Sitting of 9 April 1804

QUESTIONS.

  FOOTPATHS IN THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to a Petition signed by 15 heads of families at Calbost, Park, Lochs, Lewis, in which it is stated that the Planasker (or Marvig) School, which was built for this district, is about two miles from the township they represent, in which there are fully 40 children of school age; that, since the erection of said school house, children have had to walk that distance through rough ground in all weathers; that last year an attempt was made by the County Council to construct a footpath from the township to the school, but from want of funds it was not completed; and that during the past inclement winter the parents unanimously agreed to keep their children from school, and no child has attended school from the township since the beginning of February; and whether, if these statements are confirmed upon inquiry, steps will be taken to remedy the existing state of matters? The hon. Member complained that after the words "rough ground" the words "and swampy bogs," inserted in the question as handed in at the Table, had been omitted.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): My attention has not been called to the Petition referred to, but I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on the 22nd

  1567
  of March, in reply to a similar question. While it is the practice of the Scotch Education Department to call the attention of School Boards to the necessity of securing regular attendance, yet it rests with the School Boards, and not with the Department, to enforce the compulsory clauses.

  ALLEGED ASSAULT BY A LEWIS SCHOOLMASTER.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will cause inquiry to be made into a case of alleged assault, on 13th January last, by the schoolmaster of Knockindue School, Keose, Lochs, Island of Lewis, upon a boy, aged 13 years, a pupil of that school, reported to the Procurator Fiscal for the Island of Lewis; whether he is aware that the Procurator Fiscal, in making inquiry into the case, sought no information from the parents, or from the doctor who attended the boy and dressed his wounds; that he referred the parents to the School Board of which he, the Procurator Fiscal, is clerk; and that he never brought the case before the School Board; whether he will state what other offices the Fiscal holds; the amount of his commissions, fees, or allowances from private parties for prosecutions for the year ending the 31st of March, 1893; and on what transactions these commissions, fees, or allowances were paid; and whether he is aware that many children in the district are not attending school, whilst the School Board take no notice of the fact?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I am informed by the Procurator Fiscal that he carefully investigated the allegations of undue severity towards pupils made against the head master of Knockindue Public School, and deemed it advisable to institute proceedings. After an exhaustive trial before the Sheriff of Ross and Cromarty, in the course of which he heard evidence from school children, parents, the compulsory attendance officer, the parish doctor and Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools, the headmaster was acquitted. I think it right to add that the Inspector of Schools gave testimony in his evidence to the efficiency and success of the head master; and I understand that the attendance at Knockindue School is about the best in the parish. The Fiscal holds under autho-
  1568
  rity from the Sheriff the offices of clerk to the School Board of Lews, and the office of Secretary to the Piers and Harbours Commissioners. During the year ended the 31st of March, 1893, he did not conduct any prosecution on behalf of private parties, and he received no commissions, fees or allowances in respect of any such prosecutions. The School Board and managers intimated before the trial their willingness to hear the complainants at the first meeting of the new School Board which was recently elected. That meeting takes place to day.
  MR. WEIRgave notice that he would call attention to the matter on the Estimates.

  REPORTED WRECK OFF WARREN HASTINGS ISLAND.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to a Report made at Vancouver by Captain Tullock, of the British General, to the effect that he had been boarded off Warren Hastings Island in December last by natives, who reported the loss of a large vessel there several months previously, and gave up a quadrant belonging to the vessel; that there was reason to believe that the vessel was either the Morayshire or the Blair Athol, both of which, bound from Java to Vancouver, have been missing since last summer; and that, in his opinion, a search should be made on the island; and whether, in the interest of the Merchant Navy and the relatives of the officers and crews of the missing vessels, it will be possible for one of the Queen's ships to visit the island and make inquiries?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): The first information we have received is from my hon. Friend. The newspaper reports are somewhat conflicting, and we cannot say what action may be desirable till we have received further information from the owners of the British General, to whom a telegram has been sent to-day by the Admiralty.

  FRAUDS IN THE MEAT TRADE.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the President of

  1569
  the Board of Agriculture whether Her Majesty's Government will favourably consider the recommendations of the Committee of the House of Lords on the marking of foreign meat—namely, that every dealer in this class of meat should be required to register himself as such, and to affix a notice over his shop intimating that he is a registered dealer in that commodity, also that inspection should be made of retail butchers' shops by duly qualified Inspectors to secure compliance with these conditions?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): I understand that the recommendations to which my hon. Friend refers are embodied in the; Bill standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the South Molton Division. We shall give very careful consideration to the arguments advanced in support of that Bill should an opportunity for its discussion arise; but Her Majesty's Government are not satisfied either that further legislation is necessary, or that the adoption of the proposals of the Committee would be of any real benefit to home producers, and they are, therefore, not disposed themselves to initiate legislation on the subject.

  METROPOLITAN COUNTERMEN AND TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  MR. BUTCHER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether be has had an opportunity of considering a Petition of the Metropolitan Districts Countermen and Telegraph Clerks, dated the 28th of February, 1893, and having reference to the conditions of their annual leave, and whether a reply to such Petition may shortly be expected; and whether he has had an opportunity of considering a Petition of the Metropolitan Districts Countermen and Telegraph Clerks, which was presented on the 16th of May, 1883, having reference to their duties and pay, and whether a reply to such Petition may shortly be expected?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): The Petition of the 28th of February from the countermen and telegraphists in the Metropolitan District was duly considered, but before an answer could be sent the Petition of the 16th of May, 1893, which raised the whole question of the conditions of employment of these officers,
  1570
  was received, and it was thought best to deal with the two Petitions together. The subjects dealt with by these Petitions are still under consideration, but I hope shortly to be able to reply to the Memorialists.

  DINGWALL GAME PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been called to the conviction of Wm. Mackenzie, Ardneaskan, by Sheriff Hill, at Dingwall, on the 13th of February, 1894, on a charge of trespassing in pursuit of game on the estate of Baron Middleton, of Applecross, on the 9th of January last, on the sole evidence of a game watcher, who admitted that he was not at any time within 40 yards of the accused; whether he is aware that other witnesses in their evidence showed that it was a physical impossibility for Mackenzie to be at the place at the time mentioned: and whether steps will be taken to amend the Law of Evidence, in order to make it obligatory that the evidence of at: least two witnesses shall be taken to justify conviction?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,: I answered this question so far on Tuesday last. On further inquiry I find that the watcher had previously known the accused, that on the day in question he had had him in view for three hours, and had, therefore, full opportunity of identifying him. It is the fact that the watcher was never nearer to him than 40 yards; but at this distance they had some conversation, and the accused, after shooting the watcher's dog dead, threatened to shoot the watcher himself. The evidence of the only witness, who stated that it was impossible for the accused to be at the place at the time mentioned, failed upon cross-examination; and that even taking the watcher's own statement, it was quite possible for him to have done all that was alleged. There have been cases which have shown the desirability of an amendment of the Day Trespass Act, but I doubt whether this is one of them.

  KILLARNEY UNION.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the auditor of the Local Government Board

  1571
  has recently made any Report as to the financial condition of the Killarney Union, and if he can give the substance thereof; whether it is true that £5,031 of the poor rate remained uncollected at the close of the year, and that £2,122 of the seed rate was still outstanding; and if he can state what the Local Government Board propose to do in the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I am informed that the Auditor's Report in the case of the Killarney Union was entered on the Union Ledger and submitted to the Board of Guardians in ordinary course. The Report was published in the local newspapers, from which the hon. Gentleman can obtain the information he desires in answer to the first paragraph. As regards the second paragraph, I understand that on the 24th of March the outstanding balances in respect of poor rate and seed rate had been reduced to £3,966 and £2,037 respectively. The Local Government Board have addressed a communication to the Guardians warning the collectors that unless their collections were brought to a satisfactory close within a specified period they would find it necessary to remove them from office.

