§ Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Amendment proposed [28th April] to Standing Order No. 20 (Question to Members).
§
Which Amendment was—
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
188
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
189
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.)
And the Amendment to the proposed Amendment was—
In line 2, after the word 'Clock,' to leave out to the word 'Business' in line 7 inclusive.'"—(Mr. Fuller.)
§ Question again proposed—"That the words 'no Questions shall be taken after' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ (4.45) MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)said he thought it would be ungrateful upon his part if he were to occupy any time in putting the remarks he felt it necessary to make with regard to the Amendment before the House after the time he had absorbed on the previous evening, but he felt his position on this proposal very strongly indeed. When the House adjourned on the previous evening he had got to the point of meeting the objection which the right hon. Gentleman was making to the argument he was employing against the Rule. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that even under the Rule there would be an opportunity of addressing 300 Questions to the Ministers weekly; and the right hon. Gentleman asked how was it possible under those circumstances for anyone to maintain that the liberties and privileges of the House were seized or curtailed. Curiously enough, the fact which the right hon. Gentleman had stated as a strong argument in favour of his proposal was quite as formidable an argument against it. He doubted whether the Government would save an hour of time; in fact, it might so operate that the Government would lose an hour, instead of gaining one, by this proposal. Everybody knew that where a minimum of time was fixed for the discussion of particular business, it was the almost irresistible impulse of the House to keep up to that minimum. If forty-five minutes were fixed for Questions, the tendency would be to utilise the whole of the time; 190 whereas the House, if left to its own discretion, would confine Questions to thirty minutes. This would have the effect of saving a quarter of an hour, but the proposal of the Government would decrease the time of the House and the Government by a quarter of an hour. Take what happened today. The present Parliament was not very old, and, although some of the Questions on the Paper were of considerable importance, yet the whole forty-one were concluded within the space of half an hour. So that today the Government would have lost a quarter of an hour, instead of gaining. When anyone proposed a revolutionary change like this, the burden always rested upon him of justifying the change; and if his statement that the Government would lose time by this change was correct, that was a strong argument against the proposal of the Government, because it showed that there was no necessity for the change. It was always impossible, however wise and prophetic a mind a statesman might be, to prophesy the entire effect of changes made in ancient laws and traditions. The testimony of those who had sat long in this House was conclusive upon this point, for there was not a single change that had been made in the Rules which had not had consequences entirely beyond the expectations and desires of those who made them. Take the case of the closure, which had had consequences which nobody anticipated when the change was made. He held that, although this change might, as a matter of fact, not seriously diminish the amount of time given to Members of the House for asking Questions, still there were other results which he regarded as most pernicious. Owing to the fact that the time was limited, there would grow up a spirit of impatience with regard to Questions, a spirit of eagerness to be done with Questions, and a feeling on the part of Ministers that Questions were a nuisance, which ought to be frowned upon and curtailed as much as possible. That spirit, if developed, would be fatal to one of the very best features and functions of this House. He maintained that, in spite of the more democratic form of government in America, the Parliamentary institutions of this country were much more amenable to the 191 pressure of public opinion than they were in America; and he contended that they would be giving up one of the greatest factors which produced this elasticity by adopting the proposal to limit the right of questioning Ministers.
He would not dwell upon Question time being the most picturesque portion of an everyday sitting, but what did they find yesterday? There were Questions with regard to the shipping "combine," and its effects upon the commercial supremacy of the country, and upon its position as a naval Power. There were Questions, supplementary Questions, and a cross-examination of the Minister responsible. There were also two most important announcements by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the tax on flour and upon cheques. He put it to the House that such Questions and answers as those to which he had alluded involved as gigantic national interests as any Bill that had been brought in this session. Therefore, it was a monstrous misunderstanding of the part that Question time played in the history and transactions of the House to represent it as an opportunity for putting idle and cantankerous Questions, intended to goad and pierce the hide of the unfortunate Minister who had to answer them. On the contrary, it was the time when some of the most important business of the nation was done, with regard to topics and subjects which often went down to the very root of their national well-being. He thought he could also detect in this Rule a desire to curtail the liberties of Irish Members. He did not say that any discrimination was made between one section of hon. Members and another, for they had not come to that yet. Nevertheless, a Rule might be aimed at a minority, and stillleave the majority untouched. He wished to give a word of warning to the House. Parties in this country, and especially the Party opposite, had got into a most dangerous frame of mind with regard to the institutions of their own country, because of their settled antagonism to the Irish Members. He thought they had now almost reached the point at which hon. Gentlemen opposite thought it was worth while sacrificing any English liberty to prevent the raising of Irish grievances.
§ (5.12.) SIR SAMUEL HOARE (Norwich)said he had listened with great 192 interest to the speech of the hon. Member opposite, as he always did, because he knew that he had studied Parliamentary practice, and he had had a long experience in the House. He would at once say that he believed the views the hon. Member had expressed, with regard to the desirability of allowing hon. Members the greatest freedom in putting questions to members of the Government, were shared by the majority of the Members of the House of Commons. The liberty of putting Questions was one which had been enjoyed by the House for a great many years. Not only was there a great advantage in getting answers to Questions from members of the Government on various points of interest, but it very often saved debates and discussions which otherwise might take place. At the same time, he differed from the remarks of the hon. Member when he criticised his right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury for being somewhat perfunctory in his answer when the Amendment to this Rule was first moved. This question was brought up in the first discussion, and also when there was a discussion on the question of the House meeting at two o'clock.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that all he had stated was that the question had not been adequately discussed.
§ SIR SAMUEL HOAREsaid he was glad to hear that from the hon. Member. He would take it that the hon. Member considered that the question was not then adequately discussed. He personally ventured on what had been called the Second Reading discussion to bring the matter forward, and he wished now to express his appreciation of the course which the First Lord of the Treasury had pursued in modifying the Rule to meet the feeling which he expressed and which he thought had the sympathy of a great portion of the House. He then expressed the hope that the Rule would be modified so that Questions might be taken at the old time on the meeting of the House. He could not think that many of the alarms which had been expressed by the hon. Member would in practice be experienced. The hon. Member had suggested that they were suddenly discussing a new question. He might remind the House that this question had been discussed often in the 193 past. It was very fully discussed by the 1886 Committee, and a modification in the system of Questions was proposed by that Committee. Even stronger alterations, in the Rule with reference to Questions were then suggested. As long ago as 1871 he found that the Speaker stated before a Committee that there was difficulty owing to the great number of Questions which were from time to time put in the House. Although this was not a new question, it was one which quite rightly should be discussed. The only point they had now to consider was whether, if they accepted the proposal of the Leader of the House, they would be in any way curtailing that liberty which he maintained all Members of the House of Commons should have. He was inclined to think that they would not be in any way curtailing that liberty. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that there would be opportunities for asking 300 Questions per week.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThat is exclusive of Questions answered in manuscript.
§ SIR SAMUEL HOAREExclusive, of course. They were going to have one great advantage under this Rule, and that was that if they preferred to have a printed answer on the Papers of the House they could have Questions dealt with in that way. He did not attach very great importance to the practice of a Member getting up in his place in order to ask a member of the Government a Question to which often an official answer was read. To their constituents, who were usually interested in the Questions, the fact that they would be printed and published would be a considerable advantage.
§ MR. SPEAKERI must remind the hon. Member that that rather comes under a later part of the Rule. The Amendment at present before the House is that dealing with the limiting of the time to five minutes before three.
§ SIR SAMUEL HOAREsaid he appreciated the ruling. He did not quite follow the advantage of closing the Questions at five minutes before three. Would it not have been easier and simpler to have the hour three o'clock? The Leader of the House had done his very utmost to meet the 194 wishes of Members of the House. He hoped the House would not be satisfied with the Rule as altered.
§ (5.20.) MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton)said the First Lord of the Treasury would really be well advised if he accepted the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they might put 300 Questions per week to Ministers. If they took the average of the Questions asked during the last five or ten years, he doubted whether they numbered 300 per week, and if that was so, it was doubtful whether any time would be gained by the limitation proposed. This was a new principle to limit the liberty of Members to put Questions. To his mind, there was nothing so important in the business of the House as the getting of information from Ministers by means of Questions on the current questions of the day. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he had made concessions to the House, but there were concessions on former proposals which the House would not have by any means accepted. No one ever accepted the proposal that Questions should be taken between 7.15 and 8, instead of at the beginning of business. The average of Questions this session had only been fifty-six per day, and the right hon. Gentleman had told them that they would be able to put sixty or sixty-five Questions per day.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThat is my calculation.
§ MR. LAMBERTasked why the right hon. Gentleman wished to tie down the House when the Questions put were actually, less than the number he now said there would be an opportunity of putting. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman was really forging fetters for the House of Commons which were not deserved. He remembered when he first came to the House of Commons that Questions were far the most important part of the afternoon proceedings. He did not know why the right hon. Gentleman had such a mania for legislation. He thought that administration was equally important. It was most important that Members should have the full right of bringing, by the process of Question, the light of day to bear on 195 the methods of administration of the Government Departments. For his own part, he would rather see one or two Acts of Parliament less per session than that the House of Commons should be curtailed in its liberty to ask Questions of Ministers. By the Rule with reference to business in Supply, the liberties of the House had been curtailed, and it was, therefore, all the more important that they should have liberty to ask Questions on matters of administration. This Rule was aimed largely against the Irish Members. [An HON. MEMBER: "No," and Nationalist cheers.] That was his impression, and he formed it from what he had seen in Government newspapers. He deprecated any such feeling. Ireland had a centralised form of government, and it seemed to him that Questions to Ministers were the only safeguard which Irish Members possessed for throwing the light of publicity on many matter's connected with the administration of that country. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, he would obviate the necessity of putting on the officials of the House the thankless task of classifying Questions.
§ MR. SPEAKERThat is referred to in another Amendment to the Standing Order.
§ MR. LAMBERTsaid he would not pursue that subject. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give his own proposal, with respect to the starring of Questions, a chance. For his own part, he would put a great many Questions free of starring in order to get answers sent through the Votes. This system would materially reduce the number of Questions to be answered orally. He protested against any kind of Rule which would make the House of Commons into something like a French or German bureaucracy.
§ (5.30.) MR. REGINALD LUCAS (Portsmouth)said that if the average number of Questions was between fifty and sixty a day, and could therefore be disposed of in a limited time, there need be no objection to having a limit of time for Questions; but if the number increased to 100 or 110, as they sometimes had done, there should be the limit which was proposed by the Rule. The hon. Member for the 196 Scotland Division said that Questions served an excellent purpose, because they afforded an excellent opportunity for silent Members to exert themselves. The hon. Gentleman spoke with what he might say was a spirit of contempt, and certainly condescension, when he said there were a great number of Members of the House who, from inability or lack of courage, were unwilling to take part in debate, and who innocently and inoffensively occupied the Committee Rooms upstairs.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORI cannot allow an observation of that kind to pass unchallenged. I think the hon. Gentleman has attributed to me a want of good taste, good feeling, and decency of manner. I think no Member can bring such a charge against me. He accused me of speaking in a spirit of contempt and condescension. I expressed the strongest admiration for the patriotic Members who were willing to do work silently and obscurely, without any hope of reward.
§ MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid he did not accuse the hon. Member of lack of" taste or good manners. The impression he derived from the hon. Gentleman's reference was that certain Members were relegated upstairs because they were of no use for debating purposes in the House. Hon. Members attended Parliament for other purposes than to legislate for local gas and water in the Committees upstairs. They desired also to take part in debate, and, if he might say so—he hoped the hon. Member would understand that he was not imputing any improper motives—the hon. Member was endeavouring to make a corner in brains. He supposed it was obvious that debates should be carried on by a certain number of Members; but the House was not a debating society. It was a serious Assembly, and, although many hon. Members did not wish to make speeches often——
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is rather wandering from the question.
§ MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid he was only endeavouring to represent the views of the silent Members. He agreed with his hon. friend who moved the Amendment that the matter of Questions was of 197 importance to the outside public. People had told him more than once that what they looked for in the newspapers was Questions, not debates. It was true that if Questions were limited, it would be unpopular outside, and would lessen public interest in the proceedings of the House; but that would be obviated by the use of printed answers to Questions. Personally he admitted that when he wished to obtain information he took the practical and sensible way of privately asking a Minister, in the Division Lobby or elsewhere; but when a Question concerned a matter for which publicity was desirable, it was perfectly obvious that that purpose would be served as well by a printed reply as by asking the Question in the House. No one desired to abolish Questions altogether. Further, if the answer as printed was not satisfactory, the Question could be put down again with an asterisk. The limitation of Questions, as he understood it, would be an unmitigated advantage to the House, and he, for one, would have no hesitation in voting for it.
§ MR. McKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)said that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken defended the proposal of the First Lord of the Treasury solely on the ground of a hypothetical abuse of Questions. That was an insufficient reason for proposing to alter an ancient practice of the House. He agreed with the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool that the First Lord of the Treasury was exceedingly perfunctory in his opposition to the Amendment. As the hon. Baronet the Member for Norwich had said, the First Lord of the Treasury did make an important speech on the subject of Questions at an earlier stage of the discussion, but that speech was on an entirely different proposal, and the right hon. Gentleman had made no speech on the present proposal. On the first occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, his sole ground for amending the Rule relating to Questions was that during the last session of Parliament either fourteen or fifteen days of Parliamentary time had been consumed in answers to Questions; and he proposed, because of that great waste of time, as he called it, because of that expenditure of time, to relegate Questions to a time after twelve o'clock. 198 The right hon. Gentleman was now putting Questions back again to the commencement of public business, and consequently they had got to examine whether the right hon. Gentleman would save much of the fourteen or fifteen days referred to. He had made a calculation, and he found that in the course of a session of equal length to that of last session they would spend about eleven days of so-called Parliamentary time in asking and answering Questions under the proposed Rule; so that taking the very worst session, only four days of alleged Parliamentary time would be saved by the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. More than that, the right hon. Gentleman had introduced into his Rule a certain valuable suggestion, namely, that certain Questions should be answered and that the answers to the others should be limited. If that were in operation last session, more than four days of Parliamentary time would have been saved in the very worst session they yet had, and the time which the right hon. Gentleman now proposed to give the House for asking and answering Questions would not have been occupied. It might be said that hon. Members had, therefore, no grievance if the time were limited, but on some days hon. Members might want to ask Questions for one and a half hours. There might be some vital matter of public interest and importance that would evoke Question after Question to I the Government from every part of the House, and on such occasions hon. Members should not be restricted. It was their unlimited power of asking Questions that gave hon. Members some check over the Government, and the moment they were fettered in any way their power was reduced as Members of the House of Commons acting in their constitutional manner of exercising control over the Government. That control ought not to be wantonly sacrificed. He had shown that the Government would not save one single hour, much less a Parliamentary day, by their proposal. The right hon. Gentleman said—he did not know with what sincerity—that the Amendment would not take long to discuss, because it was a compromise; but the compromise, as he called it, was 199 introduced by a statement by the right hon. Gentleman the other day that it preserved his main object inviolate. Those were Rules to be used by the House for its own management. They were not Rules which ought to be pressed on the House by the Government. What compromise did the right hon. Gentleman make when he did something in defiance of the wishes of the House? It would be a compromise if the right hon. Gentleman gave something to hon. Members on that side of the House who usually opposed his proposals; but it was no compromise to give something against which the whole House was united in opposition. Hon. Members might fairly ask, when the right hon. Gentleman got his proposal to have certain Questions asterisked and other Questions not asterisked, that, in view of the great saving of time that would be effected by that means, he should leave Questions as they were, and allow hon. Members an unrestricted right to ask I Questions on any particular occasion of great public interest and importance, and that the right hon. Gentleman should try for the present session what would be the saving of time which would be effected by his proposal to differentiate between two classes of Questions. If experience showed that too much public time was wasted, the House might then come to the conclusion that the power I of limiting Questions might be limited.
§ (5.43.) SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)said that no hon. Member valued more the privilege of putting Questions than he did. So far as he was aware, the British House of Commons had a monopoly of that privilege. They were told that it did not exist in the United States; and that the fact of its non-existence was a great defect in the system of government which obtained there. Having taken part in what occurred some weeks ago in reference to the intentions of the Government on the subject of Questions, he was justified in thinking, with his right hon. friend that the concession which had been made was a balance of convenience as between some regulation limiting the time allotted to Questions and that of the time devoted to the general business of the House. He was quite certain that the new arrangement would enable 200 the public to have all the information they desired, and that matters of great public importance would become known to the people by means of interrogations across the floor of the House. The time of the House was so valuable, not only to the hon. Members, but also to the country, that anything that tended to economise and concentrate the attention of hon. Members in matters of great public importance would, he was certain, be a great gain to their procedure. He believed that the proposed system was well devised, and that it would work well. It would not only give to most hon. Members every freedom in asking Questions, but it would preserve to the House—nay, more, it would increase—that liberty of public debate which had on many occasions been too much curtailed, and would result, he believed, in great benefit to the House and the country. He therefore thanked his right hon. friend most heartily for the modification he had made.
§ MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)said no Member of the House would put down fewer Questions to Ministers than he; his practice was to write his Question and obtain a written reply from the Department to which he had written. But he certainly thought it most dangerous to establish a Rule by which at a certain time all Questions were to be cut off. Nothing could be more detrimental or degrading to Parliament. If this Rule were allowed to pass, they might have a session or two to see how the thing worked; and then, if it failed, it would be a justification to the House to give another opportunity to the right hon. Gentleman to amend the Rule relating to Questions. We were living in critical times, and there might be days in the near future when an hour of Questions might save the Empire; and to deny that hour by a hard and fast Rule was a proceeding which he never imagined the First Lord of the Treasury would be guilty of. The First Lord of the Treasury had led the House to believe that this Rule was to work elastically, that nothing was to he hard and fast, that everything was to be left to adjust itself according to the public demands, and that the position of the House in future S would be one of greater freedom than it had been in the past. The Rule itself was quite inconsistent with that argument. He noticed that the First Lord had made 201 special provision for the absence of Ministers at Question time. The tendency of Ministers to absent themselves at that time was growing, and seldom had a greater illustration of it been seen than that afternoon. The habit of Ministers now was to be negleetful of their duty to the House in this respect, and their not being in their places at Question time resulted in a very great waste of time. But the part of the Rule on which he desired to say a word was the part which referred to "Questions of an urgent character."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThat is not part of this Amendment.
§ MR. BROADHURSTsaid if that was so, so much the better. The great point against this Rule was that it was an automatic machine, which clipped off the Questions at a particular hour; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that some modification was made.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR,thought the time had now come when the debate on the subject might come to an end. He feared that some hon. Members had worked themselves up into a state of wild alarm without their alarm being founded on anything alarming. Anybody who had studied this matter would agree that forty minutes was sufficient time, as he said before, to bring to book even the wickedest and most flagitious Government. This would work out at sixty to sixty-five verbal Questions allowed to be asked under this Rule; and when they added to these, sixty or sixty-five Questions which might be asked in order to obtain written answers, he thought it was sufficient, as he said, to prevent the sins of any Government being concealed. According to the average of the present session, these questions might not have occupied forty minutes; he did not think they had. That might prove that the Rule was unnecessary, but it also proved that it was not tyrannical. He ventured to ask the House, under the circumstances, whether it was not worth while to give this limitation in order that they might know at what period of the day they were to commence the important business of the House. The hon. Member opposite made a protest against fixing I the hour as to closing Questions, but he 202 had made many speeches in favour of the Twelve o'clock Rule; so that, while he was in favour of fixing an hour for concluding the business, he was not, apparently, in favour of a fixed hour for commencing it.
§ (5.54.) MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)did not think the right hon. Gentleman was quite reasonable in asking that this discussion should be now concluded. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman had given away his whole case, because when a Minister sought to introduce a new and unprecedented Rule, in principle, he ought to make out a strong case showing the necessity for the change; and the right hon. Gentleman had made out no such case. Why should private Members be asked to part with their right of putting Questions to Ministers, or to submit to any limitation of it? This was one of the most valuable rights enjoyed by private Members. No case had been made out for the change; in fact, the. First Lord had abandoned all attempts to justify it. The right hon. Gentleman now proposed to introduce this great new principle limiting the right to put Questions to forty minutes every day, for the purpose of getting a fixed hour at which public business should commence. He had examined the Standing Order very carefully, but he could find no stipulation that public business was to commence at a particular time. He gathered that it was part of the scheme that whether Questions ended at 2.30 or 2.45, public business should not begin until three.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo, no.
§ MR. DILLONThen what becomes of the certainty to be obtained under the Rule?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the day was now divided into two sittings, morning and evening. The principal debate would take place at the morning sitting. Supposing it began at three, that would leave four and a half hours. The Government would not have the time cut into.
§ MR. DILLONthought that one of the great objects to be achieved by these Rules was that Members would be able 203 to know when public business would commence. But that was not what this Rule did. He had frequently seen Questions over in twenty minutes, and very often, after the first fury and fervour of a new Parliament had passed away, fifteen minutes were more than sufficient. In the event of Questions being over in twenty minutes, public business would commence at twenty-five minutes before three o'clock. Where, then, was the certainty? A division might easily be snapped before Members expected public business even to have commenced.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURpointed out that Members would be able to calculate very closely the amount of time Questions would take from the number appearing on the Paper.
§ MR. DILLONsaid that at any rate it was clear that there was no definite hour at which public business would commence. In asking the House to consent to this change, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have made out a case, but he had not attempted to do so. Last session, no doubt, Questions did overflow the ordinary average, but, taking session by session for the last twenty years, or even the last five or six years, it would probably be found that, on an average, they did not occupy more than forty minutes. But that average would be composed of nights on which twenty minutes were sufficient, along with other nights on which an hour, or even longer, was required. The objection to the present proposal was that, without effecting any substantial saving, Members, on certain nights, were cut off from the right of asking Questions, and there was created in their minds a feeling of irritation by their rights being invaded on insufficient grounds. The case against the limitation was enormously strengthened by the probable effect of the provision as to "starring." Every one would admit that "starring" was a reasonable suggestion. He certainly did not oppose it. Nobody would argue against a provision which, without interfering with the rights of Members, tended to economise the time of the House. But Members should observe how this arrangement would work. Without doubt, "starring" would have the effect of obviating the necessity of verbally answering many of the longest Questions on the Paper. He believed 204 that under the Rule the average time occupied by Questions would be well within forty minutes. Then, where was the hardship, asked the right hon. Gentleman. It was in the fact that the Rule deliberately proposed on certain nights to dock the right of Members to put Questions, whereas on other nights they would have more time than they required. The Rule was more objectionable in principle than it would be in practice. In four nights out of five he did not believe it would interfere in the slightest degree with the asking of Questions. Then there were other results that this limitation would have. According to the Rule as it now stood, Questions were to be so arranged that those which seemed to be of the greatest general interest would be reached before five minutes to three o'clock.
§ MR. SPEAKERI think that ought not to be discussed on this Amendment.
§ MR. DILLONsaid his point was that this arrangement was necessitated by the limitation of Questions. But for that limitation, the odious principle—which he believed it would be impossible to carry into effect—of sorting Questions at the Table would not have been dreamt of.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is in order in making that statement, but he would not be in order in discussing the merits of the provision.
§ MR. DILLONsaid he desired only to point out that that was one of the consequences of the limitation. Then, what was to become of the practice under which Questions to the Leader of the House were put at the end of the Paper? Those Questions, which were generally of importance, if put at the end of the Paper might not be reached at all, while to put them at the top of the Paper would cause great inconvenience to the Leader of the House.
§ MR. SPEAKERI do not think that point arises on this Amendment.
§ MR. DILLONsaid he was endeavouring to show the consequences arising from this limitation. But to pass to 205 another point—that of the relative importance of legislation and of Questions—it was astonishing to find that the Government had developed an extraordinary passion for legislation. When he first entered the House, the Leaders of the Tory Party had the doctrine—with which, if he were not an Irish Nationalist, he would have considerable sympathy—that a great deal of legislation was evil. The only genuine Tory left in the House—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet—held that view still. But to such an extent had the Government developed that passion, that, in their eyes, everything the House did was of little consequence compared with the rushing forward of legislation. How was the matter regarded by the Press and the public? He was not an unlimited admirer of the Press, but, in considering what were the most important functions of the House, some guidance could be obtained from the amount of interest taken in the proceedings by the outside public. What was the fact? That the public took more interest in the Questions than in anything else. Frequently three times as much space in the newspapers—with the exception of The Times—was devoted to Questions as was given to the rest of the proceedings. It was, therefore, ridiculous to treat Questions as a matter of slight importance, which could be pushed on one side to make way for the legislative proposals of the Government. It was one of the most important functions of the House, and the Government had not made, or attempted to make, a case for the change now proposed.
§ (6.14.) MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)said, if he might allude for a moment to a personal matter, that his right hon. friend had stated earlier in the evening that if he gave his support to the Rules they might be easily carried in one more sitting. His right hon. friend would find that, apart from the Rules relating to private Members, he had supported his right hon. friend far more often than he had opposed him in the course of these debates. He regretted he had had to oppose him even on those occasions, but he had had an experience on these points which was 206 in some respects exceptional, a long experience as a Minister, and an even longer experience as a private Member, subject to the existing Rules—and that in the evil days when they were in a great minority—which very few present Members of the House remembered. Upon that experience he had formed his opinions, and if he did not express them he would deem himself to be a traitor to what he honestly believed were the best interests of the House and hon. Members and of the country. As to the merits of this particular Rule, he totally differed from the contention of the hon. Member for East Mayo that the proposal was put forward without any justification. Except on one material point, there was not a Rule among those brought forward by the Government to which, on their introduction, he gave a more cordial welcome. It then seemed to him that it was impossible to lay down that no Question, whatever its importance, should be asked at the commencement of the proceedings. That opinion now obtained generally, and the objection had been met. In fact, if anything, the right hon. Gentleman had gone rather too far. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division had declared that the right to put Questions to Ministers was essential in a democratic institution. So it was; but it could not be denied that in the past that right had been grossly abused. [Cries of "No, no!"] Hon. Members could refer to the records in the Library, and they would find that 150 to 160, and he believed even 170, Questions had been on the Paper in a single day. That practice went on until the abuse became intolerable, and there were few abuses which more needed reform than this one in regard to Questions. His right hon. friend had provided for 300 Questions a week, and what could the House want more? He most cordially approved of the proposal of the First Lord of the Treasury, and he trusted that he would not agree to any compromise.
§ MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford had given a rather exaggerated view of the number of Questions. Since 1895 he did not think 207 there was any occasion upon which anything like 160 Questions appeared on the Paper of the day. To have this hard and fast line drawn was not only unnecessary, but unconstitutional. According to the First Lord of the Treasury, sixty-five Questions could he put and orally answered within the time provided, and the right hon. Gentleman argued that therefore nobody had any ground to complain. It might however happen that the sixty-sixth Question might be the most vital one upon the Paper, but it would be cut out according to this Rule. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's argument appeared to be altogether fallacious. It was quite clear, from the computation of the First Lord of the Treasury himself, that by leaving out this 2.55 limit, the sixty-five Questions would not be exceeded in a great many cases, and in that way no loss of time would be incurred. From this point of view, a hard and fast Rule was unnecessary, and would be productive of no real advantage. He did not think that there had been any abuse of Questions which would warrant this organic change in the constitution of the House of Commons. In the present state of things, the Government which they were under was one of the most autocratic in Europe, and the great majority never failed to answer to the crack of the whip. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, under this Rule, would have no opportunity of calling attention to abuses which always crept into the best regulated administrations, such as jobs or maladministration, and the only opportunity they had of calling attention to them was through the medium of Questions. Abuses often occurred in the remotest parts of Ireland, and the only way to expose them to the light was by means of Questions. If they were deprived of that right, a blow would be struck at the freedom of Parliament, and at the constitution of which they were all so proud, and valued so highly. They would not have had much light thrown on events in South Africa had it not been for Questions put in the House. It was by the exercise of this privilege that abuses were brought to light in South Africa and exposed in the House of Commons, and the remedy was then applied to them, as in the instance of the Spion Kop despatches and the Concentration 208 Camps. The House ought to hesitate before adopting this Rule, which would strike a great blow at the liberty and prestige of Parliament without gaining any commensurate advantage.
§ (6.25.) SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)said he should like to say a word or two upon what he thought was from a practical business point of view. If he thought this proposal would really restrict the privileges of the House or limit the rights of any section of the House to put Questions to Ministers, he would not support it. He was, however, convinced, after hearing the concessions that would be made, that there would be ample time to deal with all Questions which had a really practical value. He did not in the least undervalue the right of questioning Ministers in the House. But it was not, after all, the Questions of wide public interest which were the most important. The opportunity of drawing attention to individual grievances by speech was so limited that Questions were really the only means of drawing public attention to them. One great value of Questions consisted in the fact that there was no person, however humble or poor, who, if he had a real grievance, could not, by means of a Question, put it before his representative, and in twenty-four hours he could get the Minister responsible for it to give whatever explanation he could and thus secure public attention and possibly a remedy to the grievance. He considered that all Rules were in themselves an evil as a restriction on individual liberty. It might be that unlimited time for Questions in itself gave them additional value, but unfortunately time was not unlimited, and this matter resolved itself into a question of time. So far as the time of the House was concerned, he believed that the evil with which they were dealing in the Rules was not want of time but a want of a systematic use of the time which the House already had at its disposal. There was so much uncertainty and chance about it that really hon. Members hardly knew what business would occupy the attention of the House. For his part, he welcomed this Rule as establishing a time limit upon a very important matter which one would not wish to restrict, but which was an example of what might be 209 done in other directions. They wasted time very largely upon trivial Estimates, whereas, if they distributed the time properly, they might discuss a large number of them. By having a specified time they would know, at any rate approximately, at what time public business would begin.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)said the whole contention of the Loader of the House and other hon. Members opposite, with the exception of the right bon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, was that no hardships would occur if this Rule were passed. The whole point seemed to turn on ten minutes or fifteen minutes, and for the sake of a quarter of an hour it did seem very unnecessary to interfere with what had been called the constitutional right of hon. Members to ask Questions. They all recognised now that closure was an essential element of the Parliamentary proceedings, and they all knew that the closure led and must lead to friction and irritation. Looking at it from the point of view of expediency of the House itself, he thought this Rule would be a very great mistake. The putting in of this Question closure would only save a few minutes. The House had not yet defined what was a Question of an urgent character, or what was a matter of public information The Speaker or some other official would have to classify the Questions, and the classification would be sure to lead to additional irritation, for it would necessitate at the end of each sitting deciding what were matters of urgent public importance. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that this was a very small matter as regarded the amount of time, and it was very important that this additional friction should not be added to the proceedings of the House.
§ (6.35.) MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)said the First Lord of the Treasury had not even endeavoured to make a case for this Rule. No Minister who asked them to curtail the rights and liberties which bad existed for centuries, by adopting a new Standing Order, would ever be able to
§ make out a case for taking such a course. He respectfully submitted that the First Lord had failed to make out his case. This Rule would not have the intended effect of saving time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford had said that the Questions in the last Parliament had sometimes gone up to 160 in a day. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was exaggerating. On one or two occasions they went up to 100, but that was in the first session of a new Parliament, when, as those who had experience of the House knew, Members coming in for the first time put down a large number of Questions, thinking they would get satisfactory replies. As time went on, they found that the putting of Questions to Ministers was in many cases not a profitable occupation. Why did the right hon. Gentleman ask the House to gag itself in this respect? The hon. Member for the South Molton Division had pointed out that Questions had considerable value; and if that was true with regard to the House at large, it was certainly true with regard to Ireland, because there were Questions cropping up, owing to the unconstitutional way in which the country was governed, upon which the Irish Members had to ask information. On account of the way the guillotine worked in Committee of Supply, they had no opportunity of having a word on these matters, and Question time was the only occasion on which they could raise these points. It was proposed by this Rule to further abridge the rights of the House, and he ventured to say that what was proposed would not give further time. Owing to the condition of Ireland, it was important that the Nationalist Members should be able to ask Questions.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ (6.40.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 256; Noes, 162. (Division List No. 144.)
213| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F. | Anson, Sir William Reynell | Arrol, Sir William |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Arkwright, John Stanhope | Austin, Sir John |
| Aird, Sir John | Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Bailey, James (Walworth) |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Garfit, William | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St Albans) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Balcarres, Lord | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Gordon, Hn J E. (Elgin & Nairn | Mitchell, William |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Gore, Hon G R C Ormsby-(Salop | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) |
| Balfour,Rt.Hn Gerald W. (Leeds | Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Goulding, Edward Alfred | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire |
| Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor | Green, Walford D, (Wednesb'ry | Morgan, David J. (Walthamsto' |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Gretton, John | Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh. |
| Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks | Greville, Hon Ronald | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Groves, James Grimble | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford |
| Beresford, Lord Charles Wm. | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Gunter, Sir Robert | Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute |
| Bignold, Arthur | Guthrie, Walter Murray | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Bigwood, James | Hain, Edward | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) |
| Bill, Charles | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Myers, William Henry |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lrd G (Mid'sex | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'ndery | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay |
| Bowles, Capt H. F. (Middlesex | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Peel, Hn Wm Robert Wellesley |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | Percy, Earl |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. | Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard |
| Bull, William James | Heaton, John Henniker | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Helder, Augustus | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Butcher, John George | Henderson, Alexander | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon J A (Glasgow | Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Purvis, Robert |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Higginbottom, S. W. | Rankin, Sir James |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh. | Hoare, Sir Samuel | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Hogg, Lindsay | Rattigan, Sir William Henry |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J (Birm. | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brights'de | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Renshaw, Charles Bine |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hoult, Joseph | Renwick, George |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Houston, Robert Paterson | Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson |
| Coddington, Sir William | Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Ropner, Col. Robert |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Round, James |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Kennaway, Rt. Hn Sir John H. | Russell, T. W. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh) | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Kimber, Henry | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Knowles, Lees | Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln |
| Dairymple, Sir Charles | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Lawson, John Grant | Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edw. H. | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Frd Dixon | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareh'm | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Doughty, George | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Smith, H C (N'rth'mb, Tyneside |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks). |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N S | Spear, John Ward |
| Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk |
| Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Stanley, Lord (Lancs). |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, s. | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Manc'r | Lowe, Francis William | Stock, James Henry |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Stroyan, John |
| Finch, George H. | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Firbank, Joseph Thomas | Macartney, Rt. Hn W G Ellison | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Macdona, John Cumming | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim. E.) | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Forster, Henry William | M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire | Valentia, Viscount |
| Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W | Majendie, James A. H. | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Manners, Lord Cecil | Warde, Col. C. E. |
| Gardner, Ernest | Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts | Wilson, John (Falkirk) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne | Wilson, John (Glasgow) | Wyndham-Qnin, Major W. H. |
| Whitmore, Charles Algernon | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N. | Younger, William |
| Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks) | |
| Willoughby de Eresby, Lord | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath | |
| Willox, Sir John Archibald | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R | Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart- | Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid | Wylie, Alexander | |
| NOES | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. | Hammond, John | O'Dowd, John |
| Asher, Alexander | Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale | O'Malley, William |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D. | O'Mara, James |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Helme, Norval Watson | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | O'Shee, James John |
| Bell, Richard | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Palmer, George Wm. (Reading |
| Blake, Edward | Horniman, Frederick John | Partington, Oswald |
| Boland, John | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Jacoby, James Alfred | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Joicey, Sir James | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea | Rea, Russell |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. | Reddy, M. |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Joyce, Michael | Redmond, John E. (Waterford |
| Caldwell, James | Kearley, Hudson E. | Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries |
| Cameron, Robert | Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Kitson, Sir James | Rigg, Richard |
| Carew, James Laurence | Labouchere, Henry | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Lambert, George | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs). |
| Cawley, Frederick | Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.) | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Leamy, Edmund | Roche, John |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Crean, Eugene | Leng, Sir John | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Crombie, John William | Levy, Maurice | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Lloyd-George, David | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Delany, William | Lough, Thomas | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Lundon, W. | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Dillon, John | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Donelan, Captain A. | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Doogan, P. C. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Spencer, Rt. Hn C R (Northants |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Dunn, Sir William | M'Crae, George | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Edwards, Frank | M'Fadden, Edward | Sullivan, Donal |
| Ellis, John Edward | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E |
| Emmott, Alfred | M'Kean, John | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | M'Kenna, Reginald | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Mooney, John J. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Wallace, Robert |
| Ffrench, Peter | Morley, Charles (Breconshire) | Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S |
| Field, William | Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Moulton, John Fletcher | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Murphy, John | Whiteley, George (York, W. R. |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R. |
| Gilhooly, James | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Young, Samuel |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John | Norman, Henry | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'r'ry, Mid | |
| Grant, Corrie | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | |
| Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary. N.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W | Mr. Fuller and Mr. Charles Hobhouse. |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | |
| Haldane, Richard Burdon | O Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
§ (6.54.) Question put accordingly, "That the words 'no Questions shall be taken after' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
214§ The House divided:—Ayes, 258; Noes, 164.
§ (Division List No.145.)
217| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F. | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Agg Gardner, James Tynte | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ. (Manc'r | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S |
| Aird, Sir John | Finch, George H. | Lowe, Francis William |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Firbank, Joseph Thomas | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Fisher, William Hayes | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison |
| Arrol, Sir William | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Forster, Henry William | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) |
| Austin, Sir John | Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ. | M'Calment, Col. J. (Antrim, E.) |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy | Foster, Philip S Warwick, S. W. | M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Galloway, William Johnson | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Gardner, Ernest | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Garfit, William | Manners, Lord Cecil |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) | Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) | Melville, Beresford Valentine |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds | Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop | Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Mitchell, William |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) |
| Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) | Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Gretton, John | More, Robt Jasper (Shropshire) |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir MichaelHicks | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Morgan, David J Walthamstow |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Groves, James Grimble | Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh. |
| Beresford, LordCharlesWilliam | Guest, Hon Ivor Churchill | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Gunter, Sir Robert | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford) |
| Bignold, Arthur | Guthrie, Walter Murray | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Bigwood, James | Hain, Edward | Murray, Rt. Hn, A. Graham (Bute |
| Bill, Charles | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry | Myers, William Henry |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) | Harris, Frederick Leverton | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Bull, William James | Heath, James (Staffords. N. W. | Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Heaton, John Henniker | Percy, Earl |
| Butcher, John George | Holder, Augustus | Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard |
| Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow | Henderson, Alexander | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Higginbottom, S. W. | Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hoare, Sir Samuel | Purvis, Robert |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Hogg, Lindsay | Rankin, Sir James |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Rasen, Major Frederic Carne |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H A. E. | Hoult, Joseph | Rattigan, Sir William Henry |
| Coddington, Sir William | Houston, Robert Paterson | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Howard John (Kent, Faversham | Renshaw, Charles Bine |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil | Renwick, George |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Hudson, George Birkersteth | Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex) | Ropner, Colonel Robert |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) | Round, James |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Dairymple, Sir Charles | Kimber, Henry | Russell, T. W. |
| Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo. | Knowles, Lees | Saekville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Sadler, Col, Samuel Alexander |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Lawson, John Grant | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Doughty, George | Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H. | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Doughlas, Rt. Hon A. Akers- | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew) |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. | Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) |
| Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Trittoin, Charles Ernest | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Spear, John Ward | Valentia, Viscount | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Crmskirk | Wanklyn, James Leslie | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset) | Warde, Colonel C. E. | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath) |
| Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) | Warr, Augustus Frederick | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Stock, James Henry | Whiteley, H. (Ashton and. Lyne | Wylie, Alexander |
| Stroyan, John | Whitmore, Charles Algernon | Wyndham, Rt. Hon George |
| Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) | Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. |
| Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord | Younger, William |
| Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Willox, Sir John Archibald | |
| Thorburn, Sir Walter | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Thornton, Percy M. | Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.) | Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Tominson, Wm. Edw. Murray | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| NOES | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Haldane, Richard Burdon | O'Dowd, John |
| Asher, Alexander | Hammond, John | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Malley, William |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | O'Mara, James |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Helme, Nerval Watson | O'Shee James John |
| Bell, Richard | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Palmer, George Wm. (Reading) |
| Blake, Edward | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Partington, Oswald |
| Boland, John | Horniman, Frederick John | Panlton, James Mellor |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn | Jacoby, James Alfred | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Joicey, Sir James | Pea, Russell |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea | Reddy, M. |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Joyce, Michael | Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries) |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Kearley, Hudson E. | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Caldwell, James | Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth | Rigg, Richard |
| Cameron, Robert | Kitson, Sir James | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Labouchere, Henry | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Carew, James Laurence | Lambert, George | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Cawley, Frederick | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Roche, John |
| Channing, Francis Allsten | Leamy, Edmund | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Leese, Sir Joseph. (Accrington | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | Leng, Sir John | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Crean, Eugene | Levy, Maurice | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Crombie, John William | Lloyd-George, David | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Lough, Thomas | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Delany, William | Lundon, W. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants |
| Dillon, John | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Donelan, Captain A. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Doogan, P. C. | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Sullivan, Donal |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | M'Crae, George | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Dunn, Sir William | M'Fadden, Edward | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E) |
| Edwards, Frank | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Thomas, David Alf red (Merthyr) |
| Ellis, John Edward | M'Kean, John | Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings) |
| Emmott, Alfred | M'Kenna, Reginald | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Wallace, Robert |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Mooney, John J. | Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Morley, Charles (Breconshire) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Ffreneh, Peter | Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Field, William | Moulton, John Fletcher | Whiteley, George (York, W. R.) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Murphy, John | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway. N.) | Young, Samuel |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Gilhooly, James | Norman, Henry | |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Mr. Charles Hobhouse, and Mr. Fuller. |
| Grant, Corrie | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | |
| Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
§ (7.15.) MR. NORMAN (Wolverhampton, S.)said the right hon. Gentleman had refused to give an unlimited time to Questions, but it was to be hoped he would agree to a compromise upon the matter and extend the time for Questions to fifteen minutes after three. This would give Questions an additional twenty minutes. The arguments which had been urged so strongly in favour of an unlimited time for Questions applied equally strongly to the Amendment he now proposed, and therefore he would not repeat them. When a Member came in to the House for the first time, he came in, after the struggle of a contested election, with the hopes of his constituents about him like a halo, impressed with the idea that he was going to take a considerable part in public business. But after he had been a Member for a short time he learned that the occasions upon which he could intervene were very rare. When he had studied the Rules a little further he discovered one opportunity left to him by which he could take a humble but not ineffective share in public affairs—exert some influence, perhaps, in Imperial policy, and participate in some degree in the control of public Departments. There was nothing a Government dreaded so much as publicity; and, as was well known, there was no such effective method of moving a Department, or preventing them moving, in a particular direction as throwing upon them the full light of public discussion in the form of Questions, which were reported so fully in the Press. A Government was something like a badger, and the Question Paper was the terrier by means of which this publicity-shunning animal was dragged from its dark refuge into the light. If the House accepted this Amendment there could be no additional waste of time, because, when Questions did not absorb the time asked for by it, the business would proceed. If it was accepted, it would remove from some official the onerous and invidious duty of distinguishing what were Questions of importance. This was a matter that would always create friction, which everyone was anxious to avoid, The Amendment was in the nature of a compromise, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would listen to the pathetic appeal of a private Member not to have taken away from him in a large degree his one remaining opportunity of participating in the business of the House.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
In line 3, to leave out the words 'five minutes before,' and insert the words 'fifteen minutes after.'"—(Mr. Norman.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'five minutes before' stand part of the proposed Amendment.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURdeclined to accept the Amendment, which, he said, was probably open to most of the objections urged against the original proposition of the Government, while it did not carry out the objects which the Government had in view. What the Government said was that the hours between 3 and 7.30 should be devoted to the main debate and business of a sitting. That would be destroyed if they took off twenty minutes more time for Questions, while the constitutional objections to any limitation at all remained.
§ MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)pointed out that instead of Questions averaging seventy-five daily, as had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, the average during the last thirteen years was considerably less. The highest average was reached last year, when it was sixty-eight. Therefore, the regulation sought to be imposed by the right hon. Gentleman was unnecessary, and, being unnecessary, was an undue and improper interference with the rights of private Members. Irish Members were no doubt responsible for a great many Questions, but for that there was a special reason. Ireland was ruled by a foreign Government, and the Gentlemen who became Chief Secretaries were, as a rule, totally unacquainted with the country until they took office Many questions arose with regard to the local government of Ireland and the management of public affairs, which Irish Members had to raise. They had to put Questions with regard to the management of the police, which was not subject to the same control as that of England. In Ireland the police were controlled entirely by an English Board in Dublin Castle; consequently, day by day Questions had to be put in the House with regard to the manner in which the police in Ireland conducted their business. He was in entire agreement with the Amendment, and he trusted that hon. Members 221 opposite would support it. The House was gradually losing all control over finance and other matters, and he hoped hon. Members would make a stand on this question.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvon shire, Eifion)said he felt very strongly upon this matter of Questions. He believed no part of the time of the House was so usefully employed as that of Question time. Therefore, if any shortening or restriction in the time of the House had to be made, it should be made in other directions rather than in Question time. He ventured to say that private Members had been able to influence the Government more at Question time than at any other time during the sitting of the House. The power of private Members, so far as it was effective, was entirely confined to this time. It was the most important biusness of the day. That was recognised not only by the House but by the country. It was the practice of the newspapers to report the debates in the House at much shorter length than formerly, but the reports of Questions were ample, even in those papers which did not report the debates at all. That in itself was an indication of the interest taken in Questions. It was only necessary to observe the condition of the House at Question time; it was always full, but immediately Questions were over, however important the debate might be which succeeded them, the House emptied. He thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was unwise, and therefore he should oppose it. He was strongly of opinion that they should have a full hour for Questions. It would be very rarely absorbed, and if it were not, public business could be taken after Questions were over. There was less time used unprofitably at Question time than at any other period of the session, and he strongly supported the Amendment.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)said he did not propose to repeat arguments which had already been used, but this was a proposal to limit the rights of private Members, and they had a right to protest against it at every stage. These Rules not only limited the 222 rights of private Members so far as Questions were concerned, but there was a further curtailment of their right to move the adjournment of the House. The question of Motions for adjournment would have to be discussed; it could not be left on one side entirely. Everybody knew that it was quite possible to get round every Rule that might be provided for the House. Four or five times the Rules of the House had had to be amended for the purpose of promoting and furthering the conduct of business, and four or five years later the Government had had to admit that the Rules had broken down and they were constrained to present new Rules for the consideration of the House. Motions for the adjournment of the House might be taken advantage of to bring to the notice of the House matters which had not arrived at the stage when they might be dealt with by Questions put to Ministers. It was perfectly inexplicable to him that the House should part with such privileges as they possessed without a struggle, but the fact was that there were many Members in the House who had never been in Opposition, and had never experienced the difficulties which Members in Opposition had in obtaining information from the Government. When those Members found themselves in Opposition, they would find their powers of obtaining information very much curtailed.
(7.30.) MR. GIBSON BOWLESstrongly objected to any limitation at all with regard to Questions, but if there was to be a limitation, he preferred one of forty minutes to one of sixty minutes. Almost invariably the shorter period would be sufficient. The objection to forty minutes was that it was based on an average which included, for instance, Wednesday, on which no Questions were asked. He remembered occasions when Questions were very numerous indeed on Wednesdays. That, however, was one of his reasons for objecting to any limitation at all; but, as the principle of limitation was to be enforced, he preferred the proposal of the Government, and should, therefore, vote against the Amendment.
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)said that engineers always considered it wise to set their safety-valve well below the 223 pressure at which the boiler would explode. On the same principle, he thought that if the limitation on Questions was put well above the point likely to he reached, the Rule would he much more satisfactory. The efficiency of the proposal depended upon its being only very occasionally brought into operation, so that, in the interests of the little itself, it would be wise to put the limit as high as possible. If it was fixed at forty minutes, there was no doubt but that it would come into operation at least once a week, and there would be all the difficulties and
§ irritation arising from deferred Questions and unsatisfactory distinctions. If the First Lord could see his way slightly to extend the time limit, he would, without in the least tending to increase the number of Questions, render the Rule much more acceptable, and ensure its working with much less friction.
§ (7.34.) Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 214, Noes, 132. (Division List No. 146.)
225| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir. J. H. |
| Agg Gardner, James Tynte | Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo | Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh) |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Keswick, William |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Dickson, Charles Scott | Kimber, Henry |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Doughty, George | Knowles, Lees |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lambton, Hon. Fred k. Wm. |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore | Lawson, John Grant |
| Arrol, Sir William | Duke, Henry Edward | Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H. |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Faber, Geo. Denison (York) | Lee, Ar. H. (Hants, Fareham) |
| Austin, Sir John | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy | Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J (Manch'r | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie |
| Bam, Col. James Robert | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Leveson-Gower, Fred k. N. S. |
| Baird, John Geo. Alexander | Finch, George H. | Llewellyn, Evan Henry |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hernsey) | Fisher, William Hayes | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds) | Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon | Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S. |
| Balfour, Kennesh R. (Christch.) | Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W | Lowe, Francis William |
| Banbury, Fred k. George | Galloway, William Johnson | Lucas, Reginald J. (P'tsmouth |
| Barry, Sir Fras. T. (Windsor) | Gardner, Ernest | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Garfit, William | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks | Godson, Sir Augustus Fred k. | M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E. |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Gordon, H n. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W. |
| Beresford, Lord Charles Wm. | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon | M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire) |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Bignold, Arthur | Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry | Manners, Lord Cecil |
| Bigwood, James | Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury) | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Gretton, John | Melville, Beresford Valentine |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Groves, James Grimble | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Milner, Rt. Hon Sir Fred k. G. |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Guthrie, Walter Murray | Mitchell, William |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Mid'x | More, R. Jasper (Shropshire) |
| Bull, William James | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm. | Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh. |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashf'rd) | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Butcher, John George | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Morton, Ar. H. A. (Deptford) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Haslam, Sir. Alfred S. | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Cavendish, V. C. W (D'rhyshire | Hatch, Ernest Fred k. Geo. | Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute). |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Heath, A. Howard (Hanley) | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath |
| Chamber'a'n, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Heath, Jas. (Staffords, N. W.) | Myers, William Henry |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Heaton, John Henniker | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Holder, Augustus | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | He mon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter | Palmer, Walter (Satisbury) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Higginbottom, S. W. | Percy, Earl |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Hogg, Lindsay | Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richrard |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Hope, J. F. (Shef'ld, Brightside) | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Gl'sgow | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Howard, John (Kent, F'versham | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Purvis, Robert |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Renshaw, Charles Bine | Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.) | Whiteley, H (Asht'n-und-Lyne |
| Renwick, George | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset) |
| Ridley, Hon. M. W. (St'lybridge | Spear, John Ward | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson | Stanley, Hon. A (Ormskirk) | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Rolleston, Sir John F. L. | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Ropner, Colonel Robert | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Royds, Clement Molyneux | Stock, James Henry | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Russell, T. W. | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley | Worsley-Taylor, Hy. Wilson |
| Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier | Wylie, Alexander |
| Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George. |
| Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) | Thorburn, Sir Walter | Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. |
| Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Thornton, Percy M. | Younger, William |
| Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray | |
| Sharpe, William Edward T. | Tritton, Charles Ernest | |
| Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew) | Valentia, Viscount | TELLERSS FOR THE AYES— |
| Sinclair, Louis (Romford) | Warde, Colonel C. E. | Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | |
| Smith, H. C. (N'th'mb. Tyneside | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W M. (Cork, N. E.) | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. | O'Shee, James John |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Helme, Norval Watson | Partington, Oswald |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Bell, Richard | Hope, John Deans (Fife, W.) | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Blake Edward | Horniman, Frederick John | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Boland, John | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Rea, Russell |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Jones, Dd. Brynmor (Swansea) | Reddy, M. |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Joyce, Michael | Redmond, John E. (Waterford |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Kearley, Hudson E. | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Lambert, George | Rigg, Richard |
| Caldwell, James | Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Cameron, Robert | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs) |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Leamy, Edmund | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Carew, James Laurence | Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Leng, Sir John | Roche, John |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Levy, Maurice | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lough, Thomas | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | Lundon, W. | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Crean, Eugene | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Crombie, John William | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Delany, William | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall | Spencer, Rt. Hon. C. R. (N'hants |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) | M'Crae, George | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | M'Fadden, Edward | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Dillon, John | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Donelan, Capt. A. | M'Kean, John | Thomas, David A (Merthyr) |
| Doogan, P. C. | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Thomas, J. A. (G'morgan, Gower |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan | Mooney, John J. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Moulton, John Fletcher | Ure, Alexander |
| Fenwick, Charles | Murphy, John | Wallace, Robert |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Weir, James Galloway |
| Ffrench, Peter | Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Field, William | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, M. | Whiteley, Geo. (York, W. R.) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary N.) | Wilson, Fred. W. (N folk, Mid. |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.) | Young, Samuel |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Goddara, Daniel Ford | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | |
| Grant, Corrie | O'Dowd, John | |
| Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) | Mr. Norman and Mr. Charles Hobhouse. |
| Hammond, John | O'Malley, William | |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O'Mara, James |
(7.48.) MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought that if hon. Members were accidentally absent when their Question was called on, they ought to have a 226 second turn; and to provide for this, he moved the Amendment standing in his name.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
In line 5, after the word 'addressed,' to insert the words 'or of the Member by whom they are asked.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURthought his hon. friend was somewhat mistaken as to the object of the words in the Rule, for he seemed to think they were drawn to I confer a privilege upon Minister's, where as their object was just the reverse. If they had not inserted those words, the Minister could have avoided answering any Question by not being present at the time it was asked. The Government thought that would be a very unfair means of escape for a Minister, and it was in order to prevent this that the words complained of were put in. Had they not done this, the Minister who did not choose to come down to the House when his name was called could escape answering by staying away. He agreed with one argument put forward by his hon. friend, that at the last moment a Member who had put down a Question might find, through no fault of his own, that it was impossible for him to be present to ask the Question. To meet this, there was an Amendment on the Paper further down standing in the name of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, which he should be prepared to accept.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W. R., Pudsey)said he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had fully answered the point raised by the iron. Member for King's Lynn. He thought the old plan of a second turn should be retained, and that any hon. Member who, from any cause, might not be in his place to ask his Question when his name was called, should be able later to rise in his place and ask the Question standing in his name. It seemed to him that the proposition of the hon. Member for King's Lynn was a reasonable one, and the acceptance of this Amendment would not in any way jeopardise or nullify the Rule. Hon. M embers put down Questions in which they took a great interest. They might be matters of very great local importance, and surely, considering the very limited time which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to devote to Questions, an hon. Member ought to have 228 the right to rise in his place and put his Question. Undoubtedly, the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden would improve this Rule.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURSuppose Questions finished before 2.45, hon. Members, who had been accidently absent earlier in the day, would still be able to put their Questions.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he understood from the right hon. Gentleman that so long as the time allotted to Questions was not exhausted hon. Members might rise in their place and put their Questions when they had been passed over.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURCertainly.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid that seemed quite reasonable, and he would not continue the discussion.
§ MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S. W.)called attention to the fact that the Standing Order which was to be amended was going to alter the time of the meeting of Grand Committees either to 2.30 or 3 o'clock. This would preclude bon. Members of those Committees from receiving answers to their Questions. It would be impossible to carry on the work of Grand Committees if hon. Members had to leave to put their Questions.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid the argument of the hon. Member who had just sat down put an entirely different complexion on the case. Unless there was something which had entirely escaped his notice, the hon. Member's arguments would apply to all Questions put by Members serving on Grand Committees. It would be difficult to put their Questions through another person, and they would have to be printed on the Votes. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some answer to this problem.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there was no problem at all, and pointed out that the proper time to discuss the point was when they were dealing with the Rule respecting Committees.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was not anxious to put the House to the trouble of dividing, although he did not think his right hon. friend had quite met his point. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ (8.0.) SIR ARTHUR HAYTER (Walsall)said the Amendment he wished to move was one intended to bring the Standing Order now proposed in accordance with the present practice. After Questions were put, there was nothing more common than for the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the Irish Party to desire to put a Question on some item of public business. They approached Mr. Speaker, who generally signified his assent, and the Question was put in the ordinary way. They ought to have some authority to decide which were urgent Questions and which were not. If this decision was left to Mr. Speaker, all parties would at once bow to his decision. The words he proposed to insert would place it beyond doubt how these Questions were to be regulated. He could not help thinking that if the right hon. Gentleman would allow this small Amendment to be inserted they would get rid of the difficulty.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
In line 6, to leave out the word 'are' and insert the words 'appear to the Speaker to be.'"—(Sir Arthur Hayter.)
§ Question proposed—" That the word 'are' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ (8.6.) MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the last remark of the right hon. Gentleman showed that the words were unnecessary. He had considered what would be the effect of the Amendment, and he did not think any time would be gained. On the contrary, he thought time would be lost. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that his intention must be carried out by the Rule as it stood.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORMay I ask what would be the loss?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not think it would be a convenient course.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it was to be deprecated that the Speaker's name should be introduced. He also saw a practical difficulty in carrying out the object of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walsall. He agreed with the Leader of the House that what was proposed in the Amendment should not be put in the Standing Order.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork Co., N.) moved an Amendment providing that Questions left unanswered one day should have precedence on the following day. Owing to no fault of the Member who had given notice of a Question, the time limit might be reached before it could be answered. He thought it was only fair that that Question should have precedence on the following day. The Amendment was a reasonable one, which would commend itself to the common sense of the House. A Minister might be anxious to answer a Question, but if the time limit was reached he would not be able to do so.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
In line 7, after the word 'business,' to insert the words, 'Questions on the Paper which have not been reached by five minutes before three o'clock shall have precedence on the Notice Paper on the following day.'"—(Mr. Flynn.)
§ Question proposed. "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought the hon. Gentleman would see that the adoption of his Amendment would really defeat the object in view. If Questions which were regarded as least important one day were dealt with in the way the hon. Member proposed, they would become the most important, or, at all events, they would obtain the place of honour next day. The time which Ministers had to answer important Questions would thus be limited. If sixty or sixty-five Questions with their 231 supplementaries were not sufficient to satisfy the curiosity of the House, answers in writing would afterwards be circulated to the other Questions.
§ MR. O'SHEE (Waterford, W.)said that if an hon. Member who had a Question down on the Paper was unable to be present at the beginning of Questions, or if the Minister who was to answer the Question was not present, then, according to the Standing Order, it would go over to next day.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIt will be answered after five minutes before three if it is urgent and important.
§ MR. O'SHEEsaid there might be a Question on the border line of importance, and who was to decide whether it should be answered that day or not? He thought this was a reasonable Amendment, which should be accepted.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the Leader of the House had stated that if a Question was important it would be answered between five minutes before three and three.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUROh, no; I said that urgent and important Questions which could not be deferred would be answered.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that if there were eighty, ninety, or a hundred Questions on the Paper it might happen that the first forty only would be answered within the time limit. The others would be relegated to the class which were not to be answered orally, but in print. He thought those Questions should be answered in the House next day, and that they should have the precedence they were entitled to.
§ MR. PIRIEsaid this was a most reasonable Amendment, and he hoped the proposer would proceed to a division.
§ SIR ROBERT MOWBRAY (Lambeth, Brixton)said the Rule as proposed by the First Lord would meet the necessities of the case, because it provided that—
Questions distinguished by an asterisk shall be so arranged on the Paper that those 232 which seem of the greatest general interest shall be reached before five minutes before Three of the clock.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid the Rule now under consideration contemplated that those Questions which were of greatest importance should be placed first on the Paper, while those of minor importance should be placed towards the end. If the Amendment of the hon. Member were carried, the result would be that the latter class, when not answered within the time limit one day, would occupy the chief place next day. In that way they might have a large number of Questions of trivial interest coming first on the Notice Paper. They knew that there were Members who asked Questions which were to them of the highest importance, but which did not present to others any great degree of importance. His hon. friend the Member for Ross had made an excursion round the world, and come back with a whole armoury of Questions, and he took the whole of Scotland within his purview. A Question carried over from the previous day, with regard to a postmistress in some outlandish part of Scotland, might occupy a primary position on the Notice Paper, and, therefore, it would not be desirable to deal in that way with Questions of minor importance. He recognised very great difficulty in this matter. How were they going to decide as to the importance of a Question?
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid this line of argument was not in order on the present Amendment.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he was, only showing the difficulty of differentiating with reference to the importance of the various interrogatories. If his hon. friend went to a division, he would conceive it to be his duty to vote against the Amendment, because he thought it would be impracticable if an attempt were made to carry it out-It would not add to the amount of information they desired to extract from. Ministers.
§ (8.22.) Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 93; Noes,. 173. (Division List No. 147.) (8.35.)
235| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea | O'Shee, James John |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Joyce, Michael | Partington, Oswald |
| Bell, Richard | Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.) | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Blake, Edward | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Boland, John | Leamy, Edmund | Rea, Russell |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington | Reddy, M. |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Lundon, W. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Caldwell, James | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Cameron, Robert | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Rache, John |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | M'Fadden, Edward | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Crean, Eugene | M'Kean, John | Shipman, Dr. John G |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Delany, William | Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Sullivan, Donal |
| Dillon, John | Markham, Arthur Basil | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Doogan, P. C. | Mooney, John J. | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | Murphy, John | Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower |
| Ffreneh, Peter | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R. |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Ure, Alexander |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Weir, James Galloway |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Grant, Corrie | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Whitley, J. H (Halifax) |
| Hammond, John | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Young, Samuel |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | O'Dowd, John | |
| Helme, Norval Watson | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | |
| Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. | TELLERSSS FOR THE AYES— |
| Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | O'Malley, William | Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan. |
| Horniman, Frederick John | O'Mara, James | |
| Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F. | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow | Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Corbertt, T. L. (Down, North) | Hay, Hon. Claude George |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Cranborne, Viscount | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Heler, Augustus |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton | Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Higginbottom, S. W. |
| Arrol, Sir William | Dewar, John A. (lnverness-sh. | Hogg, Lindsay |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo. | Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside |
| Austin, Sir John | Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Dickson, Charles Scott | Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Doughty, George | Hudson, George Bickersteth |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Johnston, William (Belfast) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Duke, Henry Edward | Kimber, Henry |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Knowles, Lees |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mane'r | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) |
| Bigwood, James | Finch, George H. | Lawson, John Grant |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Fisher, William Hayes | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Levy, Maurice |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Forster, Henry William | Llewellyn, Evan Henry |
| Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Galloway, William Johnson | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Gardner, Ernest | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Garfit, William | Lowe, Francis William |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | M'Crae, George |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury | M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Groves, James Grimble | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Hain, Edward | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G. (Midd'x | Manners, Lord Cecil |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford | Melville, Beresford Valentine |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Mitchell, William |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) |
| More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) | Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsn. | Rigg, Richard | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Morrison, James Archibald | Rolleston, Sir John E. L. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford | Ropner, Colonel Robert | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts). |
| Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Whiteley, George (York. W. R.) |
| Newdigate, Francis Alexander | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und. Lyne |
| Norman, Henry | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Sharpe, William Edward T. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Orr Ewing, Charles Lindsay | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R.) |
| Parkes, Ebenezer | Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks) | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Spear, John Ward | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Plummer, Walter R. | Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson |
| Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Stanley, Lord (Lancs) | Wylie, Alexander |
| Pretyman, Ernest George | Stock, James Henry | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley | Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. |
| Purvis, Robert | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier | |
| Reid, James (Greenock) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | TELLERSS FOR THE NOES— |
| Renshaw, Charles Bine | Thorburn, Sir Walter | Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Renwick, George | Thornton, Percy M. |
§ (9.7.) MR. PIRIE moved to omit the words after "asterisk" in line 9 to the end of line 10. The provision was novel, in that Questions in any way important or urgent were to be distinguished by an asterisk. That, in itself, formed an argument against any further change. A Member who "starred" his Question would naturally attach some urgency and importance to it, and he should not be requested to give this longer notice. It was always open to a Minister to ask a Member to defer his Question, and he had never known such a request to be refused. Moreover, Members were now to be asked to give practically three days notice of a Question, while, if an answer was required on a Monday, the Question would have to appear on the Paper on the preceding Thursday. There was no necessity for such an innovation. There was exhibited in this Rule, as in most of the others, a spirit of absence of trust in Members, and a wish to bind and fetter them by unnecessary laws and regulations. The whole character of the House was being changed by these Rules, and he strongly objected to a Member having to give more than the usual notice.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed
§
Amendment—
In line 9, to leave out the words from the word 'asterisk' to the word 'If' in line 11.'"—(Mr. Pirie.)
§ Question proposed—"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. GRANT LAWSONthought the notice here proposed would be a distinct advantage. Nothing could be more futile than a system which allowed Questions, however intricate, ranging, from China to Peru, to be put down at twelve o'clock at night, reaching the public Department at ten o'clock next morning, and an answer to be expected at half-past three that afternoon. That was an intolerable strain to put upon a, public official, assuming Questions to be put down not for the purpose of tripping up Ministers, but with a desire to obtain accurate information. It was true a Minister could ask a Member to postpone a Question, but public officers did not like to be continually doing that: there was a certain amour propre about the matter. Without doubt, unsatisfactory answers were sometimes given because there was no time to go thoroughly into the facts. Under the Rule as originally proposed, Questions would have commenced at 7.15, which would have given three and three-quarter more hours than at present for the preparation of answers. But under the proposal as it now stood, Questions would come on at 2.15, so that the time available was much curtailed. The House could not have it both ways; if Questions were to come on earlier, notice would have to be given earlier. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen had stated that to secure an answer 237 on a Monday it would be necessary to put the Question down on the preceding Thursday. He thought that was not quite the case. The Question was to appear on the Notice Paper on the day before an answer was required. There was a Notice Paper sent out on Saturday, and Questions appearing on that Paper could be answered on Monday. The Government had done their best to meet hon. Members in this matter. The provision applied only to Questions to which an oral answer was required. For a printed or typewritten answer the Department would have all the time in office hours in which to prepare the reply, so that if a Member did not insist upon an oral answer he would be able to get a reply if the Question was put down by twelve o'clock the preceding night. Questions of urgency were already provided for, as they could be asked at five minutes to three o'clock. If it was a Question of importance to a Member's constituents, but not generally, an excellent way to get an immediate answer was for a Member to go to the Department and ask the Question. Then, again, Questions could be asked on the Motion each night "That this House do now adjourn." If a really important Question arose, and the Minister was told that it would be asked, he could hot conceive the Minister declining to be present at the adjournment in order to give an answer. Urgent Questions were therefore provided for by the Rule, and he thought the House would agree that some further notice than the present system required was obviously necessary if Ministers were to answer satisfactorily and fully Questions which were put to them.
