement of the Question.
  'Questions distinguished by an asterisk shall be so arranged on the Paper that those which seem of the greatest general interest shall be reached before five minutes before Three of the clock.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. CHAPLINthought that the Leader of the House, in his zeal to meet the wishes of Members on both sides, had gone rather too far. Personally, he would have been satisfied by the Rule being so altered as to admit of urgent Questions being asked at the commencement of public business, whereas the proposal now was to give three-quarters of an hour in which Questions marked with an asterisk could be answered. That point, however, could be dealt with later on, and he would pass to a more important criticism. According to the Rule, Questions distinguished by an asterisk were to be so arranged on the Paper that those which seemed to be of the greatest general interest should be reached before five minutes to three o'clock. By whom were they to be arranged? That was not stated in the Rule, nor had it been stated in the course of the debates. He would be greatly averse to the responsibility being thrown upon the authorities at the Table. It would be a very invidious task, and it was not one that came within the scope of their duties. In so dealing with Questions, the clerks would undoubtedly, by the order in which they placed them, commit themselves to opinions which, in some cases, would be distinctly of a political character, and that would be undesirable in every way. If the proposal was that the duty should devolve upon Mr. Speaker, many of the same objections would apply. The House ought really to be informed as to the intentions of the Government on the point.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrecognised the importance of the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but thought it would more properly be discussed when the portion of the Rule which dealt specifically with the subject was reached.
  MR. FLYNNthought the provision with regard to Questions "of an urgent character" was very ambiguous in its wording. Who was to determine as to the urgency of a Question? The very fact of a Member putting the Question on the Paper was an argument that

  103
  it was of some urgency, and certainly of some importance, although the Minister to whom it was addressed might consider it to be of little urgency and less importance. Questions apparently dealing with mere matters of detail might involve principles of great importance. For instance, the Labourers Acts in Ireland were very important to a large section of the community, and concerned the well-being, happiness, and health of tens of thousands of people. The Acts, which in themselves were very intricate, were bound round with many rules and restrictions. He had seen Questions put concerning cases of individual labourers, with regard to applications for cottages or plots of land under those Acts, or in reference to the position of the Local Government Board, or the action of the Local Government Board Inspector. Those Questions would appear to be very unimportant and trivial, but they raised great and vital issues concerning the whole administration of the Acts. Similarly, Questions with regard to alleged acts of police violence, or alleged irregularities on the part of those who administered the law in Ireland, would seem to the Imperial mind to be insignificant; but, looked at from the point of view of public liberty and constitutional rights, they were of enormous importance and great urgency. Who was to be the judge of that urgency? Would it be reasonable to throw the responsibility on the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees? Without at all doubting the impartiality of the occupant of the Chair, he would hesitate to place that duty upon him. He would also question the practicability of allowing the question to be decided by the Clerks at the Table; in fact, he could not see how the Rule would work out. This proposed Standing Order was ambiguous, and would be liable to lead to the greatest possible confusion. He strongly objected to the portion of the Rule which would differentiate between the classes of Questions. There were to be two classes of Questions. In one class the hon. Member who wished to have an oral answer to his Question might distinguish it by an asterisk, but notice of any such Question must appear at latest on the Notice Paper circulated on
  104
  the day before that on which an answer was desired. Did anybody suggest that under those circumstances any Questions would appear without an asterisk? This was simply turning the business of the House into a farce. He looked upon the privilege of putting Questions in the House as one of the most important functions of the House. When important Questions were frankly answered, they removed misconceptions and errors, and in that way hours of debate were subsequently avoided. When, in answer to a. Question, a Minister got up and said that there was absolutely no foundation for the statement in the Question, the hon. Member sat down and said no more about it; but when evasive answers were given——
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing the mode in which Ministers answer Questions.
  MR. FLYNNsaid the point he wished to make was simply that Questions which were answered frankly by Ministers really saved the time of the House in the long run. The number of Irish Questions had recently decreased considerably, and Questions all round had decreased, compared with last year. The large number of Questions in recent years was no doubt due to the fact that there were in the House a large number of new Members who wished to show their activity in regard to the affairs of their own constituencies, but they had now become somewhat subdued. After all, there was really no necessity for this Rule, and he challenged the First Lord of the Treasury to prove that there had been any abuse of the Rule. On the contrary, there had been a large falling off in the number of Questions. The thing would have regulated itself, and there was no necessity for this Rule. As to Questions commencing at 2.15, he did not object to that at all, for he should be very glad to see the House meet at twelve o'clock. Questions were to close at 2.55, and that was a hard and fast Rule which made no allowance whatever for the circumstances of the moment. It might be that forty minutes was more than a liberal allowance, but sometimes there were matters of great urgency and public importance before the nation.

  105
  There were such questions as war, economic troubles, and the new Budget. Were they to be told that upon the out break of a great war, and the bringing in of a new Budget, important Questions were to be squeezed into forty minutes, and the balance of Questions remaining unanswered were to appear on a Journal of the House which would be very seldom consulted by hon. Members? If the Government had made a serious mistake in regard to their Rules, it was in regard to this one. He wished to look at the question from an Irish point of view, and he would ask why, when the constitution in Ireland was suspended, Irish Members should be prevented from rising in their places and putting Questions across the floor of the House. This proposal was illogical, and would load neither to economy in the time of the House nor to efficiency in the conduct of public business.
  MR. GALLOWAYpointed out that, while arrangements were made under the Rule to have the answers printed, no arrangements had been made for keeping a record of them. If they were circulated, he presumed that they would not be printed in Hansard. He thought this was an important point which had been overlooked. He had risen to more the Amendment which stood in his name.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORappealed to the hon. Member for South-West Manchester not to move his Amendment at the present stage, in order to allow other Members to take part in the general discussion. He assured his hon. friend that he would lose nothing by postponing his Amendment.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid he understood that there would be a general discussion at the end of the consideration of the Amendments, as there was in the case of the last Rule when the Question was put from the Chair. [Cries of "No, no!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The proposed Standing Order may be discussed at length, either before the Amendments are moved or when they have all been disposed of; but as soon as any Member gets up and moves an Amendment, the discussion will be confined to that Amendment.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: On a point of order, may I ask whether the general discussion at the end of the Amendments is not a discussion practically on a Question which has already been decided by the House, and whether that form of general discussion is not of an entirely different character from that which takes place before the Amendments to the proposed Standing Order have been considered?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid his reason for moving the Amendment was with the view of getting out of the Rule, if possible, those limits of time which prescribed that at a certain hour they should do one thing, and at a certain hour another thing. He quite recognised that the Leader of the House had tried to meet the objections which had been stated to the proposed Rule, by offering a compromise; but the Rule still imposed inconvenient limits.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 2, to leave out the words, at a quarter past 'Two of the clock,' and insert the words 'when the Speaker do take the Chair.'"—(Mr. Galloway.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'at' sand part of the proposed Amendment." (8.30.)
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that, as he understood the point of this Amendment, it was to give some elasticity in the mode in which Questions were to be taken. He was rather sorry that when this new Rule, which was an entirely new departure from the established practice of the House, was put forward, no reason was given why Questions should not be taken, as now, half an hour after Mr. Speaker took the Chair. Some reason ought to have been given for the somewhat extraordinary change. Although the Amendment of the hon. Member for South-West Manchester went some way towards re-establishing the old practice, it was not quite clear. The time for taking Questions would vary, according to the time when private business was taken or to the