  THE SLANEY FISHERIES.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been brought to his notice that, under the bye-laws of the Conservancy Board which regulate the close time for fishing in the Slaney, the net fishermen are placed at a disadvantage in taking salmon, as compared with the anglers in that river and the net fishermen in neighbouring rivers; whether he is aware that the fishermen have only three representatives on the Conservancy Board, whereas the anglers are represented by three elected members and also 10 ex officio members, together with 10 other ex officio members who may be called in at any moment; and whether he will inquire into the matter, with a view to remedying the alleged grievance of the Slaney fishermen?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Inspectors of Fisheries inform me that the Close Season Order referred to was passed with the object of preserving the stock of fish in the River Slaney, which was proved to be diminishing from excessive netting.
  1572
  The Order was not passed in the interest of any one class of fishermen, and the Inspectors believe that the restrictions placed on netting will ultimately benefit both net fishermen and anglers. The facts appear to be as stated in the second paragraph; but I would point out that the constitution of the Board of Conservators is regulated by Statute, and that there is no power to interfere in the matter in this respect.

  THE CASE OF EDWARD TAFFE.
  MR. BODKIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been directed to the case of Edward Taffe, now residing in great poverty in Boyle, County Roscommon, who was discharged from the Army in 1872 without a pension after three and a-half years' service in the East India Company, and 12 years and two months in the Imperial Service: is he aware that Edward Taffe was during almost the entire period on active service; that he joined the East India Company's Service (the Madras Fusiliers) in June, 1856; that he was transferred to the Imperial Service in January, 1860; that he was in active service all through the Indian Mutiny in No. 9 Battery 4th Brigade Artillery, as volunteer; that he afterwards went to New Zealand, and served in the Maori War; that he was sent to England in 1868, and was transferred to No. 91 Battery 2nd Brigade for foreign service; and that he was sent again to India (Singapore), where he remained until discharged; and will he give the matter his most favourable consideration, with the object of providing, if possible, that this man, after arduous and distinguished service in the Imperial forces, may have some provision beside the poor-house for his old age?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,&c.): E. Taffe's conduct in the Service was recorded as "very bad," and he was discharged in 1872 under sentence of Court Martial. It is not a case in which any pension can be granted.

  SKIBBEREEN CUSTOM HOUSE.
  MR. E. BARRY: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to

  1573
  a resolution recently passed by the Skibbereen Town Commissioners protesting against the removal of the Custom House from Skibbereen to Baltimore, a village nine miles distant from the former town, and whether he is aware that considerable inconvenience is likely to be caused to an extensive district of which Skibbereen is the centre should this contemplated removal of the Custom House be carried into effect; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): A copy of the resolution referred to was on Saturday last received by the Commissioners of Customs and will receive attention; but the changes of station of the Customs officers belonging to the Port of Skibbereen, from Bantry and Skibbereen to Baltimore, were considered to be advantageous both in the interests of the Service and of the public, and were recommended both by the late and the present district collector, who are of opinion that in view of the present railway communication between the two towns no inconvenience is likely to be caused to Skibbereen.

  DUBLIN CUSTOM HOUSE.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the great inconvenience caused by the closing of the entrance door leading from the public street to the office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Custom House, Dublin; whether be is aware that, since the closing of this entry, the office can only be reached by a circuitous way up and down stairs and through long passages, involving considerable loss of time; and if he will, in the interest of the public, take, into consideration the desirability of having this entrance door kept open during the office hours?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am informed that, though some slight inconvenience may have been caused by the step referred to, it can hardly be called serious, and it affects only a very limited number of persons. If the door were kept open during office hours it would necessitate the employment of an extra
  1574
  porter for this purpose only, and the advantage to be gained would scarcely justify the expense.

  REPORTS OF HER MAJESTY'S INSPECTORS OF MINES.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Summaries of the Statistical Portion of the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines will be in the hands of Members?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): The Summaries are now in the printers' hands, and I understand they will be ready by Wednesday.

  THE BEHRING SEA AWARD BILL.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether the Government of the Dominion of Canada have agreed in full detail to the Behring Sea Award Bill; or whether any, and if so which, points still need consideration?
  SIR A. ROLLIT: Before the hon. Gentleman answers the question I should like to ask him if there is any difference between the Bill now before the House and the Bill of and Agreement with the United States Government, as has been alleged?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The expected Despatch from Canada, to which I referred on Thursday, has not vet arrived. We have no reason to suppose that it is likely to affect the principle of the Bill, and if Amendments may eventually be found to be necessary they can be introduced at a later stage.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can present to the House the text of the Behring Sea Award Bill which has now passed the Legislature of the United States?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): We received the original text of the United States British Sea Award Bill, and the various Amendments made in it have been communicated separately

  1575
  by telegraph. As soon as the complete text of the Bill as passed is received it will be presented.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: May I ask my hon. Friend if he can give any explanation of the very serious report in The Times of to-day of the language used in the United States Senate concerning the Bill before this House, it being described as an evasion of the Arbitration Treaty?
  SIR E. GREY: I think it will be more convenient if the Attorney General is permitted to explain the matter when the Bill gets into Committee.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I should like to ask what arrangements the Government propose to make in order that this very important question may be discussed this evening. What security has the House that the Bill will be taken this evening?
  SIR E. GREY: I do not think that the question as to the disposal of the time of the House is one that I can reply to.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Then I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he will explain the statement which has appeared in the newspapers as to the existence of a serious difference between the United States Government and our own with regard to this Bill?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL,): There is no serious difference, and the statement to this effect is exaggerated. There is a variance between the two Bills, and I will take the opportunity of explaining the matter fully when the Bill gets into Committee this evening.
  MR. BARTLEY: What time shall we go into Committee? Do the Government propose to adjourn the Estimates in order to give us time to discuss this important question?
  [No answer was given.]

  NEW COUNTY MAGISTRATES.
  MR. DODD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Return granted showing the County Magistrates appointed since the Resolution of this House of 5th May, 1893, will be presented?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): All that I can learn from the Lord Chancellor is that the Return is being proceeded with, but is not yet ready.
  MR. DODD: Then I beg to give notice that I will call the attention of the House to this matter on an early day.

  BRITISH HERRINGS IN RUSSIA.
  MR. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether certificates of origin will still be required in Russia for British herrings?
  SIR E. GREY: According to the new Regulations received by us, certificates of origin will only be required for herrings when preserved in marinade or oil, or when stuffed.

  M. KERCKHOVEN'S EXPEDITION.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Expedition under M. Kerck-hoven, which became established at Lado in the early part of 1893, has been completely withdrawn?
  SIR E. GREY: Her Majesty's Government have no knowledge of the Expedition having been established at Lado.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: Has there not been a correspondence on this very subject:?
  SIR E. GREY: I can give the hon. and gallant Member no information beyond that we have no knowledge of the Expedition having been established.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: Then to what did the protest of Lord Rosebery refer?
  SIR E. GREY: The Belgian Government was asked where the Expedition was, and they replied that they did not know what it was or where it could be.

  DINIZULA.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a decision in the case of the imprisonment of Dinizula and others has yet been made?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The Secretary of State is in communication with Sir Marshall Clarke, Administrator of Zulu-land, in regard to this question, and other questions affecting Zululand. I cannot state when I shall be in a position to

  1577
  make a communication to the House on the subject.

  PONDOLAND.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if, as reported, one of the lately contending Chiefs in Pondoland is to be exiled; if so, where to?
  MR. S. BUXTON: We have as yet no official information confirming this report.

  PARISH COUNCILS.
  MR. HENEAGE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Instructions sent to the various Local Authorities with the view of bringing Parish Councils into existence during the present year?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,): If the hon. Member will move for the Instructions they shall be laid on the Table of the House.
  MR. HENEAGE: I will move.

  H.M.S. "POWERFUL."
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the boilers of the Powerful now being built are to come from France; and, if so, why they are not to be obtained from England; and if the contract makes any provision that English materials shall be used as far as possible in the construction of the vessel, or that the Resolution of the House in 1891 as to fair wages and fair hours shall be observed?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The boilers of the Powerful will be built by an English firm. Materials of British manufacture will be used as far as possible in constructing the ship. The contract provides for giving effect to the Resolution of the House.

