Commons Sitting of 1 December 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Skipton, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Forest Hill, against alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Nash Manor, and Llanvihangle; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BANK OF ENGLAND.
  Copy presented, of Return of the amount of notes issued more than forty years which have not been presented for payment, and which have been written off on the 17th day of November, 1902, from the total amount of notes issued from the Issue Department of the Bank of England [by Act];to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 20th February (Mr. Grant Lawson)];to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 384.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Education Bill—Position of Denominational Schools not under Trust Deeds.
  MR. BRASSEY (): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will say whether, in the case of Church of England elementary schools built and maintained by landowners, where there is no trust deed, those who have built and maintained the schools will be able to nominate the four managers and to change them;will these schools be treated as denominational schools;and, if so, will he say under which Clauses of the Education Bill this is the case.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) In the cases mentioned the owners can apply for an Order under Clause 11, sub-Section (2), of the Bill, and in their application can set forth the scheme of appointment or nomination of foundation managers which they desire to see adopted. In many cases landowners who have built and maintained denominational schools on their property have power to secure the permanence of their denominational character by themselves making a trust deed without using the powers given by the Bill.

  Education Bill —position of Teachers transferred to Schools under Local Authorities.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in the event of the transfer of teachers from the school board pupil teacher centres to technical and secondary schools, they will lose the benefit of the superannuation scheme to which as elementary school teachers they have contributed under The Superannuation Act, 1898;and if it is intended to extend the benefits of the Superannuation Act to certificated teachers and to other registered teachers who are engaged in technical or secondary schools provided by the local authorities, whether or not they are employed exclusively in the instruction of pupil teachers.
  836
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) "Recorded service," for the purpose of The Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, does not include service in technical and secondary schools. But teachers transferred to such shcools will not lose the benefit of the contributions they have already made while in "recorded service." The Government have no intention of extending the provisions of the Superannuation Act.

  Dingle Licensing Case.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB (): To ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the protest of the parish of Dingle against the action of the bench in that petty sessions district in granting new licences on the 14th instant;and whether, in view of the provisions of The Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902, he will state what course will be taken in respect of the action of the magistrates concerned and the licence so granted.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) Canon O'Leary has already taken proceedings in the King's Bench Division to have the Order of the justices granting the licence brought up and quashed, on the ground that it contravenes the provisions of the recent Act. Whether the Crown will support or oppose this applicaiton will depend upon the view the Law Officers will take of the facts of the case and the law applicable to them.

  Mediterranean Squadron—Ranking of Inspectors of Machinery.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGNS (): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Station has laid it down that for purposes of official entertainments engineer officers of the rank of Inspectors of Machinery shall rank with Commanders in command;and whether, in view of the fact that, according to the King's and Admiralty instructions, Inspectors fo Machinery have the relative rank of Captain, he will take steps to ensure that these officers shall not be for social purposes degraded below their proper rank.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) No information has reached the Admiralty to the effect stated in the hon. Member's Question, but inquiry will be made, and

  837
  I shall be happy to answer a further Question on the subject when the reply has been received.

  Kobe (Japan) Trade Report.
  MR. WEIR (): To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the recently issued Report of the trade of Kobe, Japan, shows that beverages to the value of £21,360 were exported from Kobe during the year 1900-1901, will he state the nature of the beverages referred to and what mineral waters are included.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The information which the hon. Member requires is not in the possession of the Foreign Office.

  Russian Railway Construction in China.
  MR. YERBURGH (): To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have any information to the effect that Russia is constructing a branch line form the main Siberian railway in the direction of Pekin.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) No, Sir. His Majesty's Government have received no such information.

  Island of Lewis Sanitation.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that Mr. Millar, the Local Government Board's inspecting officer, under the Public Health Act, visited the Island of Lewis in the month of May last, will the Secretary for Scotland state the names of the townships in the parishes of Stornoway, Barvas, Lochs, and Uig which were visited by the inspecting officer; and whether his report on sanitary matters contains any recommendations with a view to improve the sanitary conditions of those parishes.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) As I have already informed the hon. Member, in reply to Questions on the same subject on 5th and 18th November Mr. Millar's visit on the occasion in question was mainly for Poor Law purposes, and the only report he made on sanitary matters had reference to Stronoway.

  Island of Lewis—Proposed Dry Dock at Loch Holm.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the Lewis and Harris Fishermen's Association have applied to the Congested Districts Board and Lewis District Committee for aid in the construction of a dry dock at Loch Holm, near Stornoway, Island of Lewis, and that the crews of sixty boats have offered to contribute £6 per boat in aid of the construction, and a further £3 per boat for the subsequent maintenance of the dock. And will arrangements be made for the Board's engineer to visit the site for the proposed dock.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The Congested Districts Board have not received any applications as to this work from the statutory authority under the Act regulating such grants, i. e., the County Council; but the petition from the Lewis and Harris Fishermen's Association, to which the hon. Member alludes, reached them on 22nd November, and the petitioners were informed of the proper procedure to follow on 26th November.

  Jubaland Expedition, 1901—Batta for Indian Troops.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING (): To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will say why Batta was refused to the officers of the Indian contingent which took part in the Jubaland expedition of 1901; and whether, seeing that batta is always allowed to Indian troops when in the field in addition to their pay, the Indian Government, in furnishing contingents to the Foreign Office for employment out of India, will take measures to secure that the troops and officers shall have all the privileges to which they would be entitled when employed in the Indian service.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) "Batta," or field allowance, is not claimable by the European officers of Indian regiments when on field service, although on special occasions the Government of India may authorise a gratuity, or "donation batta," after a campaign. The batta admissible to the

  839
  Native officers, non-commissioned officers, and men under Indian Rules was drawn by those who took part in the Jubaland Expedition of 1901. In all the expeditions in British East Africa in which Indian troops have been employed the Foreign Office has granted the same rates of pay and allowance as would have been drawn had the troops been employed under Indian conditions, and I have no doubt the same course will be followed on this occasion.

  Great Western Railway—Accident at Westbourne Park.
  MR. PHILIPPS (): To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has caused inquiry to be held into the accident on the Great Western Railway on Friday, 19th September; and whether he was received a report on the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) An inquiry has been held as to the accident at Westbourne Park on the date mentioned, and the Report was issued to the Press on the 8th ultimo. I shall be happy to send a copy to the hon. Member.

  Irish Dictionaries at Post Offices.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (): To ask the Postmaster General whether with the view of facilitating the delivery of letters addressed in the Irish language he will take steps to provide each post office with an Irish dictionary.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I do not consider that the circumstances are such as to justify the provision of Irish dictionaries at post offices.

  Liverpool Female Postal Employees' Grievances.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster General, having regard to the fact that with one exception the female assistant supervisors employed at the counter offices in Liverpool have been at their maximum salaries for periods ranging from five to ten years, will he say whether he proposes to apply any, and, if so, what remedy.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The fact that these officers are at their maximum salary does not, in my opinion consitute any ground for complaint. It
  840
  has been repeatedly decided by my predecessors that the salary of the assistant supervisors is sufficient for the duties perfomed; but as I have recently received an application on the subject from those employed at Liverpool, the question shall be again examined and my decision shall be announced to the applicants in due course.

  Postal Circulation of Lottery and Gambling Circulars.
  COLONEL WELBY (): To ask the Postmaster Gentral whether he is aware that in the West Country, and other parts of the United Kingdom, lottery and gambling circulars are being distributed through the post; and sending whether he can see his way to make the sending of these circulars through the post a punishable offence.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) When lottery circulars are posted in open covers they are withheld from delivery. But the majority of these circulars appear to be sent in colsed envelopes, and as the Post Office has no cognizance of the contents of such envelopes, the transmission of the packets cannot be prevented. I do not think that I should be justified in seeking powers to interfere with any colsed letters.

  Naval Gunnery—Rewards for Proficiency.
  MR. YERBURGH (): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the regulations governing rewards for good shooting in His Majesty' s Navy have been altered in any respect since the introduction of quick firing guns, and, if so, will he say what the alterations are; and will he acquaint the House with the regulations.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) Since the introduction of quick-firing guns the regulations governing rewards for proficiency in gunnery have been altered by the establishment of:—(1) Prizes for light quick-firing and machine guns; (2) Querterly prize firings in addition to the annual prize firings. The regualtions are to the following effect:—Annual Prize Firings—A Sum of money, varying according to the complement of the ship, is allowed for prizes

  841
  for shooting with heavy guns. A sum of money is also provided for prizes for shooting with light quick-firing and machine guns. Quarterly Prize Firings—A sum of money, varying according to the complement, is allowed for prizes for shooting with heavy and light guns. In every case the distribution of this sum is left absolutely to the discretion of the commanding officer of the ship, who settles the amount of individual shares, and is also empowered to withhold the whole or part of it should the results of the firing have been, in his opinion, unsatisfactory.

  Tunbridge Wells Telephones.
  MR. LOUGH (): To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to a proposal to sell to a private company the municipal telephone property at Tunbridge Wells, which was acquired a short time since under a loan sanctioned by the Local Government Board, and that this step is being taken by a newly elected Council on the grounds that the working of the undertaking has shown a slight loss; and whether, under these circumstances, he is willing to hold a local inquiry so that the exact facts as to the position of the undertaking may be ascertained before the precedent is set up of disposing in this way of public property which has been acquired by means of a Government loan.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) An application has been made to me by a Committee representing ratepayers of Tunbridge Wells to direct a local inquiry into the matter referred to. I have, however, no jurisdiction in regard to the proposed assignment of the telephone undertaking, and any application in connection with the subject should be addressed to the Postmaster General, whose consent to the assignment is required under the licence granted by him to the Town Council. I have informed the Committee accordingly.

  Irish National School Teachers' Salaries.
  MR. MACARTNEY (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact that the Commissioners of National Education, when fixing the consolidated salaries of Irish National School
  842
  teachers on the basis of the average income for the three years ending 31st March, 1900, made application to the Treasury to allow in some cases a consolidated income equal to the earnings for the year ending 31st March, 1900, will he say whether this application was granted; and, if not, will he state the reasons upon which it was refused.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) A proposal was made to the Treasury to the effect stated in the first part of the Question. The Treasury did not see its way to agree to the proposal.

  Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland—Canal Traffic Tolls.
  MR. KENNEDY (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state whether the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction will exercise its powers under Section 17 of The Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, of appearing before the Railway and Canal Commissioners on behalf of the boat owners on the Royal Canal, who feel aggrieved by reason of the tolls charged by the Midland Great Western Railway on canal traffic, when added to working expenses, being in excess of the freight charged on that company's railway for the same class of goods, thereby destroying the competition of the canal.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Department has not yet completed its inquiries in this matter, and is unable at present to say whether action is practicable in the direction suggested.

  Royal Commission on Civil Service Superannuation.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (): To ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to nominate the Royal Commission on the Deferred Pay of Civil Servants; and if an opportunity will be afforded of discussing the terms of reference.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The Royal Commission to inquire into Superannuation in the Civil Service was commenced last week. The terms of reference were given by me in the House of Commons last summer.

(2.15.)QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  British Troops in South Africa.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the number of the British forces now in South Africa.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The number roughly amounts to about 55,000, including some troops awaiting transport to India.

  British Army Headquarters in Natal.
  MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state where are the permanent military headquarters of the British Army in Natal.
  LORD STANLEY: The question of the permanent headquarters in Natal is at present under consideration with the Natal Government.

  War Gratuities to Civilian Veterinary Surgeons.
  CAPTALN NORTON (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that civilian veterinary surgeons employed at home by the military authorities during the recent war are to receive certain gratuities under the Royal Warrant published in Army Order 186, whether he will explain why civilian surgeons are not to receive these gratuities; and whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the agreements under which each class was employed.
  LORD STANLEY: The civilian veterinary surgeons employed at home do not get the gratuity referred to. My right hon. friend is not willing to lay these agreements on the Table, but I shall be most happy to show copies of them privately to the hon. Member.

  Militia and Yeomanry Bill.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER(Gravesend): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Militia and Yeomanry Bill, and if he will ensure that a reasonable time be given for its discussion.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am unable to fix a date for this Bill. I am not prepared to say what would be a "reasonable time" for its discussion; but I should be sorry if the House were not able to discuss it adequately

  Afghanistan.
  MR. KIMBER (Wandsworh): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can, consistently with public policy, give the House any information as to the present state of affairs in Afghanistan, and the date of the latest communication received by the Government of India from the Amir Habibullah; whether any communications have reached the Government of India as to the pretentions of Mahomed Omar Khan; whether, in the event of troubles arising in Afghanistan, the support of His Majesty's Governments will be accorded to the present Amir; and whether, and if so, when, Papers will be laid before the House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): My hon. friend asks me four Questions. My reply to the first is that the latest communication received from the Amir of Afghanistan by the Governments of India was on the 15th October and related to the boundary dispute in Seistan. To the second, No. The third is of too hypothetical a character to admit of a definite reply. To the fourth, No.