  107
  quantity of Minute business to be done at the Table of the House. It was quite clear that there ought to be some fixed period when Questions could be taken, and therefore to that extent he thought the Amendment was an improvement on the proposal as it stood. So far as he could see, no justification whatever had been put forward for this extraordinary change, and he hoped before the discussion terminated some explanation or justification would be forthcoming. He admitted that the present arrangement was most unsatisfactory to all concerned. Certain latitude was now given to the Minister answering Questions, and it was necessary that he should have it, but there was a great difference between the position of a Minister under the present arrangement and his position under the new Rule. Under this Rule, if a Minister was not in his place for the forty minutes allotted for Questions, the Question would go over unanswered, not through any fault of the questioner or the questioned, but simply owing to the hard and fast limitation of the time, to the detriment of the hon. Gentleman who was asking far information of importance.
  THE SECRETARY TO TUE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,)thought that the Amendment was one which the House ought not to accept. The object of these Rules was that there should be the most important element of certainty as to when certain business would come on and how long it would last. The only way to arrive at that certainty was to have a fixed hour. With regard to the suggestion that if a Minister was not present a Question Would not be answered, that was not so, because if a Minister was absent when the Question was first put it would come on again on the second round the House would see that an exception had been made with regard to Questions not being answered owing to the absence of a Minister. He agreed it would be unwise to take away the well-known privilege of the House to ask a friend to put a Question in the absence of the hon. Gentleman who had placed it on the Paper, so that the grievance of a Member's Question not being answered
  108
  owing to the absence of the Member would not arise. With regard to Questions being taken a quarter of an hour after Mr. Speaker took the Chair, instead of half an hour, hon. Members who had been in the House at that time as often as he, would have found that considerable time was often wasted between three and half-past owing to there being nothing to do, and the House having to wait until the half-hour. Now that opposed private Bill business was not to be taken, a quarter of an hour was thought sufficient time to deal with the delivery of petitions and other Minute business of the House.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the hon. Gentleman had based his objection to the Amendment on the ground that certainty was desired; that was one of the great objections to the Rule. It was not like a rule of the chess board: at the stroke of the clock they moved to another square. He had two Amendments on the Paper dealing with this matter, one of which was to leave out "a quarter past," and the other to insert after "clock" "or at the conclusion of private business, if any be set down for that day." Those Amendments should be taken together. He had always been struck by the unnecessary waste of time which took place between three and half-past (the best time of the day), when there was no private business. He proposed that at two o'clock, when there was no private business, Questions should begin. But then the question arose whether the proper definition of the moment would be "when Mr. Speaker took the Chair." The presumption was that Mr. Speaker could come in to prayers at two o'clock, so that probably the words of the Amendment before the House would meet the case rather better than the Amendments he (Mr. Bowles) had proposed to move. There ought to be as great economy of the time of the House as possible. If the first Amendment he proposed to move were accepted, he should move his second Amendment to come in at the end of that now before the House, so that the Rule would then read—
  "On days when there are two sittings of the House Questions shall be taken when Mr. Speaker do take the Chair or at the conclusion of unopposed private business set down for that day."
  He submitted that in that way time would be saved, and the time at which Questions

  109
  would be taken would be rendered absolutely certain. Such an arrangement would greatly add to the comfort of Members of the House, because Quesitons were un doubteedly some of the most interesting proceedings of the day, both to Members of the House and the public.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE, Forest of Dean)pointed out that the Amendment followed the practice of the House on those occasions when it met for morning sittings, and also the practice when Questions were asked on Wednesdays. There was one matter which, however, had not been dealt with. He would like to know when it was proposed to take unopposed Returns.
  MR. DILLONSaid it was impossible to consider this question without considering the new Standing Order relating to private business. The two matters were bound up together. He asked whether the Government had Considered the reason for splitting up the private business. They could not divide private business into opposed and unopposed, and when it was suggested that unopposed private business would only take five minutes, that was quite a mistake. He had known unopposed Bills take half an hour, because, although they were unopposed, sometimes statements were made on them and points explained. And the operation of this Rule cutting off' private business at the end of six or seven minutes would have most inconvenient results. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should accept the Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite appreciate and sympathise with the motives of my hon. friend who moves this Amendment, but it must be evident to the House that when we have to deal with two sets of business, public business and private business, there must be an element of uncertainty either with one or the other. There must be some uncertainty either when public business begins or when private business ends. It is perfectly true there may be cases when Unopposed private business, if left to itself, would run into a quarter-past two.
  MR. DILLON: Constantly.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think not constantly, but that is a point; and no doubt there would be a saving of time in certain other cases, if my hon. friend's Amendment were accepted, to commence Questions immediately after prayers, when Mr. Speaker takes the Chair. But I venture to say the principle on which the Rules are constructed is the true principle, namely, that if there is to be uncertainty, it should be as far as possible transferred from the public business to the private business. Public business, at any rate, should begin at a fixed hour; and, if there must be uncertainty, I regret to say that private business must suffer. The House cannot expect a Minister engaged in the difficult business of his Department to come to the House at five or six minutes past two o'clock on the oft' chance that there will be no private business being discussed. It is neither fair to the Minister nor to the House that he should be asked to attend in those circumstances. It is, therefore, better to have a fixed hour when Questions should begin, so that every Minister may know when he may be called upon to answer Questions, and when hon. Members may know at what time they ought to ask their Questions. In the interest of the certainty of public business, I ask my hon. friend not to press his Amendment.
  MR. FIELDsaid some of these private Bills were of the most vital importance to great public interests, and he thought nothing could be more disastrous than to have any element of uncertainty with regard to private Bills. Uncertainty with regard to business affecting merely the Members who were in attendance at the House was not much, but in the case of private business there were the promoters of Bills from all over the country in attendance watching the progress of their Bills, and in some cases the delay cost the promoters £100 a day, and sometimes more.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he was in the difficulty which the hon. Gentleman opposite had foreshadowed. This was just one of those cases in which two of the Rules on the Paper hung so entirely together that it was almost impossible to

