STANDING ORDER NO. 1 (SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE).

HC Deb 02 May 1902 vol 107 cc575-92

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [8th April] to proposed Amendment to Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House.)

Which Amendment was, after the last Amendment— To insert the words," Wednesday, and Thursday at Two of the clock for an afternoon sitting, and at Nine of the clock for an evening sitting. If the business appointed for an afternoon sitting is not disposed of at Eight of the clock, the sitting shall be suspended till Nine of the clock. At One of the clock at the evening sitting.' "—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

And the Amendment to the proposed Amendment was— To leave out lines 3 and 4."—(Mr. Channing.)

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

Question put, and negatived.

Another Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— After line 2, to insert the words 'and shall, unless previously adjourned, sit till half-past Twelve of the clock, when the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put.' "—(Mr. Channing.)

(4.5.) THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,) Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk

The Government are prepared to accept the Amendment down to the word "clock."

Amendment to the proposed Amendment amended— By leaving out the words, 'when the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put.'

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

said he would like to know exactly what they were doing. As he read the Amendment, the effect was to substitute half-past twelve for one o clock as the time at which the House must adjourn. He could not see the necessity for that. In nineteen cases out of twenty the business after midnight was disposed of in ten minutes. But occasionally it did occur that there was business down of a character to which no Member objected, and surely if it were desired they ought to have the power of dealing with it up till one o'clock. Of course, any single Member had the power of objecting, but when no objection was raised and when there was a desire to discuss the question, they ought to be able to do so until one o'clock. It seemed to him that the Amendment would deprive the House of a valuable privilege.

MR. GHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

said he put down the Amendment mainly in the interest of the officials of the House. If the feeling of the House was against him he would ask leave to withdraw.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

said he thought the suggestion was a good one.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

feared they were getting a little bit mixed. Were the Government prepared to accept the Amendment; if not, would they state their reasons.

MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton)

suggested that the Government should not accept the Amendment. He agreed with the hon. Member for East Mayo that the House should, if it so desired, be allowed to go on with unopposed business till one o'clock.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not think the matter is one of very great importance, but on the whole I am disposed to consider that the House should have longer notice before altering the practice in this matter. Though there have been occasions on which the privilege of the House of sitting up after twelve o'clock, if it be a privilege, has been abused, there have been other occasions on which it has certainly proved of some utility. I think we should wait and gain a little more experience of these Rules, and that at any rate this change should not be pressed for the present.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER

said what was wanted was a Rule which would put a stop to the practice of making appeals to hon. Members to make their objections to Bills being taken after midnight. Let them have a strict Rule that all opposed business should stop at a fixed hour.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

agreed with the First Lord of the Treasury that it was not desirable to press the change.

Amendment, as amended, to the proposed Amendment, put, and negatived.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved an Amendment in line 5. He said the First Lord of the Treasury had admitted that one of the advantages to be derived from this Rule was that Supply would be absolutely stopped at midnight. That was a most desirable thing, but did the Rule carry it out? At present there were no fewer than six occasions when such business could goon after midnight. First, there was Report of Committee of Ways and Means; then there was the Budget Bill, which certainly ought not to be debated after midnight; then there were Bills orginating in Ways and Means; next, proceedings taken in pursuance of Acts of Parliament and of Standing Orders; fifthly, there was specified business as to which the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule had been moved; and finally, there was the general suspension of the Rule. These had the effect of defeating the Twelve o'clock Rule, which the First Lord was pledged to save.

MR. SPEAKER

These exceptions are untouched by the hon. Member's Amendment.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said he must in that case have drawn his Amendment very badly. The First Lord had certainly declared it his intention that business on Supply nights should cease at twelve o'clock, but as the Rule stood that would not be secured, and he hoped words would be introduced to ensure it.

Another Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— In line 5, after the first word 'at,' to insert the words 'midnight at the evening sittings on Thursdays the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put, and at.' "—(Mr. Gibson, Bowles.)