  Indian Native Army—Promotion of Colonels.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state why colonels promoted major-generals under the new warrant which came into force in 1901 have been antedated to 1900, thus superseding the colonels of the Native Army by three years, their promotion having been stopped since October, 1900, both under the new and old warrants.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have no information on the subject of the hon. and gallant Member's Question, which should be addressed to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War.

  845
  But I may point out that, as British major-generals are on one list and Indian major-generals upon another. there can be no question of supersession,

  Russia and Afghanistan.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform the House as to the latest communications which have passed between the Government of His Imperial Majesty the Czar and His Majesty's Ministers relative to Russia's desire to bring about close commercial relations with Afghanistan; and whether he has any information to show that the Russian Government have already entered into direct communication with the Amir on the subject.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): As regards the first part of the Question I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Central Hull on the 20th October. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

  Russian Consuls in Persia.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Government have appointed a Russian Consul at Ahwaz on the Karun River in Persia; whether the Belgian Customs officials employed by the Persian Government have made any, and if so, what, alterations in the system of collecting duties on or near that river; and whether His Majesty's Government will lay on the Table the Papers showing the terms set forth by the Persian Government when opening the navigation of the Karun River.
  LORD CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Government understand that a Russian Consular agent has been appointed for Arabistan. The Customs duties on the Karun with which we are principally concerned have hitherto been collected at the ports of destination, but the Persian Government now wish to collect all such duties at Mohammerah. His Majesty's
  † See (4) Debates, cxiii.,208
  846
  Legation at Teheran are in communication with them on the subject. It would not be desirable to lay Papers at present.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the noble Lord promise Papers when the negotiations are concluded?
  LORD CRANBORNE: I do not think I can enter into any engagement.

  Railways in Southern Persia.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are aware that a Commission of engineers has been sent out from Pairs to survey southern Persia for railways and other public works; whether that commission has been established and sent out in connection with the negotiations between Russia and Persia for the construction of railways in southern Persia; and what steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to secure the interests of British trade in Persia and the position of this country in the Persian Gulf.
  LORD CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Government have seen the Report which has appeared in the Press to the effect stated in the first portion of the Question. A communication from the Persian Minister at Pairs has, however, appeared in the Matin of the 26th of November, stating that he is authorised to deny the Report.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The noble Lord has not answered the last part of my Question.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The security of the interests of this country in the Persian Gulf has always been a matter of the utmost concern to His Majesty's Government.

  Tunbridge Wells Telephone Dispute.
  MR. LOUGH (): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has yet arrived at any decision with regard to the application of the Town Council of Tunbridge Wells for his sanction to the sale of the municipal telephone system of that borough to the National Telephone Company.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I have not yet been able to arrive at a decision on this important question.

  Education Bill—Governors of Secondary Schools.
  MR. DUNCAN (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will say whether, amongst the powers transferred by the Education Bill from a School Board to the local authority is the power to appoint governors of a secondary school where what power is now conferred by the trust.
  THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): A power so conferred would be included in the "property, rights, and liabilities" of a School Board which are transferred by Rule (1) of Schedule II.

  Education Bill—Compensation to Voluntaray School Teachers not engaged by Local Authorities.
  MR. CAUSTON (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, as provision has been made in the Education (England and Wales) Bill for compensation to teachers now employed in board schools who are not re-engaged by the new education authority, this provision will be extended to voluntary school teachers in corresponding cases.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The Education Bill will not invalidate existing contracts between teachers and School Boards or the managers of voluntary schools. In the case of School Boards such contracts are transferred by express provision to the new authority, because one of the parties to the contract—the School Board—will cease to exist. In the case of the voluntary schools both parties will continue in existence, and there is therefore no necessity for any such provision. The Bill gives no compensation to teachers, in either class of school, who are not re-engaged at the termination of their present contracts.

  Fees in Public Elementary Schools.
  MR. BRYCE (): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education
  848
  whether the Board of Education will present to Parliament a Return showing the total number of public elementary schools in England and Wales, in which fees are now charged, the number of the fee-paying scholars in those schools, and the fees which are actually charged.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: A Return will be given.

  Education Bill—Religious Instruction—Appeal to the Bishop.
  MR. KENYON (): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether, in the event of an appeal to the Bishop of the diocese, under sub-Section (4) of Clause 7 of the Education Bill, proving to be in favour of the incumbent of the parish, he will have any legal power of asserting his position as against his co-manager; and if so, by what process.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): The only reference to the Bishop, in my view of this Clause, will be on any question as to the nature of the religious teaching. On every other question—as to the management of the religious teaching, now it is to be given, and by whom—the managers will have full control, and no appeal will lie against this decision. If the managers should infringe the terms of the trust as regards the character of the religious instruction as defined by the deed itself, or by the Bishop on reference in terms of the deed, the proper remedy would be, as in the case of any abuse of a charitable trust, by an inforamtion in the name of the Attorney General.

  Post Office Telephones in Irish Rural Districts
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether telephonic communication for the convenience of the Post Office has been established between outlying villages and the country towns in the rural districts of Ireland; if so, whether these telephones can be used by the public; and, if not, whether some arrangements could be made to render them available at a small charge for each conversation.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The lines referred to have been provided for the transmission of telegrams, and they

  849
  are terminated at the central telegraph offices in the district. They are not, generally speaking, suitable for use in conjunction with the telephone trunk wire system, as in most cases they are single wire circuits; but it may be possible in some cases to arrange for their use for ordinary telephonic conversation between the places which they already connect, and this is, as I understand, what the hon. Member desires. I will look carefully into the matter and see what can be done.

  Sunday Postal Deliveries in Hillstreet, County Roscommon.
  MR. TULLY (): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been directed to the public inconvenience caused to the inhabitants of the town of Hillstreet, County Roscommon, by the fact that there is no delivery or despatch of letters on Sundays from the local post office; and whether he can state when it is proposed to institute a Sunday delivery of letters at Hillstreet.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will make inquiry on the question of establishing a Sunday post to and from Hillstreet, County Roscommon, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Buncrana-Carndonagh Railway.
  MR. CAREW (): On behalf of the hon. Member for North Donegal, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the Local Governments Board auditor certified on 27th September, 1902, that the tax levied upon the guaranteeing area for the Buncrana to Carndonagh Railway was fully justified and was paid legally by the County Council of Donegal, and that the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland have been advised that the County Council were not bound to make any payment under the guarantee until the line was open for traffic, and that payments certified by the Local Government Board auditor were consequently illegal, will the auditor be called upon by the Local Government Board for an explanation; and will steps be taken to have the amount so paid and levied
  850
  recouped to the ratepayers of the guaranteeing area?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Local Government Board auditor did not decide that these payments were legal. He merely decided that he had no power to go behind the certificates of the arbitrators appointed under the 6th Section of the Tramway Act of 1883. The Board of Works have been advised that the arbitrators acted ultra vires in granting these certificates; that their award was not binding on the Council; and that the payment of the sum of £300 thereunder was a voluntary payment, which they were not bound to make. It is for the County Council to take legal proceedings to have the matter determined, not for the Government.

  State Purchase of Irish Railways.
  MR. CAREW: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Donegal, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that with the view of carrying out the purchase of Irish railways Mr. Thomas Robertson was appointed Chairman of the Irish Board of Works, and that Mr. Roberston reported favourably on a scheme of buying out the railways, will he lay upon the Table of the House a copy of Mr. Robertson's report and other communications relating thereto?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have already pointed out that the First Lord, in April, 1897, stated that he knew of no reason for departing from the conclusions of the Royal Commissions appointed in 1865 and 1886, which were adverse to the policy of State purchase, and that I was not prepared to recommend the appointment of a third Royal Commission. I have no knowledge that Mr. Robertson was appointed Chairman of the Board of Works with the object alleged, or that he made any report or other communication on the matter.

  Sunday Demonstrations at Downpatrick.
  MR. SLOAN (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  851
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday, 23rd November last, a demonstration, accompanied with bands from different parts of Ireland, paraded the streets of Downpatrick during the hours of divine service, to the annoyance of those attending; and whether he proposes to take any steps to put a stop to conduct of such a character.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There was a demonstration with bands as stated. But the bands did not play when passing places of worship. The demonstration was orderly, and no complaint of annoyance was made by any person. It is not proposed to interfere with orderly demonstrations.
  MR. SLOAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at one place of worship the minister had to cease preaching for some minutes.
  MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. Member will give me particulars, I will cause further inquiry to be made.

  Physical Science and Manual Instruction in Ireland.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that no provision has been made for the qualification of teachers in physical science and manual instruction, he will explain why the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland make it compulsory for a teacher in needlework to be trained in these subjects before receiving any salary.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Teachers of needle-work are not required to qualify in physical science and manual instruction. Provision has been made for the training of teachers in both of the latter subjects.

  Newtown Butler Petty Sessions.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at Newtown Butler Petty Sessions, held on 18th November last, the district inspector complained that some days previously a magistrate had privately
  852
  tried a case that should have been brought before that Court; and whether he will state what was the charge in the case complained of, and where that trial took place.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The district inspector made no complaint. He merely pointed out that two cases of drunkenness which should have been disposed of in Petty Sessions were dealt with at the residence of a local justice of the peace. The action of the justice was irregular, though well meant.

  District Inspector Rogers, of Trim.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Inspector General has made any inquiry as to the terms on which District Inspector Rogers occupies the disused military barracks at Trim; what yearly lodging allowance does this officer receive; and whether he proposes to hold any public investigation into these matters.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I informed the hon. Member on 7th August last that this district inspector receives the ordinary lodging allowance, namely, £40 per annum, payable to all officers of his rank who are not accommodated with quarters in constabulary barracks. The reply to the first and third inquiries is in the negative.

  Dog Poisoning at Ballaghaderreen.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police have made any report as to the recent poisoning of dogs in Ballaghaderreen; and whether, in view of the claims for compensation made to the Rural District Council, the police will be instructed to furnish a copy of their report to the members of that body.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The district inspector of constabulary has forwarded to the District Council a statement of the occurrence required to be made in such cases to the local authorities.

  Cost of Extra Police in Tallow.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of

  853
  Ireland whether he can state what was the total cost of the extra police in the Tallow district, County Waterford, during the last twelve months; to what area has it been charged; and how much of it has been already levied on the ratepayers.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The area of charge comprises seventy townlands. The cost to local rates in respect of the extra force sent to the district in August, 1901, is £345 a year. A claim for £39 16s. 9d. has already been made; a further claim will shortly be made. There will also be a levy on account of fifty men sent to Tallow last week from another county.

  Glasnevin Lectures on Bee-keeping
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what grounds Mr. J. M. Gillies has been appointed lecturer in bee-keeping in Glasnevin, and examiner of candidates for appointments as county instructors in bee-keeping; and whether, before making future appointments, the views of the Irish Bee-keepers' Association will be ascertained by the Department of Agriculture.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Gillies is an expert in the subject. The Department will be happy to consider the claims of any candidates for such appointments which may be forwarded by the Association in question.
  MR. TULLY: Did not the Bee-keepers' Association declare that Mr. Gillies knew nothing about the subject, and did he not come straight from the staff of the Freeman's Journal?
  MR. WYNDHAM: As I said, Mr. Gillies is an expert. I did not know he was a journalist.

  Roscommon Union Hospital.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board will order a sworn inquiry into the state of things alleged to exist in the Roscommon union hospital at the last meeting of the Guardians.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A sworn inquiry has been ordered.

  Irish Poor Law Medical Officers' Holidays.
  MR. CAREW: On behalf of he hon. Member for North Monaghan I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware of the dissatisfaction at present prevailing amongst the medical officers of the Irish Poor Law service in Consequence of the abrogation by the Local Government Board of their bye-law granting the medical officers, as a right, four weeks' holiday in each year; and if he will give such directions as will cause the re-enactment of the bye-law.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Article 28 of the Dispensary Regulations provides that each medical officer shall be allowed an annual vacation not exceeding four weeks. But since that Regulation was made, a Court of Law has held that it is not incumbent on a Board of Guardians to grant the full period of four weeks.