  111
  give one's decision in one case without knowing something about what was going to be done with the others. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that there were two sets of business before the House which conflicted with each other, one of which must be in a condition of some uncertainty, and that, as that condition of uncertainty must prevail, the uncertainty ought to affect private business rather than public business. This was something more than a question of uncertainty, for the House were in complete ignorance as to what was going to happen to private business. All they knew now was that, if it was not disposed of by a quarter-past two, it would be postponed until such time as the Chairman of Committees should determine. He thought before this Amendment was passed which banished private business altogether from consideration after 2.15, the House ought to know what kind of arrangement the Government contemplated. They knew nothing whatever as to that part of the case. The right hon. Gentleman had said that after the Rule was passed he would appoint a Committee to consider this question, but it ought to be considered before. Whatever the Government did, and before the House was asked to revolutionise its procedure, it ought to be enlightened on some of these questions. The House ought to have some guidance with regard to the future of private business before they were asked to commit themselves in this matter. He hoped that before they went to a division some member of the Government would throw a little light upon the difficulties in which they were placed, and which were inevitable in the present position of affairs.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAU-RICEsaid he was quite aware that it might be said, and said with some force, that the proper occasion for discussing this matter would be when they reached the later Resolution on the subject. This was, however, such a great matter that he did not think the Government ought to complain if they took tire earliest opportunity of pointing out that there was an alarming vagueness in the views of His Majesty's Government in reference to private business. The immediate point before the House was a
  112
  very small one indeed, and it was whether Questions should begin at 2.12 or 2.15. So far as that narrow point was concerned, speaking as one who had had to answer as many Questions as any member of the Government, he wished to say that he thought the short interval between prayers and the commencement of business was not only valuable to Ministers who had to answer Questions, but it was also of great value to hon. Members who wished to put Questions, because it enabled them to consult Mr. Speaker upon questions which must necessarily arise. The more important question, however, was what was going to happen in regard to the private business which could not be got over in the five or seven minutes which intervened between prayers and questions. What was going to happen to all the private business in connection with great municipalities? He did not wish to appear discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not think the First Lord of the Treasury, not having taken an active part in private business, was fully aware of the large questions which came up for consideration. The right hon. Gentleman the Member' for East Wolverhampton and himself had frequently raised questions at the time of private business inregard to the unlimited for Towing powers exercised by municipalities, and it was largely owing to their efforts that the inquiry now being condueted into this question arose. When upon several occasions they succeeded in stopping Bills because they thought the borrowing powers of those municipalities were being exercised in a dangerous manner, they raised great questions of principle. He wished to know what the Government had really got in their mind upon this question. There was a feeling of disquiet and alarm in the country in regard to the vagueness of these proposals. When this proposal was brought up, he should have thought it would have been accompanied by a large scheme of devolution in regard to private business. Under this proposal the Chairman of Committees was to be made an absolute autocrat in regard to private business.
  MR. SPKAKER: The noble Lord will not be in order in discussing the whole Standing Order.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid the present Rule gave an immense power to the Chairman of Committees. What he wanted to urge upon the Government was that before they reached the Standing Order dealing with private business, the House was entitled to ask that there should be something more before it than the mere autocratic power given to an officer of the House. Upon the immediate question before them he could only say that he thought the Government had given a fair answer to the Amendment, and, as the Amendment had been raised owing to the apprehension to which several hon. Members had given voice, it would, perhaps, be better to pass this Rule as it stood, reserving thier liberty to deal later on with the very important question which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford had raised.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid there ought to be certainty in regard to both private and public business. He hoped that the Government would not leave this question as it now stood. Ordinarily the work of the House was purely legislative, but when the came to private business, the House was not only a legislative body. It was also, practically, a legal tribunal. They had to deal with promoters of measures, with evidence, and with witnesses, and they had complicated Rules by which their proceedings were guided. He did not think that the House was always fully alive to the gigantic importance of many of the questions belonging to private business. Sometimes they had to deal with Water Bills relating to London introduced by the London County Council. As Chairman of the Committee, he had to deal with Bills affecting Liverpool, Gasgow, and Edinburgh, and
  they had dealt with a water scheme for Birmingham which involved the expenditure of £7,000,000.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid they were not dealing with that question at the present time. He agreed that the question of private business was very important, but it was not raised in the aspect winch his hon. friend suggested on this Amendment. The question was merely whether the Speaker should call upon a questioner at a quarter-past two o'clock or a few minutes earlier. He hoped the House would leave the other part of the subject to be discussed at the proper time.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid that as both sides of the House seemed to be agreed upon this point, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. [Cries of "No, no."]
  MR. BLAKEregretted that the First Lord of the Treasury had left this important question of private business so vague in the Rule, because he had told them distinctly that private business was to be distributed over four or live days in the week. There was no difficulty in arranging that this little space of time which intervened between prayers and 2.15 should be used for Questions. What was convenient and satisfactory for opposed private business, ought to be equally satisfactory for unopposed private business. This arrangement would give them a little longer lime for Questions.
  (9.53.) Question put.
  The House divided :—Ayes, 199: Noes 111. (Division list No. 141.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Agg-Gardner James Tyute

  Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Allhusen-Augustus H my Eden

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Anson, Sir Willliam Reynell

  Bignold, Arthur

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bigwood, James

  Charrington, Spencer

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bill, Charles

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Arnold-Foster, Hugh, O.

  Blundell, C donel Henry

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.

  Arrol, Sir Wilham

  Brassey, Albert

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brodrick, Rt Hon. St. John

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Austin, Sir John

  Hull, William James

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bullard Sir Harry

  Corbert, T. L. (Down, North)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Butcher, John George

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r

  Carlile William Walter

  Cranbourne, Viscount.

  Balfour, RtHnGerald W. (Leeds

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Davies, M. Vaugham-(Cardigan

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Renwick, George

  Denny, Colonel

  Laurie, Lieut.-(General

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Paw, Adrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cookfield

  Lawson, John Grant

  Ritchie, R Hon Chas. Thomson

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon

  Pee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dorrington, Sir John Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Doughty, George

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ruthsclild, Hon. Linel Walter

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol. S)

  Round, James

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lucas, Reginald (Portsmouth)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Ferguson Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Smith, A bel H. (Hertford, East)

  Finch, George H.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Smith, HC (North'mb, Tyneside

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

  Smith, Hon. W.F. D. (Strand)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Spear, John Ward

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Malcolm, lan

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Stock, James Henry

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Flower, Ernest

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

  Forster, Henry William

  Milvain, Thomas

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Mitchell, William

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Gardner, Ernest

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin&Nairn)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)

  Gretton, John

  Mount, William Arthur

  Whiteley, H (Ashton und, Lyne

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Brm.

  Hanbury, Rt Hon. Robert Wm.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Willonghby de Eresby, Lord

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Myers, William Henry

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Nicholson William Graham

  Wilson, John (Glasgow).

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Helder, Augustus

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Wilson-Todd, Wm H. (Yorks.)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Pease, Herb'rt Pike (Darlington

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wylie, Alexander

  Hogg, Lindsey

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. (George

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Younger, William

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Pryce, Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Purvis, Robert

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Ratcliff, R. F

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Allan, William Gateshead)

  Delany, William

  Holland, William Henry

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jones, Wm. (Coruarvoushire)

  Bell, Richard

  Doogan, P. C.