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

My hon. friend has practically admitted that the Amendment does not carry out the object which he has in view. It is not one that I can accept. He has misinterpreted my statement on this subject. What I have stated on several occasions is that on Supply nights the business of Supply should terminate at twelve o'clock unless the Rule is suspended, and that no other business should come on after midnight. I hope, seeing that the Amendment does not carry out either the hon. Member's object or views, it will not be pressed.

MR. DILLON

said it would be unfair to adopt the Amendment, because it proposed to do what was certainly not contemplated by the Government.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said it might be inconvenient to press this, and therefore he hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That the words, as amended, be inserted in the Standing Order.":

(4.35.) MR. DILLON

said the result of the new system of having two sittings of the House instead of one throughout the session on Government days would be not to expedite but to obstruct business. He was absolutely convinced that before three or four years were over Ministers themselves would regret that this change had been made. The First Lord of the Treasury hardly contended that the change would relieve from the strain of work Members who had been regular attenders of the House. He believed it was the opinion of the older and more experienced Members of the House that the effect of the Rule would be to sacrifice the efficiency of the House of Commons as an administrative machine in the interests of those who sought their ease and pleasure in social enjoyment. He also thought the character of the debates would suffer severely under this Rule. The closure and the enormous pressure and multiplication of business had already, within the last few years, seriously injured that character. There was no doubt that the result of the great pressure on the House of Commons had been to degrade and deteriorate the character of their discussions. This change would, in his opinion, greatly promote this process. It was a commonplace to men who took any interest in the proceedings of the House of Commons that at the dinner hour, when the attendance was small, the young Members got their opportunity, and he believed that the cutting out of the dinner hour would have the effect, to a large extent, of for many, years muzzling the young Members. The consequence would be that the debates would be confined more and more to the Members of the Front Benches. He was not at all certain that from the point of view of the Irish Party the change would not increase their power. It was quite possible that the new arrangement between nine and ten o'clock might give them their opportunity. At all events, they would study it and see what they could do. He thought the Irish Party would be found a bit more powerful under the new Rules than under the old, and probably Ministers might be surprised at some of the developments that might arise.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Gentleman has told us that these new Rules, or at any rate this portion of them,. will not facilitate the rapid transaction of business. He did me the justice to say that I never pretended it would. I have no ground for thinking, and I have never for a moment suggested, that this particular set of provisions will have the effect of rendering public business more expeditious than it has been. It may or it may not, but, at all events, it was not with that view that I pressed it on the House. I think, however, it will have the effect—and this is a consideration to which full justice has not been done—of enabling most important business which does not rank as first-class business to be transacted. For example, there are small questions which come before the House to which, under the new system, it will be possible to allocate one evening sitting to getting rid of them, but which cannot be got rid of by the old system. It seems to be impossible, I venture to say with the utmost confidence, to interrupt a Second Reading debate on a first-class Bill to deal with these important, though relatively insignificant, matters. They do not take very much time, and I think in that way the new system will facilitate business. But the hon. Gentleman tells us that it will have a deteriorating effect on our debates. Well, I am as old a Member as the hon. Gentleman—indeed, I think I am older as a Member of the House as well as older in years; and my memory goes back to the days of Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone. I really do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that there has been this deterioration in the quality of our debates We have not those heroic figures among us now, but the idea that the debates were invariably interesting between 1874 and 188, for example, is, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, an entire delusion. As to the idea that the Front Bench Members monopolise more time now than they used to do then, surely the hon. Gentleman knows that, though the speeches from both Front Benches may be very inferior now, they are incomparably shorter than those which used to be delivered as a matter of course by thegreat leaders when I first entered the House. In another part of his speech the hon. Member said the dinner hour was the opportunity of the younger Members. If the dinner hour under the old system of the House had all that value for the training of Members, I do not see why the hour we shall now have between nine and ten should not have the same value. I do not think I have anything more to say except this. The change generally has been introduced for the advantage of the independent and unofficial Member. Possibly the hon. Gentleman may succeed in the manœuvres which he has hinted he means to try in the future. But of this I am certain—the old system could not continue, and, whatever modifications may be suggested in the future, no Leader of the House will, after a little experience of the new system, come down to the House to suggest a return to the single sitting, lasting from half-past three to twelve or one o'clock, with half-an-hour for dinner, and to the standing inconveniences of that old practice. Whatever evils the new system may bring forth, they will be found to be less intolerable than the evils of the old, and I look forward with a firm hope that the result of these Rules may bear the promise of a brighter day.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