  Infirm Inmates of Irish Workhouses.
  MR. CAREW: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Monaghan I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that in some Irish workhouses the infirm inmates have to lie on trestle bedsteads with straw mattresses and pillows, and are without properly qualified nurses or attendance; and if he will direct an inquiry into the condition of these institutions.
  MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. Member will kindly give particulars of the cases he refers to, inquiries will be made into the matter. The Board is doing all in its power to ameliorate the condition of the sick and infirm in workhouses.

  Education Bill—Teachers' Superannuation.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state what provision will be made to safeguard the superannuation rights of teachers transferred from School Boards to the authorities set up under the Education Bill; and whether the teachers' years of service for superannuation purposes will count from the date of his original appointment by the School Board or other school authority.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The rights of teachers are in no way affected.

  Manuscript Amendments without Notice.
  MR. KENYON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of placing some limitations on the practice of moving Amendments in manuscript of which no notice has been given, and which, owing to the acoustic properties of the House, are mainly unintelligible to a majority of Members.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Undoubtedly the practice of handing in manuscript Amendments is capable of abuse; but I do not quite see how that abuse is to be restricted without unduly limiting the power of the House in Committee. It would be absolutely necessary, of course, to forbid all Amendments without notice; and it might not be desirable to tie the hands of the Committee in that way. But if we did not, it is difficult to see what limitation ought to be put on this power, though I quite recognise the importance of the matter to which the hon. Member alludes.

  The New Questions Rule.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give the House, verbally or otherwise, the information sought in the Return, Business of the House (Time occupied in the giving of Oral Answers to Questions), appearing on this day's Notice Paper.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend must not take the information which I am about to give him as necessarily representing with absolute accuracy the statistics which he desires. But I understand that oral questions have been disposed of before half-past two on nineteen days; before a quarter to three on forty days; and before five minutes to three on thirteen days. Oral questions have remained undisposed of at five minutes to three on two occasions—on June 23rd and on October 20th. An interesting letter embodying some other statistics, if my right hon. friend cares to refer to it, will be found in The Times of September 5th, over signature "George Walpole."†
  † Among the Appendices to the final volume of the present session, will be found a Table shewing izn detail the working of the new Rule. [ED.]

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  John Cathcart Wason, esquire, for the County of Orkney and Zetland.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to, Patent Law Amendment Bill, with Amendments.
  PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 305.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—PROCEDURE.
  (2.35)THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BAlFOUR,): I do not propose to make any additional statement about these Rules which I now propose shall be made Standing Orders, they having been discussed already at great length. All I shall ask the House to do is to take such measures as to prevent the discussion we have already had of these new proposals from being wholly wasted and dropped at the end of the Session. I beg to move—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Resolutions dealing with the Power of the Speaker to Adjourn the House or Suspend Sitting, Priority of Business, Business in Supply, Private Business, and Quorum of the House, be Standing Orders of the House, and that Standing Orders 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 be repealed."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)thought that the treatment extended to the House by the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat cavalier. It was true that some of the Resoultions had been disscussed under the pressure of the Closure, but it was not true to say that there had been any discussion of the important points as to whether the experience by the House of the Sessional Orders warranted it at this moment in taking this step. He therefore regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to move this Motion formally without giving any reasons for the course he asked the House to take. The Resolution was entirely different from that which had stood on the paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman for some time. It proposed to make five Sessional Orders into Standing Orders, and to repeal Standing Orders 10 and 1l—action which was,

  857
  no doubt, consequentially necessary on the conversion of the Sessional Orders into Standing Orders. But it also imported entirely new and original matter. It proposed to repeal Standing Orders 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, which had nothing whatever to do with the Sessional Orders under consideration. He did not know on what principle the right hon. Gentleman could put all these things into one and the same Resolution, but they being there he would have liked to have had some explanation. That, however, was not forth-coming, and he must deal with the Resolution as it stood.
  First, he would remark that the Standing Orders which it was proposed to repeal raised some serious questions. They dealt with the morning sittings, with the priority of the Orders of the day, and with Supply on Friday, two of them raising the whole question as between Wednesday and Friday, and the others the dinner-hour interval. But he did not propose to deal with those at all. His proposition was two-fold. First, he held that at this peroid of the Session, and in the present exceptional circumstances, the House ought not to be asked to take the very serious decision which was involved in making these provisions Standing Orders; next, that the House had nothing like the adequate experience of the Sessional Orders to warrant it taking this serious step. The sittings in which they were now engaged were entirely exceptional—they were undertaken for the purpose of considering the Education Bill; they were held after the Appropriation Act had been passed, and they should have been confined to the consideration of the Education Bill. But that had not been so. There had been the consideration of the Brussels Convention; new Supply had been set up, and another Appropriation Act had been passed. Thses matters had taken up much of the time of the House. The present sittings of the House had, moreover, undoubtedly caused a great stress to be put on Members, and at the end of the sittings on the Education Bill there was still a great deal of work to do. The Education Bill had still to be read a third time, and it was possible when it came back from the other House they would have a great deal more work to do. There was, too, the London Water Bill to be passed, and in consequence of the stress put
  858
  upon them, especially by the Education Bill Members had not had time to prepare themselves for the debates on the proposal now before them. He thought that the Government were making a very unwise proposal. They had had practically no experience of the Sessional Orders now proposed to be made Standing Orders.
  The least contentious of them was that which gave the Speaker the power to adjourn the House at his discretion. That was passed on the 17th February; others were passed on 11th and 28th April, and two not later than the 1st May, so that of these latter ones they had only had sixty-five days ordinary session experience. These Sessional Orders were more or less revolutionary, and the experience of them had been so short that it was not sufficient to warrant the House in making them binding on its proceedings for ever. The Order which gave the Speaker power to adjourn the House without Question put, in case of grave disorder, or to suspend the sitting was a most portentous provision. It contemplated a state of things in which had never yet occurred, and a kind of Speaker who had never sat in that Chair. It contemplated a state of things in which Members were in a state of riot and violence, and the Speaker so distracted that he could think of nothing but flight. What a picture! He did not believe that any necessity of that kind would ever arise in the House. It never had arisen. He did not believe that in the lifetime of any of them they would ever see both the Speaker and House lose their heads together. Yet the Government manifestly contemplated such scenes of violence, and he was inclined to think that the sort of attitude they were adopting, and the sort of system they were inaugurating, were such as might conceivably lead to the scenes they were providing for by the Sessional Order. The Kind of autocracy that was beginning to be shown, the militarism, the processionalism, the medallism, and the whole mach nery by which it seemed to be sought to substitute an autotcracy for free Government were in such full swing that he knew not what might befal them, and what might be the effect on the people and, through them, on the House. It might be that the

  859
  Government was providing for the danger which it contemplated as likely to arise in the immediate future. He could only remind the House that on the last occasion on which a Speaker tried to adjourn the House without Question put he was held down in the chair by two Members, and scenes of the greatest possible violence ensued. Instead, therefore, of being calculated to assuage violence, this Order might add to the difficulties of legislation and violence of the scenes. He need not deal further with that, however, as he did not think the Order would ever be brought into action, unless, indeed, the Government contemplated a course which he should be sorry to see them adopt. This was however, the Standing Order to which he had the least objection.
  The next Order as to priority of business was an important one, because it divided the time between the Government and the private Members. During many centuries the rule of the House had been that the principal persons to be considered were not the placemen who sat on the Front Bench, but the free representatives of the country, who sat on the other Benches, and the House gave effect to this view of the relative importance of the two sets by allocating three-fifths of the time to private Members and two-fifths to the placemen who formed the Government. Under this Sessional Order this had been very much changed. There were now nine sittings a week, and the House sat forty hours weekly. Before Easter the private Member was to have eleven and a half out of the forty hours, after Easter eight and a half, after Whitsuntide nothing, and after Michaelmas eight and a half again. That was laid down by the Order. Thus before Easter the private Member was to get from one- third to one-fourth, before Whitsuntide something between one-fourth and one-fifth, and after Whitsuntide nothing. But the Government this year had arranged matters very differently. The Government began taking priority for its Procedure Rules on the 30th January on every day except Wednesday, and no sooner had the House met on the 16th October than it took the whole time for Government business. As a matter of fact, what had the private
  860
  Member had this year? The House met on 16th January; it had sat 166 days, but 28 of those had consisted of two sittings. Adding the 28 to the 166, the House had had 194 sittings. Now, if private Members had had what was given to them by the Sessional Order, they would have had 40 sittings out of 194. As a matter of fact, they had only had 18, or about one-tenth of the whole. On the introduction of the Rule the First Lord of the Treasury admitted that he was going to deprive the private Member to a large extent of most of his privileges, but said the consolation would be that what was left to the private Member would really be left to him as it never had been before. But it was not so. The one consolation left to him had been withdrawn.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Can you give me any evidence of that?
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman does not pay that attention which he would if my speeches did not bore him so much. As I have said, there have been 194 sittings, and under this Sessional Order the private member would have been entitled to 40.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: When did it come into force?
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It was agreed to on the 11th of April.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The 5th of May.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was showing what the effect on the whole session had been of the action of the Government in conjunction with the Standing Order, but since 5th May, when this particular Sessional Order came into force—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Is there a single evening sitting subsequent to this Order coming into force which the private Members had and of which they have been deprived?
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Certainly.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: How many?
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: They have only had Wednesday, the 7th, and Friday, 9th May, Wednesday, 14th May, and Fridays, the 6th and the 13th June, and Friday, the 25th July, when the financial relations with Ireland were considered. After Whitsuntide the private Member had had three evenings, and three alone, since this Sessional Order came into force, and has been deprived of all others. After Michaelmas he has had none. Now he hoped the right hon. Gentleman was answered.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Indeed I am not.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: If I do not understand the Sessional Order, how are other Members of the House to understand it? He repeated that since the Order came into force private Members had not had the share of time which it gave them, while since October 16th private Members had not had a single evening, although under it they were supposed to have all the Tuesday and Wednesday evening sittings and all Fridays. Therefore, it was perfectly ludicrous to ask the House to pretend to believe that nothing had been taken from them. Everything had been taken from them, except the sittings he had just cited. The Sesional Order which they were told had been arranged so as to make more certain the few remaining privileges the Government had been pleased to leave them, had in operation given them not more, but far less, certainty. The Sessional Order relating to Private Bill legislation was also of very great importance, having regard to the tremendous interests which were involved. The Secretary of State for the Colonies said the subject was surrounded with so much difficulty that it would have to be considered by a Committee, and as a matter of fact the Prime Minister himself, on May 28th, came to the conclusion that it was best to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the whole subject. That Committee had not yet reported.
  SIR CHARLES RENSHAW (): It has reported.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Where is the Report?
  SIR CHARLES RENSHAW: On the Table.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWELSasked what was the good of telling them it had been laid on the Table, when not a single Member of the House, except those who signed it, knew its contents. For all effectual purposes the Committee had not yet reported. The House was absolutely ignorant of the nature of the Report, and it might indeed be such as to render it absolutely necessary for them to reconsider this Sessional Order. They could not read into the mind of the hon. Member what his Report was. It was a mockery to come to the House and ask them to adopt this as a Standing Order, and fasten upon the House for all time an Order of so doubtful a character, and so questionable in its effect. It was indecent of the Government not to await the Report of their own Committee before asking them to make that most important Sessional Order, dealing with most tremendous interests, into a Standing Order.
  Then he came to the Sessional Order relating to a quorum of the House and its adjournment. To him this was one of the most obnoxious of them all. In all the ninety-eight existing Standing Orders of the House there was no mention whatever of a quorum. A quorum of forty for the House had never been so much as suggested until now. The true quorum was not the forty which was first initiated by the Long Parliament, and which was now considered an adequate representation of this great Assembly. It was a quorum, to use old phrase, of "all or most" of the House, or of one-half the House, plus one, which all the civilised nations had taken from us, and which had been adopted by the United States, France, Belgium, Italy, and Spain. Hatsell told us that in 1607 on the 20th April "no Bill was read this day, and the House arose at ten o'clock, being not above three score." That House consisted of 470 Members, so that one-eighth was not considered enough to read a Bill in those days, whereas one-sixteenth was considered sufficient now. The evil precedent set by the Long Parliament was one of which the House was so ashamed that it had never put it into its Standing Orders. But this Sessional Order