  Joyce, Michael

  Blake, Edward

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Boland, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lambeth, George

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Ffrench, Peter

  Law, Hngh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Field, William

  Layland-Bariatt, Francis

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Leamy, Edmund

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Burns, John

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Caldwell, James

  Gilhooley, James

  Leng, Sir John

  Cameron, Robert

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Levy, Maurice

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Grant, Corrie

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hammond, John

  Lloyd-George David

  Cawley, Frederick

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Lundon, W

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Crean, Eugene

  Helme, Nerval Watson

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  116

  117

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants.

  M'Crae, George

  O'Malley, William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  M'Fadden, Edward

  O'Mara, James

  Sullivan, Donal

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  O'Shanghnessy, P. J.

  Thomas, David Alf red (Merthyr

  M'Kean, John

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan Gower

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wallace, Robert

  Mooney, John J.

  Reddy, M.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Morgan, J. Loyd (Carmarthen)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Murphy, John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Rigg, Richard

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Young, Samuel

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roche, John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary N.)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Show, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  O'Donell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Sir Thomas Esmonue and

  O'Dowd, John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Captain Donelan.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES(10.6.) Mr. GIBSON BOWLES moved an Amendment providing that Questions should be taken "on days when there is one sitting, at twelve o'clock." He moved the Amendment for the purpose of raising the question whether there should or should not he Questions permitted on Friday or possibly on Saturday, if there was a Saturday sitting. At present there was, he belived, no Rule prohibiting Questions being put at twelve o'clock on Wednesday, and there had occasionally been instances of Questions being put on that day. It was sometimes very important that there should be the power of putting Questions to Ministers on that day. It was practically to retain the power of doing so that he moved the Amendment. He apprehended that even if the Amendment were carried, the practice which at present obtained with respect to Wednesday sittings would continue on Friday. That was to say while it was recognised that a Minister found it extremely difficult if not impossible, except under special circumstances, to be in attendance to answer Questions at twelve o'clock, because he had to be in his Department to do his work, yet there might be occasions when a would desire to have Questions put to him at twelve o'clock, and by adopting the Amendment, the House would leave it open to a Member to ask a Minister at Question. Under the Rule as proposed, there would be no power whatever, when an emergency might arise, of putting a Question to a Minister at a Friday or Saturday
  118
  sitting. He would not insist on the Amendment or carry it to a division if the Leader of the House thought it objectionable, but still he proposed it in order that he might get an answer to the arguments he had used.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 2, after the word 'clock,' to msert the words 'and on days when here is one sitting at Twelve of the clock.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A.J. BALFOUR: As I conceive it, my hon. friend's Amendment is unnecessary, because, as I understand the matter, there is nothing at all in the Rule in question to prevent any Question being put and answered at twelve o'clock on Fridays. Unless my memory deceives me, some hon. Members have during the last few sessions put down Questions on Wednesdays, which, of course, shows conclusively that there is nothing in the Standing Order to prevent it. My hon. friend thinks it would be an improper restriction of our liberties to make it impossible for a Question to be asked and answered on a single sitting day, but all the Rules and customs which now attach to Wednesdays will be transfered to Fridays, and under these Rules and customs it will be possible to put a Question if an hon. Member desires it; although Ministers will not as a rule, be here to answer such Questions.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman did not oppose the Amendment on the merits. As he understood