§ MR. BLAKEunderstood that the Questions to be answered at five minutes to three o'clock were Questions which had arisen at too late a period to appear on any Paper, so that that did not cover the case. While there was much in the reply of the hon. Gentleman with which he agreed, that reply was absolutely unsatisfactory and inconclusive as an answer to the Amendment. He entirely agreed that if Questions were not circulated until the same morning, there might sometimes be too short a time to enable accurate and 238 considered answers to be given at 2.15 in the afternoon. But the answer to that objection was simple. It was the duty of a Minister not to attempt to answer when insufficient notice was given; he should give the absolutely conclusive reply that he had not had time to obtain the necessary information, and ask that the Question should be postponed. Sometimes it happened that a communication was made beforehand to the hon. Member. If an hon. Member put a Question which perhaps would involve communication across the Channel in order to obtain the answer, there was no reason to feel annoyed, and he would not be justified in complaining if he had to wait until the next day for his reply. Therefore, the whole inconvenience could be obviated by the Minister simply saying that he had not been able to get the information. By this Rule, they were rendering it impossible, even in cases of great importance and simplicity, where the information was already at hand, to get the answer except by giving two days notice. What they required was elasticity and promptitude, which was given by the present system. At the present time Ministers often said they had not been able to obtain the information necessary to answer a Question because the Question had only appeared on the Paper that morning. The hon. Member concerned never raised any objection to this, and there was an end of the matter. Under the new Rule, in every instance practically there would be two days delay, and in the case of a Question notified on Wednesday or Thursday they would not get an answer until the following Monday. That seemed an extremely unreasonable limitation of the power of the House to obtain speedy answers in cases where the information could be readily supplied. And, besides, it would lead to the concentration of three days questions on Monday, thus adding to the inconvenience of the time limit. This was an additional instance of the rigidity of the new limitations upon the power of the House. He agreed that under ordinary circumstances hon. Members ought not to give less than two days notice, but that was no reason why Questions should not be 239 answered at short notice in cases where a longer notice was not required. He cordially supported the Amendment of his hon. friend.
§ (9.25.) MR. FLYNNsaid there were two distinct questions raised in this new Rule which did not hang together at all. He agreed that unimportant Questions need not he starred, and the hon. Member would get his proper answer. Very often that might be convenient. With regard to the starred Questions, the case was different; and the reply given by the hon. Gentleman opposite to the mover of this Amendment seemed to be most inconclusive. Take, as an example, a Question put to the representative of the Foreign Office. If the Minister had not the information, he asked for notice; but sometimes the Minister representing the Foreign Office could answer Questions without notice. Therefore, he could not see how the hon. Gentleman could defend the second portion of this proposal.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member seems to be under the impression that the whole paragraph is under discussion. That is not so, for there is only the second part under discussion at the present moment.
§ MR. FLYNN,continuing, said that if the Minister thought the notice was not long enough, all he had to do was to ask for the postponement of the Question. Ministers often thought they had not sufficient information to answer fully, and they frequently asked for the postponement of Questions. He trusted the hon. Member who had moved this Amendment would press it to a division.
§ MR. CHAPLINpointed out that under the now Rule, as he understood it, urgent Questions could still be put without notice.
§ MR. POWERthought the hon. Gentleman representing the Government had not made out a case for this Rule. It seemed to him that the House had always been reasonable in this matter, and he did not think anybody could recollect a case in which an hon. Member pressed for a reply after the Minister concerned had said he had not had due notice. He acknowledged that it was particularly desirable, if they wanted a satisfactory 240 answer, that due notice should be given to the Minister, more especially with regard to Irish Questions, because the Chief Secretary had to communicate very often with officials a long distance off in Ireland. What had occurred to justify this Rule? They spoke of elasticity being desirable, but when they made such hard and fast rules elasticity was impossible. The safe policy in this matter to pursue would be to "Let well alone." He thought that in the past hon. Members from all parts of the House had been quite reasonable in this matter, and he saw no reason why the Rule should be changed. If the First Lord of the Treasury would place a little more confidence in the House, he would find it much better, and business would be facilitated.
(9.36.) MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid this incidentally suggested the whole question of giving notice. He entirely admitted that Questions ought to be put with notice if possible. The only Questions which might be asked without notice were those arising out of the answer to a Question. But he thought if the Government required notice of Questions it ought to be prepared to give the House notice of its intention. He had seen the Committee of Ways and Means asked to vote enormous sums, not only without notice, but in no intelligible form, so that one could not appreciate the full importance of them. The Government should give notice of what it proposed to do, especially in matters of large financial importance. In some cases the Standing Order would mean that four days notice should be given of Questions. He objected to the introduction of the reference to the Question appearing "on the Paper." The theory of the House was that the House knew nothing of "the Paper." Notice was given in the House, and what appeared on the Paper was only a memorandum of what was done in the House. It should be sufficient if notice were given the previous day, and the Minister could still defer his answer if the notice was too short. The Government would not themselves, he was sure, give two days notice of proposals they had to make, and they often submitted proposals in Committee of Ways and Means without notice. Still, the Rule 241 was not intolerable, and he deprecated lengthened discussion with more important matters awaiting decision.
§ MR. O'SHEEsaid that Questions of which notice was given on Monday must be answered on Wednesday; Questions notified on Tuesday must be answered on Thursday; and Questions notified on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday must all be answered on the following Monday. If the Rule was interpreted strictly, it was absurd.
§ MR. O'MARA (Kilkenny, S.)said it was ridiculous that the matter should be left in the manner in which it was here. It was really absurd, as his hon. friend had pointed out, that Questions should be put down for three days and that they should accumulate on the Paper to be answered on Monday. Suppose that fifty Questions were put down each day on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday for oral replies, there would be on Monday 150 Questions on the Paper. How did the First Lord of the Treasury expect that these Questions would be answered in the few minutes to be devoted to them? Really, this Standing Order, so far as the asking of Questions to be answered orally was concerned, would leave the House in a position of absolute absurdity. There had been many absurdities introduced into their procedure, but the climax had been reached when it was proposed that Questions put down on throe successive days should be answered on one day.
§ MR. CREAN (Cork, S. E.)said the proposal contained in this Standing
§ Order was the worst that had been made. Not a single answer had been given by the authors of this absurdity in defence of its retention. It was evident that the limitations laid down by the Rule were for the real purpose of turning hon. Members against the asking of Questions altogether. They valued the right of asking Questions, and he hoped that a division would be taken on the Amendment. He believed the Nationalists gave less trouble to the Government than any section of the House. Their object in exposing on the floor of the House the methods of Irish administration was not only to obtain redress for their own people, but to show to the civilised world what the system of government in Ireland was. That was one of the rights which they intended to cling to through thick and thin. No reason had been given for this drastic change, and if a reason could be assigned he believed it would be stated. This Rule would enable the Government to shirk the duty for which they were very well paid. He did not consider the House was being treated fairly when, after the arguments which had been deduced, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench remained silent.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ (9.58.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 205; Noes, 126. (Division List No. 148.)
245| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Coghill, Douglas Harry |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Bignold, Arthur | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Bigwood, James | Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Blundell, Colonel Henry | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Bond, Edward | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex | Cranborne, Viscount |
| Arrol, Sir William | Brassey, Albert | Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) |
| Austin, Sir John | Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Dalrymple, Sir Charles |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Brotherton, Edward Ailen | Denny, Colonel |
| Balcarres, Lord | Bullard, Sir Harry | Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'ml'ts, S. Geo |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Butcher, John George | Dickinson, Robert Edmond |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Dickson, Charles Scott |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds | Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire | Doughty, George |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. | Doxford, Sir William Theodore |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore. | Duke, Henry Edward |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks | Clare Octavius Leigh | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc. |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Renshaw, Charles Bine |
| Finch, George H. | Leveson-Gower, Frederick, N. S | Renwick, George |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Flower, Ernest | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S) | Ropner, Colonel Robert |
| Forster, Henry William | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W | Lowe, Francis William | Russell, T. W. |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Gardner, Ernest | Macdona, John Cumming | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Garfit, William | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Maconochie, A. W. | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.) | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc) | M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Majendie, James A. H. | Smith, HC. (North'mb. Tynes'e. |
| Green, Walford D (Wednesbury | Manners, Lord Cecil | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks) |
| Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) | Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire | Spear, John Ward |
| Gretton, John | Melville, Beresford Valentine | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Groves, James Grimble | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Stock, James Henry |
| Hain, Edward | Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Hamilton, Rt. HnLd G. (Midd'sx | Mitchell, William | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm. | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfo'd | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Harris, Frederick Leverton | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Morrison, James Archibald | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. | Morton Arthur H. A. (Deptford | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Ure, Alexander |
| Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute | Valentia, Viscount |
| Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Henderson, Alexander | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter | Myers, William Henry | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts) |
| Higginbottom, S. W. | Newdigate, Francis Alexander | Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne |
| Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. | Nicholson, William Graham | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Hogg, Lindsay | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brig'tside | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R. |
| Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rshm | Parkes, Ebenezer | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Hudson, George Bickersteth | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darli'gton | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| Johnston, William (Belfast) | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Plummer, Walter R. | Worsley Taylor, Henry Wilson. |
| Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Wylie, Alexander |
| Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh | Pretyman, Ernest George | Wyndbam, Rt. Hon. George |
| Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. |
| Knowles, Lees | Purvis, Robert | Younger, William |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne | |
| Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Ratcliff, R. F. | |
| Lawson, John Grant | Rattigan, Sir William Henry | TELLERSS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareh'm | Reid, James (Greenock) | |
| Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Remnant, James Farquharson | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Dillon, John | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Donelan, Captain A. | Horniman, Frederick John |
| Bell, Richard | Doogan, P. C. | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) |
| Blake, Edward | Duncan, J. Hastings | Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a |
| Boland, John | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Joyce, Michael |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | Kinloch Sir John George Smyth |
| Brand, Hon. Arthur G. | Fenwick, Charles | Lambert, George |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Ffrench, Peter | Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.) |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Flynn, James Christopher | Leamy, Edmund |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Gilhooly, James | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington |
| Caldwell, James | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Leigh, Sir Joseph |
| Cameron, Robert | Grant, Corrie | Leng, Sir John |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Levy, Maurice |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Hammond, John | Lundon, W. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hayden, John Patrick | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. |
| Crean, Eugene | Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Cremer, William Randal | Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D. | MaeVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Helme, Nerval Watson | M'Crae, George |
| Delany, William | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | M'Fadden, Edward |
| M'Hugh, Patrick A. | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| M'Kean, John | O'Shee, James John | Sullivan, Donal |
| M'Kenna, Reginald | Partington, Oswald | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Paulton, James Mellor | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Power, Patrick Joseph | Thomson, F. W. (York. W. R.) |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Rea, Russell | Tomkinson, James |
| Mooney, John J. | Reddy, M. | Trevelyan, Charles Philip S |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Wallace, Robert |
| Murphy, John | Rickett, J. Compton | Weir, James Galloway |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Rigg, Richard | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) | White, Patrick (Meath North) |
| Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Roberts, John H. (Denbigh.) | Whiteley, George (York, W. R.) |
| O'Brien, Kendal (Tib'erary Mid | Robson, William Snowdon | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Roche, John | Williams, Osmand (Merioneth) |
| O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Runciman, Walter | Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid |
| O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | Schwann, Charles E. | Young, Samuel |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W) | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | |
| O'Down, John | Ship man, Dr. John G. | |
| O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N | Soares, Ernest J. | Mr. Pirie and Mr. Norman. |
| O'Malley, William | Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Northants | |
| O'Mara, James | Stevenson, Francis S. |
§ (10.12.) Question put accordingly, "That the words after the word 'asterisk' to the end of line 10 stand part of the proposed Amendment."
246§ The House divided:—Ayes 221; Noes, 136.
§ (Division List No. 149.)
249| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Green, Walford D (Wednesbury |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Clare, Octavius Leigh | Greene, Henry D (Shrewsbury) |
| Allhusen, Augustus Henry E. | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Gretton, John |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Coghill, Douglas Harry | Groves, James Grimble |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Hain, Edward |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Hambro, Charles Eric |
| Arrol, Sir William | Compton, Lord Alwyne | Hamilton Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. |
| Austin, Sir John | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Cranbome, Viscount | Harris, Frederick Leverton |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Dalkeith, Earl of | Hay, Hon. Claude George |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Denny, Colonel | Heath, James (Staffords., N. W. |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'ml'ts, S. Geo | Helder, Augustus |
| Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) | Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Henderson, Alexander |
| Hartley, George C T. | Dickson, Charles Scott | Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter |
| Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks | Doughty, George | Higginbottom, S. W. |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hobhouso, Henry (Somerset, E.) |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Hogg, Lindsay |
| Bignold, Arthur | Duke, Henry Edward | Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside |
| Bigwood, James | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry |
| Bill, Charles | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r | Howard, John (Kent Faversham |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Hudson, George Bickersteth |
| Bond, Edward | Finch, George H. | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Johnston, William (Belfast) |
| Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex | Fisher, William Hayes | Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex) |
| Brassey, Albert | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh |
| Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Flower, Ernest | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop) |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Forster, Henry William | Knowles, Lees |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Galloway, William Johnson | Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth) |
| Butcher, John George | Gardner, Ernest | Lawson, John Grant |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H | Garfit, William | Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) |
| Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc) | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Llewellyn, Evan Henry |
| Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Stock, James Henry |
| Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol S) | Parkes, Ebenezer | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Pease, Herbert Pike (D'rlington | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Lowe, Francis William | Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Macdona, John Cumming | Plummer, Walter R. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Maconochie, A. W. | Pretyman, Ernest George | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.) | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W | Purvis, Robert | Valentia, Viscount |
| M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Majendie, James A. H. | Ratcliff, R F. | Warde Colonel C. E. |
| Manners, Lord Cecil | Rattigan, Sir William Henry | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire | Reid, James (Greenock) | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts. |
| Melville, Beresford Valentine | Remnant, James Farquharson | Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Renshaw, Charles Bine | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Mitchell, William | Renwick, George | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Ritchie, Rt. Hn Chas. Thompson | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh. | Ropner, Colonel Robert | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Morrell, George Herbert | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| Morrison, James Archibald | Royds, Clement Molyneux | Wolff, Gustav. Wilhelm |
| Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford) | Russell, T. W. | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson |
| Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Sackville, Col. Samuel Alex'der | Wylie, Alexander |
| Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Wyndham Quin, Major W. H. |
| Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Sharpe, William Edward T. | Younger, William |
| Myers, William Henry | Simeon, Sir Harrington | |
| Newdigate, Francis Alexander | Smith, H. C (North'mb Tyneside | |
| Nicholson, William Graham | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks) | TELLERSS FOR THE AYES— |
| Nicol, Donald Ninian | Spear, John Ward | Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset | |
| Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Grant, Corrie | Mooney, John J. |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Bell, Richard | Hammond, John | Murphy, John |
| Blake, Edward | Hayden, John Patrick | Nannetti, J. seph P. |
| Boland, John | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Scale- | Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N. |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D. | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn | Helme, Norval Watson | O'Brien, Kendal (Tippera'y Mid |
| Brand, Hon. Arthur G. | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Horniman, Frederick John | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Hutton, Alfred E | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a | O'Dowd, John |
| Caldwell, James | Jones, William (Carnarvonshi'e | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Cameron, Robert | Joyce, Michael | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth | O'Malley, William |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Lambert, George | O'Mara, James |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | Layland-Barratt, Francis | O'Shee, James John |
| Crean, Eugene | Leamy, Edmund | Partington, Oswald |
| Cremer, William Randal | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Delany, William | Leng, Sir John | Rea, Russell |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | Levy, Maurice | Reddy, M. |
| Dillon, John | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lough, Thomas | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Doogan, P. C. | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Rigg, Richard |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs) |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | M'Crea, George | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Fenwick, Charles | M'Fadden, Edward | Roche, John |
| Ffrench, Peter | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Kean, John | Runciman, Walter |
| Flynn, James Christopher | M'Kenna, Reginald | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Gilhooly, James | Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Shaw, Thomas (Hawick | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr | Whiteley, George (York, W. R.) |
| Shipman, Dr. John G. | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) | Tomkinson, James | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Soares, Ernest J. | Trevelyan, Cuarles Philips | Wilson, Fred. W.) Norfolk, Mid. |
| Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R (Northants | Ure, Alexander | Young, Samuel |
| Stevenson, Francis S. | Wallace, Robert | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Strachey, Sir Edward | Weir, James Galloway | |
| Sullivan, Donal | White, George (Norfolk) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) | Mr. Pirieand Mr. Norman. |
§ (10.26.) MR. NORMANthought it was extremely regrettable that no explanation should have been offered by the right hon. Gentleman as to the points he so strongly resisted in the previous Amendment. Had that explanation been made, and had it been satisfactory, it would not have been necessary to trouble the House with the Amendment he now proposed. Under the new Rules, Questions handed in on Wednesday and appearing on the Paper on Thursday would not be answered until the Monday. It was therefore obvious that Questions handed in on Thursday and Friday would also be answered on Monday. Monday's Question Paper, under those conditions, would be so very crowded that the miserable remnant of time allowed under the Rule would not be adequate. One point he desired to impress upon the House—and this was most important—was that Members would not be able to raise a debate upon a Question of urgent public importance during that time, and in the event of such a Question arising, the whole matter would be hung up for five days. That was a situation which might be fraught with serious consequences. What was the position of Ministers with regard to Friday? What were their obligations to the House on that day? It was open, under the present Rules, for a Member to put down a Question for Wednesday, but it was equally open to a Minister not to come down to answer it.
§ MR. SPEAKERI do not think that that question arises on this Amendment.