  863
  in reality abolished the quorum altogether from nine to ten o'clock. Without this Order, if the House were counted and there were not forty Members present, it would at once be adjourned, and the Bill under discussion would become a dropped Order. But, according to this Order, they might count as much as they liked, but the House did not adjourn. They went on, quorum or no quorum. It was a quorum which was no quorum, and a House which was no House. There was a division; the figures showed that there were not forty Members present; and then, forsooth! they who were not good enough for the immediate business were to be good enough for the next. If on the next Bill another division took place and still forty Members were not present, the House at once proceeded to the third Bill. Was there anything out of comic opera equal to that? His right hon. friend, in introducing this extraordinary proposal, gave this reason—
  "It will be remembered that the controversial Private Bill procedure comes on at nine o'clock. It will be hard on promoters if it is in the power of any hon. Member to call attention to the fact that forty Members are not present; and the plan we have suggested is that no 'count' shall be allowed before ten o'clock."
  According to the right hon. Gentleman the reason for this Sessional Order was that it was to preserve the rights of those interested in Private Bill business. The suggestion was that if a Private Bill involving great interests to the public and the promoters came on at nine o'clock, and someone suddenly counted out the House, the Bill would disappear, and that it could be heard of no more. That was not so. The Private Bill would become a dropped Order, but it could be set up again next day. The promoters had only to go to the Private Bill Office to have that done. He did not know but that the Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means could do it. The Bill would be no worse off with out this Order than with it. Therefore the only reason, or rather pretence of a reason, assigned by the right hon. Gentleman entirely disappeared, and the Sessional Order stood in all its naked absurdity and repulsive nonsense. That clearly was not the real reason. What was the real reason? The real reason manifestly was that when they had made a dinner interval and turned Members out of the House at half-past seven, they could not expect them to come
  864
  back before ten o'clock—or that if this was expected they would not come. Of course the making of such a Sessional Order as this was an encouragement not to come back before ten o'clock. An hon. Member would say, "They can't ruin the Empire until ten o'clock, and therefore at ten o'clock I shall go back, but not before." It had so acted. This Government, which had a majority of 130—or, rather he understood that on account of recent events it was now 128—had had its majority reduced to 17 when a division was taken soon after nine o'clock.
  Let the Government consider the whole effect of their Sessional Orders. Were they adopted merely for the humour of the moment and the occasional convenience of the present Government, or were they considered with respect to the probable general future of the House? Surely they must know that under an Order such as this no Government would ever be safe between nine and ten that had a majority of under 100. For that reason he should have expected that the Whips of the Government would have thought that this Order should receive reconsideration from the point of view of the Government themselves. Surely it was not one which should be passed in a hurry, and with so small an experience of it as that which they had had.
  The whole of the Standing Orders, Sessional Orders and Rules embodied in the Book laid on the Table of the House were contradictory, inconsistent and confused. They were altered from time to time with nobody knowing of the alteration. They were really in a state of absolute chaos. It was necessary for the credit of the House, and for the information of Members who desired to know under what sort of law they were living, that the whole of the Orders and Rules should be reconsidered, that they should be co-ordinated so as to be made consistent with one another, and that they should be put in such a form that they could be understood by the newest of new Members. That could only be done with a little leisure. He would suggest—if indeed it were of any use to suggest anything—that they should pass the repeal of Standing Orders 4 to 8, which were consequential to the Standing Orders already adopted, and that, as to the rest of the

  865
  Sessional Orders these should be re-introduced next session. They had never yet had a whole session's experience of these Orders. They ought to have a session's experience as to how they did work, and then at the end of the session they could be proposed as Standing Orders. That, it appeared to him, would have been a reasonable course to take.
  In regard to the Supply Rule, the hon. Member said it was a remarkable instance of the careless and inconsiderate way in which the Rules altogether were drawn, and of the contradiction and chaos he had mentioned. It said—
  "On a day so allotted [of Supply] no other business than the Business of Supply shall be taken."
  On the other hand the Order relating to "Private Business" said—
  "All private business which is set down for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, and is not disposed of by fifteen minutes after Two of the clock shall, without Question put, be postponed until such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine."
  The two rules were inconsistent. If the Chairman of Waysand Means determined that private business should stand over to the evening sitting on an allotted Supply might it was inconsistent with the Supply Rule, which said that on a day allotted for Supply "no business other than the business of Supply shall be taken before midnight." Yet it had happened twice or three times that private business had been taken on the evening of a day allotted for Supply, and that had been done in direct contradiction, of this Sessional Order. He did not think his right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury could have contemplated this because he made a great point of the fact that nothing but Supply should be taken on a Supply day, and that Supply should be all over by twelve o'clock. He thought he had shown that the intention of the Standing Order had been defeated—he did not say improperly—and that business other than that of Supply had been taken on an allotted day. Moreover, there was another point in the Supply Order to which he desired to direct attention. It said—
  "Any additional Estimate for any new matter not included in the original Estimates for the year shall be submitted for consideration in the Committee of Supply on some day not later than two days before the Committee is closed."
  866
  Well, in Committee of Supply during these very sittings they had had additional matter which was not included in the original Estimates, nor submitted two days before, but more then two months after the Committee had been closed. He was not saying that it was out of order. Heaven forbid that he should suggest a construction of the Rule which would be difficult for His Majesty's Government, but he did say that what had been done was absolutely contrary to the direct meaning of the Rule as he understood it. Surely if ever a Rule required a little reconsideration it was this. Then the seventh paragraph of this Sessional Order which provided for the guillotine, not merely of Votes but of whole classes of Votes at once, was entirely new and wholly revolutionary, because it denied the House of Commons the power of saying "Aye" on one Vote , and "No" on another. It had never been suggested or proposed before. That also was a matter for reconsideration.
  As the House would have seen he had avoided raising any questions of formality. The matters he had dealt with were matters of substance. They affected the credit of the House, and the character of its work. The forms and traditions of this House, and above all then these secured adequate debate, and even lengthy discussion, were the very guarantee of the character of the work the House did. It was because it was felt that, at any rate, matters had been thoroughly thrashed out, and well debated, that it had had its distinguishing character of finality. No doubt it was tempting for a Minister to say: "I want to pass the Bill rapidly, and therefore, I will closure, closure, closure the Clauses—the whole of them from beginning to end." But if they adopted that system the result would be that the same confidence would not be felt in the finality of their legislation, and a Bill thus easily passed in one year would be as easily repealed in the next. He was not content to see this House become the slave of any Government, not even of the present Government. He was not content to see it become the pliant and powerless instrument either of the dangerous dreams of anarchist adventurers, or of the sickly rapacity of decadent reactionaries. The central principle of our Constitution was that the proposals of

  867
  Ministers should be subjected to the free voice and criticism of the people. It was in this House alone that voice and that criticism could be heard. This House was the central citadel of the Constitution, and if they allowed their outworks to be undermined, then the citadel which had withstood the assaults of a race of giants might be demolished by the feeble efforts of a race of pigmies, and they themselves be stoned with the ruins of their own defences.
  (3.15.) MR. LOUGH ()said that he should have expected that before the House was asked to adopt such a sweeping suggestion the right hon. Gentleman would have given some argument in its favour. The few words which the right hon. Gentleman let fall were of a most disheartening character to hon. Members who had been working for 195 sittings. The right hon. Gentleman said that if his Resolutions were not passed all their labours would be wholly wasted. He really thought that that was a preposterous statement. Why did the right hon. Gentleman make the new Rules Sessional Orders if he did not intend to give the House an opportunity of trying them?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that there was no other way of proceeding under their system.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that the proposal to make the Rules Standing Orders might be made at any time; and he would urge that it would be a most drastic proceeding to make them Standing Orders without having given the House and opportunity of testing them. The Supply Rule was invented by the right hon. Gentleman about seven years ago, and he thought it was a most disastrous invention; but for four years, in order to give it a full trial, it remained a Sessional Order. Surely, if the right hon. Gentleman thought it right to allow that interval in the case of the Supply Rule, the House should be given an opportunity of testing the Rules now before the House, before they were made Standing Orders. The right hon. Gentleman asked the House, without any explanation, to do away with six Standing
  868
  Orders, two of which had been in existence for forty years, and the others from ten to fourteen years. He thought that was a case of throwing away the dirty water before getting in the clean. At least they might keep the old Orders until they were quite sure that they had got something better in their place. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken made a most excellent suggestion—viz., that the matter should be referred to a Committee. He would ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider that suggestion, which was a most moderate one, and which would not give the right hon. Gentleman a fall. He had no doubt that the House would receive from such a deliberative body Resolutions which would be far better than those now proposed. The point he wished to take was that in the present state of the House and at the present time of the session, it was monstrous that they should be asked to establish new Standing Orders. The House today was one of the thinnest they had had during the session; one important section, namely, the Irish Members, who were deeply interested in all the Standing Orders, was absent. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] It did not matter why. Why were not the supporters of the Government present? It was because they were worn out and exhausted by their prolonged labours. Very few possessed the iron constitutions that would enable them to attend nearly 200 sittings in one year. Although one important section of the House was absent, it was proposed to make these crude and far-reaching experiments Standing Orders. It seemed to him that that would be an improper thing to do, and that more time should be allowed for the new Rules to be tried. The Prime Minister interrupted the hon. Gentleman opposite when he said that there had been no opportunity for examining the new Rules. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were adopted in May; but the session was an extraordinary session, and nothing had been normal in it. Therefore, the trial given to the new Rules was practically worthless. What really ought to be done was to postpone the consideration of the matter until March, 1904; and if the new Rules worked well during the next session,

  869
  the Prime Minister would have a case for making them Standing Orders. The session was interrupted by the Coronation, by the business the Government proposed, and by the pressure they applied. Moreover, one of the Rules—that relating to private business—was adopted when the pressure of private business was over, and the House had had no experience of how it would work. Then, in reference to the Supply Rule, on every occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman brought it forward, he had opposed it, as he believed that its adoption destroyed the efficiency of the control of the House over Supply. He had no objection to the Closure, controlled by the Minister responsible or by the Chair. He believed that the Closure was absolutely necessary for the successful conduct of debate; but the setting up of the guillotine was an entirely different thing. He believed that no business transacted in the House under the shadow of the guillotine was well transacted. For the past fortnight the House had been working under the guillotine; and would any hon. Memberargue that good work had been done during that period? It was said in reference to the Supply Rule, that after all the House had twenty-one days, even with the guillotine at the end, and that no harm resulted. He held an entirely different opinion. Since the Rule came into operation the debates in Supply had been perfectly worthless. Ministers did not trouble to make replies to the points which were raised, as they knew that the guillotine remained. It would not be in order for him to refer to the inordinate growth in the national expenditure, but he believed it was closely connected with the working of the Supply Rule. He would ask the Prime Minister whether the House should not be afforded a further opportunity of testing the Rule before such a drastic change was made a Standing Order. He imagined that it was because the right hon. Gentleman was not quite clear as to the business to be brought on that he submitted his Motion; and he would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would not consent to the appointment of a Committee to consider the whole subject.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out all the words after the word 'that.' to the end of the Question, and add the
  870
  words, 'it is inexpedient at this period of the session, and without further experience of the Resolutions agreed to as Sessional Orders on 17th February, 11th April, 28th April, and 1st May, to consider a proposal that such Resolutions be Standing Orders of the House."'—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'that the Resolutions dealing with' stand part of the Question."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had been reproached by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment for not having introduced his Motion with an elaborate statement of the reasons which had induced him to make it. The reason he did not adopt the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman was that he had made a very large number of speeches of the Sessional Rules before. They had been fully discussed by the House, and he was not aware of any argument which he desired to urge which he had not had an opportunity of urging. He had not the same affection for his own speeches which the hon. Gentleman had for his; therefore, he did not see why he should weary either the House or himself by repeating a twice-told tale; and he thought it more respectful to his hon. friend and to the House to wait until he had heard the character of the attack about to be developed against the procedure the House was asked to adopt. Candidly he confessed he had heard no argument which the House had not previously heard fully developed during the many days the Sessional Rules were discussed; and, consequently, it was hardly possible for him to impart any novelty into the debate that afternoon. He wished to correct before he went further, one extraordinary Mistake into which the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken seemed to have fallen. The hon. Gentleman regarded—he was about to say he affected to tegard—the procedure of turning Sessional into Standing Orders as an exception to the general practice of the House. The hon. Gentleman said: "We have had six months experience; cannot you give us a little more time?" The constant practice of the House where they had passed an Order which they desired to be a Standing Order, had