  119
  the right hon. Gentleman, he had no objection to the object of the hon. Member for King's Lynn. He conceived however, that the new Rules might produce an element of doubt, and at all events, the introduction of the words proposed by the hon. Member would remove any possibility of doubt, and as the right hon. Gentleman did not object on the merits to the proposal, he respectfully hoped that the hon. Gentleman would persevere with his Amendment.
  MR. A J. BALFOUR: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but if these words were put in they would imply that a practice was to prevail on Fridays what did not prevail on Wednesdays. There were no corresponding words in the old Standing Order, and, if they were inserted, it would he said that it was evidently intended that Questions should he asked on Fridays as on other days of the week. My hon. friend does not desire that, any more than I do; and I think it would be in accordance with good drafting to accept the Rule as interpreted by the practice of the House, and not interpose confusion.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid that between 1862 and 1895 many Questions were asked at a twelve o'clock sitting.
  MR. FLYNNsaid the new Rule would involve an essential difference. Wednesday came in the middle of the week, and it was no great hardship that a Question should be put down on Thurday instead of on Wednesday but under the new Rule, if a Member desired to put down a Question for Friday it would have to stand over until Monday. There was nothing in the Present Rule against asking Questions on Wednesdays. The common sense of the House, however, recognised that Questions should not be put down on that day, and that Ministers should not be required to leave their other business in order to be present to answer them, and the general sense of the convenience of Members did not tempt them to put down Questions for twelve O'clock. There was, however, a great deal of difference as regarded Questions on Wednesdays and on Fridays. He had a very lively recollection of some important Questions being put on Wednesdays. He remembered one Question
  120
  of great public policy with regard to education in Ireland. It was essential that the Department in Dublin should get an authoritative announcement in this House, and if he was not mistaken, the present Leader of the House intimated to Mr. Sexton to put down a certain Question with regard to the business to which he had referred. It was answered, and the Department in Dublin at once proceeded with developments of a most important character. If Questions were not to be asked on Friday, they would have to be put off until the Monday following. He trusted the hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn would press the Government a little more. The Amendment could not alter a Rule which did not exist; neither would it alter the customs of the House. He trusted the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment, as it would suit the convenience of Ministers as well as the convenience of unofficial Members, and would not be abused.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOLSEsaid that by the addition of two or three words the Leader of the House might be able to meet the wishes of the hon. Gentleman. If there were added to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the words "until 12.15," it would establish a new practice, but would limit the right to very important Questions.
  MR. CHAPLIN: With a view to bringing this discussion to a close, might I ask yon, Mr. Speaker, whether there is anything in the Rule to prevent Questions being asked on Friday or on Saturday; because if that is so, as I believe is the case, Questions on these days are not specifically prohibited.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman's view is quite correct. Questions can be putdown on these days, although when they have been put down, think they have been very seldom answered.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I understand your ruling, Sir, to be that Questions can be put down under the new Rule on Fridays and Saturdays.
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no case of Questions having been refused at the Table because they were to be asked on a particular day.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid his next Amendment was a very important one, because it raised the whole question of private business. The capital defect of the new Rules was that there was no provision for some of the most important business of the House. Private business occasionally took several hours of the time of the House, but not during the whole of the session. The average over the whole of the session would be re-presented by a very small amount of time each day. With one or two exceptions, he did not remember any discussion of private business in this House which had been anything but fair, proper and legitimate discussion. He remembered no such thing as obstruction in connection with private business. He remembered protests and divisions, but they were always fair. Private business was business in which the House was occupied when it sat most truly as the High Court of Parliament, and when it sat in its judicial capacity to decide large and very important questions involving millions of money, and involving the future of enterprises of the utmost importance, such as networks of railways, steamships, and other matters of the greatest importance to a commercial country like ours. That business must necessarily be considered by Parliament itself, and could not be deputed to any other body. It had not been found possible from its nature to depute it to any other body, and it was essential that Parliament should give its full attention to it. The importance of private business was shown by the difference in the Rules which governed Committees on Private Bills and other Committees. A Member might absent himself from any other Committee, but a Member on a Private Bill Committee was recognised as being a member of a jury and as acting in a judical capacity, and he was bound to attend that Committee, and if he absented himself he was reported to this House, and could be proceeded against with all the severity of which the House was capable. That showed the difference of
  122
  aspect with which the House regarded Private Bill Committees and other Committees, and was an indication of the overweening importance of private business. He submitted that at some period of the Rules—it ought to have been at a previous period—it would be absolutely necessary to make some provision—an adequate and a proper provision for dealing with private business. The House had had no hint from his right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury as to what he considered the proper time for dealing with private business. His right hon. friend had not even disclosed the fact that he had any opinion on the subject, except that he proposed to leave it absolutely and entirely to the Chairman of Ways and Means. That was not really adequate. It had not been disputed and would not be disputed, that private business occupied a position that entitled it to claim recognition from the House, and that the time required for its treatment, which was not large, should be allocated to it, so that it should be sure of having it at the proper time. He did not think there was any grievance at all in leaving private business exactly as it was at present, namely, that it should be begun as soon as the Speaker had taken the Chair and continued until it was disposed of. That was what his Amendment proposed, but if there were a better way, he should be glad to hear it. If the First Lord of the Treasury had any scheme which dealt, not only with unopposed but also opposed private business, he should be very glad to learn of it. Where perhaps the Rules most failed was, that there was an absolute absence of all consideration for such an important and unavoidable matter as private business. It was not competent or proper for the House to dismiss private business as if it did not exist, and it was in order to raise that very important question, and to ascertain the plan of the Government, not only with regard to unopposed, but also to opposed private business, that he begged to move his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 2, after the word 'clock,' to insert the words 'or at the conclusion of private business, if any be set down for that day.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend desires that at this stage in out proceedings we should have a discussion on the whole question of the position of private business—or something approaching that—in the arrangement of our day's proceedings. I do not think that would be a convenient course; there will be ail opportunity later on for such a discussion. I myself think that the important point raised by this Amendment has not quite the same scope as the suggestion made in the speech of the hon. Member. The Amendment amounts to this, that we should not begin the public business of the day—Questions, Bills, and so forth—until all the private business, contested and uncontested, is disposed of. Frankly I did think that, if there was one point one which every Member of the House was agreed, it was that, whatever other point of our procedure remained unreformed, there ought to be a reform which would remove the uncertainty as to when public business would commence, owing to the uncertain length to which disputed private business might extend. I thought there was a universal consensus of opinion that that was an in to lerable state of things. It is clear that, whatever other arrangement may be made for private business, there is only one way of curing that particular weakness in our arrangement of public business, and that method is to make public business begin at a fixed hour, no matter what the private business may be. If there be that general consensus of opinion—and I think there is—as to the nature of the malady and as to the only possible remedy, I think there are sufficient grounds for saying that the Amendment is one which we cannot accept. There might be more to say for the Amendment if it were confined to unopposed business, but, as far as opposed business is concerned, its acceptance would destroy the whole essence and ground of the policy which we have proposed.
  MR. BLAKEsaid the decision of the House to divide the day's work into two sittings would intensify the inconvenience of the interposition of opposed private
  124
  business at the commencement of the proceedings, because the period of the sitting during which pubic business could he taken without pause would extend only to half-past seven instead of to midnight. Obviously, from the fact that they had proposed in the first place to throw Questions over to a later period, the original intention of the Government was to have as long a time as possible for Government business. But precedence had now been given to Questions, and if, in addition, there was to be at the commencement of each day's proceedings an uncertain amount of opposed private business, it was clear the House would be in a worse position than hitherto. But that did not exhaust the question. Private business had to be dealt with; it was an important class of business: it was bound to have its reasonable place in the proceedings of the day; but the present proposals did not grapple with the difficulty with any reasonable definiteness. The idea, as foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman, seemed to be that opposed private business should be distributed evenly over the four days of the week, so as not to interfere with the early hours of the days in which there were two sittings. He thought that would be a mistake. In his opinion, the most satisfactory way of dealing with opposed private business was to make it an early Order on one day of the week. The promoters could then attend on that one day, and the other days would be entirely free for public business. That was the course pursued with great satisfaction and expedition in another legislature with which he was acquainted. It was not the plan of the Government, but he would like the House to consider it. One sitting might be fixed on which opposed private business should be the first Order. Unless that were done, the only other thing was not to leave that business in its present vague condition, but to provide in some way that it should come on at a certain time on each evening of the week, and that it should be distributed evenly. If that plan were adopted, the discretion might perhaps be left with the Chairman of Ways and Means, but the discretion should be exercised on a principle to be stated in the Rule of the House.
  MR. COGHILLthought too much importance was being attached to the words "public" and