  ARMOUR-PIERCING PROJECTILES.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for war what information he can give to the House as to the results of trials of armour-piercing shot manufactured by a Sheffield firm, 9·'2 inches in diameter, and weighing
  1578
  380 pounds each, which are stated to have passed entirely through a 14-inch compound plate, and then through four feet of oak hacking into a heap of sand in the rear, without any practical damage to the shot itself: whether the French projectiles have given similarly good results; and whether they were for Army or Navy use?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,)(who replied) said: The trial referred to is the ordinary test for armour-piercing projectiles of the calibre named. Only one shot was fired, and as it passed proof the projectiles were accepted for land service. No French projectiles of 9·2 inches have been tested by us during the last three years. No comparison, therefore, can be made with French shot of recent date.

  LESSON BOOKS IN IRISH SCHOOLS.
  MR. BODKIN (Roscommon, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state when the Return in regard to the lesson books of the Irish National School Board, which was ordered some months ago, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Board of National Education report that with every pressure on the staff to close the Return at an early date it will not be possible, in view of the other heavy engagements of the Office, to complete it for presentation until the end of the current month.

  TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH BURGH HEATH.
  MR. BUCKNILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether arrangements were made and concluded by the Post Office, so far back as a year since, for laying down telegraphic communication with Burgh Heath, in the County of Surrey, for the transaction of public telegraph business there; whether any reason exists for the delay in carrying out the said arrangements; and whether eligible residents at Burgh Heath have offered to take the post and telegraph office there, and to work the same?
  MR. A. MORLEY: It is the case that nearly a year ago the Post Office undertook to extend telegraphic com-

  1579
  munication to Burgh Heath. Great difficulty was, however, experienced in obtaining the necessary permission to erect the telegraphs, both from private persons and from the Surrey County Council. When these difficulties were at last overcome the Sub-Postmaster declined to conduct telegraph business, and it appeared that there was no other eligible person who could be appointed to the office. I am now informed of two applicants for the post, and I have given instructions for the necessary inquiry to be made with a view to ascertain whether one of them can be recommended. If so, I will see that there is no further delay in carrying out the telegraph extension.

  THE ROYAL WARWICKSHIRE REGIMENTAL RIFLE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Royal Warwickshire Regiment, stationed in Ceylon, is supplied with the Lee-Met-ford Magazine Rifle; if so, whether the following changes, stated by the War Office on 6th June, 1893, to be important modifications of the Mark I Rifle, have been made in the said rifle—namely, bolt, rounded at end to suit the rounded angle of cocking piece; spring (magazine), a fourth coil added; screws (bolt cover) (two), made a tight fit; screws (bolt head), mild cast steel, hardened at point and tempered, instead of mild steel unhardened; and whether the regiment is supplied with the Lee-Metford Magazine Rifle, Mark 2, with the Penn-Deeley patent bolt head?
  MR. WOODALL: The battalion of the Warwickshire Regiment in Ceylon has the Mark 1 (star) Lee-Metford Rifle. It is not known for certain whether the first of the modifications named in the question was made in these particular arms, as it was only applied to rifles made after a certain date. It is not, however, a point of much importance.
  MR. WEIR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on the 6th of Juno Last the War office stated that these modifications were of really great importance?
  MR. WOODALL: It is quite true that the series of modifications introduced into the Mark 1 (star) Rifle finally adopted are useful and important, but the one in question is a small detail.

  MANUFACTURING COSTS AT ENFIELD AND SPARKBROOK.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what it costs to manufacture a Lee-Metford magazine rifle at Enfield, and what it costs at Sparkbrook, assuming that the same number and kind of Lee-Metford Magazine Rifle is ordered from each factory?
  MR. WOODALL: The productive power at Enfield is about three times as great as was that at Sparkbrook, and it is therefore not possible to give from practical experience the cost of producing an equal number of arms at each factory. Under ordinary circumstances the difference of cost is but fractional. For instance, the cost for the last three years of completed accounts was as follows:—1890–1, Enfield, £3 11s. 10¼d.; Birmingham, £3 14s. 5d.; 1891–2, Enfield, £3 11s.; Birmingham, £3 9s. 2d.; 1892–3, Enfield, £3 14s. 6½d.; Birmingham, £3 17s.4¼d.; and these fluctuations were due principally to the value of orders placed at each factory.
  MR. BARRAN: May I ask whether establishment costs are added?
  MR. WOODALL: Yes.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Is there not information at the War Office to the effect that the rifles made at Sparkbrook cost 2s. 6d. less than those made at Enfield in 1891, and if this is the case, would there not have been a saving of £11,000 of public money had all the rifles been made at Sparkbrook during that year?
  MR. WOODALL: I admit that in 1891–2 the rifles made at Sparkbrook cost Is. 10d. per arm less than those produced at Enfield; but, on the other hand, in the preceding and succeeding years the cost at Birmingham was higher than at Enfield.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: And was not that increased cost due to the fact that the charges for plant, machinery, &c., were included in the reckoning against the rifles?
  MR. WOODALL: My right hon. Friend can easily satisfy himself on that account. The cost of producing the rifles includes actual expenditure, wages, material, depreciation on buildings and

  1581
  plant, establishment charges, and amortisement of machinery erected for the special purpose of manufacturing the rifle.

  THE NEWFOUNDLAND MINISTERIAL CRISIS.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state the decision arrived at by Her Majesty's Government in reference to the request for a dissolution made to the Governor of Newfoundland by the present Ministers of that Colony?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The Governor of Newfoundland is still in communication with his Ministers on the subject of the political crisis that has arisen.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say the Governor is directed to take the advice of the responsiblo Ministors in this matter, seeing that they are the gentlemen whose conduct is now under trial?
  MR. S. BUXTON: But as in all self-Governing Bodies the responsible advisers of the Governor are the Ministers until they retire he is bound to take their advice, although he may not follow it.

  UGANDA.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have now come to a decision in regard to the affairs of Uganda; whether he can state what that decision is; and whether he can intimate any likely date when time can be allotted for the consideration of the question in this House?
  SIR E. GREY: Papers relating to Uganda cannot be distributed till tomorrow. The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be made until Thursday.
  MR. CRAWFORD: Will the Papers be accompanied by a map?
  SIR E. GREY: The Government will have no objection to furnish one, if such a map is not already included in the Papers.

  BANSTEAD COMMON.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General if his attention has been directed to a proposal made to the Corporation of London, on the 15th of February, and with which his name has been connected, to inclose and divide one-half of Ban-stead Commons amongst private individuals: whether his name has been used with his authority: and whether the proposal is in contravention of the Metropolitan Commons (Baustead) Supplemental Act, passed last Session, by which the whole of the said Commons were secured for the benefit and enjoyment of the public?
  SIR; C. RUSSELL: My attention has been called to the proposal in question. My position in relation to it can best be explained by reading the material part of the letter which, upon seeing my name mentioned in connection with the scheme, I wrote to Mr. Robert Vigors, surveyor, who proposed the scheme, and his answer to my letter. On February 20, 1891, I wrote to him—
  "Dear Sir,—I am surprised to find my name put forward as if supporting the Baustead enclosure scheme I cannot think you meant to do this wholly unwarrantable thing. When I saw you here I told you—(1) That I was opposed to the scheme, and, if carried, would give you a commission to sell my place; (2) that the conservators (of whom I amone) could be no parties to propounding such a scheme; and (3) that I felt certain that no such scheme could be carried through Parliament."
  Mr. vigers' reply was as follows—
  "Dear Sir Charles,—I have your letter of this day's date, from which I note that you express surprise at seeing an article in the newspapers making misstatements, and that you above all people, assume them to be correct. My experience of newspaper reports is that should one happen to know all the facts it is sure to be untrue. I practically agree with all your statements, number 1, 2, and 3, with the exception that you told me that if I got the scheme carried you would give me a commission if I could sell your place. I do say that you told me that you had some talk with Mr. Budden, and that you had offered him a commission if he could sell your place for you. I have today been before the Committee of the Corporation upon this matter, and I made it my business to say that the statements made in the newspapers about you and some of the other gentlemen who surround the common were incorrect; in fact, your letter came to me while I was waiting to attend the City Committee. I hope, therefore, you will be satisfied that I have not done anything unwarrantable, and if anybody has been guilty of misstatement it has been the public Tress. Yours faithfully. Robert Vigors."