  871
  been to make it a Sessional Order, and then pass the consequent Resolution turning it into a Standing Order.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that was not the case with Supply Rule.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked if, because in that particular case he adopted that plan, the whole of the preceding practice of the House was to be thrown on one side, and an entirely novel procedure adopted. The great revolution of the Closure which Mr. Gladstone introduced into their procedure in 1883, was passed on November 24th, in an Autumn session, and Mr. Gladstone moved that it be made into a Standing Order three days later, on the 27th. A series of new Rules, passed by Mr. W. H. Smith, were finished on March 7th, and they were finished on March 7th and they were made Standing Orders on the same day without division. That was the practice of the House, and he could not understand how, on the ground of precedent, any objection could be taken to the course the Government now proposed. Coming to the criticisms of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, his bitter complaint of broken pledges on the part of the Government with regard to rights of private Members—
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had not intended to suggest that the pledge had been broken. He had intended to show, and thought he had shown, that the Rules had not worked out according to the expectations of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURaccepted the hon. Gentleman's statement, and said his suggestion as to the operation of the Rules on the rights of private Members was wholly mistaken. The Rules, as regarded the rights of private Members, had had little time to work, because of the late date at which they had come into operation. The Rule was intended to secure for private Members two nights a week before Easter, one night between Easter and Whitsuntide, all Fridays to Whitsuntide, and two Fridays after that date. That was the plan of the Rule. As it only came into operation on May 5th, it was obvious that even if the Government had wished to rob private
  872
  Members they could not do so. So far as the Rule had been tried, it had worked out as intended; and private Members had had their right preserved, as he hoped they would have in the future. Nothing that had yet occurred had shaken his conviction that the Government had, in this Rule, as regards private Members rights replaced illusory privileges by rights which were smaller nominally in extent, but were much more likely to be preserved. As to the suggestion that private Members' rights should revive after Michaelmas, such a plan never occurred to anybody out of an asylum. The necessity of an Autumn session was a cruel and hard one; it was a necessity which no Government would be coerced into except by special circumstances, and when a Government did ask the House to come together in the Autumn it was not for the purpose of hearing abstract Resolutions discussed by private Members two nights in a week, but for the purpose of absolutely necessary Government business. He thought it plausible that the Government should be required to say what they were going to do, and to give some general idea as to the general necessity on which they justified imposing additional labour upon the House after Michaelmas, and therefore the word had been introduced when it was proposed as an Amendment; but he absolutely denied that it was ever contemplated that the plan in operation before Easter should revive in an Autumn session, so as to have two nights then for abstract discussions and Fridays for private Members' Bills. Then the hon. Member for King's Lynn objected to the Rule dealing with Private Bill legislation, and said how shocking it was to be asked to make this Rule permanent before the Committee appointed to consider Private Bill legislation had reported. But he did not remind the House that the Rule was deliberately excluded from the consideration of the Committee.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the Prime Minister was overlooking an Amendment to the Resolution appointing the Committee—an Amendment the right hon. Gentleman had himself accepted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURmaintained that even in the amended form no difference

  873
  was made to his contention. The Committee were to consider the method of dealing with Private Bill Legislation subject to this change. The next Rule to which his hon. friend objected was the Rule dealing with a quorum, and there he was on ground where he always enjoyed himself. He was discussing the long Parliament, and what he regarded as the true constitutional doctrine by which this House ought to regulate its behaviour; and one of his objections, he understood, was that the Rule embodied in a concrete form the old practice of the Houses that forty was a quorum, so that if there were not forty present the Houses could not vote. Surely a precedent that went back 262 years to the Long Parliament ought to satisfy his hon. friend and other opponents on the ground of ancient usage. His hon. friend insisted on having an absolute majority. That would be a change indeed, and if seriously desired would amply justify the wish of any hon. Member that not too much business should be accomplished. In arguing that the Rule did not encourage attendance before ten, the hon. Member made a great point of one division in which the Government was only in a majority of seventeen. The average of Members voting in divisions, taken in the three-quarters of an hour after nine o'clock during the Autumn session, was 200, therefore there was experimental proof that the Rule did not empty the House between nine and ten o'clock and there was no reason why an excellent Rule should not become part of the machinery of debate. No doubt it was perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that the practice of amending Rules bit by bit as necessity arose led to a collection of dicta extremely difficult to comprehend, and, with advantage, the Rules might be redrafted, and the task of redrafting them might with advantage be left to a Committee. But he went much further than his hon. friend proposed to go, because one of the new Rules which he had proposed, when passed, would greatly consolidate the power of the House. He thought the redrafting of the Rules might very well be referred to a Committee, on much the same conditions as he had proposed in the new Rule for
  874
  Consolidation Bills. It was no use sending the Rules to a Committee if they were to be considered Clause by Clause as they came back to the House. The various Rules must be run into a coherent mould and the House must deliberately abstain from redrafting the details or discussing the principles of its own Standing Orders. He understood his hon. friend to object to that. All he could say was that as long as he objected he would never see the end attained that he desired. No Government were going to occupy the whole session, not in altering the substance or improving the details of the Rules, but merely in redrafting them. If they were going to send ,the Rules to a Committee, and then, when the Rules came back, have the right to discuss the principle and language of every Rule they would have to spend not merely an ordinary session, but also an Autumn session over the business.
  MR. BRYCE ()asked whether, if it was found necessary to make some minute change which did not affect the general consolidation, the right hon. Gentleman would allow the Committee to report that matter separately, so that it could be discussed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman had probably missed what he said, Viz., that the kind of machinery that he had proposed for Consolidation Bills might with advantage be used for redrafting the Rules of the House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN ()asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would explain than machinery.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought Mr. Speaker might have something to say to that.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must say that this is opening up an entirely new question, and it would offer a wide field of argument, which is not covered by the present Motion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had been betrayed into mentioning the point, with out in the least intending to develop it, by some observations of his hon. friend. He gladly dropped the subject, and was

  875
  sorry he had gone so far. In conclusion, he would make one practical observation. The House could not avoid passing these Rules without plunging its whole system of Standing Orders for the next session into hopeless confusion, and the session would have to be spent in trying to clean up the mess. That was neither business nor commonsense. His hon. friend was anxious for the right of private Members. But if these Rules were dropped, the House would have to meet early next year and spend next session as it had spent this, during which time private Members would have no rights whatever except on Wednesdays. He really did not think the matter required argument. The House had spent a very large amount of important Parliamentary time in discussing and rediscussing with, as he thought, unnecessary minuteness, these provisions. He asked the House not to let all that trouble be absolutely wasted, but to embody the changes in the constitution of the House. In his opinion the changes had worked extremely well. Heavy as had been the labour thrown on the House, it would have been much heavier without these Rules. He would not say a word as to the general merits of the whole scheme of the Government, but he did say that not to pass these five new Standing Orders would be to throw upon Parliament next session an absolutely unnecessary burden of new work, or rather, of old work revived and to be re-done—a proceeding which would be utterly unworthy of the traditions of a business-like Assembly.
  (3.50.) MR. VICARY GIBBS ()contended that the complaint that the House had not had sufficient experience of the working of the new Rules was a legitimate criticism now to make. The order with regard to opposed private business admittedly dealt with a most important matter. If the Committee, about the reference to which the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for King's Lynn had a slight controversy, was to consider the condition of private business, subject to this change, it could not very well help considering the change itself. It could not report that the change was a bad one, but it could find that private business worked extremely badly subject to the
  876
  change, which came to much the same thing. During the autumn sittings, with the exception of the question of the "Tubes," the House had had no opposed private business of importance to deal with. That was partly due to the fact that the time fixed for private business was an inconvenient one to Parliamentary agents and others. He agrees that the House ought not to be controlled by those agents, but it would be a serious matter if private business were driven upstairs outside the purview of the House and conducted entirely in Committee, without the House having the opportunity of reviewing questions which, though private in form were public in character. Railway and Country Council Bills dealt with questions of great public importance, which ought to be carefully considered by the House itself, but he believed that this new Rule would end to discourage that sort of business from coming before the House at all. At any rate, sufficient time had not yet elapsed to show whether or not that would be its effect. He based his claim not on precedent, but on commonsense. Then as to the quorum. he thought the Rule regarding that matter ought not yet to be made a Standing Order. The quorum was an extremely low one. He did not advocate the foreign quorums, but other Assemblies certainly had in their high quorums a check against rash and reckless legislation, which the House of Commons did not possess. The whole of this quorum question really turned on the dinner-hour interval, and that had not yet been properly tested.
  *MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that the question of the dinner hour interval did not arise on the Resolution before the House.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES ()asked whether, inasmuch as the Motion proposed to repeal Standing Orders 4 to 8, the hon. Member would not be in order in arguing in favour of those Standing Orders as against the new Proposals.
  *MR. SPEAKER: No. The Motion proposes to repeal certain Standing.

  877
  Orders on the ground that they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders which the House has voted. It is the same as with the repeal schedules in a Bill, upon which you may discuss whether or not the enactments proposed to be repealed are really inconsistent with the new Bill, but you cannot again discuss the merits of the Bill itself.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid he had no intention of developing the point; he desired to confine himself to saying that the quorum rule was framed in order to give Members a dinner interval, and the two questions really stood or fell together as far as the work of the House was concerned. He looked upon this Rule as the least considered, worst drafted, and most undesirable of all, and therefore strongly hoped the Prime Minister would see his way to except it from the Motion. Where there was not a sufficient quorum present, then there could be no discussion. because the numbers present were insufficient and did not fairly represent the House. What were they going to do with these Rules? They might commence with a Bill like the Wild Birds Preservation Bill, discuss it for twenty minutes, and then have a division. Then they might turn to another Bill, discuss it for twenty minutes, and again find that they had not enough Members present to deal with it. Then they might fly to the Home Rule Bill and discuss it at their leisure. This was no distortion or twisting of the words of this Standing Order. Then there was the Business in Supply Rule, which he protested against when it was introduced. He regretted that at the end of one of the most punishing sessions which they had ever gone through a proposal of this kind should be introduced.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid his right hon. friend had given them his reasons for choosing this day—which he admitted was probably the only available day this session—for inviting the House to turn these Sessional Orders into Standing Orders. Some hon. Members might have it in their recollection that when the First Lord of the Treasury brought foward his scheme for the
  878
  revision of the Rules he moved an Amendment that the whole matter should be referred to a Select Committee. They would then have had an opportunity of discussing all these points which in themselves might apparently be trivial, yet when considered in the mass were quite necessary for the good working of the business of the House of Commons and the maintenance of the rights of hon. Members of the House. At that time he contended that before the House proceeded to alter the Rules it should have the advantage of the experience of some of the most important Members of the House. His Amendment was attacked and derided as being entirely out of the question, but he thought events had shown that not much time would have been lost, and a good deal of heat and misunderstanding would have been saved if that particular course had been followed. They had already spent a great many days over these Rules, and he sympathised and also associated himself with the right hon. Gentleman in the wish that the House should not be called upon again unnecessarily to go over exactly the same ground in regard to these particular Rules as they went over before, but he did not imagine that that would be likely to occur in any case. He would quote as a reason this long and complicated Sessional Order with regard to Supply, which was very much opposed by some hon. Members, and, no doubt, approved of by others. It had been renewed session after session to the best of his recollection, and no very long time had been required by the House in discussing it. Speeches were made and perhaps a division might have been taken, but no great amount of time had been wasted in the renewal of this Standing Order. How did they stand? These Rules, the merits of which he was not now going to discuss, were really vital in their effect upon the rights of private Members, and in regard to the rights of hon. Members at large. He should have thought that it would at least have been of great advantage and assistance to the House if they could have had a much longer experience of the working of these Rules than they had had. This had been altogether an exceptional session. These Rules were not passed until that portion of the session, which was particularly the private Members' part,