  125
  "private" as applied to Bills. For several sessions a measure dealing with the London Water Supply had been introduced as a private Bill; this session it had been brought in as a public Bill, although it was a measure of exactly the same character, dealing with the same subject. Members would also remember a very small Bill dealing with the Berriew School Board, which, having the dignity of an asterisk attached to it, wan discussed as a public Bill at about three o'clock in the morning. The question should be looked at more from the point of view of the merits of the Bills themselves. Bills of great importance, such as the London Water Bill, or measures dealing with important questions affecting large cities such as Manchester or Liverpool ought to be treated by the Government and given full opportunity for discussion. Something was done by the present proposals to deal with the admitted evil of the time at the House being at the disposal of Parliamentary agents, but the evil to which he had referred was not quite met by the scheme before the House. He hoped there would be some modification of the present proposal to meet the general wishes of Members.
  MR. SPEAKERintimated that the debate was drifting into a general discussion on private business. The Rule before the House deposed private business from the position it at present held. That was the proper subject of discussion. But the discussion of details of methods by which private business ought to be dealt with would not be in order.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEunderstood from his remarks that the Leader of the House would not be unwilling to accept the Amendment if the word "unopposed" were inserted before the words "private business." He therefore moved to insert the word 'unopposed.'
  Amendment proposed to the Amendment to the proposed Amendment—
  "After the word 'of,' to insert the word 'unopposed.'"—(Mr. Charles Hobhouse.)
  Question proposed, "That the word" unopposed "be there inserted."
  MR. DILLONsaid the insertion of the word "unopposed" would upset the whole scheme, and all the arguments us to certainty with regard to public business would vanish into thin air. Members appeared to be under the delusion that if a Bill was unopposed it must necessarily pass in a minute or two. Nothing was farther from the fact. It was necessary sometimes to discuss an unopposed Bill in order to get assurances from the promoters, and such discussions sometimes occupied nearly an hour. The Amendment might just as well be left as it stood. He could not understand, however, why the House should be asked to depose private business from its present position without being definitely informed of the intentions of the Government. The suggestion of the First Lord put forward in the general discussion as to the future conduct of private business was perfectly preposterous, and it was because no definite statement had now been made, the House were in such difficulty as to the course they ought to adopt.
  MR. WHITMOREsaid that, while he should be glad to know what definite proposals the Government we re going to make with regard to the disposal of private business in the future, the House at present had to concern itself only with the Amendment which had been moved. He could not help remembering an occasion on which the London Water Bill was put down for discussion on the same day as certain important Irish business. It was entirely through inadvertence, but it led to a very unpleasant quarter of an hour. That was a good illustration of the practical inconvenience which not infrequently arose from the present system. He agreed that private business was most important, and was not likely to diminish in importance. But it could not be denied that it was a great inconvenience that, really without the officials of the House or the Government having any control over the matter, an important private Bill could be put down for any day and thus take precedence of most important Government or public business. He hoped that when they came to deal with the question of how private business was to be disposed of, the Government would give the House some more definite information than it at present possessed.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEthought that if private business, either opposed or unoppposed, were set down for only one day in the week it would be to the general convenience of the House. If such a plan were adopted there would be no reason for refusing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for King's Lynn.
  MR. CHAPLINreminded the House that, great as was the inconvenience which often arose from taking private business at the commencement of the sitting, that business was frequently quite as important as it was inconvenient. He really could not understand why the Government did not state what they proposed to do with regard to private business when displaced from its present position, as Members naturally felt a difficulty in sanctioning that displacement until they had some idea of the Government's intention. The Rule, if carried, would finally settle that private business should not be taken at the commencement of the sitting; the Amendment simply proposed to retain it in its present position until the House could be informed of the Position it would subsequently occupy. The question was of such enormous importance that, with every desire to support the Government on the point, he did not like giving his vote while completely in the dark as to the future.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, forgotten that the Question before the House is that the word "unopposed" be inserted.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid the insertion of the word would to some extent mitigate the difficulty, but not very largely.
  MR. BRYCEthought the Leader of the House had confounded the two causes which made the present arrangement with regard to private business troublesome. The difficulty arose partly from the fact that a private Bill might severely trench on the time the House desired to devote to public business, and also from the fact that there was no certainty as to when it would come on.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is dealing with opposed private business. The question is as to the insertion of the word "un-opposed."
  MR. BRYCEsaid that if by "unopposed" business was meant Bills to which notice of opposition had not been given, unopposed Bills might frequently take some time. He had known opponents or promoters of Bills to take twenty minutes or more to express their views to the House; therefore some definition as to the meaning of the phrase would be necessary. If the duty of deciding the point rested with the Chairman of Committees, he thought the Amendment might very well be accepted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We are now on an Amendment to an Amendment. I venture to suggest that it would be more profitable if that Amendment was disposed of quickly, so as to leave us free to discuss the more important question. I fully understand the spirit in which the hon. Member opposite suggested the Amendment. The objection to it is that mentioned by the hon. Member for East Mayo, viz., that unopposed business may run on for some time. It is true that unopposed, business may be stopped at once by anyone saying "I object," and the whole discussion comes to an end. Who is to have the responsibility of saying that, and when is it to be so? If you leave it to the House at large, as at present, the discussion might run on even to a quarter to three and then the number of Questions that could be asked would be so small as to cause great inconvenience to Members. It is true the responsibility might be left to the Government of saying at a quarter past two "I object," and it would certainly have to be done. But in that case why not put it in the Standing Order? Though there is something to be said for the Amendment to the Amendment, I think, on the whole, it ought not to be pressed, and I hope the hon. Member will withdraw it.
  Amendment to the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'or at the conclusion of Private Business if any be set down for that day' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERasked whether, seeing that many Members hesitated as to the way they should vote until they knew definitely what the Government intended to propose, it would be possible, after dealing with this Amendment, to hark back to the question of the position of Private Business, or would it be finally settled.
  MR. SPEAKERruled that if the Amendment were rejected private business would be deposed altogether from the position it now occupied.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR(Liverpool, Scotland) said the Leader of the House seemed to share the error of other Members—that by postponing private business to the evening sitting all derangement of public business would be avoided. That was an absolutely absurd proposition.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not my proposition.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he should have been surprised if one with the acute intellect of the right hon. Gentleman had been taken in by so apparent a fallacy. The evening sitting on a Government day was just as much the time of the Government as the morning sitting, and ought to be equally precious to the Government. He therefore failed to see what advantage they would obtain in the discharge of public business by robbing their time in the evening instead of in the morning. For himself he was in favour
  130
  of private business remaining in its present position or of some plan other than that proposed by the Government. After all the daily life of the country was often as much affected—in some cases more affected—by private as by public Bills. He instanced the case of a railway Bill. The particular direction of the line, the fares and freights the company were allowed to charge, the safeguards adopted for the lives of passengers and employees—all these matters came more nearly home to every Member of the community than three fourths of the so-called public Bills. A good railway system would revolutionise a great deal of the social and economical condition of the country. He was therefore utterly unable to understand the gulf which some Members had placed between private and public business. He did not deny that private Bills sometimes occupied an undue share of the time of the House, and came on at inconvenient periods—as in the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Chelsea—but there was a very obvious method of dealing with cases such as that. He maintained that some of the private Bills were as important to some hon. Members as the public Bills. At the present time private Bills were taken at a time when a large number of business men found it impossible to be present, and therefore to a large extent the change suggested would be a convenience.
  MR. RICHARDSsaid he hoped the House would accept the proposal of the Government. From time to time his experience had been that unopposed Bills were made use of by hon. Members who wished to-obtain some concession before allowing them to pass.
  MR. DILLON: Why not?
  MR. RICHARDSsaid they were perfectly right in so doing but that was not the occasion, and if they wanted concession the evening sitting was the time to ask for them.
  MR. VLCARY GIBBS: Why?
  MR. RICPIARDSsaid that unlike his hon. friend the Member for the St. Albans Division he was not endowed with patriarchal fortunes, and he could not attend the House himself at that time of day. Those who were engaged in commerce or professions ought to support the Government. He was prepared to support this proposal in the interests of those who had other occupations during the day.
  MR. COUTRTENAY WARNERsaid that often private business was in the position of a case being tried, and the House was practically a Law Court to decide. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] For that reason private business had to be got through in some way and under the system proposed there was a great danger that a good deal of the private business would have to be done at the end of the session. He thought some undertaking ought to be given thorn that private business would be got through early in the session.
  MR. BANBURY(Peckham) said he did not wish to vote against the Government on this occasion, but he agreed with the hon. Member for the Scotland Division that
  private business was most important, and if it was put off until nine o'clock in the evening he did not think that course would be conducive to an adequate discussion of private Bills. He should like to have some little information as to whether adequate time would be given for the discussion of private business.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he honestly wished to vote with the Government on this point, but he could not do so unless he received some information as to what was going to be put in its place.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was astonished at his right hon. friend, because he had repeated over and over again the Government plan in regard to private business at the evening sitting.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Could it be put down for Friday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Surely it is sufficient for the present discussion to say thas it is not to be taken at the afternoon sittings upon four days in the week.
  (11.13) Question put.
  The House divided :—Ayes, 1331; Noes, 229. (Division List No. 142.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Asher, Alexander