As a still older Member of the House than the right hon. Gentleman, recollecting those heroic times to which he has alluded, I do not venture an opinion as to whether the debates then were more interesting than now. The days between 1874 and 1880 were certainly more exciting, including, as they did, the great controversies on the Russo-Turkish war. I was here in those times. They resembled the present times in regard to the hopeless position of the Opposition, which always had a majority of more than 100 against them. But the question before the House is whether business will get on better under the new system than under the old, and I do not think it will. I believe that if you have a great measure, and go on with it continuously in single sittings, you will get through it sooner. I cannot appreciate the only argument of the right hon. Gentleman, which is that the new system affords an opportunity of finding a place for some small measures that it is wanted to pass. If the Government really want to do that, all the Government have to do is to adjourn the debate on their larger measures at eleven or half-past eleven.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That would be a debateable Motion. People who did not want the other measure passed would come down and debate the Motion for adjournment.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

You have plenty of means of avoiding that. The Government have measures for shortening discussion.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

With two divisions, which might take forty minutes.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Well, these objections do not carry conviction to my mind, and I remain of the opinion that progress of business would be better assisted by continuous sittings.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

could not share the opinion of his right hon. friend as to the debates in past times, and wished the tone and character of the House then could be exhibited more, frequently in the present day. He and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire came into the House at the same time, and his maiden speech followed the right hon. Gentleman's. He shared the right hon. Gentleman's doubts as to whether they would make better progress under the altered Rules.

Question put.

The House divided.

While the division was in progress,

MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)

said May I ask, Sir, on a point of order, if there is any way of communicating to Members of this House who may be in the House of Lords, that a division is taking place in this House. I was there with an hon. friend, and did not hear any division bell.

MR. SPEAKER

There is no division bell in the House of Lords.

MR. POWER

Could it not be arranged that Members of the House, who may be in the House of Lords,

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt.Sir Alex. F.	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Harris, Frederick Leverton
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Cranborne, Viscount	Hay, Hon. Claude George
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Crossley, Sir Savile	Hoare, Sir Samuel
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Dalkeith, Earl of	Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Hogg, Lindsay
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Denny, Colonel	Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside
Arrol, Sir William	Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets,S.Geo.	Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Dickson, Charles Scott	Hoult, Joseph
Austin, Sir John	Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Houston, Robert Paterson
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Dorington, Sir John Edward	Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Doughty, George	Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil
Baird, John George Alexander	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Hudson, George Bickersteth
Balcarres, Lord	Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r.	Duke, Henry Edward	Johnston, William (Belfast)
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Kenyon, Hon Geo. T. (Denbigh)
Balfour, RtHn.Gerald W. (Leeds	Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.)
Banbury, Frederick George	Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Kimber, Henry
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)	Faber, George Denison (York)	King, Sir Henry Seymour
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks	Fardell, Sir T. George	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Beckett, Ernest William	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Laurie, Lieut.-General
Beresford, Lord Charles William	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r	Lawson, John Grant
Bignold, Arthur	Finch, George H.	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Bond, Edward	Firbank, Joseph Thomas	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Fisher, William Hayes	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)	FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)
Brassey, Albert	Flower, Ernest	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.	Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Loyd, Archic Kirkman
Brymer, William Ernest	Galloway, William Johnson	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Garfit, William	Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)	Macdona, John Gumming
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn)	Maconochie, A. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.	Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)	M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)
Charrington, Spencer	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Goulding, Edward Alfred	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Grenfell, William Henry	Melville, Beresford Valentine
Coddington, Sir William	Gunter, Sir Robert	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Hall, Edward Marshall	Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.	Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh
Collings, Rt Hon. Jesse	Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x	Morrell, George Herbert
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry	Morrison, James Archibald
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd	Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

should be made aware that a division is on in this House?