  1583
  I may add that Mr. Francis Baring, Mr. Bonsor, the Member for Wimbledon, and myself were amongst those who bore the cost of the heavy litigation in Chancery, which rescued Banstead Downs from enclosure, and I have reason to know that Mr. Baring and Mr. Bonsor are both opposed to the enclosure scheme in question.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON SECONDARY EDUCATION.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the terms of the Reference to the Royal Commission on Secondary Education would enable them to have regard to the conditions upon which the existing sources of revenue from endowment have been hitherto attached to particular forms of teaching, whether religious or otherwise?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,)(who replied) said: It lies with the Commission to interpret the Reference which has been made to it, and I am unable to give any information on this point. I cannot doubt that they would consider any communication the hon. Gentleman may think right to make to them.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: May I ask whether the terms of the Reference to the Commission were not agreed upon on the advice of Her Majesty's Government, and why the Government cannot therefore state their intentions?
  MR. ACLAND: When a Reference has been made to a Royal Commission it lies with the Royal Commission to deal with the matter.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: It is obvious that the Government must have meant something, and the question I venture to put is this: The Government gave certain advice to Her Majesty, under which the Royal Commission is issued. Did they intend that the Commissioners should have power to inquire not only as to the amount of endowments, but as to the circumstances surrounding them? There is a vast number of these secondary education endowments wholly devoted to the purposes of religious education, and the Reference is a matter of extreme importance to them. Unless the terms of the Reference are made clear, all
  1584
  the investigations of the Commission will probably be useless.
  MR. ACLAND: The Reference is perfectly clear, and has been made in perfect good faith. The Royal Commission is the body to interpret the Reference.

  THE BUDGET.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will provide in the forthcoming Budget for the return of duty which has been paid on spirit on importation when such spirit is exported as methylated spirit, it being stated that the refusal to allow the return of such duty is driving the trade from this country?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): The time has not yet arrived to announce the Budget proposals.

  PRECAUTIONS AGAINST CHOLERA.
  MR. HENEAGE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have considered the very serious expenditure which is incurred by the Local Authorities of seaport towns and fishing villages in taking special precautions, by order of the Local Government Board, to prevent the introduction of cholera; and whether they will be prepared to assist such Local Authorities to defray the cost of such special precautious as are taken in the interest of the whole country in regard to the inspection of vessels at sea, provision for isolation of patients in hospital ships, and- the disinfection of vessels at sea?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: This question was discussed many times in the course of last year, and I have nothing to add to what I then said.
  MR. HENEAGE: Were not the three specific subjects mentioned in my question agreed on by the late President of the Local Government Board and the 80 Members who waited on him last year?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think not, I have already stated that the ports had not established any special claim as apart from the other parts of the Kingdom; and I have no reason to depart from that, opinion.

  OUTDOOR RELIEF IN THE LISTOWEL UNION.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the auditor of the Local Government Board has recently made any Report in reference to the abuse of outdoor relief in the Listowel Union; whether a special meeting of the Board of Guardians was recently convened to consider the Auditor's Report; and if he can state the nature of the Report, and the action taken by the Guardians thereon?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Auditor's Report on the accounts of the Listowel Union was submitted to the Board of Guardians by their clerk in the usual way, and it is open to the hon. Gentleman to obtain from the local newspapers the substance of the auditor's remarks. With regard to the action of the Guardians on the Report, I am informed that at a special meeting held on the 15th of February the Guardians called upon the several relieving officers to furnish lists of the recipients of outdoor relief, with a view to a general revision of the lists, and that the matter is still engaging the attention of the Guardians.
  MR. SEXTON: As this question contains a reflection on a Board of Guardians in my constituency, can I see the Report of the auditor?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I will inquire, but I am told the substance of the Report was published in the local newspapers.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is it not a fact that the cost of outdoor relief in the Listowel Union amounted to 1s. 10d. in the £1?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot say.

  PUBLICANS AS MAGISTRATES.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the date upon which the Commission of the Peace was conferred upon Mr. E. P. O'Kelly, of Baltinglass, County Wick-low; whether he is aware that Mr. O'Kelly was the holder of a retail licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors in that town, and that he transferred the licence before his appointment to the Bench to his wife; whether it has been brought to his knowledge that the Queen's
  1586
  Bench in Ireland has decided that the transfer of a licence can only be granted in one of three events—the death of the licensed person, sale of the premises, or the assignment of the licence on removal from the premises; and whether, in view of this decision, he will take steps to prevent the colourable transfer of licences in order to qualify for the Commission of the Peace?
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is it necessary for the holder of a licence to get rid of that licence, by transfer or otherwise, in order to qualify as a Magistrate?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The gentleman referred to was appointed to the Commission of the Peace on the 15th March. Upon ascertaining that he held a publican's licence, the Lord Chancellor required that, a bonâ fide transfer of the licence should be made, and this Mr O'Kelly informed the Lord Chancellor had been done. He has since ascertained, however, that the transfer was a colour-ableone. The law appears to be as stated in the third paragraph, and acting on that view of the law the Lord Chancellor will insist on a bonâ fide transfer, and will not permit a colourable transfer in this or any other case.
  Mi;. T. W. RUSSELL: The Queen's Bench having decided that these colourable transfers are illegal, will the Lord Chancellor see that the publicans who have made them are not allowed to defeat the Licensing Laws by sitting on the Bench when licensing matters are dealt with?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have said that these colourable transfers will not be allowed.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question, whether it is necessary to get rid of the licence, by transfer or otherwise, in order to qualify its a Magistrate?
  MR. L MORLEY: That involves a legal question, which rests with the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: But is it the case that the holder of a licence is not qualified for the Commission of the Peace?
  MR. J. MORLEY: No, that is not the case. Holders of licences have been appointed to the Bench by the late Government and other Governments.

  CHARITIES OF ST. MARY THE VIRGIN, OXFORD.
  MR. DODD: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Charity Commission has propounded a scheme for the parish charities of St. Mary the Virgin, Oxford, in which the trustees are to be three of them ex officio, three of them co-optive, and five (being a minority) representative; whether he is aware that 200 years ago these charities were under the control of the Vestry, which was then elected by each of the ratepayers having one vote and no more; if so, whether he will suggest to the Commission to withdraw the co-optive element from the scheme: and, as to Nixon's Charity at Oxford (an educational one), whether he will suggest to the Commission that, in framing the new scheme now before them, they should give power to the trustees to lot their land, if they see fit, or parts of it, in allotments?
  MR. ACLAND: The Commissioners, in the result of representations made to them, have already modified the Draft Scheme for these charities by the omission of the Churchwardens from the proposed Governing Body, thus leaving the trustees to be elected by the ratepayers in a majority. In the case of one only of the charities, but that the largest, the income was, in the reign of James I., directed to be applied by the Churchwardens, with the consent of the major part of the householders parishioners of the parish. The other charities have been administered by the Vicar and parish officers or some of them, or by individual trustees. In these circumstances, the Commissioners do not contemplate any further alteration of the Governing Body. The scheme for Nixon's Charity at Oxford is no longer before the Commissioners, having been submitted to the Education Department on the 19th of March last.

  POSTMEN AND THE QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY.
  SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the practice of granting a holiday to those engaged in the Customs service, and also the major departments of the Post Office, on the Queen's birthday, can be ex-
  1588
  tended to postmen generally throughout the United Kingdom?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I fear not. The public would not tolerate the post being stopped throughout the country on the day set apart for celebrating Her Majesty's Birthday.