  Davies, Alfred (Car-marthen)

  (Griffith, Ellis J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Delany, William

  Hammond, John

  Bell, Richard

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Boland, John

  Dillon, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Brunner Sir John Tomlinson

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Burns, John

  Esmoade, Sir Thomas

  Holland, William Henry

  Caldwell, James

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Hosier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Cameron, Robert

  Ffrench, Peter

  Joicey, Sir James

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Field, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Joyce, Michael

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kitson, Sir James

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lambert, George

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gilhooly, James

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Shipman, Dr. John C.

  Leng, Sir John

  O'Dounell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Levy, Mlaurice

  O'Dowd, John

  Soames, Arthur Wollesley

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Soares, Ernest. J.

  Lough, Thomas

  O'Malley, William

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (North'ts

  Lundon, W.

  O'Mara, James

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  MacDonell, Dr. Mark A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thomas, J. A. (Glm'rg'n, Gower

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomson, E. W. (York, W. R.)

  M'Crae, (George

  Priestley, Arthur

  Ure, Alexander

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Reddy, M.

  Wallace, Robert

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  M'Kean, John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Rigg, Richard

  Weir, James Galloway

  Mooney, John J.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eilion)

  White, Luke (York, E R.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Murphy, John

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Young, Samuel

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roche, John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Schwann, Charles E.

  TELLEHS FOR THE AYES—

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Mr. Gibson Bowles and

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

  Mr. Charles Hobhouse.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gretton, John

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gripps, Charles Alfred

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G (Mid'x

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londond'y

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Denny, Colonel

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Helder, Augustus

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. Manch'r

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Henderson, Alexander

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Doughty, George

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hobhouse, Henry Somerset E)

  Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffie, Brightside

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham)

  Bigwood, James

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Bill, Charles

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Finch, George H.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Brassey, Albert

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Bull, William James

  Fison, Frederick William

  Keswick, William

  Butcher, John George

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  Iving, Sir Henry Seymour

  Carlile, William Walter

  Fitzroy, Tin. Edward Algernon

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liver pool)

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward H.

  Flower, Ernest

  Lawson, John Grant

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Forster, Henry William

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Lockwood, I t.-Col. A. R.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn

  Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Lowe, Francis William

  Chapman, Edward

  Gore, Hn. S. F Ormsby (Line.)

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Clive, Capt. Percy A.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Cochrane, Hon. Tlios. H. A. E.

  Green, Walford L. (Wednesby)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison

  134

  135

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stock, James Henry

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.

  Purvis, Robert

  Stroyan, John

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Malcolm, Ian

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Reid, Tames (Greenock)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Renwick, George

  Tufnell, Lieut. Col. Edward

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Valentia, Viscount

  Milvain, Thomas

  Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge

  Wanklyn, James Leshe

  Mitchell, William

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Montagu, Hon J. Scott (Hants.)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Rolleston, Sir. John F. L.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Williams, Rt Hn. Powell-(Birm

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Round, James

  Willough by de Eresby, Lord

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, F. R.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Myers, William Henry

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wortley, Ht. H on. C. B. Stuart-

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wylie, Alexander

  Nicol, Dinald Ninian

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Younger, William

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

  Smith, Hon. W. F. T). (Strand)

  Percy, Earl

  Spear, John Ward

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  MR. FULLEEmoved to omit the words in the Rule which limited the time during which (Questions may be asked. He said the Amendment would have the effect of placing Questions on exactly the same footing as they were in under the present Rule. He ventured to think the Amendment was one which would receive considerable support from all quarters of the House. He hoped the Leader of the House would give it some measure of favourable consideration. It was noticeable that in the short general discussion on the Rule not a single word of commendation was forthcoming for this proposal. He could not help think-
  136
  ing that the right hon. Gentleman and the Goverment were exaggerating the evil of the present state of things. He found that in January and February last the House sat twenty-five days not counting Wednesdays, when of course there were no Questions, and there were no less than 1,398 Questions addressed to Ministers—an average of about fifty-six Questions per day. He considered that the time given to the asking and answering of Questions was well spent and that it was time which might well be spared by the House of Commons. He believed that the answers extracted from Ministers were of vital public importance to the country. If hon. Members would

  137
  only look at the public Press they would see the immense importance which the public at large attached to the answers given by Ministers to the Questions addressed to them in the House.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 2, after the word 'clock,' to leave out the word 'Business,' in line 7, inclusive.—(Mr. Fuller.)
  Question proposed, "That the words" 'no Questions shall be taken after' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I confess I think the Government have some right to complain of the criticism which the hon. Gentleman has passed on the proposal. It has always been recognised that Questions are capable of abuse, and have been abused now and then, and it has also been admitted that there was a great deal to be said for the original plan of the Government, which set the time for Questions between 7.15 and 8. But that hour was objected to, and a further objection was offered to the limitation of supplementary Questions. We have met the House on both of these points, and we have altered the time for Questions so as to be indeed much less convenient to Ministers but more convenient to Members of the House, and we have done away with the limitation of supplementary Questions—a limitation which I am bound to say had great justification. I had hoped that a concession so large as that might have reconciled hon. Members to cutting down the time for Questions to a period which will allow sixty-five to be answered
  138
  in addition to the Questions with reference to the business of the House. I do think, and I hope the House will agree with me, that that really is sufficient time to give to the catechism of the Government. It would be an unfortunate thing if we were to allow the solid four and a half hours, which is all we get in the afternoon sittings, to be intrenched upon by any overflow of irrelevant or unnecessary Questions. I shall not expend more time in defending a thesis I have often spoken on before, but I claim that we have not shown ourselves indisposed to meet the views of both sides of the House.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he must express his surprise at the way the right hon. Gentleman had treated this question. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken as if the question had already been exhaustively discussed, when, as a matter of fact, save from the allusion to it in his opening speech on the subject, and on a subsequent occasion when he announced a modification of the original proposal, and also the few words which they had now heard, and which nobody could dignify with the name of a statement, this great and temendous revolution in the proceedings and practice of the House, had not found anything like adequate discussion from the right hon. Gentleman. He would withdraw the word discussion, for they were now discussing the proposal for the first time. The right hon. Gentleman thought he had risen to the situation by making remarks which occupied about throe minutes. He believed the right hon. Gentleman was proposing to alter one of those practices which most honourably and beneficently distinguished this House from every other Assembly in