MR. SPEAKER

I am not sure, but my recollection is that when I have been; at the bar of the House of Lords in, past years when a division was going on in this House, an intimation to that effect reached me.

MR. POWER

No intimation reached me, and I now claim to have my vote recorded.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The tellers are at the Table.

(4.54.) Ayes, 206; Noes, 134. (Division List No. 163.)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)	Ropner, Colonel Robert	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Newdigate, Francis Alexander	Round, James	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Nicholson, William Graham	Royds, Clement Molyneux	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Nicol, Donald Ninian	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander	Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)	Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Sharpe, William Edward T.	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)	Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard	Simeon, Sir Barrington	Wills, Sir Frederick
Plummer, Walter R.	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Pretyman, Ernest George	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Purvis, Robert	Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Randles, John S.	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)	Worsley-Tavlor, Henry Wilson
Rankin, Sir James	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart	Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart-
Reid, James (Greenock)	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Remnant, James Farquharson	Stock, James Henry	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Renshaw, Charles Bine	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Richards, Henry Charles	Thornton, Percy M.
Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson	Tritton, Charles Ernest	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Valentia, Viscount	Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Robinson, Brooke	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield

NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Gilhooly, James	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Goddard, Daniel Ford	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Allen, Charles P.(Glouc. Stroud	Grant, Corrie	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Hammond, John	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Barlow, John Emmott	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William	O'Dowd, John
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.
Bartley, George C. T.	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	O'Shee, James John
Blake, Edward	Helme, Norval Watson	Partington, Oswald
Boland, John	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Paulton, James Mellor
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)	Holland, William Henry	Pirie, Duncan V.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Price, Robert John
Burke, E. Haviland-	Horniman, Frederick John	Rea, Russell
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Reckitt, Harold James
Caldwell, James	Jacoby, James Alfred	Reddy, M.
Cameron, Robert	Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea	Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Joyce, Michael	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Carew, James Laurence	Kearley, Hudson, E.	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Kitson, Sir James	Runciman, Walter
Causton, Richard Knight	Lambert, George	Russell, T. W.
Channing, Francis Allston	Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Leamy, Edmund	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Crean, Eugene	Leng, Sir John	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Crombie, John William	Lewis, John Herbert	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)	Soares, Ernest J.
Delany, William	Lundon, W.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.	Sullivan, Donal
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Donelan, Captain A.	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)
Doogan, P. C.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Tomkinson, James
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	M'Fadden, Edward	Wallace, Robert
Duncan, J. Hastings	M'Govern, T.	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Dunn, Sir William	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Weir, James Galloway
Edwards, Frank	M'Kean, John	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Elibank, Master of	Mooney, John J.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Ellis, John Edward	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Emmott, Alfred	Murnaghan, George	Young, Samuel
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Murphy, John	Yoxall, James Henry
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Ffrench, Peter	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Mr. Dillon and Mr. M'Kenna.
Flynn, James Christopher	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Fuller, J. M. F.	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Furness, Sir Christopher	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.

MR. POWER

May I claim to have my vote recorded. Another Member and myself were in the House of Lords, and we were anxious to take part in this division, but no notice was conveyed to us that the division was on.

MR. SPEAKER

The vote cannot be recorded. The strict duty of the hon. Member is to be in attendance in the House of which he is a Member. Attending the House of Lords is a luxury.

Other Amendments made to the Standing Order— By inserting, in line 9, after the word 'at,' the wordshalf-past Seven of the chick, and 'at'; by leaving out, in line 9, the words 'Thursdays and Fridays,' and inserting the words 'Wednesdays and Thursdays ;' by leaving out, in line 10, the word 'Wednesdays,' and inserting the word 'Fridays;' by leaving out, in line 16, from the word "put," to end of paragraph; by leaving out, in line 27, the words 'and the Orders of the Day not disposed of at the close of the sitting shall stand for the next day on which the House shall sit,' and inserting the words 'and after the Business under consideration at half-past Seven of the clock has been disposed of no other business shall be taken.'"—[Mr. A. J. Balfour.]