§ MR. NORMANassumed that Ministers would not answer Questions on Fridays, and it was on that assumption he was basing his present argument. It could not be contended by any Minister that a Question, of which notice had reached him a this office at two o'clock the day before, had been so suddenly sprung upon him that he could not rise to give an answer twenty-four hours later. If the Amendment were accepted, the difficulties to which he 250 had referred would not arise, and there would be no danger of urgent Questions on national policy being hung up for so long a period as that contemplated under the Rule as it at present stood. There was nothing unreasonable or obstructive in that proposal, and he earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to accept it.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
In line 10, after the word 'desired,' to insert the words, 'or must have reached the Department of the Minister addressed not later than Two of the clock on the day before the day on which an answer is desired.'"—(Mr. Norman.)
§ Question proposed—" That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe hon. Gentleman has described to the House the difficulties which he thinks will arise from adopting the Rule unless amended in the manner he suggests. He seems to imagine that the House would have no means of obtaining information upon even the most pressing matter before Wednesday or Monday. That is really not the case, because Questions of urgent public importance can be asked on Thursday, and also, by old-established custom, at the adjournment of the House on Friday.
§ MR. NORMANreminded the right hon. Gentleman that he especially referred to urgent Questions concerning the importance of which the Minister concerned, or the selecting official, did not agree with the hon. Members who desired to ask them.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIt is not a matter of agreement between the Minister and the private Member, if Mr. Speaker is of opinion that the matter cannot be put off without public inconvenience. Mr. Speaker alone will be the authority to 251 determine whether a Question should or should not be asked. In addition to that safety valve, there is the unlimited power of asking Questions, to be answered in writing, both on Thursday and on Friday. Therefore, the idea that the House can acquire no information between Wednesday and Monday is wholly erroneous. I quite agree that if we could find a sound machinery to be embodied in the Standing Order, carrying out the idea of the hon. Member—not, indeed, as to two o'clock, but as to mid-day on the day preceding—I should raise no objection to it; but I am afraid it is impossible. You cannot put into the Standing Orders: of the House that a certain transaction shall take place outside, of which the House has no cognisance. The very phrase "reach the Department" is ambiguous. Reaching the hall porter is very different from reaching the Minister in charge, or even the Permanent Under Secretary; and difficulties would inevitably arise from that expression. More important, however, is the difficulty that the House has no cognisance of what happens between a private individual and a Department. The House has no official or formal knowledge of which any record can be made or upon which any decision can be given by Mr. Speaker. That being so, I am afraid it is impossible to carry out a change to which, on its merits, I have no objection. But I do not think the alteration would be very important, even from the point of view of the hon. Gentleman. It is competent for any hon. Members, under the Standing Order as proposed by the Government, to give notice up to one minute to twelve on Thursday night of a Question to be answered on Monday. The hon. Gentleman proposes a change by which Questions of which notice is given first thing on Friday morning to reach the Department by mid-day will be answered on Monday. The only difference, therefore, is that between last thing overnight and first thing in the morning. That is not really very material. But even if it were, I am afraid it would be impossible to embody in a Standing Order a regulation concerning the fulfilment of which neither Mr. Speaker nor the clerks at the Table acting under Mr. Speaker would have any direct cognisance. For these reasons, I have, with some reluctance, to tell the hon. 252 Member that I cannot accept the Amendment, with the spirit of which I am in considerable agreement.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to have grasped the point of his hon. friend's argument, which was that Questions of which notice was given on Wednesday could not be answered until Monday. There was much force in the objection that the House had no cognisance of matters which passed between Members and other persons outside, and one could easily see how many difficulties and misunderstandings might arise in respect of communications of which the officials of the House knew nothing. But surely if the right hon. Gentleman went so far as to admit that, apart from that difficulty, he had no objection to notice being given on the day preceding that on which an answer was desired, there was a simple remedy available. A proposal might be accepted by which notice should be given before three o'clock or the meeting of the House. The question of time was important only on two grounds. The first was that the Minister should have sufficient time to prepare his answer, and the House had always supported a Minister who asked for the postponement of a Question because of insufficient notice. The second ground was that the new Rule required Questions to be classified in the order of their apparent importance and general interest. The authorities of the House would require a certain time for the purpose of that classification. They could not classify Questions handed in at midnight, but if notices were given by three o'clock there would be ample time for the necessary classification. The adoption of that course would meet the spirit or substance of the Amendment, and at the same time avoid the objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEpointed out that while, in point of time, there was not much difference between midnight and eight or ten o'clock next morning, it had to be remembered that in the interval the daily newspapers were published, bringing news from every part of the world. In practice, therefore, there was a great difference. The difficulty would be largely obviated if the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that Ministers would consent to come 253 down on Friday for a quarter of an hour to answer such Questions as might he considered by the Speaker to he of sufficient importance.
§ (10.44.) MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid that in order to crystallise the hint of the First Lord of the Treasury with regard to notice being given by midday, he would move to amend the Amendment, so that it should read—
Or must have been handed in at the Table of the House not later than noon——
§ MR. SPEAKERThere is no Table of the House at that hour.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEYunderstood that the ordinary routine by which Questions were placed on the Notice Paper was to hand them to the clerk at the Table. That being so, he had better make the Amendment read—
To the clerk at the Table of the House.
§ MR. SPEAKERThere is no such thing as "handing in at the Table of the House" when the House is not sitting. The Table does not then exist, so far as that purpose is concerned.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid that in that case he would simply move that the notice should be handed in to a clerk at the Table of the House on the day previous to that on which an answer was required. [Laughter.] This was by no means a laughing matter. In adopting this Rule the House was placing itself in a position of great difficulty and considerable gravity. Only those Questions could be answered on Monday which came first upon the list, and the result would be that four-fifths of the Questions which would accumulate from Wednesday would practically remain unanswered until they appeared on Tuesday's Votes. All hon. Members know that 95 per cent. of the Questions could easily be dealt with at twenty-four hours notice. It was very easy for a Minister to say he had not the information and would have to make inquiries, and if that statement was made the House would at once take that to be the case. They were told that all Questions of an urgent character would be answered, but what were urgent Questions? Take as an example the case of an impending strike, where perhaps an 254 immediate answer from the President of the Board of Trade might pour oil on the troubled waters. Under the new Rule an urgent Question like that would have to be put off. They might take as a further example the possibility of a bread riot in consequence of a rise in the price of bread. [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Divide, divide!"] He begged to move his Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed to the Amendment to the proposed Amendment—
To leave out the words 'reached the Department of the Minister addressed not later than,' in order to insert the words 'been handed in at the Table of the House not later than a quarter past.'"—(Mr. George Whiteley.)
§ Question proposed—" That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment."
§ (10.53.) MR. SYDNEY BUXTONhoped the First Lord of the Treasury would receive this Amendment with favourable consideration, because the right hon. Gentleman himself had stated that he recognised that this was a very serious difficulty in which the House had involved itself by the Rules which had already been passed. It practically meant that between Wednesday night and Monday there was no possibility of the House receiving information from Ministers in reply to Questions.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the case stood just the contrary, because upon all those days unlimited information would be supplied in writing, and oral information would be given on all really pressing points.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it was obvious that the replies would be limited to Questions of urgent importance. The First Lord of the Treasury had told them that hon. Members would have an opportunity during the week of putting at least 300 Questions before the Question closure came in. force. He thought that calculation was wrong, because, instead of 300 Questions having been put, they would find that on the Monday a very large number of Questions would be closured, and the number answered in the House orally would be considerably less than the First Lord of the Treasury had promised. He 255 thought that showed the uncertainty of putting down on the Paper this ridiculous proposal in order to save a few minutes at the end of Questions.
MR. A. J. BALFOUBsaid that he entirely repudiated the sentiments which had fallen from the hon. Member for Poplar. There was nothing ridiculous in the proposal, because on four days in the week the House would have full opportunity of having Questions answered, and on Friday hon. Members would be able to obtain information in writing. He could not, therefore, see where the hardship lay. In order to meet the wishes of the House, he had altered the time of Questions from seven to two o'clock and, in justice to the heads of the great Departments, he really must ask this House to support him in saying that, if the change was to be made, some extension must be given of the notice which had been common. He believed the plan proposed was best suited to the proper working of the Government Departments, and that it would not interfere with the information on important points which the House desired. He thought the result of the Rule would be to equalise over the four days of the week the number of Questions put, and that on the whole the Rule would work more smoothly than the present system.
§ (11.5.) MR. T. P. O'CONNORthought the right hon. Gentleman had made a very fair defence of his proposal, but it did not get them any "forrader." Under the new Rule they would have only one serious day for Questions in the week. They might turn and twist the words as much as they liked, but this was what it amounted to. [Cries of "No, no."] He admitted that Ministers ought to have fair notice of Questions, and if a Minister got up and said he had not got sufficient notice, the good sense of the House would be behind him if be refused to answer without longer notice. The difficulties of Ministers were increased by the fact that the House was to meet at two instead of three o'clock. While admitting that, one must look to the consequences of the Rule, and he held that this was a disastrous infringement of the importance and reality of Question time if Questions were practically to be concentrated in one day of the week. 256 The right hon. Gentleman had said that 300 Questions could be asked every week; but if 200 of these were put down for Monday, the inevitable consequence would be that at five minutes before three, one half would not be answered at all. The right hon. Gentleman said they could be put down for Tuesday; but his answer to that was, that it was an aggravation of the evil that Questions of which notice was given on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday should not be answered till Tuesday. It was also said that a written answer could be obtained, but he would put it to any Member of the House whether he did not consider that an answer given on the floor of the House, with the Press present to report the answer, was not much more satisfactory than a written or printed answer almost furtively given to the hon. Member asking the Question. If they were to accept written answers, they might as well give over the reality of Questions asked in the House altogether. The fact that a large number of. Questions would accumulate on Monday showed that the calculation of the right hon. Gentleman that the House would still have left the right of asking 300 Questions per week to be answered really vanished into thin air. That showed to what a futile and impotent position Question time had been reduced. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there were very few urgent and important Questions. He would say there were eight or tea yesterday every one of which was both urgent and important. There were four or five on the American shipping trust, and four or five on the taxation proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ MR. SPEAKERLet me remind the hon. Member that he is now proceeding to discuss the working of the first paragraph, which we have passed over long ago. His remarks are not germane to the immediate question before the House.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he did not intend to offend directly or remotely. He was tempted into the observations he had made by the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. He would sum up by saying that the right hon. Gentleman had, by his speech that night, fully proved that 257 this new Rule would seriously imperil, if posed of, he would accept some such not entirely destroy, the effectiveness of Question in this House.
§ (11.22.) MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)said he had a suggestion to make to the First Lord of the Treasury. There were Questions which it was very desirable to answer immediately, but which might the Rule. He could give many illustrations, but he would not. The fear of the House was that the Rule, which had been drawn up strictly to protect Ministers, might be interpreted in a way to shut out those Questions of which sufficiently long notice had not been given. He would not move anything, but he would ask the First Lord whether, after the present Amendment was disposed
§
of, he would accept some such proviso as this—
Provided that this Rule shall not preclude a Minister from answering any Question on shorter notice.
§ He believed this proviso would meet the requirements of the case.
§ Question put and negatived.
§ Words inserted in the Amendment to the proposed Amendment
§ (12.30.) Question put, "That the words 'must have been handed in at the Table of the House not later than a quarter past' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment to the Standing Order."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 149; Noes, 250. (Division List No. 150.)
261| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Harmsworth, R. (Leicester) | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary N.) |
| Asher, Alexander | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Hayter, Rt. Hon Sir Arthur D. | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Helme, Nerval Watson | O'Dowd, John |
| Blake, Edward | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Boland, John | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) | O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N. |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | O'Malley, William |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Horniman, Frederick John | O'Mara, James |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) | O'Shee, James John |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Joyce, Michael | Partington, Oswald |
| Caldwell, James | Kearley, Hudson E. | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Cameron, Robert | Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Lambert, George | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton | Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W. | Price, Robert John |
| Cawley, Frederick | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Acerington | Priestley, Arthur |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Rea, Russell |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Leng, Sir John | Reckitt, Harold James |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | Levy, Maurice | Reddy, M. |
| Crean, Eugene | Lough, Thomas | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Cremer, William Randal | Lundon, W. | Riekett, J. Compton |
| Crombie, John William | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Rigg, Richard |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Delany, William | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Dillon, John | M'Crae, George | Roche, John |
| Donelan, Captain A. | M'Fadden, Edward | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Doogan, P. C. | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Runciman, Walter |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | M'Kean, John | Russell, T. W. |
| Edwards, Frank | M'Kenna, Reginald | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Emmott, Alfred | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Mooney, John J. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Ffrench, Peter | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Morley, Charles (Breconshire) | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Moulton, John Fletcher | Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Northants |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | Murphy, John | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Gilhooly, James | Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Thomas, Alf red (Glamorgan, E. |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'r'ry Mid | Thomas, David Alfred (M'rthyr |
| Hammond, John | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Thomas, F. Freeman - (Hastings |
| Thomas, J. A (Glam'gan, Gower | Weir, James Galloway | Young, Samuel |
| Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) | White, George (Norfolk) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Tomkinson, James | White, Patrick (Meath, North) | |
| Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Mr. Norman and Mr. George Whiteley. |
| Ure, Alexander | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) | |
| Wallace, Robert | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lawson, John Grant |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Fgerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead) |
| Allhusen, Augustus Henry E. | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie |
| Archdale, Edwin Mervyn | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Finch, George H. | Llewellyn, Evan Henry |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Arrol, Sir William | Fisher, William Hayes | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S |
| Austin, Sir John | Flower, Ernest | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Forster, Henry William | Lowe, Francis William |
| Balcarres, Lord | Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W | Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Galloway, William Johnson | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Gardner, Ernest | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds | Garfit, William | Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | Maconochie, A. W. |
| Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks | Gore, Hn G. R C (Ormsby-(Salop | M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.) |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) | M'lver, Sir Lewis (Edmburgh W |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire |
| Bignold, Arthur | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Bigwood, James | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Manners, Lord Cecil |
| Bill, Charles | Green, Walford D. (Wed'sbury | Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh'e |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury | Melville, Beresford Valentine |
| Bond, Edward | Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Gretton, John | Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. |
| Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Mitchell, William |
| Bowles, Gibson (King's Lynn | Groves, James Grimble | Molesworth, Sir Lewis |
| Brassey, Albert | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Montagu, G. (Huntington) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants) |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hambro, Charles Eric | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G. (Mid'x | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry | Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w |
| Butcher, John George | Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm. | Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire | Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.) | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wor'r | Helder, Augustus | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Henderson, Alexander | Newdigate, Francis Alexander |
| Chapman, Edward | Herman-Hodge, Robert Trotter | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Higginbottom, S. W. | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay |
| Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready | Hogg, Lindsay | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Hope, J. F. (Sheffi'd, Brightside | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow | Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsh'm | Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard |
| Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Johnstone, He-wood (Sussex) | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. | Purvis, Robert |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh) | Rankin, Sir James |
| Denny, Colonel | Kenyon-Slanev, Col. W. (Salop | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne |
| Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mrts, S. Geo. | Keswick, William | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Knowles, Lees | Rattigan, Sir William Henry |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon | Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth) | Renwick, George |
| Doughty, George | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Ritchie, Rt. Hn, Chas. Thomson |
| Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset) |
| Rolleston, Sir John F. L. | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Ropner, Colonel Robert | Stock, James Henry | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Royds, Clement Molyneux | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier | Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R |
| Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid. |
| Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) | Thorburn, Sir Walter | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles | Thornton, Percy M. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Tollemache, Henry James | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray | Wylie, Alexander |
| Seton-Karr, Henry | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Sharpe, William Edward T. | Valentia, Viscount | Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. |
| Simeon, Sir Barrington | Wanklyn, James Leslie | Younger, William |
| Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Warde, Colonel C. E | |
| Smith, H C (N'rth'mb Tyneside | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney | |
| Smith, James Parker (Lanarks) | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C E (Taunton | TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.) | |
| Spear, John Ward | Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne | |
| Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
§ (11.50.) MR. O'SHEEdesired to move the insertion of words securing that the "day preceding" should include Saturday, but not Sunday. His object was to carry out what the hon. Member for the Thirsk Division had stated was the real intention of the Government.
§ MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the Amendment was unnecessary. The Rule referred to Papers circulated "'on the day before' that on which an answer was desired." For the purposes of the Rule, Saturday was the day before Monday, as Sunday was a dies non.
§ MR. O'SHEEsaid that if that were understood, he would not move.
§
Amendments made to the Amendment proposed to the Standing Order—
By inserting, in line 11, after the word 'he,' the words 'or any other Member deputed by him.'"—(Mr. M'Kenna); and "inline 14, by leaving out the words 'the Minister has consented to the postponement of,' and inserting the words 'the Member has signified his desire to postpone.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles); and "by leaving out the words from the word 'Question,' in line 15, to the end of the proposed Amendment."—(Mr. Fuller.)