  THE SUNDAY DISTURBANCES AT CORK.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many persons have been arrested by the Constabulary in connection with the continued assaults which have been made upon Protestant preachers in the streets of Cork; and whether any of the persons so arrested have been brought to trial; if so, with what result?
  MR. CARSON: At the same time I will ask the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to the riotous scenes which on each Sunday for some months past have taken place in the City of Cork by reason of attacks made on Protestant clergymen, whether the action of the said clergymen in preaching in the streets is legal; and, if not, whether they have been proceeded against for continuing; such preaching to test the legality of their action; whether any persons have been proceeded against for assaulting and interfering with said Protestant preachers; and whether he will give instructions to the police either to prohibit the preaching or to prevent the assaults upon the said preachers?
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Is it a fact that these preachers have themselves assaulted the police; if so, have any of them been arrested, or had proceedings taken against them, and with what result?
  MR. W. KENNY: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that the Rev. Mr. Hallowes, of Arklow notoriety, has gone to Cork to join those street preachers, whom I, in common with gentlemen opposite, regard as a menace to the public peace and an insult to Catholics in the vicinity? And would therighthon. Gentleman think well of drawing the attention of those gentlemen to the admirable letter written on the 3rd of February, 1891, by the present Leader of the Opposition to this same Mr. Hallowes, in which he points out that the division between dif-

  1589
  fcrent sections of the community caused by difference of creed is so deep and so far-reaching, and religious convictions are so closely interwoven with political opinions, that a course which would be innocent and even praiseworthy on one side of St. George's Channel might be morally and if not legally indefensible on the other, and that this fact, while it affords no shadow of an excuse for violence, may very possibly offer sufficient grounds for criticising the action of those by whom the violence is knowingly provoked?
  MR. J. MORLEY: In answer to these questions, I have to state that no person has been arrested or brought to trial by the police for proceedings arising out of the religious services in the streets of Cork. The police have not witnessed any assaults upon the preachers, and, as I am informed, no actual assaults of a serious nature have been committed on them. The assaults that have been committed were of the nature of horseplay, consisting of hustling and mud-throwing, and were invariably committed by women and boys; but the police have seen no stones throw n, as has been alleged, nor do they believe that a single stone has been thrown on any occasion. In confirmation of the reports which have been made to me by the police, I am informed by their very experienced officer in charge that not one of the preachers has received the slightest hurt or injury since the commencement of these proceedings in November last; and it is due to the police to say that the unwearying and efficient protection afforded by them to the preachers at all times has prevented the commission of serious assaults, or the occurrence of anything more painful and deplorable than has already taken place. I have previously remarked that the accounts of these transactions which have appeared in the Press have been grossly exaggerated, and as regards the complaints that have been made regarding the action of the police throughout those very trying proceedings, many eye-witnesses of the occurrences—both Protestant and Catholic—have, unsolicited, offered to testify to the good temper and forbearance displayed by the police. With reference to the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University as to the legality of the preaching, I would observe that street preaching per se is no offence by Common
  1590
  or Statute Law, but that in the performance of an otherwise legal act the preachers act illegally if they thereby obstruct or by gathering crowds cause an obstruction of the highway. This was the principle recognised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in his dealings with the more violent proceedings at Arklow. It is competent to the Constabulary to compel any person obstructing the highway or causing an obstruction to move on, and, in addition, it is the duty of the police, if they cannot otherwise prevent a breach of the peace, to disperse such an assemblage as provokes it. The preachers must be aware that they are acting illegally by causing obstruction, but, as the offence is one which can be prosecuted by any member of the public, it is also well known that the police, as public prosecutors, claim the exercise of a discretion in the institution of proceedings. At Arklow private individuals prosecuted with unsatisfactory results, notwithstanding the fact that a conviction for obstruction was obtained and one of the preachers, in default of paying the fine, went to prison. There was no encouragement for a police prosecution at Arklow, and, having regard to the experiences there, there is no encouragement to proceed at Cork.
  MR;. FLYNN: As to the charge of obstruction, is it not a fact that the Mayor and Corporation of Cork had suggested that the street preachers should carry on in future their proceedings only on the Marina, or other open space?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I believe that is their recommendation.
  MR. SEXTON: Is there not some Society or Organisations which, by providing funds, is responsible for the obstinate persistence of these street preachers? Will the right hon. Gentleman direct inquiries into that point?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not aware of that, but I will cause inquiry to be made.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government propose to mete out a different treatment to the preachers in Ireland to that which was meted out a short time ago to the Salvation Army preachers in connection with meetings they attempted to conduct at East-

  1591
  bourne and elsewhere? Did not the Government in those cases interfere, and even repeal a clause in Private Bills which was contrary to the public law? I am not defending these Cork preachers, but I cannot see any difference between the two classes of preachers or meetings, and I think that the law that applies to gathering's of that sort at Eastbourne should also apply to the proceedings at Cork.
  MR. SPEAKER: This question is only an argumentative way of bringing forward a matter having reference to another question than the one under consideration, and I must rule it out of Order.

  TEMPERANCE CANTEENS FOR THE ARMY.
  MR. ARCHIBALD GROVE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he could state what facilities are offered to the Army Temperance Associations for establishing canteens in the various Military Centres; and whether it would be possible to establish a temperance canteen with every regiment, or at every Military Centre?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,&c.): There is already in every barrack what is practically a temperance canteen—namely, the room where non-intoxicants are sold—under Article 84 of Section 15 of the Queen's Regulations. We have also included in the Estimates for this year a sum of £500 as a grant-in-aid of the Army Temperance Association, and our desire is to assist that Association to the full extent of our power in extending its operations in this country.

  HIGHBURY VALE SCHOOL.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that certain expenditure upon a new cloak-room at Highbury Vale School has been disregarded by the Department as not legitimate under Article 90 of the Code; whether, in addition to this fine upon the resources of the school, very long delay has taken place in the payment of grant; and whether he will state the reason for this long delay, and the decision in regard to the cloak-room?
  MR. ACLAND: The grant to this school, which was inspected on the 29th of January, has now been paid. The delay in the case was mainly due to the managers having included in their accounts a sum not specified representing the cost of building a new cloak-room, and having afterwards placed the case in the hands of the Diocesan Board of Education instead of withdrawing the sum from the accounts. The right hon. Gentleman must, I think, be well aware that the cost of structural additions to a school is, and always has been, disallowed under the Code as expenditure in the accounts of the school. There has been no fine on the resources of the school, the full grant having been paid.

  GAS CONSUMPTION IN PARLIAMENT HOUSES.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can state what quantity of gas was consumed in the Houses of Parliament in the year 1893; what was the total cost of the same; and what was the price charged per 1,000 cubic feet by the Company supplying the gas?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. H. GLADSTONE,): The total consumption of gas in 1893 in the Houses of Parliament and their precincts was 27,871,000 cubic feet; the total cost was £4,223, besides £33 for meter rents; and the price was 3s. 1d. per 1,000 feet, except for the street lamps, for which the charge is 2s. 2d. per 1,000.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I understand that the Vestries of London are paying for the gas used by them for all purposes at a uniform cost of 2s. 2d. per thousand, and I should be glad to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will approach the Gas Company with a view of getting them to supply all the gas required at the lower rate?
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: There are two qualities of gas, I believe, supplied by the Company; but I will inquire into the matter.

  TRINIDAD AND VENEZUELA.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to relieve the Colony of Trinidad

  1593
  from the extra impost of 30 per cent. levied for 12 years past in Venezuela upon all goods coming from that island and the Antilles over and above the heavy duties levied upon goods from any other part of the world; and, having regard to the injury this extra duty has inflicted upon the Colony most adjacent to Venezuela, if Her Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of conferring with the other Antilean Powers—namely, Franco, Holland, and Spain, upon the situation, should the removal of the extra impost not be favourably considered by the new President, General Crespo, and Senor Bojas, the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Caracas?
  ME. S. BUXTON: Diplomatic relations with Venezuela are still suspended, and consequently no steps have been taken at Caracas to relieve the Colony of Trinidad from the impost referred to in the first, paragraph of this question. Owing to this continued suspension of relations, Her Majesty's Government do not consider the present moment propitious for entering into any negotiations on the subject.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Will the Government take the earliest opportunity of moving in the matter?
  MR. S. BUXTON: That question should be addressed to the Foreign Office.