  879
  had gone, and now they were asked to bind themselves by these Rules for all time. He should have thought that there were two alternatives, one of which might have been adopted—one was that they should trust the House to renew these Rules at the beginning of the next session; and the other alternative was to give the House an easy opportunity of reviewing the step it was now asked to take. Would it not be possible to pass these Rules for a period of one or two years for the express purpose of giving the House an opportunity of judging as to their effect. As regarded the disposition of the time of private Members, they had practically had no experience at all of the Rule. The apportionment of the time for the real discussion of private Bills was now, in certain cases, left to the Chairman of Committees. They did not know yet how that arrangement would work, for the Rule had very seldom come into operation. If he might say so, with all due respect to the Chairman, he thought it was rather a risky Rule. The additional fact had been disclosed in the course of this short debate that there was a Committee sitting not upon this Rule itself, because it was unnecessary to make the Rule the basis of the inquiry, but that Committee might throw a great deal of light upon the question which might induce the House to alter or modify the Rule itself. They had not received the report of the Committee yet, and it was no answer to say that the Committee was appointed to consider the question subject to the provisions of that Rule, because the result of their inquiry must serve to guide the House with regard to the propriety of the Rule. As for the quorum, no one could say that the hour between nine and ten o'clock was a satisfactory element in their day's work just now. He had seen Members talking with great prolixity during that time with some object which was left for them to discover. He had seen even the Chancellor of the Exchequer engaged in this operation of making a very much more lengthy speech than was usually expected from him, with a strange habit of always casting his eye up to the clock. The picture which had been drawn by some hon. Members of the series of divisions which might be taken, and the rapid passing in consequence of the smallness of the numbers to some fresh subject, did not redound either to the credit or to the practical efficiency of
  880
  the House. He was not going to enter into the question of the dinner hour, but undoubtedly the main object of this new arrangement as to a quorum was to provide sufficient elbow room and elasticity for those who dined. It was one of his great objections to many of these Rules that they regarded the convenience and comfort of Members rather than the public services. This Rule might be one of those instances. He would now pass on to the Rule in regard to Supply. He admitted that in regard of this Rule they had had a good deal of experience, but yet, for his own part, he shrank from making it a permanent Order. His great objection to the Rule as it stood was not so much the guillotine, or its ludicrous closing of Supply, but it was the effect of the Rule upon the whole proceedings of Supply. From the beginning to the end of the session, the Government of the day—he did not say the present Government in particular but any Government—did not care two straws what the time of the House was occupied upon, for each Minister knew that when his vote was put down he had only to sit on the Bench opposite, look wise, and stand the racket as well, because he knew the thing would come to an end at some fixed time or other. Whether the discussion was upon one point in his administration or another, if the day was given to the discussion, whether it was the Board of Trade or the Home Office Vote, at the end of the discussion the Minister could shut up his box with satisfaction and go away, knowing that for the next twelve months he had a clean sheet. He did not think that such a Rule conduced to the efficient working of the Committee of Supply. The Government was considered to be entitled to say "Here are your 23 or 25 days for Supply and do what you like with them. What does it matter to us? Some hon. Members wish to talk about one thing and some about another—settle it amongst yourselves. What does it matter to the Government? We are here to answer your questions and to make speeches in reply. That is our function and you may do what you like." But that was not the proper way to conduct the Supply business of the House of Commons, and it was fatal to any effective

  881
  criticism on the part of hon. Members of the House. That was the main objection he had to the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. Under the old practice, which he admitted was open to the objection that nobody ever knew what business was coming on, at all events the Government knew that if there was an awkward question in connection with a certain Department sooner or later they must face it. But under the new system they might never face it, because when the vote for that Department came on the time might be taken up—possibly by some of the supporters of the Government—discussing some other item, and the real thing of which they were afraid never came before the House. But the two days had been spent, and away went the Minister singing, not coram latrone, but singing because he was free from the ordeal which, under the order of procedure, he would have to pass through. That was a very serious objection to the whole system, and it was on that ground mainly that he was averse from making this a permanent Standing Order. He agreed with the criticisms of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, but the substantial point was that there had not been experience sufficient to justify the making of these Orders permanent. It was desirable that the House should have some further opportunity, either by a Committee, after further experience, or by renewing the Rules for one or two sessions experimentally, of knowing better what it was doing before they were permanently adopted.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER ()approved of the suggestion that a limited time should be assigned, say during next session, for the House to have an opportunity of testing the merits or demerits of these new proposals, instead of establishing them as Standing Orders now. There could be no doubt that the present position of the House with regard to these Rules was highly inconvenient and anomalous. Many hon. Members did not know what Rules were in force and what were not. If they were asked now to terminate the suspense and finally close the chapter, he could understand it, but they were told that some of the Rules dealing with most important parts of the subject were to stand over sine die, and not even an attempt made to discuss or
  882
  consider them during the present session of Parliament. It was desirable that the House should retain an open mind with regard to the Rules as a whole, before those now under consideration were established as Standing Orders. Some of the Rules were in what might be called a mutilated condition, being partly in operation and partly in suspense. There were several of the Rules which could only be said to be of a tentative character until they were completed by the entire passage of the whole scheme. It appeared to be much more reasonable that the House should have an opportunity of seeing how the Rules worked, and that it should not be called upon to convert into Standing Orders experimental suggestions which even the authors of them were doubtful how they would work. He trusted that the House would not be in a hurry in respect of this question.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he agreed with most of the criticisms made by the hon. Member for King's Lynn in the peech in which he moved the Amendment. The real question which the House had now to consider was whether these Sessional Orders ought or ought not to be made Standing Orders. He contended that the burden of proof of that proposition lay upon the Government, and he should like to know whether any member of the Government could quote any precedent for converting Sessional Orders of this character, passed under the circumstances in which these became Orders, into Standing Orders at the end of a session. The earliest of these orders came into operation on 11th April, and the latest on 1st May, and it appeared to him to be quite against the ordinary course of business in this House to attempt to convert the Sessional Orders, passed after the crucial stage of the session had passed, into Standing Orders, especially when they related to what might be called the fundamental Rules of Procedure of the House. He asked the House to consider the arguments which might well be urged against the present proposition were not sufficient either to induce the Government to withdraw the motion, or, at any rate, to limit the application of the Motion to one other session, and take the course of appointing a Committee to consider the whole matter. The first argument on which he based his support of the

  883
  Amendment was their want of experience of the new Orders. The first of these Sessional Orders gave Mr. Speaker power, if he thought necessary, to adjourn the House without Question put, or to suspend a sitting for a time to be named by him. He was not indisposed to enlarge the powers of Mr. Speaker in case of disturbance arising in the House, but he should like to remind hon. Members that there had been times in the history of the House when Mr. Speaker attempted to leave the Chair against its will, and in obedience to higher orders. He did not wish to go back to the times when the constitutional relations between the Crown and the Houses of Parliament were different from what they were now, but still he thought they ought to be very wary before they parted with their time-honoured privileges by giving, notwithstanding the confidence they might have in any occupant of the Chair, undue power to Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House. He pointed out that the power of adjourning an ordinary sitting was a very different power from that of adjourning the House. He did not believe this Sessional Order had had any adequate discussion. Certainly there had been no experience of its application, and in the interest of the privileges of this House he protested against so grave an alteration as would be involved in making this Order a Standing Order. He would not enlarge upon their want of experience. It was practically admitted by the Prime Minister that these five Orders, passed in what would be mid-session in an ordinary session, had not really been tested from day to day and from week to week. His second argument against making these Sessional Orders Standing Orders was that they would add gravely to the uncertainty of their Rules in regard to the conduct of Parliamentary business. If these were made Standing Orders in the present condition in which the Standing Orders were left as the result of the Resolutions passed in the earlier part of the session, it would be impossible for any Member to ascertain what was the law in regard to the conduct of Parliamentary business. Referring to the rule on "Priority of Business," he said that as it at present stood it might deprive private Members
  884
  of the time which, he understood form the declarations of the Prime Minister, it was intended they should have. The Rule said—
  "That unless the House otherwise direct—Government Business shall have precedence at every Sitting except the Evening Sittings on Tuesday and Wednesday, and the Sitting on Friday. At the Evening Sittings of Tuesday and Wednesday Notices of Motion and Public Bills, other than Government Bills, shall have precedence of Government Business."
  He understood from the declaration made by the Prime Minister that the evening Sittings on Tuesday and Wednesday were not to be interfered with in any way.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,)said this was an arrangement come to and embodied in the Rule.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid it was an arrangement forced upon the House. He submitted that these Sessional Orders should not at the present time be converted into Standing Orders. The difficulty of carrying on the business of the House could not be efficiently met by merely reducing the rights of private Members. More drastic measures were necessary. He was not referring to the desirability of devolving private business by some such system as that which applied to Scotland, or the devolving of other business on local bodies in a county or groups of counties; but he did not think the Government in the course they were taking were going the right way to meet what might be called the breakdown of Parliamentary business. In dealing with questions of Supply, why should not the principle of Grand Committees be applied? Why should not the Navy and Army Estimates be sent to a Grand Committee upstairs, and only the Report stage dealt with on the floor of the House? He could not properly go into these matters at present, but in view of all the circumstances he could not vote for making the Sessional Orders Standing Orders.
  (4.35.) MR. DISRAELI ()said he quite agreed with the Prime Minister that there was very little novelty about this discussion, so much time having been devoted to the

  885
  subject in the early part of the session. No wonder they were here on the 1st of December, looking to the amount of time that had been spent in the discussion of these Rules. There was work enough for a session if only the Rules and one small Bill had been taken. The Prime Minister told them that the House should not waste all the time it had spent by discussing the Rules again next Session. But it was not on the Rules they were discussing today that so much time had been spent. It was on the Rules which they could not discuss and which were not on the Paper that time was spent. He ventured to think the House would find out that there were Rules passed hurriedly which would have to be changed. There were gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who took part in passing the new Rules who were not quite so comfortable now when they came to the working of them. He did not wish to go through the objections he took on a former occasion to the Rules. He thought the House must logically turn these Rules into Standing Orders, although personally he should vote against them. The power given to Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House had rather a foreign flavour. In this House Mr. Speaker had the almost entire confidence of Members, whereas in certain foreign Assemblies the Chairman was the one party who was not considered at all. This Rules was also dangerous, because, as had been pointed our before, an arrangement could be made to create scenes of disorder with the view of avoiding a division which would not be satisfactory to those in possession of the House at the time. He thought the Rule as to "Priority of Business" was most satisfactory. The axis on which the whole of the Rule rotated was the word "Easter." Easter was a movable feast, and therefore it was not a proper time on which to base the working of the Rule from year to year. Some years it might be advantageous to private Members, and other years it would not be. When the question of the Rules relating to private business was under discussion, they were told that the whole matter would be referred to a Committee, and certainly it was understood that the House would have an opportunity of reviewing the Report of the Committee before any steps were taken to make
  886
  the Sessional Orders Standing Orders of the House. They had not a Report from that Committee, and yet they were ask to make these Rules Standing Orders. What they asked to do now might or might not be satisfactory, but at the present moment they had not got information on the subject. He objected very strongly to the collective closure of Supply. In his opinion it was not so much the old Rules that were at fault as the men who Used them. Let Ministers adapt themselves and the business of the House to the Rules, as many better men had done before them. He should vote against the Motion as a Conservative who wished to see the honour and dignity of the House maintained. This was not to be done by meddling and tinkering with the Rules.
  MR. HEMPHILL ()said that it was an important question which had been raised today, and as he was the only Member from Ireland on either side of the House who had taken part in the debate, he felt it was his bounden duty to enter his protest in behalf of that portion of the United Kingdom against these rules being made Standing Orders, and so stereotyped. The Motion had been sprung upon the House because in the exigencies of the Education Bill, which did not affect Ireland or Scotland, there happened to be a dies non, and it was convenient to the Government to bring forward this important question. He doubted very much whether there were now forty Members present, but he was not going to make a point of that. He would not discuss the different Rules in detail, but he was rather astonished at what appeared to him to be the only argument advanced by the First Lord of the Treasury in justification of his position, namely, that he ought to have moved to make these new Rules Standing Orders in April and May last when they became Sessional Orders. That was no answer to the very able arguments of the hon. Member for King's Lynn. He could understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument if the proposal to make the Rules Standing Orders had been made when the whole discussion was fresh in the minds of Members, but the arguments which were formerly stated had probably escaped their recollection. The very first of the Sessional Orders struck at the root