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE moved the omission of the words: "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." The paragraph referred, by implication, to the highest authorities of the House. It was clear that unless some person unnamed was referred to, the provision could never come into force. That person must either be the Clerk at the 262 Table or Mr. Speaker. It was an entirely new departure to leave to the discretion of the officials of the House the placing of Questions in order of precedence, so that certain Questions should not only come on earlier in the day, but even on the day previous, as compared with others which in the eyes of the Members asking them were of equal importance. How were the clerks to judge of the relative importance of Questions? They would naturally be influenced by the importance of the individual Member giving the notice. For instance, to take a concrete case, the Questions recently put with regard to Mr. Cartwright, when put in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, would be put in a prominent position; whereas, if they appeared in the name of, say, the hon. Member for East Bristol, they would be relegated to an obscure corner of the Notice Paper. The House ought not lightly to part with the right of priority which at present the humblest and most insignificant Member possessed over the most influential and important. It was not reasonable to expect this question to be allowed to go through sub silentio. There was also involved the position of Questions to different Ministers, At present, to suit the convenience of the Leader of the House, Questions addressed to the right hon. Gentleman were placed at the end of the Paper. There was no guarantee that that arrangement would be continued. Although they had the highest confidence in the impartiality of the Chair, the House ought always to regard with great jealousy any infringement, even by the Chair, of the privileges of private Members. 263 Constant attempts had been made to trench upon the rights of private Members, and to diminish their usefulness in the House, but, after all, the opponents of these proposed changes were defending not only their own rights, but the rights of those who sent them to the House of Commons. There was no more common request made to Members by their constituents than that Questions should be put in the House upon certain matters. The point concerned might be unimportant to the House or to the Member himself, but of far-reaching importance to the person immediately concerned; and by the Question being put in the House the matter received that publicity through the Press which answers printed and circulated in the Votes would never get. Of all the proposals in the amended Rules, the one under consideration he regarded with the greatest dislike and suspicion, and he could not help thinking that the day would come when Members would deeply regret having parted so lightly and unnecessarily with so many of their rights and privileges.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
To leave out lines 16 to 18."—(Mr. Charles Hobhouse).
§ Question proposed, 'That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. DILLONsaid the proposal contained in this paragraph was perfectly new, and one to which he was confident the officials of the House, if they were permitted to express an opinion, would be bitterly opposed. There was no task at present placed on the officials of the House which was more disagreeable and onerous than that of keeping Questions within the lines of order. That, however, was an absolutely necessary task, but the experience which the officials had gained from the discharge of that duty would cause them to view with extreme dislike the imposition of any further duty which would have the effect frequently of bringing them into collision with Members and leading to all sorts of friction. There could not be devised a task more calculated to disturb those relations of courtesy and goodwill which everyone 264 desired should exist between the officials and Members of the House than that it should be the daily duty of those officials to discriminate between the relative importance of different Members of the House—for that was what the proposal really entailed. It would be impossible for the officials to avoid giving grave offence every day. No one could expect either Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Committees to do this work; they already had as much as they could do. It would have to be undertaken by one of the clerks at the Table, and not, he ventured to say, by the chief clerk. By what criterion would that official judge of the relative importance of the Questions? He could have no other criterion than the relative importance of the Members asking the Questions. He could not go to Mayo, or China, or any other part of the world to which a Question might refer, and make careful inquiry as to its intrinsic importance. The task could not do otherwise than resolve itself into the drawing up each day of a list of Members in the order of their personal importance in the opinion of the clerk. Was that a fair task to put upon any-official? Every day the Table would be surrounded by discontented Members, and, no matter what Rules might be devised, the discontent would bubble out in the House in one form or another, and complaints would continually be made as to the manner in which individual Members had been treated. The officials had a right to the consideration of the House, and before a task which would greatly increase the friction and unpleasantness of their position was imposed upon them the House ought carefully to consider whether there was any real necessity for it. Then there was the effect of the Rule on hon. Members themselves. Over and over again he had heard Mr. Gladstone declare that the essence of the life and the greatest tradition of the House of Commons was the equality of its Members. The humblest and newest Member of the House stood on precisely the same footing as a Minister of the Crown. This new departure would revolutionise that position, and entirely sweep away that fine old tradition. The only object of the classification was to determine who should be cut off at five minutes to 265 three, and it would mean that the obscure Members would be those who were sacrificed. On days when a large number of Questions were put down, some would have to be cut off by the time limit, and he contended that all should take their chance. The principle should be, "First come, first served," and the man who first gave notice of his Question ought to be answered first.
§ (12.15.) MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Member for East Mayo had based his argument upon the supposition that there was a gradation of merit amongst hon. Members. He traversed that statement, and repudiated it altogether. The Rule had been proposed not in the interest of the Treasury Bench or the Front Opposition Bench, but in the interest of the House at large, in order that forty minutes might be devoted to Questions in which the House was interested. He denied that the task imposed on the officials of the House would be so heavy as had been represented. When there were more Questions than could be answered it would not be necessary to put them in order of merit. It would be sufficient to take out those which were of least general interest. If the number of Questions remained about the same as it had done this session, the task thrown upon the officials would be of the lightest possible description. As a rule the number of Questions fell short of the number provided for by the forty minutes, and in that case there would be no classification at all, and no extra work would be thrown on the clerks at the Table. Supposing, however, that under these new Rules hon. Members were unwise enough to put an abnormal number of Questions down for Monday, there might be some little difficulty, but he did not believe that such a practice would prevail. He would suppose that more than sixty or sixty-five Questions were put down. The clerks at the Table would not have to go through all those Questions, but they would simply take the Questions which raised the smallest interests, and take out some ten or fifteen which answered that description.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLYes, and they would all be Irish Questions.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he could not assent to that statement, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that 266 this new Rule would not be directed against him or his friends, but its object was to see that those forty minutes should be used to the best advantage. Therefore, he thought the task thrown upon the officials of the House would be a very light one, and he did not believe there would be the smallest difficulty. He did not think the House would be willing to entrust him with the arrangement of the Questions.
§ MR. LAMBERTYes, we are proposing it.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if it would shorten discussion he would be prepared to assent to a Committee for dealing with Questions, provided it were made clear that such a step would meet a general demand and satisfy hon. Members. He thought, however, that it would be found best to see how the Standing Order worked without such an Amendment. He was anxious to meet the general views of the House, and. if the general view was that a Committee should be appointed he should not shrink from any proposal of that kind.
§ 12.25.) MR. BRYCEsaid he did not think the right hon. Gentleman quite appreciated the extreme difficulty in which they were placed, because it was very hard to say what really were Questions of general interest. He had considered the forty-one Questions which were on the Paper that day, and fully one half of thorn were Questions as to which it would be extremely difficult to say which were of general interest. Some of them affected large classes of the community and large interests, and they might or might not be urgent. The difficulty was a very great one, and the only answer which seemed to meet the difficulty was that given by the right hon. Gentleman when he said that it was not necessary to consider those Questions in their order of merit, but simply take a certain number of unimportant Questions and put them at the end of the list. Out of the forty-one Questions to which he had alluded there were nine or ten which were not of great importance.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURBut with forty-one Questions we should not have to make any arrangement at all.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid he would consider such a case as the outbreak of a war, or a great strike affecting a large population, or some question of domestic policy affecting different parts of the country in different ways. Instead of having fifty or sixty, they might have 100 Questions. It was perfectly right that priority should be given to important matters upon which legitimateinquiry was required by the people of the country. In that case the difficulty became very great, and the pressure upon the Rule would be heaviest at the time when the Rule was unable to meet it. There was a very serious difficulty in the matter, but it was one which was inherent in the Rule itself, and he did not think any expedient could be suggested to meet it. He felt very strongly the great unfairness, or at any rate the great undesirability, of throwing a duty of this kind upon any Committee of the House. He did not feel that a Committee would make things much better. If a Committee had to be appointed, it ought only, as had been said, to come in when the Rule had been actually tried and had not been found to work satisfactorily. The Committee would have to sit daily, and it might be exceedingly difficult to get any number of Members to undertake the duty. He did not look upon that at present as a practicable proposition. He must say that he was not able to throw very much light on what ought to be done, but as he protested against this Rule he would vote for the Amendment.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid this was certainly a novel proposition, and it seemed to him one of the strangest ever brought before the House of Commons. He entirely agreed with the objections to the throwing of this responsibility upon the clerks at the Table, a responsibility which he understood would be most obnoxious to them. But supposing it was right to do so, how were they to perform the task? They had plenty of work at the present time. This would be a new and most onerous addition to their duties. They must meet every morning and consider the relative weight and importance of the Questions on which they would have to decide. When they 268 met every day, they would have, it might be assumed, sixty Questions before them. They must carefully consider them one by one in order to decide which seemed to be of most general interest. But of most general interest to whom—to the Clerks, or the House, or to the public outside? The Clerks and the House might not agree, and the public might easily differ with both. It was an impossible task to throw on the clerks, and one which they should not be asked to undertake. But if it were possible, he held that this was not a task fitted to the officials of the House. Many Questions which appeared on the Paper from day to day were of a purely political character, or if not purely so, they had a considerable element of the political character in them. But the officials at the Table had no politics, and they ought to have none, and yet they were required by this Rule to weigh the relative importance of difficult political Questions, and to give preference to one over another. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was not a difficult task he was asking the House to impose on the clerks. If it was not a difficult task, why did not the Government undertake it themselves, or why did they not appoint a tribunal ad hoc that would undertake and carry out the duty from day to day? He was afraid this was only another instance of the difficulties they were going to get into as the inevitable result of the decisions they had already arrived at. The old Rules under which the House had flourished for generations had been the outcome of mature and prolonged deliberations, and the experience of generations, and the difficulties which they were feeling now as they got deeper and deeper into those questions, had no doubt been felt and been considered and thrashed out and provided against in the arrangements which it was now proposed suddenly to override. We had got into a difficulty no doubt, and what was to be done now was a question for the Government and not for the House of Commons to decide. They had got the House into its present condition, and they must get it out in the best way they could. But one thing was certain— 269 this was a duty which ought not to be imposed on the Clerks, and he would vote for the omission of the words.
§ (12.40.) SIR EDWARD GREY (Northumberland, Berwick)said he believed the motive of the Government simply to be to make the Rule square so far as possible with the convenience of the House. The First Lord of the Treasury had admitted that, in his view, the occasions when this particular provision would come into force would be very rare. If that was so, the danger of any inconvenience arising to the House in connection with the order of Questions would be very rare too, and he would rather run the risk of some inconvenience being caused to the House on rare occasions when there were a large number of Questions down, through the order of the Questions being inconvenient, than run the risk of seeing the authority of the Chair undermined. If the arrangement of the Questions were entrusted to the clerks at the Table, no doubt difficulties would arise as to the discretion exercised by them, and the House could not prevent the ultimate responsibility from falling upon the Chair. He would much prefer that the Leader of the House, or some one nominated by him, should perform the duty of drawing up the order of Questions, than that it should be imposed on the officials of the Honse. But it would be much simpler to omit the, paragraph altogether, for if any inconvenience arose afterwards it could easily be remedied. That would give longer notice. It would be a matter of convenience to the House at large, to the Members asking the Questions, and to the Ministers to whom they were addressed. But if the paragraph were left in the Rule, a Member might think that his particular Question was of importance, and he would give short notice; but the clerks at the Table might not take that view, and the result would be that Members would be disappointed, and that disappointment was certain to concentrate itself on the officials of the House. It would be far simpler to omit the paragraph altogether, In that case, the inconvenience would not be irremediable; but if the paragraph were retained, the inconvenience would be irremediable.
MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick)said he should like to appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to accept the suggestion to leave out the paragraph altogether. He confessed that he himself did not share in the apprehensions and suspicions that had been put forward; but if they were felt widely, and if there were a preference for a democratic equality among all Members, why should they not allow Questions to take their chance? The Amendment might have the effect of longer notice being given, and there was always the remedy that words had been inserted by which a Member, when he saw that his Question would not be reached, instead of getting an answer in writing, had the power to postpone it, and to get a verbal answer next day or the day after. Surely, that was a sufficient protection for Members. The paragraph was inserted in the interests not of the Government but of the House, and if the House were willing to take the risk of Questions of general interest being put back for a day on account of Questions of local interest being answered, and if it did not wish to give to anyone the power of arranging Questions in order of merit, then he did not see why the House should not have what it desired and let the Questions stand in the order, of time in which they appeared on the Question Paper.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIs this really the general view of the House? It is not a matter in which the Government or Ministers, as Ministers, have the smallest interest. My own personal view is that the Amendment would have the effect of protecting the Government against intricate Questions, but if the House takes the view which has been taken by the hon. Baronet, it is really not for me to resist. If the Rule works without this final paragraph, so much the better. The House will allow me to say that I do not think it will. I agree that if it does not work, the only sufferers will be the questioners, not the Government, and it will be possible either to introduce the machinery we now propose, or the further and more elaborate machinery I have already said I am prepared to accept, or some other scheme which may be proposed. 271 But if it be true that the general view of the House is that it would rather risk the new Standing Order about Questions, without the final paragraph, taking it on its merits, and amending it afterwards, if it be found, as I greatly fear it will be found, that some very interesting Questions will have to be answered in writing, instead of verbally—that is the worst thing that can happen—if that is the view of the House, and I rather gather it is, I am quite ready to accept it, and to defer until such time as we may be able to see the new Rule at work the contrivance of any machinery dealing with the evils which may arise. I certainly do not wish to put myself in opposition to the general sense of the House.
§ Question put and negatived.
§ Question proposed—" That the Amendment, as amended, be added to the Standing Order."
§ (12.58.) MR. DILLONsaid he desired to make a suggestion to the Leader of the House. There was a desire to have a general discussion on the Rule, but after the way they had been met he thought the least they might do was to let the right hon. Gentleman have the Rule without further discussion. He ventured to suggest that as the hour was late, and as they were in an agreeable mood all round, the right hon. Gentleman might make a concession to them, namely, that, having foregone their right to discuss the Rule, they should now be allowed to go home to bed.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid he assumed that it would not be worth while at such a late hour to enter on a new subject which must give rise to some discussion. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would fall in with the general convenience of the House.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not in the least wish to unnecessarily prolong the discussion. He himself had had hard work enough for one night, but it was really necessary that the remaining Rules in the block should be finished on Thursday, and it was only by a distribution of the work between 272 tonight and Thursday that that could be done. He should have thought that there was nothing very contentious in the Rule relating to the adjournment of the House, and if the House would give him that Rule, he should be prepared to postpone the important question of private business and the remaining Rules in the block until Thursday. Of course, if it were understood that they would be allowed to take all the remaining Rules in the block on Thursday, he should not be prepared to raise any objection to the suggestion of the hon. Member.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press the question of the Rule relating to the adjournment of the House tonight. It was one of the most important of all the Rules. The sitting now promised to end under very pleasant circumstances, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press the matter.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he certainly could say a great deal on the general question of the Rule relating to Questions which was now before the House. He thought, further, that the Rule with reference to the adjournment of the House was one which would lead to very considerable discussion, and that it would be very inconvenient to begin it tonight. The right hon Gentleman and the House had both been very conciliatory. The House had not hindered but had aided the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought Members might now be allowed to go home to bed.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)said he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the suggestion of his hon. friend. His hon. friend's suggestion was that if they gave up all discussion on the new Rule about Questions as a whole, a right which they could exercise with the greatest possible ease, and allow the Rule to be passed, the right hon. Gentleman should then agree to adjourn. It must be manifest to the right hon. Gentleman, with his long experience of such occasions, that it would be impossible for the House to enter with any advantage on the discussion of a new subject. If the right hon. Gentleman stood firm, and would 273 not agree, it would mean that they would go on for a considerable time discussing the Rule, then the right hon. Gentleman would move the closure, and the sitting, which appeared to be about to end in good humour all round, would end in a certain amount of irritation, which certainly would not facilitate the progress of the remaining Rules on Thursday. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be well, from his own point of view, to agree to the proposal of his hon. friend.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he could assure the House, whatever might happen, that he was very anxious to avoid a contest that night. He hoped it would be understood that if they adjourned it would be on the understanding that another full and prolonged day's discussion would be enough for the remainder of the Rules in the block.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that there must be no misunderstanding in the matter. As far as he was concerned, the suggestion he was supporting did not include any undertaking whatever that one more night would be sufficient.