  CATTLE SEIZURES IN COUNTY TYRONE.
  MR. MAC NEILL (Donegal, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that on the 3rd of November, near Six Mile Cross, in the County of Tyrone, cattle, the property of William Sawyers, which were being driven by George Sawyers, a son of William Sawyers, and a man named Joseph M'Farland, wore seized by two bailiffs carrying out a decree against Joseph M'Farland at the suit of the Ulster Bank; and that M'Farland and George Sawyers, forresisting this seizure, were arrested and returned for trial to the Quarter Sessions at Omagh, County Tyrone; that, before allowing the cattle to be released, the bailiffs insisted on the instructions of the solicitor for the Ulster Bank on payment of the amount of the decree, which George Sawyers, who had got out on bail, paid under protest; that
  1594
  the money so paid by George Sawyers was recovered on a decree obtained against the Ulster Bank at the Belfast Quarter Sessions last January; that George Sawyers was subsequently put on his trial at the Omagh Quarter Sessions, and convicted for the alleged rescue: whether he is aware that the Sessional Crown Solicitor for County Tyrone (Mr. T. C. Dickie), who prosecuted George Sawyers at the Omagh Quarter Sessions, is also the Solicitor for the Ulster Bank who obtained the degree for the said bank against M'Farland; whether Crown Solicitors are entitled to utilise their office as Crown Solicitors in the interest of their private clients; what justification was there for the issue of this warrant without notice, and under such unusual circumstances; and whether directions will be given that these proceedings will be immediately discontinued?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The first paragraph sets forth the facts with substantial accuracy except, as I am informed, that the ownership of the cattle was not tried by the Judge at Quarter Sessions. The two men, M'Farland and Sawyers, were arrested on a warrant obtained by the bailiff, and were tried at the Omagh January Quarter Sessions, when they pleaded guilty and wore allowed out on their own recognisances to attend for judgment when called upon. They appear to have been dealt with in this manner in consequence of Sawyer's undertaking not to execute the decree obtained by him against the Bank. Contrary to the arrangement thus entered into, Sawyers levied the decree, and the Sessional Crown Solicitor, who appears to have regarded this as a breach of faith, served him with the usual 10 days' notice to come up for judgment at next Quarter Sessions. No warrant has been issued in connection with this branch of the case. The attention of the Attorney General having been drawn to the facts of the case some days ago, directed that the notice to appear for judgment should be at once withdrawn by the Sessional Crown Solicitor.

  BUILDING SOCIETIES' ACTS.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of the Government to

  1595
  introduce, during the present Session, a Bill to amend the Law relating to Building Societies?
  MR. ASQUITH: It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works to introduce a measure to amend the law relating to Building Societies.

  THE BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.
  MR. W. KENNY: I have to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom I have given private notice of the question, whether, having regard to the order in which the Government Bills were placed—first, Registration; second, Welsh Disestablishment; third. Evicted Tenants; and fourth, Local Veto—the House may take it for granted that the Government have determined to put the Welsh Disestablishment Bill before the Evicted Tenants Bill?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I received notice of this question about two and a-half minutes ago. The hon. Member can draw no conclusions of the kind which he seems to have been disposed to draw until the Government have declared their intentions.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, to whom I have given private notice of the question, whether, in view of all the circumstances of the case, and especially in view of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition said on Thursday that all Parties were agreed as to the first part of the terms of Reference, he does not think it advisable to go on with the first part of the Reference at once? Will he not consent to move that part to-night?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am considering how it may be possible to establish a modus vivendi with gentlemen opposite, and am engaged in negotiations on the matter. If the hon. Member will ask me a question on Thursday, I will give him a definite answer.

  THE BEHRING SEA ARBITRATION BILL.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With reference to what fell from the Attorney General earlier in the afternoon, I should like to ask at what time the Government propose to adjourn other business in order to take the
  1596
  Behring Sea Arbitration Bill, which does not stand even as second Order on the Paper?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: We are anxious that proper time should be given for the consideration of a Bill of such importance. But I hope we may assume that, under the circumstances, it is not a Bill which is going to be opposed. It would be a very ungracious thing towards the United States if it were opposed. I am extremely anxious, on account of the International character of the Bill, that, it should not be made the subject of Party controversy. Would it he considered adequate if we took the Bill at half-past 11?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As a matter of personal explanation, let mo remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the Bill was read a second time I took great pains to make it clear that the Bill would not be treated by us in any controversial spirit, and that I would do my best to enable it to pass. The whole difficulty arises from some differences between this measure and the measure presented to the United States Legislature. I am not qualified to say whether the differences are such as would justify a Debate in this House. The Government are better judges of that; but I hope they will not stint the necessary time for the consideration of the Bill.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: If it is desired, the Bill will be taken at 11 o'clock.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  James Caldwell, esquire, for the County of Lanark (Mid Division.)
MOTION.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (GOVERNMENT BUSINESS).

    RESOLUTION.
    SIR W. HARCOURT, in rising to move—
    "That for the remainder of the Session Government Business do have priority on Tuesday. That on Friday the House do meet at Two of the clock, and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to Tuesday and the Morning Sitting on Friday,"
    said: I shall, no doubt, be expected by the House to state the grounds on which Her Majesty's Government make this claim—this large claim—in respect of the

    1597
    time to be given to them for the transaction of business. I will do so with absolute frankness and in a manner that will give offence, I hope, to no Party or section in the House. The grounds on which the Government make this request are—first of all, the date indicated by the calendar; secondly, the business the House has to transact; and, thirdly, the relation of the Government to that business. As regards the date, I may remind the House that it is the 9th of April, and I think I need not remind the House of the abnormal circumstances that have taken place in the first quarter of this year. I will not refer to those circumstances in detail, for they are all familiar to the House. I will take this opportunity of cordially recognising the assistance the Government have received from the Opposition in transacting the necessary business in order to conclude the first quarter of the year. It is well-known that the Government were placed in an exceptional position. They were bound to conclude the financial business of the country by a particular date, and I am glad to recognise the assistance they received from gentlemen in all quarters of the House in performing that part of their duty. But what we are concerned with to-day is the future, and what remains of the Session on which we have entered. In these circumstances, I do not propose to do what has been done on some occasions and go through a number of precedents, because precedents really have no bearing upon the circumstances of the present time. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes: that is a well-founded observation, as I shall endeavour to show to the House. I will take it for granted that I shall have the assent of the House to this proposition, that if we can help it we are not to follow the example of last year. The continued and continuous sittings of Parliament are, I think, neither good for the House of Commons nor good for the country; and, if I may assume that, I hope it may be an element that we shall take into consideration in determining what we are going to do with the future of the Session. I would point out to the House that, according to the present arrangements, the business days at the disposal of the Government are eight in the month, and that is making no allowance for vacations
    1598
    at Easter and at Whitsuntide. You may multiply that by the number of months you desire the House of Commons to sit. I will not make that multiplication, but I observe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) has fixed the time when the Session is to be closed. It is a little old-fashioned, I think, but he and I remember when the Session closed on August 10: and that is the date that he now adopts. I shall not be so rash myself as to fix any date; but if I take the date he has adopted, the number of days at the disposal of the Government without any recess at Whitsuntide is somewhere about 36.
    An hon. MEMBER: No, 32.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Well, 32. Therefore, according to the hypothesis of my light hon. Friend, 32 days are available to the Government to transact the business they have to deal with. I venture to say that those eight days in the mouth are not sufficient for the business that the Government have to transact in the House of Commons. I would venture candidly to desire the House to consider what is the business which the Government is expected to transact—and rightly expected to transact—in the course of a Session, and I will discuss this not in relation to one Government or another, but in relation to all Governments, as the question affects our successors as much as it does ourselves. The first and indispensable business is the administrative business of the Government connected with Supply and all that depends on it—all questions relating to the administrative business of the country at home, in the colonies, in India, in foreign affairs, and all the questions that lie outside the circle of legislative action. That is the first class of business the Government have to transact, and that nobody else can transact. The second class of business is what I should designate as legislation of a neutral character—that is to say, legislation not of a distinctly Party or political character, or of a highly controversial character, but of a sort and magnitude which only the Government can deal with. There are frequently proposals made by non-official Members of which it is said that the subject can only be adequately dealt with by the Government, and we are familiar

