BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. (Hansard, 12 June 1906)

§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)
asked when the Second Reading of the Labourers (Ireland) Bill would be taken.

MR. BRYCE
said the Bill appeared on the Paper for the following day, and he had good hopes of reaching it early.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)
said the right hon. Gentleman's Answer suggested that it was not the intention of the Government to take the Education Bill on Wednesday. In the absence of the Prime Minister, he asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he could give any forecast of the business of the House, which appeared to have been unexpectedly changed.

§ SIR EDWARD GREY
said he understood it had been arranged that the Education Bill should not be taken on Wednesday, but a precise statement as to the business which would be taken could not be made in the absence of the Prime Minister. A statement would be made before the House rose.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had ever known a case in which an interruption of the programme of business had not been accompanied by some definite statement as to what the alternative was. It was very inconvenient that Members should remain without the least idea what was to be put down until eleven o'clock that evening; and the Government ought not to place the House in such a position.

§ MR. EVELYN CECIL (Aston Manor)
asked whether it was the intention of the Government to withdraw the Education Bill.

§ SIR EDWARD GREY
said he had expected that the Prime Minister would be present and that a full statement would be made as to business to be 826 taken. In his absence, he could only say definitely that the Education Bill would not be taken to-morrow and that the Irish Labourers Bill would be the first order.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
What will be taken on Friday?Will it be the Education Bill?

§ SIR EDWARD GREY
said there would be ample time to make a statement with regard to Friday if the right hon. Gentleman would put a Question to-morrow.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
asked whether it would be in order for the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement now by leave of the House.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
said that, as public business had not yet begun, it would be in order for the right hon. Gentleman to do so.

§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST-LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,), Stirling Burghs
having apologised for not being in his place before, said that, as already announced, the Education Bill would not be taken to-morrow. The first order would be the Labourers (Ireland) Bill, but he could not say positively what would be taken after that. On Thursday the Scotch Estimates would be taken. As to Friday, he could not say positively what would be taken. It might be Supply. On Monday the Education Bill would be resumed. With regard to a Question put to him by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil yesterday, he was fully alive to the importance of the South African question and to the interest, taken in the House in the Colonial Vote; but he must point out that they had already had a day and a half devoted to the Colonial Vote, and the Government were bound to give a fair amount of attention to other departments of the State which had not yet been touched. Subject to that general consideration, he fully appreciated the anxiety to have further discussion on South Africa, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that it would be provided for in proper course.

§ MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)
asked whether the Trade Disputes Bill would be taken as second order to-morrow.

§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
The hon. Gentleman is always asking me about the Trade Disputes Bill, and that gives me the impression that he is suspicious that there is some desire to give the go-by to that Bill. I can assure him that there is no such desire. In due time it will be taken, but I do not think it will be convenient to take it as the second order to-morrow.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Will the right hon. Gentleman say that the second order to-morrow will not be a Bill of a controversial character? When the Government deliberately interrupt their announced programme and interpolate another Bill in the place of a Bill that was to have been discussed de die in diem, I think we are justified in asking that ample notice should be given of what is to be taken in its place. Controversial Bills, such as the Plural Voting Bill, for instance, should not be taken without full notice.

§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
I can relieve the right hon. Gentleman's mind with regard to the Plural Voting Bill. It will not be taken to-morrow. But I think he is stretching his objection a little too far when he asks us to promise not to take any controversial Bills. We do not know yet whether any of our Bills are controversial or not, and in the circumstances I think it is too much to ask that we should avoid anything as to which there is serious difference of opinion. But I am anxious to meet the right hon. Gentleman, and we will arrange that the matters taken shall not be such as he would object to.