Amendment proposed— In line Hi, to leave out from the word 'put' to end of paragraph."—[Mr. A. J. Balfour.]

Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Standing Order."

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said the Amendment was another attempt to take the management of its own business out of the hands of the House. The words proposed to be omitted were as follows— And the business then under consideration, and any business subsequently appointed shall be appointed for the next day on which the House shall sit, unless the speaker ascertains by the preponderance of voices that a majority of the House desires that such business should be transferred until a later day. Why should those words be omitted? He did not know that the House had ever refused to give some indication of its desires as to when business should be resumed. The Amendment would give to a Minister in charge of a Bill the right to select the day to which it should be postponed, and he could not understand why the Rule should not be left as it was.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It is the common and settled practice of the House, that a Member in charge of a Bill shall name the day when it is to be taken; and nothing could be more inconvenient than that that practice should be interrupted by some expression of opinion, given without debate or discussion, which would upset the order that the Member in charge of a Bill desired. The Amendment is in the direction of regularising and rendering more dignified our proceedings.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER

said that when a Bill was ordered for Second Reading, it became the property of the House, and the House should reserve to itself the right to deal with it. Ordinarily speaking, it was more convenient that a Member, or a section of Members, should look after a particular Bill; but the House should not give up its indisputable right in the matter.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I only rise to express my entire accord with the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Thanet Division. We ought not to infringe on the principle that the House has absolute and complete right to deal with every Bill, and that it ought not to be dictated to by any Member.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Surely this is a pedantic plea. The proper way of dealing with Bills is to reject them on Second Reading, amend them, or pass them, and send them up to the other House. But this quite informal proceeding, without notice, without a division, is a most unbusinesslike way of dealing with a Bill. Although it is quite true that the House does abandon the right, the right has been so little used that no Member thinks it necessary to martial the forces against a Bill in order to see that the business is carried on in the way that he desires. If this power were at all used it would be necessary for, say, the Irish Members to come down here in force whenever they desired to transfer a Bill in which they were interested to a particular day, lest by a preponderance of voices the majority might unexpectedly fix some other day very inconvenient to those interested. It would be a great pity not to stop this possible loop-hole for irregularity, and I trust, the House will support the Government.

Question put and negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Standing Order, after line 29, to insert the words— All business appointed for any sitting and not disposed of before the termination of the sitting shall stand over until the next sitting, or until such other sitting on any day on which the House ordinarily sits as the Member in charge of the business may appoint."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved the substitution of "House" for "Member in charge of the business." He failed to see why the Member in charge of the business should have the sole right of appointing the day on which the business should be resumed. It was another instance of the manner in which power was being taken away from the House. An entirely new principle was involved, and he hoped the Government would agree to his Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Standing Order— To leave out the words 'Member in charge of the business,' and insert the word 'House.'—(Mr. Gibson Bowles).

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment.

SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

asked whether, under the existing Rules, if the day named was objected to, it was not possible for hon. Members to challenge the point and take a division, or move the substitution of some other day.

MR. SPEAKER

said that could not be done after twelve o'clock. The Standing Order provided that in case of any difference of opinion the question should be decided according to the voices.

SIR HENRY FOWLER

But it really rests with the House—with the preponderance of voices?

MR. SPEAKER

At present, in ease of dispute.

MR. BRYCE

said he had once suffered under the existing practice. He had left-directions for a Bill to be put off to a certain day, and, relying on the usage of the House, had gone away. When the Bill was called, however, another Member succeeded in getting it put off to a later day, with the result that it was lost for the session. But in principle he agreed with the hon. Member for King's Lynn. He thought the House ought to retain its control, and that Members must trust to the good sense and good feeling of the House. In ninety-nine cases out of one hundred it would be found that the usage of the House would be observed.