    1599
    with many measures of that kind. There must always be a certain number of Bills of that character which the Government must always deal with. Then there remain other Bills which I may call the controversial and political Bills of the Government. People sometimes ask "Why have Party and political measures at all?" Party government in this country is of the essence of your Parliamentary institutions and of the action of the House of Commons. I have always believed that the House of Commons could not exist except through Party government, and I have never joined those who see in it anything to condemn. It is a condition of your Party government that each Party in turn must have certain measures naturally not representing the sentiments and convictions of the Party opposite to them, but of the majority for the time being, and it is absolutely essential that the Government should bring forward great controversial measures which they strongly support and which those opposed to them equally strongly resist. I think that that is a fair description of the different classes of business which the Government have to conduct—are properly expected to conduct. If that is so, let us consider whether we can do that in the allowance of 32 days of my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. I will venture to say that if we were to-day at the commencement of an ordinary Session, under the most average circumstances, the allowance of eight days a month to the Government would be absolutely insufficient to enable them to transact the business that is expected, and which the Government ought to perform. I venture to say that that is a subject in which hon. Gentlemen opposite are quite as much concerned as we are, and that that is a matter which they would do well to consider.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: What is the allowance that the right hon. Gentleman makes for the Budget?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: That is a question which I can hardly answer. Perhaps I ought to have stated more specifically that that is a part of the administrative business of the country. I am obliged to the noble Lord for reminding me that this year, as everybody knows, the financial condition of the country is such that the financial pro-
    1600
    posals of the Government must take considerable time.
    An hon. MEMBER: Speak up.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: That only adds to the strength of the consideration that I am endeavouring to bring before the House. Let us see what is the distribution of the time of the House. Out of five sitting days three are allowed to non-official Members and to the Government. I would ask the House whether that is a reasonable distribution of the time of the House? In my opinion it is not, if you are to have any limit to your Session, and you mean to impose upon the Government the business which it is expected to fulfil. It is said that in this House the Front Benches are regarded as the natural enemies of the non-official Members, and I suppose that it may also be said that the latter are the natural enemies of the two Front Benches. I venture to protest against that description. It seems to me that the two Front Benches, with all the defects that they unquestionably possess, are not a caste by themselves. They are, after all, the creation of the non-official Members. They are the recognised organs and instruments of their several Parties on both sides of the House, and give effect to their opinions and wishes and pledges. There may be good reason to get rid of them in their individual capacity, but you must have something of the kind; for without it, it is impossible that business can be transacted. After all, the Front Benches and the non-official Members on both sides are engaged in a common cause which it is to their interest to promote, and it is a question of policy and of expediency how the time of the House should be distributed. It is not denied that the Government have the whole administrative business to conduct and also the greater part of the legislative business of the House, whether controversial or non-controversial. I do not wish to be thought to disparage the services towards legislation and the great principles of Foreign and Colonial policy and other policies that have been rendered, and are capable of being rendered, by the non-official Members of the House. They have been of use in the past, and will be so in the future, but it will not be denied that at the present moment, for carrying to a practical

    1601
    conclusion any measure of importance, the Government is the only capable instrument. Now, if I am allowed to apply these observations to the present, I say that, in respect of administrative business and non-contentious and non-controversial business, the Government have a right to appeal to all sections of the House to give them ample time for dealing with that description of business. As regards the larger Bills of a more controversial character, and as regards the political Bills, I perfectly admit that we have no claim upon gentlemen opposite who are opposed to these measures and who desire to resist them. I cannot ask them—if I did I know I should not get it—that they will give us any facilities to promote any measures which they desire to see not passed into law. But, Sir, the time of the House is at the disposal of the majority of the House. Whether it be, as was the case in the last Parliament, a Tory majority, or whether, as in this Parliament, it be a Liberal majority, the time of the House is at the disposal of the majority. When it has been desired to give effect to political measures like the Crimes Act or the Home the Bill, the House has had no hesitation in affording the time necessary. I am stating what I believe to be unquestionably the truth—that the question of determining the disposal of the time of the House is a matter upon which the majority of the House has a right to decide. As I have said before, we have no right to expect the minority to facilitate measures to which they are opposed; but, for the same reason, the Government have the right to appeal to the majority of the House—by whom, in fact, they are placed in the position they hold—to give them the means and to afford them the support that is necessary to give effect to the Bills which they desire to see carried into law. We are the crew of a vessel which has a fixed destination; we have a voyage to make; we have a precious cargo to carry. [Ironical cheers.] I know that is a cargo which you do not desire to see carried. We, however, regard it as a valuable cargo. It has been placed in our charge, and we are responsible for it. In making that voyage, and in meeting the stormy seas and the winds and waves which we have to encounter from the Opposition, we desire to press straight on. We cannot afford to make calls at
    1602
    all the interesting spots on the way. That is not our business—it would be the business of a voyage of pleasure, which ours is not. [A VOICE: "Speak up."] I must appeal for the usual courtesies of Debate. We are pledged to go forward in the way to which we have pledged ourselves, and we ask the support of those who concur in our opinions and who desire the success of the measures to which we are committed. Those are the grounds—which I have endeavoured to state as impartially and calmly as I can—why I make upon the I majority of the House a claim and a request which the Government believe to be founded upon reason. We have asked no more than we consider that we absolutely require. I know we are to be I met with various Amendments. One Amendment upon the Paper is that our present request should be limited till Whitsuntide. That would be a waste of time, because we should then have to tight the battle over again. We, therefore, cannot accept that. Another Amendment is that we should take only Tuesday mornings, and not the whole of Tuesdays. We do not think that would be adequate for the purpose. My right hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby is more liberal, for he is going to propose that we should limit our request to August 10. I am obliged to him, but that would be rather like fixing a particular date beforehand as the limit for the duration of the Session. Besides these proposals, what is still more formidable is, that we shall most probably be pressed to make exceptions in in the case of particular Bills. If so, I may say at once that in the request now made there is no time for exceptions. If we once commence to deal with exceptions, we shall have a prolonged contest in which it will be very difficult to know to whom the apple is to be given. The Government have already committed themselves to give days for four special subjects. There is the Navy, the discussion upon which is to be taken, I hope, to-day, and, if necessary, to-morrow. There is to be a discussion on Uganda. And a day has been promised for Indian finance. Those days were promised as conditions of concluding the financial business; and an opportunity has also been promised for discussing the Eight Hours Bill. Beyond that we feel that it I is impossible for us to go. I have now

