§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, before the House adjourns I should like to ask the noble Earl opposite whether he has arrived at any conclusion as to the date on which the House should re-assemble after the recess.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEMy Lords, my own view, and I think the view of His Majesty's Government, was that in view of the fact that our work has not been quite so onerous as that in another place we should re-assemble two days before the House of Commons. That House meets on Thursday, May 26, and I suggest that your Lordships should meet for the consideration
§ to withhold his assent to the scheme under the Welsh Intermediate Education Acts which relates to the Denbigh Share of Howell's Charity for Girls' Schools in Wales.
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-contents, 20.
735| CONTENTS. | ||
| Canterbury, L. Abp. | Churchill, V. | Colchester, L. |
| Esher, V. | Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.) | |
| Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) | Halifax, V. | Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.) |
| Northumberland, D. | Hood, V. | Ellenborough, L. |
| Wellington, D. | Iveagh, V. | Faber, L. |
| Knutsford, V. | Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.) | |
| Ailesbury, M. | Ridley, V. | Gwydyr, L. |
| Bath, M. | St. Aldwyn, V. | Harlech, L. |
| Lansdowne, M. | Hastings, L. | |
| Bangor, L. Bp. | Hindlip, L. | |
| Camperdown, E. | St. Asaph, L. Bp. | Hylton, L. |
| Cawdor, E. | St. David's, L. Bp. | Knaresborough, L. |
| Chichester, E. | Lawrence, L. | |
| Dartmouth, E. [Teller.] | Alverstone, L. [Teller.] | Llangattock, L. |
| Devon, E. | Ashbourne, L. | Newton, L. |
| Halsbury, E. | Ashcombe, L. | Northcote, L. |
| Hardwicke, E. | Barrymore, L. | Raglan, L. |
| Lovelace, E. | Blythswood, L. | Ravensworth, L. |
| Plymouth, E. | Borthwick, L. | Ritchie of Dundee, L. |
| Stanhope, E. | Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) | Sanderson, L. |
| Stradbroke, E. | Camoys, L. | Stanmore, L. |
| Waldegrave, E. | Clifford of Chudleigh, L. | Templemore, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Armitstead, L. | Lucas, L. |
| Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.) | Colebrooke, L. [Teller.] | Pentland, L. |
| Courtney of Penwith, L. | Pirrie, L. | |
| Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.) | Eversley, L. | Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.) |
| Carrington, E. | Granard, L. (E. Granard.) | |
| Liverpool, E. [Teller.] | Hamilton of Dalzell, L. | Tweedmouth, L. |
| Hemphill, L. | Weardale, L. | |
| Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.) | Joicey, L. |
§ of Lord Rosebery's Resolutions on Tuesday, May 24. I do not know whether that will suit the convenience of noble Lords opposite, but it would give us a holiday of more than three weeks, and I think perhaps that is as much as we are entitled to.
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, I hope this is not the final determination on the part of the noble Earl. I think the understanding was that the House should not meet before May 26. The Resolutions, standing in Lord Rosebery's name are of an extremely important character, and if they were brought forward in another place the discussion on them would take at least two months if there were no obstacles in the way. I understood that it was proposed that the noble Earl should move his Resolutions on Thursday, May 26, and that, if necessary, Friday should also be appropriated to the purpose. That would be a very inconvenient arrange- 737 ment, and I would venture to suggest that it would much better suit the general convenience if the discussion was postponed to the following week, so that a full week beginning on May 30, would be free for the discussion of Lord Rosebery's Resolutions.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThe matter is one for your Lordships. I confess it does not seem to me very businesslike to take a longer holiday than they are taking in another place. My suggestion was not, as the noble Lord opposite thinks, that we should begin the discussion on Thursday, May 26, but that it should be begun on Tuesday, May 24, and occupy as long a time as the House might choose to give to it. As noble Lords opposite have a large majority they are, perhaps, more entitled to give an opinion on that point, but I confess that it does seem to me that upwards of four weeks would be a somewhat long holiday to take at this time of the year.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I think the noble Earl's arguments would, perhaps, be more convincing if there were arrears of business for us to overtake after the recess. All that I am aware of are the Resolutions of Lord Rosebery and the Resolutions which the noble Earl himself will move. They will take a considerable time—they ought to take a considerable time—and I feel with the 738 noble Earl that we ought not even to have the appearance of delaying the consideration of these important matters. But I confess that the arrangement I was inclined to lean to was that we should reassemble the same day as the House of Commons, and that, in order to make progress with Lord Rosebery's Resolutions, we should sit on the Friday and so give two full days to those Resolutions in that week.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI am quite prepared to fall in with that if it is the general sense of the House.
§ LORD NEWTONMay I, with the indulgence of the House, point out that if that arrangement is adopted it will be extremely inconvenient. The discussion will obviously take more than two days, and therefore we should have to adjourn it on the Friday, which is an unusual proceeding, until the following week. Why not begin in the following week and finish it off then?
§ THE EARL OF CREWEAs there seems to be some difference of opinion, perhaps this might be allowed to stand over until to-morrow. In the meantime we may arrive at some agreement.
§ House adjourned at five minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.