MR. DILLON

pointed out that in the only instance referred to in which this power had been used it had been abused. It was not reasonable that a Member interested in a private Bill should be forced to bring his friends down every week and wait until twelve o'clock, for fear of an inconvenient day being sprung upon him. In spite of protests, if he had not sufficient of his friends around him, the Bill might, without debate or division, merely by incoherent voices, be adjourned until the month of August. A more cruel way of killing a Bill he could not conceive, and he agreed with the First Lord in saying that if the power had I been habitually abused it would have been swept away long before.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER

thought the idea of any one Member arrogating to himself the right of arranging business ought not to be tolerated, and he could conceive gross abuses arising from a Member having the power to fix a day without consulting the wishes of the House.

MR. BANBURY, (Camberwell, Peckham)

as one who generally remained in the House until twelve o'clock, said he had never known this privilege to be availed of.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

said this was a most dangerous Amendment. Members who were not in the habit of being in the House at twelve o'clock would be tempted, if this proposal were agreed to, to be in attendance at that hour for the purpose of disposing of some Bill to which they had a dislike. He hoped the hon. Member for King's Lynn would not allow his opposition to private Members' Bills to carry him to the length of pressing this Amendment.

Question put and agreed to. Original Question put and agreed to. Words inserted in Standing Order.

Other Amendments made to the Standing Order, by inserting— In line 34, at end of fifth paragraph, the words 'or to the following effect That the proceedings on any specified business, if under discussion on the interruption of business at this afternoon's fitting, be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of business at this evening's sitting,' and by leaving out, in line 36, the word 'Resolution,' and inserting the word 'Order.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Standing Order No. I, "Sittings of the House," as finally adopted, (and now superseding Standing Orders Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8), is as follows :—

That, unless the House otherwise order, the House shall meet every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, at Two of the clock for an Afternoon Sitting, and at Nine of the clock for an Evening Sitting.

At one of the clock at the Evening Sitting the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put, unless a Bill originating in Committee of Ways and Means, or Proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament or Standing Order, or otherwise exempted as hereinafter provided from the operation of this Standing Order, be then under consideration.

That at half past seven of the clock and at midnight on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, except as aforesaid, and at half-past five of the clock on Fridays, the proceedings on any business then under consideration shall be interrupted, and, if the House be in Committee, the Chairman shall leave the Chair and make his Report to the House, and if a Motion has been proposed for the Adjournment of the House or of the Debate, or in Committee, that the Chairman do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, every such dilatory Motion shall lapse without Question put.

Provided always that on the interruption of Business the Closure may be moved, and if moved, or if proceedings under the Closure Rule be then in progress, the Speaker or Chairman shall not leave the Chair until the Questions consequent thereon and on any further Motion, as provided in the Rule "Closure of Debate," have been decided.

That after the Business under consideration at Twelve, and half-past Five respectively, has been disposed of, no opposed Business shall be taken; and after the Business under consideration at half-past Seven of the clock has been disposed of no other Business shall be taken.

All business appointed for any Sitting, and not disposed of before the termination of the Sitting, shall stand over until the next Sitting, or until such other Sitting on any day on which the House ordinarily sits as the Member in charge of the business may appoint.

That a Motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of Public Business, to be decided without Amendment of Debate, to the following effect :"That the proceedings on any specified business, if under discussion at Twelve this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order 'Sittings of the House'; "or to the following effect: "That the proceedings on any specified business, if under discussion on the interruption of business at this Afternoon's Sitting, be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of business at this Evening's Sitting."

Provided always, That after any business exempted from the operation of this Order is disposed of, the remaining business of the Sitting shall be dealt with according to the provisions applicable to business taken after midnight.

Provided also that the Chairman of Ways and Means shall take the Chair as Deputy Speaker, when requested so to do by Mr. Speaker, without any formal communication to the House. And Mr. Speaker shall nominate, at the commencement of every Session, a panel of not more than five Members to act as temporary Chairmen of Committees, when requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means.