  139
  the world. The great distinction, merit, and superiority of the British Parliament over that of the United States was that, while here Ministers were responsible to the representatives of the people, in the United States there was an almost complete separation between the Executive and the representative Assembly. The power of addressing Questions to Ministers was the symbol and the sign that the Executive power of the country was subject to the supervision and constantly under the control of the representatives of the people. That power went to the very roots of the Constitution, and to the very roots of their liberties, and yet the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Constitutional Party thought that the House was entitled to make a change of that kind in the Constitution after a three minutes speech.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I respect-fully interrupt the hon. Member. The Rule would allow about 300 Questions being answered every week without any difficulty.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid with all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that did not touch the point of principle at all. Even the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, who seemed to find his observations very amusing, would see the difference between an unlimited and a strictly limited right of asking Questions. He repeated that it was an essential part of the Constitution, and of their democratic institutions that they should have the right of putting Questions to Ministers unlimited by time or number or by anything else, except the common sense of the Assembly and the Rules of Order. What
  140
  was the case made out for the change? Surely a case ought to be made out before a great revolutionary change like that was carried out. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman either to state himself, or to get anyone of the vast collection of colleagues he had gathered around him for his assistants in connection with these most important Rules, to tell the House what was his case. That Questions had been, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman himself, now and then abused he did not deny. There was not any right of the House which was not now and then abused by every section of the House, he would not say by every Member, according to the strength of their convictions or when they imagined that they were not being treated properly, or when their duty called upon them to offer obstinate resistance to the proposals of the Government of the day. The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that there had been a considerable change in the second session of the present Parliament from the first session. They all knew what took place in a new Parliament. He had never known a new House of Commons which did not begin by asking that seating accommodation should be given to every Member, and that every hon. Member should have a seat set apart for him. The House was full, everyone wanted to hear what was going on, and the new Members were like a young lady at her first ball—interested in everything around her. A few months passed, and not a word was heard about the smallness of the House, and ample accommodation was afforded for the average attendance of Members. It was found that other departments in the House offered, perhaps, greater amuse-

  141
  ment than was to be had by listening to somewhat wearisome debates in the Chamber. It was the same thing with regard to Questions. In a new Parliament there were a largo number of new Members very naturally thirsting and burning for distinction, but who were not, as yet, masters of all their resources and who would not venture upon speech. They found an instrument and a path to glory by the easier method of Questions. Time passed, and those new Members had attained some amount of celebrity or notoriety, more or less desirable, and the result was that Questions were no longer the only instrument by which they could carve their way to political fortune and fame. Consequently, Questions regularly dimished. In the third session there was a further diminution, and the fact was that the evil would remedy itself if only given time, opportunity, and fair play.
  The right hon. Gentleman, in the somewhat perfunctory speech in which he met the Amendment, spoke of the abuse of supplementary Questions. He would be perfectly frank with the House. He detested the supplementary Question. He really found, with all respect to the Gentlemen who asked them, that very often supplementary Questions were merely a repetition of the original Question, and as such a waste of time. The evil of supplementary Questions had been largely diminished under the wise guidance of Mr. Speaker, and under his rulings, supplementary Questions, instead of wandering wide, were kept within the limits of relevancy. Any hon. Member who had been in the House for several sessions knew that Question time had been transformed under successive rulings of the Chair, and, therefore, the evil of supplementary Questions had
  142
  been largely cured. He wished to say a word with reference to a section of hon. Members in the House to which a sense of duty did not permit him to belong namely, the very useful class of silent Members. [Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL: Hear, hear!] His hon. friend the Member for South Donegal, by his cheer, evidently desired to be considered a Member of that class, but he would not decide the question. There were in the House a number of Members who took a silent, unobstrusive, but effective part in its work. They did very good work in Committees upstairs, and he might say, in passing, that he was always lost in wonder at the public spirit and patriotism of. Members who came down at eleven o'clock in the morning and sat all day on Committees, unreported by newspapers, and undescribed by Parliamentary correspondents. There might be a grievance in the constituency of one of those Members. The Nonconformists there might be complaining of how the schools were being treated by the Churchmen, or there might be some act of maladministration, or something of that kind. That Member does not care to bring the matter forward in the form of a speech, but prefers the terser form of a Question. That was a case that ought to be considered by the House.
  The root objection, however, which he had to the proposal, was that it was transforming the whole character of the House of Commons with regard to the country. The phrase had been used so often that its repetition appeared like cant, but he must repeat that the House was the grand inquest of the Nation, in order to convey what he meant. They came to the House, not mainly for the purpose of legislation, not mainly even for the purpose of examining the supplies

  143
  of the country; they came to be the echo and mirror of the people of the country. What, therefore, was their duty? It was to keep a careful eye on every act of administration in the country, on the part of the highest as well as the lowest officials. It meant that there should be no official in the country who did not feel that the eye of the House of Comons was either upon him, or might be put upon him, and, in that way, the House of Commons became the safeguard of the liberties of the people, against the wrongdoing of "Jacks-in-Office," who were only too glad to exercise their power, and grind the faces of the weak and the poor. The result was that a Question which might appear trifling and personal, was, perhaps, a Question which meant a great deal to the very lowest of the people who were without any power to defend themselves, and without any court of appeal except the High Court of Parliament through Questions asked by their representatives. Take the case of the Irish constituencies. What protection had they against officials in Ireland, who were in no sense responsible to public opinion in Ireland? The only way in which there could be an appeal against acts of outrage, violence, and tyranny, in a country where the Constitution was suspended, was to the House of Commons, and the only method by which that appeal could be made, except in occasional discussion, was by Questions addressed daily to the Ministers responsible. He declared it his honest conviction that the limitation of the right to question Ministers was a new Coercion Act for Ireland. That might appear an extravagant statement to hon. Gentlemen opposite, most of whom had never been in Ireland, and to whom the internal affairs of Ireland were more foreign than the internal affairs of France? but it was
  144
  his honest conviction, and the conviction of his hon. friends, that the curtailment of the power of putting Questions to Ministers was an intolerable limitation of their liberties and rights. It might be said by the First Lord of the Treasury that the right was not taken away, and that fift-five Questions could be asked every day. But that altogether depended on the character of the Questions. There might be Questions of such vast interest that, with the approval of the House one, two, or three supplementary Questions might be asked. He himself remembered—he was not then in the House a time when peace or war between Russia and Great Britain was trembling in the balance. Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Forster got up one after the other and asked Questions of Sir Stafford Northcote, then Leader of the House, each of which was calculated to decide the trembling balance of peace or war by giving a little tilt on the side of peace, and against a wicked and disastrous war. If forty-five minutes had been taken up by trivial Questions, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Forster would have been unable to intervene.
  It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURIn moving the adjournment of the House, I may take the opportunity to announce, as I think I suggested would be probable some days ago, that I shall ask the House to suspend the 12 o'clock rule tomorrow.
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.