§ MR. T. R O'CONNORsaid if the right hon. Gentleman desired to continue the labours of the evening, though he himself was as anxious as anybody else in the House to retire to bed, he was quite willing to stop up for any length of time the House considered necessary for the discharge of its business. He was quite willing, as some of his hon. friends were also, to abandon their right—lie had almost said to shirk their duty—of discussing the Rule as amended, but if the light hon. Gentleman—not, he thought, from his own desire, but as the result of the absurd pressure exercised on him by his friends—thought it necessary to continue the business, then he himself would yield to a sense of duty and express his opinion with regard to the Rule as amended. He initiated the discussion on the main part of the Rule that evening by expressing the opinion that the Rule would seriously interfere with one of the most valuable traditions and privileges of the House of Commons. He was under the delusion, however, that those evil results would 274 not come immediately, but in the course of time—possibly a long time; he had thought that the House would discover the mistake it had made in the course of a session or of two or three sessions; but he never anticipated that, within a few hours of his warning being uttered against the baneful effect of the Rule, the First Lord of the Treasury himself would have justified the very worst anticipations he felt. They did not know anything about the authorship of these Rules. In future years their authorship would be as much contested as had been the authorship of the Letters of Junius. In future years volumes would be written as to the paternity of the Rules before the House which no one would now acknowledge. He repeated what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division had said, that the ancient Rules of the House were the result of thought, deliberation, and observation; whereas the new Rules bore upon their surface palpably every sign of haste and rashness and ignorance of their probable effect. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the rash and inconsiderate spirit in which the Rules were proposed. He had endeavoured in a somewhat impatient House an hour ago to bring home to hon. Members the fact that the effect of the Rule before the House would be that on only one day out of the five days in the week would there be any serious and real Questions. He had proved by an incontestable chain of reasoning that, owing to the congestion of Questions on the Paper on Monday, two-thirds of the Questions would remain unanswered orally, and would have to be answered in writing. He had accepted the confident statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that 300 Questions could be asked in a week as founded on fact, and on a deliberate consideration of the Rule; but he found he had been mistaken. He found that it was a very unwise thing to allow his judgment to be swept away by the seductive promises and optimistic statements of a Minister in a difficulty, who was trying to get an absurd proposal through the House of Commons. The 300 Questions a week had disappeared into thin air; they had no longer any substantial existence. On 275 Thursdays they would probably have about half a dozen Questions, but on Mondays Pelion would be piled on Ossa, and they would have a number of Questions impossible to get through in the time at their disposal. The First Lord of the Treasury more than once endeavoured to impress on the House the absolutely absurd proposition that there was no difference between an oral and a written answer to a Question. If there was any man who should know the absurdity of that contention, it was the right hon. Gentleman himself. What were the facts? After a session was ended, when the right hon. Gentleman was reduced to a state of jaded limpness, two or three weeks had not elapsed before he was perambulating over the platforms of the country. Why? He could have written a letter, but that would not suffice. People wanted to see the living human being, to hear the living human voice, in order to bring home to them the principles of the political Party to which they belonged. They would all find it much easier if they had not to talk at all. If he had to make a choice of an occupation, he certainly would not be making speeches at ten minutes past one in the morning in the House of Commons. But the intolerable and irritable voice of conscience compelled him. [An Hon. Member laughed.] He did not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite laughed at the word "conscience;" he attributed to them occasionally some conscience, or some other invaluable, but inconvenient, internal machinery. He thought, however, he had proved by the example of the right hon. Gentleman himself that here was in the mind of every human being a perfectly clear distinction between the written word and the spoken word. Now they were going to have the written word in the House of Commons. A Member would put his Question on the Paper, the answer was to be written down by the Minister, and both were to appear on the Order Paper. That would be the general result. He wondered how many hon. Members read the Order Paper at all. He ventured to say that nine out of every ten Members never looked at the Order Paper until they entered the House, and 276 the answers to Questions might as well be buried in the cellars of the House as put on the Order Paper. What was the envy and admiration of all other countries in the world in connection with the House of Commons? It was the free and democratic spirit which rendered Question-time possible, the power which its Members possessed of placing Ministers under cross-examination. Was it to be supposed that a Moderate Republican or Monarchist in France was envious of the House of Commons because of its Bills or because of its oratory? [An HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!] As long as the Chair considered he was in order, and he had an argument to advance which commended itself to his poor intelligence, he would continue.
§ MR. SPEAKERI think a good many of the observations of the hon. Member are not relevant to the question.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he was sorry his arguments did not commend themselves to the Chair, but as long as he was within the Rides of order, he expected hon. Members opposite would preserve the canons of tolerant discussion. As a matter of fact, the only thing which had distinguished the House of Commons from other legislatures was Question-time. There was no distinction in other respects between this and other Assemblies. It could not claim to have a higher class of oratory. The attribute which distinguished it was that the democratic spirit of the country-was reflected in the fact that the humblest Member had the right to cross-examine the Executive upon vital questions of State as well as upon matters of purely local interest. Now, in a disastrous hour, the House was giving up this most precious privilege. It was contended that that privilege had been abused. Far be it from him to say that foolish, petty, or eccentric Questions had not been asked. No Assembly in the world was without its eccentric, peculiar, or unique characters; but such Members were very often the most interesting and useful in gatherings where men were too apt to endeavour to fashion themselves in a common mould. But, whatever abuse of Questions there might have been, he contended that it had not been 277 sufficient to justify the extraordinary and revolutionary departure now proposed. The evil, so far as it was an evil, was curing itself. Even in the present session not because of the overhanging shadow of these Rules, but because the Parliament was two years instead of one year old, and young Members were getting rid of the delusion that every night in the House of Commons was an eternity—Questions were not so numerous as in last session, and in the ensuing sessions there would probably be a still further reduction. For the miserable saving of ten or fifteen minutes of Parliamentary time, for the paring down of one or two eccentricities, the House was asked by its Leader, who ought to be the guardian of its liberties and the inheritor of its traditions, to give up one of its highest privileges. He felt that the present was a sinister epoch in the history of the House, and he would not have been discharging his duty had he not given expression to the strong convictions he entertained.
§ (1.25.) MR. GEORGE WHITELEYagreed that the discussion on this Rule had been somewhat lengthy, but it could not be denied that it embodied one of the most important of the proposed alterations. Certain concessions had been made, but, in effect, the Rule remained practically as when introduced, so far as its actual working was concerned. One of the most valuable possessions of Members of the House had been the right to question Ministers, and it was the one above all others with which the House ought to hesitate to part. Private Members had not many privileges left to them, and the present proposal would trench still further on the liberties they had enjoyed from time immemorial. Mow was the House to supervise the internal working of this great Empire if the right of questioning Ministers were curtailed? It was practically impossible for private Members to initiate a debate, or to bring forward matters which in their opinion were of importance to the country. In that condition of things, the Questions Members put were a valuable indicator or weather-vane, demonstrating to the House how feeling was running in the country, and what were the matters in which the inhabitants were most deeply 278 interested. It was no use saying that the answers to Questions could be printed. The right might have been abused in the past; there might be Members with a colossal capacity and ingenuity for devising all sorts of finely drawn Questions to confuse Ministers or extract information; but the fact remained that there was a large body of Members who had exercised the right honestly and properly, and there was no reason whatever why those Members should be penalised in the manner suggested. ["Divide! Divide! "] It seemed almost indecent that hon. Members should be so desirous of hurrying a division on a question involving matters of such great importance. It was argued that, in the forty minutes to be allotted, sixty Questions might be asked. That was not a fair average. Members had always reckoned at the rate of about one Question per minute. They had been told that it was easy to cram sixty Questions into a space of forty minutes. He thought a fair average, including supplementary Questions, would be about thirty. He thought hon. Members were throwing up a stone which would fall upon their own heads if they passed this Rule. He was very much concerned about this glut that would take place in regard to Questions on the Monday. They might either appoint a Committee or leave it to the clerk, but there was no effective method of selecting the most important Questions. They would find on the Monday some 200 Questions to which they could not get an answer, and the result would be that there would be a feeling of indignation amongst hon. Members who had been so treated. Nobody could say that they had suffered from a want of legislation in the past, and there was no foundation for this absurd desire to hurry through the business of the House. He considered that a further fifteen or twenty minutes would more than suffice to deal with all those matters. Surely this House was not going, for the sake of some fifteen minutes on four days in the week, to sacrifice any of its rights—in order to save one hour per week. It appeared to him that the House of Commons would be taking a much wiser course if it decided that, rather than give away 279 its right in this way, two or three days should be added to the session. He felt that all these Rules were proceeding in a wrong spirit, and they were inimical to the rights of the House. He believed that at the end of one or two years, when they had had experience of the new Rules, the House would be glad to return to the old Rules which had been in force up to the present time.
§ (1.35.) MR. MACVEAGHsaid the House of Commons at present existed for little more than the registration of the decrees of the Government, and he supposed that shortly hon. Members opposite would troop into the Lobby to vote for sacrificing one of the most valuable rights of hon. Members. The First Lord of the Treasury was getting this Rule through upon the representation that it would be possible to put seventy-five Questions to Ministers in the time allotted. As a matter of fact, no session during the past fifteen years gave an average number of Questions of anything like seventy-five. The average never got above sixty-two. Even last year the average did not reach seventy-five, for it was only sixty-eight. It was useless introducing a Rule of this kind when no necessity had been shown for its introduction. There were 4,792 Questions in the year 1900, which gave an average of fifty-two Questions per day. In 1899 there were 4,290 Questions, or an average of forty-nine per day. The figures for 1897 were 4,824 Questions, giving a net average of forty-two. In 1896 the average was forty-seven, in 1895 forty-two, in 1894 thirty-nine, in 1893 thirty-six, in 1892 forty, and in 1890 the average was thirty-three. As a matter of fact, during the past fifteen years the First Lord of the Treasury was not able to point to a single session in which the average number of Questions had even approached the number he had fixed upon, and which he said could be done with great ease under the Rule he had proposed. He did not deny that frivolous Questions had been asked. They had an example of this in the Questions put by the hon. Member for North Islington. The hon. Member had told the House that he represented the densest population in England, and therefore he was not surprised if he occasionally put an exceedingly dense Question. 280 The other day the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton put a Question about the new road from Charing Cross. He thought that was a trivial Question, because the right hon. Gentleman might have put it to the Minister in the Lobby or dropped him a note. When they saw great financiers and statesmen like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton wasting time asking frivolous Questions of that character, he thought he was entitled to claim that the time of the House was wasted even by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Benches. He was glad the First Lord of the Treasury had seen his way to give up the clause which proposed to put Questions on the Paper in the order of their relative importance. For a long time it had been a privilege of hon. Members of the. House to put Questions and insist upon oral replies being given in the presence of the Gentlemen of the Press, with the full blaze of public opinion upon them; but now it was proposed that Ministers might answer them by printing their replies upon the Journals of the House. He had had the privilege of watching the proceedings of the House from the atmosphere of the Press Gallery, and he had often noticed that when an Irish Question was put, there was no chance of obtaining a satisfactory answer unless the inquiry was followed up with a number of supplementary Questions. When official answers were read out, as prepared by Members of the English garrison in Ireland, there never was the slightest satisfaction obtained by Members of the House with respect to that country. Under this asterisk arrangement, the Chief Secretary would he able to give answers which would satisfy himself and his understrappers in Ireland, but which would satisfy none of the Irish people most intimately connected with the matters referred to. He did not think it could be said of him that he had unduly occupied the time of the House in discussing these new Rules. He got up a few nights ago to speak, and in a burst of good nature he gave way to the First Lord. He rose to speak on another Rule, and the First Lord, without giving him another chance of obliging him, got up and moved the closure. That had not helped him much, as he knew, and he hoped the right hon. 281 Gentleman would recognise on future (1.48.) Question put, "That the occasions that civility not only cost Question be now put." nothing but paid well in the end.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ (1.48.) Question put, "That the Question be now put".
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 160; Noes. 97 (Division List No. 151.)
283| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood Capt. Sir Alex. F | Galloway, William Johnson | Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Gardner, Ernest | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Gordon, Hon. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Newdigate, Francis Alexander |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Arrol, Sir William | Greene, W Raymond-(Cambs.) | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Gretton, John | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Balcarres, Lord | Groves, James Grimble | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r) | Hambro, Charles Eric | Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford | Purvis, Robert |
| Bignold, Arthur | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Higginbottom, S. W. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Renwick, George |
| Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Richards, Henry Charles |
| Brassey, Albert | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) | Russell, T. W. |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop) | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Keswick, William | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander- |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Knowles, Lees | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Seton-Karr, Henry |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth) | Smith, H. C (North'mb, Tyneside |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) |
| Chapman, Edward | Lawson, John Grant | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham | Spear, John Ward |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset) |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. | Stock, James Henry |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Lowe, Francis William | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Denny, Colonel | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth | Valentia, Viscount |
| Dickson Poynder, Sir John P. | Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison | Warde, Colonel C E. |
| Doughty, George | Macdona, John Cumming | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim. E.) | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W | Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | M' Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.) | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Melville, Beresford Valentine | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Finch, George H. | Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | TELLERSS FOR THE AYES— |
| Forster, Henry William | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) | Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W | Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Boland, John |
| Asher, Alexander | Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Blake, Edward | Bryce, Rt. Hon. James |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Levy, Maurice | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Caldwell, James | Lough, Thomas | Price, Robert John |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Lundon, W. | Priestley, Arthur |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Reekitt, Harold James |
| Crean, Eugene | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Reddy, M. |
| Delany, William | MaeVeagh, Jeremiah | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Dillon, John | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Rigg, Richard |
| Doogan, P. C. | M'Crae, George | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Edwards, Frank | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Roche, John |
| Emmett, Alfred | M'Kean, John | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | M'Kenna, Reginald | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Ffrench, Peter | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Murphy, John | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Gilhooly, James | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid | Sullivan, Donal |
| Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N) | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Hammond, John | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) |
| Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Ure, Alexander |
| Helme, Norval Watson | O'Dowd, John | Weir, James Galloway |
| Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Horniman, Frederick John | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. | Whiteley, George (York, W. R.) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | O'Malley, William | Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.) |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Mara, James | |
| Lambert, George | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | |
| Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) | O'Shee, James John | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Paulton, James Mellor | Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan. |
| Leigh, Sir Joseph | Pirie, Duncan V. |
§ (1.58.) Question put accordingly, "That the Amendment, as amended, be added to the Standing Order."
284§ The House divided:—Ayes, 166; Noes 97. (Division List No. 152)
285| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F. | Compton, Lord Alwyne | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfo'd |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Hay, Hon. Claude George |
| Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Cranborne, Viscount | Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Higginbottom, S. W. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Dalkeith, Earl of | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Denny, Colonel | Houldsworth, Sir Wm Henry |
| Arrol, Sir William | Dickson, Charles Scott | Johnston, William (Belfast) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon John | Dickson-Poynder Sir John P. | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Doughty, George | Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Keswick, William |
| Balfour, Capt. C B. (Hornsey) | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Knowles, Lees |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Finch, George H. | Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth |
| Bignold, Arthur | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Fisher, William Hayes | Lawson, John Grant |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham |
| Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex | Forster, Henry William | Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead) |
| Brassey, Albert | Foster, Philip S. (Warwick. S. W | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Galloway, William Johnson | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Gardner, Ernest | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs) | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. |
| Cavendish, V. G W. (Derbysh. | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop | Lowe, Francis William |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs) | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Gretton, John | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth |
| Chapman, Edward | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Groves, James Grimble | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Hambro, Charles Eric | M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E. |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Middx) | M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire |
| Manners, Lord Cecil | Pretyman, Ernest George | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Stock, James Henry |
| Melville, Beresford Valentine | Purvis, Robert | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. | Reid, James (Greenock) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Remnant, James Farquharson | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Renwick, George | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Moon Edward Robert Pacy | Richards, Henry Charles | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) | Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge | Valentia, Viscount |
| Morgan, David J. (Walth'mst'w | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh. | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney |
| Morrell, George Herbert | Russell, T. W. | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton |
| Morrison, James Archibald | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. E. (Notts |
| Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne |
| Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Seton-Karr, Henry | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Newdigate, Francis Alexander | Smith, H C (North'mb, Tyneside | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R. |
| Nicholson, William Graham | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Nicol, Donald Ninian | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Spear, John Ward | |
| Parkes, Ebenezer | Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk | TELLERSS FOR THE AYES— |
| Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington | Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset | Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley | Stanley, Lord (Lancs) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. | Joyce, Michael | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Asher, Alexander | Lambert, George | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington | Price, Robert John |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Priestley, Arthur |
| Blake, Edward | Levy, Maurice | Reckitt, Harold James |
| Boland, John | Lough, Thomas | Reddy, M. |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Lundon, W. | Redmond, John E. Waterford) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Rigg, Richard |
| Caldwell, James | MacNeill, John Cordon Swift | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Channing, Francis Allston | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Roche, John |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Clean, Eugene | M'Crae, George | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Delany, William | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Dillon, John | M'Kean, John | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | M'Kenna, Reginald | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Doogan, P. C. | M'Kihop, W. (Sligo, North) | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Edwards, Frank | Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Emmott, Alfred | Murphy, John | Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Northants |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Ure, Alexander |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Weir, James Calloway |
| Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | O'Dowd, John | Whiteley, George (York, W. R. |
| Hammond, John | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N | |
| Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | O'Malley, William | |
| Helme, Norval Watson | O'Mara, James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Horniman, Frederick John | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Mr. Charles Hobhouse and Mr. Fuller. |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. | O'Shee, James John |
§ The Standing Order, "Questions to Members," as finally adopted, is as follows:—
§ 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 286 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 or any other 287 Member deputed by him 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 Member has signified Ms desire to postpone the Question.