  887
  of the independence of the House of Commons. It was repugnant to one's preconceived notions of the independence of the House of Commons that the power of adjourning the House in the way proposed should be conferred on the Speaker, no matter how eminent he might be, and no matter how fully, as in the present case, he might enjoy the confidence of both sides of the House. That should not be made a Standing Order without the utmost deliberation. One of the Rules to which he wished particularly to call their attention was that about Supply. Ireland had just ground to complain of the way she had been treated by this country with regard to financial relations. A Committee of this House had found that Ireland had been overtaxed to the extent of between two and a half and three millions a year. Every new tax that was imposed created a new injustice. Having regard to the finding of that Committee, this new Order for closuring Supply would operate most unjustly to Ireland. This session only three days were allotted to the Irish Estimates. The result was that the guillotine fell upon a large number of Irish Votes without Ireland being able to raise her voice in protest against the injustices inflicted upon her. He objected to that Rule being made a Standing Order in the absence of every Irish Member but himself. If the Irish Members were present, they would oppose it. He strongly deprecated this attempt on the part of the Government to snatch the passage of those Standing Orders in an almost deserted House.
  COLONEL SANDYS ()said he considered the Government perfectly justified in bringing forward this proposal. With regard to the grievances of private Members, complaints were frequently made of the time of private Members being taken by the Government. But it seemed to him that the question of Government should be regarded as a whole, and he thought that the parochial questions which were brought forward by private Members would be more appropriately discussed in such a tribunal as the Grand Committee, leaving the time of the House entirely for the consideration of great Imperial matters. With regard to the first of the Rules proposed to be stereotyped as
  888
  Standing Orders the power of the Speaker to adjourn the House, on appropriate occasion—although it was adopted from the practice of foreign Parliaments, it was a very necessary power, and he heartily supported it as he should the whole of them with one exception. The one Rule to which he objected was the Supply Rule, and although he was going to support the Government on the whole measure, he hoped this point would receive their particular attention at some other time. Supply ought not to be allowed to drag on to the end of the session and then be voted en bloc. The constitutional function of the House was to provide Supplies for the carrying on of the business of the country. It was its duty to discuss every one of these Votes, to inquire how it was proposed to spend the money, and to reject it if necessary; but that duty it could not discharge if numbers of the Votes were carried en bloc at the end of the session. Apart from that, he thought the new Rules were wise and salutary.
  MR. BRYCEadmitted the difficulty of keeping the Rules as they now were, but he thought that it was far better to continue the temporary arrangement for some time longer that for the House to commit themselves irrevocably to the Rules. He therefore hoped that they would be carried over to next session, in order to give hon. Members an opportunity of reconsidering their merits. There was one group of Rules in which the House certainly required more experience—namely, those affecting the sittings of the House. He believed the Rule fixing the sitting of the House at 2 o'clock was disapproved of on both sides of the House. Many Members were debarred from attending before 4 o'clock, and it was impossible for a Minister to attend to his Departmental work properly when he had to be in the House at 2 o'clock. He protested against its being supposed that the House generally acquiesced in that arrangement, and he hoped the House would take the earliest opportunity of reconsidering it.
  MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire,)said this was a very unsatisfactory method of dealing with the Rules,

  889
  as was shown by the fact that for some hours less that thirty Members had been present, and four out of every five who had spoken upon them form the Unionist side were against making them Standing Orders. He supposed, however, it was useless to make any further appeal to the Government upon the subject. He protested against the Rules being made permanent, and would suggest that the Government should adopt the plan of the Leader of the Opposition, and continue them as temporary Rules until January, 1904, and so give the House a further opportunity of reconsidering them.
  *MR. R. PIERPOINT ()said he entirely approved of what had been
  said by the Leader of the Opposition. His desire that more time should be given for the consideration of these Rules was very much strengthened by arguing by analogy from the new Rules which had already been made Standing Orders, which had in many respects proved inconvenient. He could not but think that the only Conservative in this matter sitting on the Front Benches was the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
  (5.12.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 144; Noes, 60. (Division List No. 601.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Flower, Ernest

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S. W

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Garfit, William

  Percy, Earl

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gordon, MajEvans-(T"rH'ml'ts

  Purvis, Robert

  Baird, John Geroge Alexander

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

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Balfour, Rt. HnGerald W. (Leeds)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Greene, Sir EW(B'ryS Edm'nds

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Bignold, Arthur

  Gretton, John

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Bond, Edward

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hamilton RtHnLordG.(Midd'x

  Rutherford, John

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Sandys, Lieut,-Col. Thos. Myles

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Hobhouse, RtHnH(Somerset, E

  Seely, Charles Hilton(Lincoln)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Sharpe. William Edward T.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Chamberlain, RtHn. JA (Wore.

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Chapman, Edward

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Smith, JamesParker (Lanarks.)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Kimber, Henry

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Knowles, Lees

  Spencer, Sir E.(W. Bromwich)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Corbett, T. L.(Down, North)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Llewellyn, Even Henry

  Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Denny, Colonel

  Lowe, Francis William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDix'n

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton Und. Lyne

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shrophire)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Mane'r)

  Morgan, David J (Walth'mastow)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Mount, William Arthur

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Murray, Rt HnA. Graham (Bute

  NOES

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Shackleton, David James

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Balck, Alexander William

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  Spencer, Rt. HnC. R.(Northants

  Caldwell, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

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

  Cameron, Robert

  Labouchere, Henry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lambert, George

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Carew, James Laurence

  Lloyd-George, David

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan

  Cromble, John William

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James(Kent

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Moss, Samuel

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Douglas, Charles M.(Lanark)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, Chas, Henry (Hull, W.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Paulton. James Mellor

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Dunn, Sir William

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Price, Robert John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Gibson Bowles and Mr. Lough.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Rigg, Richard

  Harcourt. Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Runciman, Walter

  (5.23.) MR. YOXALL (), in moving to omit from the Motion the proposed new Standing Order giving Mr. Speaker power to adjourn the House or suspend the sitting, if in the interests of order he thinks it desirable so to do, said he approached the question with the most profound respect for the dignity of the Chair, and with an utter lack of sympathy with any disorder, grave or trivial, that might occur in the House. The House of Commons was not only a Chamber of Legislature, it was also the forum of national and public debate; and, if order were Heaven's first law, it was certainly the first condition of the existence of the House of Commons. It was unfortunately true that in the past scenes of disorder had arisen, and might arise in future, and he concurred in the view that Mr. Speaker's responsibility in the matter ought not to be made greater unless at the same time his powers were increased. But it was none the less necessary for the House to be careful lest it went too far. He had a general as well as a particular objection to the proposal to make this Rule a Standing Order. The general objection was that since this Sessional Order was passed there had happily been no occasion on which it had been necessary to put it into operation, so that it had not been put to the test of experiment. The particular objection was not so much to the whole of the Sessional Order as a part, but by the Rules of the House he was compelled to move the omission of the whole. He took no exception to the proposal that Mr.
  892
  Speaker should be permanently empowered to suspend the sitting on grave disorder arising. That was a power which resided in all Presidents or Chairmen of foreign Assemblies, and which ought to reside in the Speaker of the House of Commons. He drew a distinction, however, between suspending the sitting and adjourning the House. For Mr. Speaker to suspend the sitting and thus give heated passions an opportunity to cool was one thing, but for Mr. Speaker to have within his own power the prerogative of adjourning the House was one of much wider import. At present the one power which could adjourn the House was the House itself, and he hesitated to agree to the proposal now made. A further objection was that the power, if given, would under certain circumstances devolve also upon not only the Chairman of Committees but also the Deputy Chairman, and hitherto a notable distinction had always been drawn between the occupant of the Chair and the Chairman of Committees. For these reasons he asked the House to hesitate before it yielded up its historic right and privilege of determining when its sittings should come to an end. He submitted that the power to suspend the sitting would be sufficient for all occasions that were likely to arise, and therefore moved the Amendment standing in his name.
  DR. FARQUHARSON (), in seconding the Amendment, said that this was another illustration of the extreme inconvenience of the rapidity

  893
  with which these Rules had been rushed through the House without due inquiry. On a former occasion the Leader of the Opposition made out a strong case for a Committee to inquire as to the probable effect of these and other proposals. Before that Committee, Mr. Speaker and his illustrious predecessor, some of the most experienced Members of the House and the Clerks at the Table, would have placed their views, and it would have been interesting to see what defence the Government made for this proposal. It was rather extraordinary that when this, one of the most important of the proposed changes, was under consideration, the Prime Minister should not be present to reply to arguments which had been advanced. But it was all on a piece with the light-hearted and irresponsible way in which the Government had entered upon this path of change. To tamper with the ancient Rules and privileges of the House was a most serious matter; they had had far too short a period for discussion, and now, with all respect to the hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench, they were to have an entirely unauthoritative reply. To give Mr. Speaker—for whom he had the greatest respect—the right to initiate anything in the House was a grave constitutional change. Hitherto Mr. Speaker had been the servant of the House, having simply to interpret the wish of the House, but now he was to be put in the invidious position of having to initiate or regulate the business of the House himself. That was a power which might eventually lead to a grave infringement of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, and therefore he earnestly supported the Amendment of his hon. friend.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words, 'the power of the Speaker to adjourn the House or suspend the Sitting.' "—(Mr. Yoxall.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid he hoped it would be a long time before they had any experience of the working of this Rule. There had been, however, experience of
  894
  disorder arising in Committee, and those who recollected the incident in 1893 would recognise the advantage of a brief interval, such as the sending for the Speaker then afforded, for the calming of excited tempers. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment admitted this, his objection being mainly directed to the power of adjournment. But supposing a scene of disorder arose late at night, it would be most unnatural for the Speaker to suspend the sitting, resuming it in the early morning. As a Sessional Order the question had been debated at considerable length, and the Order was adopted by a large majority of this House and by a majority of hon. Members opposite, and the whole of the Front Opposition Bench voted in favour of this proposal as a Sessional Order. It was now proposed as the permanent addition to the Orders of this House, and the question had been discussed not as a temporary expedient but as a permanent institution.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that the hon. Gentleman opposite, who had spoken on behalf of the Government, after admitting that these scenes were not likely to take place, proceeded to argue that it was necessary to give these great powers to Mr. Speaker, and allow him to have the power to decide what was grave disorder and what would justify him in adjourning the House. Before a great constitutional innovation of this kind was imposed some convincing reason ought to be given by the Government. He thought it was convenient, having regard to the position of those who presided over modern representative assemblies, that Mr. Speaker should have some power, as in Continental Parliaments, of suspending a sitting. But there was a great difference between adjourning the House without Question put and allowing the Speaker to suspend the sitting to a time named by him. The hon. Gentleman opposite had referred to a case in which the Chairman of Committees called in Mr. Speaker Peel, with the result that the excitement and disorder on that occasion was put an end to. The House was in a stage of great excitement while the Chairman was in the Chair, but when Mr. Speaker

  895
  Peel came back the House was as quiet and orderly as possible. He did not wish to prolong the discussion, but he submitted that there was a great distinction between the power of adjourning the House without Question put and the power of suspending the sitting to a time to be named by Mr. Speaker.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERthought the reasons given by the hon. Member for Thirsk appeared to tell exactly against his argument. The hon. Member had spoken of the disorder which occurred in 1893, but that disturbance was stopped by the appearance of Mr. Speaker Peel
  in the House. It seemed to him that if tumult did arise, the influence and the great position of Mr. Speaker was the best way of stopping a disturbance that could be imagined. The precedent quoted of Mr. Speaker Peel confirmed him in his view that the very last thing they ought to invite their presiding officer to do was to abdicate his position and run away when his presence and authority was most needed.
  (5.48.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 149; Noes, 49. (Division List No. 602.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardener, James Tynte

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fison, Frederick William

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Allhusen, AugustusH'nryEden

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morgan, DavidJ. Walthamst'w

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Flower, Ernest

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Arnold-Forester, Hugh O.

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Garfit, William

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute)

  Austin, Sir John

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Godson, SirAugustusFrederick

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gordon, MajEvans(T'rH'mlets)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Gore, HnG. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

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

  Gore, HnG. R. C. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW(Leeds)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Percy, Earl

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Purvis, Robert

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Greene, SirEW(B'rySEdm'nds)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Greene, W. Raymond(Cambs.)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bigwood, James

  Gretton, John

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Butcher, John George

  Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

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

  Hobhouse, RtHnH(Somerset, E)

  Rothschild, Hon. LionelWalter

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm)

  Rutherford, John

  Chamberlain, RtHn. J. A.(Worc)

  Howard, J.(Midd.,Tottennam)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Champman, Edward

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

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

  Kimber, Henry

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Knowles, Lees

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Labouchere, Henry

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th)

  Smith, JamesParker(Lanarks.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lawson, John Grant

  Spear, John Ward

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Leveson-Gower, FrederickN. S.

  Stanley, EdwardJas.(Somerset)

  Denny, Colonel

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, RtHn. Walter (Bristol, S)

  Talbot, Lord E.` (Chichester)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'dUniv.)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lowe, Francis William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Fergusson, RtHn. SirJ.(Manc'r)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Valentia, Viscount

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Walrond, RtHn. Sir WilliamH.

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Black, Alexander William

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Spencer, Rt HnC. R. (Northants)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lambert, George

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

  Caldwell, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cameron, Robert

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James(Kent)

  Tully, Jasper

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Warner, Thomas CourtenayT.

  Carew, James Laurence

  Morogan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wason, Eugene

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Moss, Samuel

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)

  Crombie, John William

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dewar, JohnA.(Inverness-shire)

  Price, Robert John

  Wilson, Chas. Henry(Hull, W.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Priestley, Arthur

  Woodhouse, SirJT.(Huddersf'd)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Rigg, Richard

  Dunn, Sir William

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Runciman, Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Yoxall and Mr. Brynmor Jones.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Shackleton, David James

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid the reason which induced him to move the Amendment standing in his name was perfectly obvious after the discussion that had taken place on the words of the general Resolution proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. The Rule of the House with regard to the time of private Members as it had existed was too well known to render it necessary for him to explain in detail what the rights of unofficial Members were, and the Sessional Order now under discussion indirectly was also well known. His objection to its being made a Standing Order was that the Rule itself did not add to, but diminished, the rights of private Members. He did not think the proposal to give private Members two evening sittings was at all equivalent to the whole day which they had under the old Rule of the House. If a Member was successful in the ballot, and desired to raise a question of great public interest, it was clear it would be much more to the advantage of everybody that he should be able to raise it at an early hour rather than at nine o'clock. At nine o'clock it was difficult to get a quorum, but it was quite easy to do so at the commencement of the business of the House. But even if he had no difficulty in obtaining a quorum at nine o'clock, there was only three hours in which to discuss a matter of great public interest, which might be a
  898
  matter of great interest to the House, even though the Government were not prepared at that moment to take it up. It was for these reasons that he desired to move the Amendment standing in his name. He begged to move.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordhire,)said it was most important, before private Members gave up the power they possessed in the House, that they should hesitate and consider whether the Rule had been tried sufficiently to warrant them in making it permanent instead of temporary. They should wait until it had been tried sufficiently in practice. For these reasons, and because he considered this Sessional Order had not been sufficiently tried, he supported the Amendment of his hon. friend.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words 'Priority of Business.'"—(Mr. Brynmor Jones.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid with regard to the House hesitating before making this a Standing Order, they had hesitated a long time before making it a Sessional Order. It took two and a half days and fourteen divisions to decide the

  899
  matter. It had been thoroughly threshed out earlier in the session. With regard to what had been said as to the whole of Tuesday, the Tuesday Rule only applied to the nominal opportunities of private Members. It had been a very long time since private Members had had the whole of Tuesday; the Government took the morning sittings and when they did not, hon. Members' friends took the opportunity of counting out the House on the Tuesday night. He hoped after the way in which this House discussed the Rule in April hon. Members would not think it necessary to go to a division.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMANsaid that, if this was so complicated, difficult, and risky a step to take as to need several days discussion, there was all the more reason why the House should have ample experience of the working of the Rule before it was made permanent.
  MR. YOXALLsaid that first of all the Government by the arbitrament
  of force robbed the privated Members of Tuesdays they used to have; upon that petty larceny they had based a Sessional Order which was resisted by the House for no less than two and a half days discussion and fourteen divisions, and upon that doubly unfortunate basis it was proposed to build a permanent Order which should bind the House for all time, or at least for many years. He protested against it. There could be no doubt the centre of gravity for legislation was shifting from the private Member to the Government; possibly it was shifting from the Government itself to outside opinions in the Press. The private Members, because they had consented to lose their privileges for one session is this way, were now asked to consent to their being lost altogether. He should strongly support the Amendment.
  (6.10.) Question put.
  The Hose divided:—Ayes, 147; Noes, 61. (Division List No. 603.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Heason, John Henniker

  Allhusen. AugustusH'nryEden

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H(Somers't, E)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Denny, Colonel

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFr'd Dixon

  Howard, J.(Midd.,Tottenham)

  Austin, Sir John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Kimber, Henry

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Knowles, Lees

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th)

  Balfour, RtHn. GeraldW.(Leeds)

  Fergusson, RtHnSirJ.(Manch'r)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Leveson-Gower, FrederickN. S.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Bigwood, James

  Fison, Frederick William

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Long, Rt. Hon Walter(Bristol, S)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Flower, Ernest

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Butcher, John George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Garfit, William

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire)

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'ml'ts)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Chamberlain, RtHn. J. A(Worc.)

  Gore, HnG. R. COrmsby(-Salop.)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Chapman, Edward

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

  More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Greene, SirEW(B'ryS. Edm'nds)

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Gretton, John

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Percy, Earl

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir WiliamH.

  Purvis, Robert

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

  Pym, C. Guy

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Staly bridge)

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)

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

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Sturt, Hon Humphrey Napier

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Talbot, RtHn. J. G.(Oxf'dUniv.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander AclandHood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Rutherford, John

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester`

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Asquith, RtHon HerbertHenry

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Shackleton, David James

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hemphill. Rt. Hon Charles H.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Black, Alexander William

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Spencer, RtHnC. R.(Northants)

  Burnes, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

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

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lambert, George

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Calldwell, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Tully, Jasper

  Cameron, Robert

  M 'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Ure, Alexander

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Moss, Samuel

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Crombie, John William

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wilson, Chas, Henry (Hull, W.)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Woodhouse, SirJ. T(Huddersf'd)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Price, Robert John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Rigg, Richard

  Dunn, Sir William

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Brynmor Jones and Mr. Warren.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Runciman, Walter

  (6.23.) Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes. 155; Noes 61. (Division List No. 604.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bull, William James

  Denny, Colonel

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Butcher, John George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Allhusen, AugustusH'nry Eden

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFred Dixon

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Austin, Sir John

  Chamberlain, Rt HnJ. A(Wore.)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Chapman, Edward

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Badey, James (Walworth)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Fergusson, RtHn. SirJ.(Mane'r)

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

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Balfour, RtHnGerald W(Leeds)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Barry, SirFrancis T. (Windsor)

  Colomb, SirJohnCharlesReady

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Fison, Frederick William

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Cox, Irwin, Edward Bainbridge

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Bigwood, James

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Flower, Ernest

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Forster, Henry William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gardner. Ernest

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Garfit, William

  Godson, Sir AugustusFrederick

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sameul, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'ml'ts)

  Lord, Archie Kirkman

  Sandys, Lieut,-Col. Thos. Myles

  Gore, HnG. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop)

  Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Maconochie. A. W.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M 'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Moon. Edward Robert Pacy

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Greene, SirEW(B'ryS. Edm'nds)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Gretton, John

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Stanley, EdwardJas.(Somerset)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley)

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Murrray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

  Talbot, RtHn. J. G.(Oxf'dUniv.)

  Hobhouse, RtHnH(Somerset, E)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Howard, John(Kent. Fav'rsh'm)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

  Percy, Earl

  Tufnell, Lieut,-Col. Edward

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Valentia, Viscount

  Kimber, Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Walrond, Rt. HnSir WilliamH.

  Knowles, Lees

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th)

  Rasche, Major Frederic Carne

  Whiteley, H(Ashton-und. Lyne)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Ranshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge)

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

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

  Leveson-Gower, FrederickN. S.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lockwood, Lt-Col. A. R.

  Rothschild, Hon. LionelWalter

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander AclandHood and Mr. Anstruther.

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

  Rutherford, John

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Shackleton, David James

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir ArthurD.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Barlos, John Emmott

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon, Charles H.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Burns, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Spencer, RtHnC. R. (Northansts)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swarnsea)

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

  Caldwell, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cameron, Robert

  Lambert, George

  Tully, Jasper

  Campbell, Bannerman, Sir H.

  M'Arthur. William (Cornwall)

  Ure, Alexander

  Carew, James Laurence

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Moss, Samuel

  White, Luke(York, E. R.)

  Crombie, John William

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)

  Dewar, John A. (Imverness-sh.)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whitttaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wilson, Chas. Henry(Hull, W.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Price, Robert John

  Woodhouse, SirJT.(Huddersi'd)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Dunn, Sir William

  Rigg, Richard

  Emmott, Alfred

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(st. Albans)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—:Mr. Lough and Mr. Black.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Samuel, Herbert L. Cleveland

  Bill read a second time, and committed for Tomorrow.

  Resolved, "That the Resolutions dealing with the Power of the Speaker to adjourn the House or Suspend Sitting, Priority of Business, Business in Supply. Private Business, and Quorum of the House, be Standing Orders of the House, and that Standing Orders 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 be repealed."—(Mr. A. J, Balfour.)
  Ordered, That the Standing Orders, as amended, be printed. [No. 385.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PROCEDURE)
  Orders for resuming Adjourned Debate on proposed New Standing Order (Second and Third Readings) [17th February] read, and discharged.—Motion withdrawn.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE(PRODECURE).
  Order for Further Consideration of Standing Order No. 21 (Order in Debate), as amended, read, and discharged.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. TULLY ()protested against the Third Reading of this Bill at this time, because it contained what was called the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act of 1881. No case had been made by the Government against the right to carry arms in Ireland, and he thought the time had come when the Government should be prepared to state what their policy was in this matter. Farmers required the use of the shot gun to deal with the vermin on the land, and found the utmost difficulty in obtaining permission to carry one, and it was a very serious matter to them. Ireland was told that the Government was on the eve of a new departure, and that great powers were to be given to Ireland, and if that was so why should not the Irish people have the same right to carry arms as the people of England, Scotland and Wales? He strongly protested against the Arms Act being again included in this Bill.

  LOCCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [3rd March], "That the Bill be now read a second time," read.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Butershire)said that a Committee was sitting at the Local Government Board with a view to making further recommendations. In these circumstances he proposed to withdraw the Bill, which would be reintroduced at a future day in an amended form.
  Order discharged.—Bill withdrawn.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (BILLS IN PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.—Bill withdrawn.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (TRANSFER OF POWERS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.—Bill withdrawn.

  MAIL SHIPS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CALDWELL ()said he did not understand that this Bill was to be taken now, and although he was prepared to discuss it if the Government persisted, he thought it ought not to be taken. He moved that the debate be adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [21st October]. "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he understood that this Bill was to stand over and to be taken with the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, and that neither was to be taken without notice being given to him. Of course, if the Government chose to take it in the absence of the Irish Members, with whom he had promised to communicate the day when the Government proposed to proceed with it, they might do so, but if they did he should never have any confidence in them again.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): There was no understanding.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he understood through the usual channels that this Bill would come on between the Committee and the Report stages of the London water Bill, and he gave that information to the Irish Party, and if his information could not be relied on the faultlay with the Government and not with him. He moved that the debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  MR. TULLYthought it was curious that the representation of Ireland should be left to the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark. It was a sad thing for Ireland when such a thing happened. He had never thought they should find such a bird in their nest. The Bill was a similar Bill to others which had been introduced, which he had successfully blocked because they, like this, imposed serious restrictions upon the people of Ireland who were largely dependent on their rivers for "power."
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somersetshire,)regretted that any misunderstanding should have arisen with regard to this Bill, which, so far as he was concerned, was not intended to come into the arrangement made with regard to the Local Government Bill.
  MR. CALDWELLunderstood that the arrangement had referred to all theses Irish Bills.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question again proposed.
  MR. TULLYsaid he should like some short explanation.
  MR. WYNDHAM (interposing)said he had made a long speech on this Bill when it first came up for Second Reading. No exception was taken to the Bill then, and it was not in his power to make another speech now.
  MR. TULLYsaid there had been so many "deals" with regard to Irish business that he did not know where they were. He could not agree to the restrictions placed on the water power of Ireland by this Bill. Where he lived water power had been used for developing electric light and so forth, and the people were hampered continually in their utilising of water power by the absurd fishery laws. This Bill now brought forward increased the restrictions and prevented men of energy and enterprise from utilising it. The House really ought to have some statement as to whether this Bill would interfere with mill owners who used turbine wheels for electric lighting purposes.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)said if the hon. Member had only read the Bill he would have seen that it did not affect the matters he referred to in the slightest degree.
  *MR. SPEAKERannounced that this disposed of the Government business set down for the morning sitting. There was no effective business set down for the evening sitting, and none could be, as there was no business left over from the morning sitting. It was his duty now, therefore, to adjourn the House.
  *Mr. SPEAKER*Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at Seven o'clock.