    1603
    endeavoured to state, as impartially as I can, the case upon which the Government make this request. It rests with the majority of the House to determine how it will dispose of its time, and it is for them to determine whether they are disposed to bestow on the Government that time which we consider absolutely essential to enable the Government to fulfil the duties that have been imposed upon them by the majority of the House and by the majority of the country.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That for the remainder of the Session Government Business do have priority on Tuesday. That on Friday the House do meet at Two of the clock, and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to Tuesday and the Morning Sitting on Friday."—(sir W. Har-court.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Whatever we may think of the substance of the demand made upon us by the right hon. Gentleman, nobody who has heard his speech will accuse him of adopting, in recommending the substance of the Motion to the House, a tone likely to embitter the Debate. He has made his speech and his proposal in a manner as likely to recommend it to his opponents as well as to his friends as, I think, was possible under the circumstances. Nevertheless, he will not be surprised to hear that, in however soft and tender accents he makes this proposal to us, the substance of his request is of such a character as to make it absolutely impossible for us to give a willing assent to the policy he asks us to accept. In the first place, I ask the House to note that the right hon. Gentleman has abandoned the course hitherto pursued by his predecessors in Office in asking the House to give up its time to the Government. He has not rested himself in any way upon precedent, but has laid down certain general propositions, which he thinks ought to command our assent. I do not, however, hesitate to say that the independent or the private Members of this House will practically give up all the rights which they have hitherto enjoyed if they assent to the propositions. It may or it may not be proper for the Government to make this claim upon us at this time. To that I shall address myself directly, but for any Government to come down to this House and say that, by the Standing Orders, the Government had only eight days a
    1604
    month, which are quite inadequate for Government business, is practically to cut at the very root of every privilege which private Members enjoy, not merely at the beginning or end of the Session, but at any period of the Session, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has found it necessary to place his claim upon such very broad bases, and lay deep the foundations for future aggressions on the part of those who may succeed him in the office he holds. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he was not going to appeal to precedents, and I notice that those against whom precedents tell usually prefer to go to first principles to support their proposals. It is a very natural taste, and the right hon. Gentleman has laid before us the first principles to which he appeals with all his accustomed clearness. And what are they? He says that the responsible Government of the day, the creation of the majority of the House, are bound to carry through certain classes of business, which he proceeded to specify. He gave the first place to Supply, and I should be quite ready to make this concession to the right hon. Gentleman, that if Supply really was taken at a convenient period of the Session before the House was utterly worn out towards the middle or end of it, private Members would probably have very little cause to complain, because it is upon Supply that private Members can with most effect bring forward their grievances. It is upon Supply that private Members can best bring forward their own views, and can best criticise the action of the Government in Office. I am not complaining of the right hon. Gentleman bringing Supply on at a late period of the Session. That has been the course adopted by his own Government, by many previous Governments, and the late Government. But even if he is going to put down Supply in the list of the business that the Government has got to get through, and is going to quote Supply as a reason why private Members should be expected to lose their privileges at the early part of the Session, then I think private Members have a right on their part to demand that the Government should bring on Supply at a time when private Members are able adequately to discuss it. But no such promise was given by the right hon.

    1605
    Gentleman; no hint was given by him that a different course would be taken with regard to Supply than that which was adopted by them last year and by us in the year before. I presume, therefore, that they will carry out their own policy and their predecessors policy, and relegate Supply to a period when practically a full discussion of the Estimates and of the principles underlying the Estimates is really withdrawn from the great mass of the House of Commons. Having dealt with Supply and casually mentioned a certain amount of non-Party legislation which the Government have to get through, the right hon. Gentleman went on to talk of Party measures, and he appeared to think that there were those on this side of the House who objected to bringing forward such measures. If there be such critics I do not rank myself among them. Of course, the Government exist for the purpose of bringing forward Party measure, and the Opposition, as an Opposition, exist for the purpose of criticising them. I make no complaint of the action of the Government in producing Party measures, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make no complaint when we proceed to criticise them. But what I do complain of is that the Government are so long in bringing forward these controversial measures. The Queen's Speech has not been before us very long, but, after all, it has been before us for upwards of a month, and the Government have not yet brought forward these controversial matters of which we have heard so much in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He will say, "Oh, that is because we had-to pass a certain amount of financial business before Easter, which took up the whole time of the House, the whole time of the Government, and the whole time of private Members, and you cannot complain of us for deferring to the present period these controversial measures which it is our business to lay before the House." Put the Government have not made the best of their opportunities. What have they done since we met? I give them all the time before Easter. Granted that they were to occupy' us as they chose to occupy us during the whole of last summer, last autumn, last winter, and this spring, then I admit that in this Session before Easter they
    1606
    had no time or opportunity to bring in any of their measures. But since Easter they have had all the ordinary advantages which a Government possess of the days allocated by the Standing Orders of the House. How have they spent those days? Have they spent them by bringing forward these controversial measures? Not a bit of it. Those measures are still to be brought forward. We are still ignorant of what they are; and all we have had is this foolish proposal about a Scotch Committee, which is not legislation at, all, but which is, as far as I can gather, the fad of a single Minister and of a single section in the House. It, has occupied all the time of the Government since Easter, and, as far as I am able to forecast, its future, it, is likely to occupy a good deal more if they insist upon proceeding with it. What is the use of coming down to the House when you mismanage your business in this fashion, and making this appeal on the merits, because, forsooth, more than eight days in the month are required by the Government for forcing through the House the controversial measures referred to? I could have wished that if the right hon. Gentleman found it out of his power, or inexpedient, for the purpose of controversy to go into a discussion of past precedents, he had at all events exercised his ingenuity in giving to us a forecast of his future action. We have had no forecast. No attempt has been made by the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government to toll us when he means to bring on Supply, and in what order he means to bring on the measures of the Government, or what measures the Government hope to pass. The whole future of the Session is absolutely obscure. We do not know what, the Government intend, or what they mean to carry through, and in this state of absolute darkness we are asked to vote away our privileges. I do not think it is my special business to stand up here as a guardian of those whom the right hon. Gentleman calls unofficial Members. Perhaps I may observe that he rather prided himself on the phrase "unofficial Members," and I think with small reason. The term unofficial Members is extremely inconvenient and misleading. Gentlemen on this Bench are unofficial Members; but according to the ordinary

    1607
    usages of the House, they are not private Members, and when the two Front Benches are joined together in a common condemnation by private Members, it is evident that they include us who are, nevertheless, despite what the right hon. Gentleman says, undoubtedly unofficial Members.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I meant to characterise them as ex-official Members.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: By private Members I mean gentlemen in the House who do not sit on these two Benches, and by non-private Members I mean those who hold or have bold office. It is not my special business to stand up for the rights of private Members as distinguished from official or ex-official Members, and I am bound to say that the levity with which private Members are now in the habit of passing through Resolutions in which it is doubtful if they believe, and in which it is certain their Leaders do not believe—and Resolutions which everybody knows will be inoperative and so much waste paper—makes mo feel that possibly we might employ our time sometimes much better than we did at a late hour last Tuesday. It is not impossible that the Government have in view a similar misuse of the time of the House with regard to next Tuesday, and they probably share my view that, if the House of Commons is to discuss the abolition of the House of Lords in the same spirit in which it discussed Scotch Home Rule, there is no Government business which would not afford a better means of spending our time, or a better field for displaying our energy. But though I do not feel that I am bound to stand up for private Members, I must express my opinion that they have been extremely ill-used in the course of the last and the present year. Recollect that one consequence of taking every day in the week for Government business is not merely that you deprive private Members of their legitimate opportunities of bringing forward subjects of interest to them, but you double the work of private Members. A private Members' night is a private Members' night in two senses of the word. It is a private Members' night, because some bring on Motions and discussions on that night, while others go home to bed and do not return. They, therefore, have a double privilege on these nights, and
    1608
    when by this cruel Resolution you propose to deprive them of these privileges at one blow I think it is-rather hard. Probably, if the right hon. Gentleman had gone back to the precedent which he despises, he would have found that there have been cases where Tuesday mornings have been taken as early in the Session as in this year, but they have only been taken before Easter when private Members-have had their fling. Well, Sir, private Members have had no fling for nearly 12 months. For nearly 12 months these unfortunate legislators have never been permitted the luxury of a count; they have been dragged down to the House night after right, never to do their own business, but always to do the business of the Government. Having given up without a murmur every hour of their time before Easter to aid the Government in getting through the necessary financial business, I do think it is rather hard to comedown 10 days after the Easter holiday—having taken care to waste every one of these 10 days yourselves—and ask them to give up a great deal more of their time to the Government. I think that is very unkind, and the right hon. Gentleman must know that, as far as we are concerned, we cannot willingly assent to the proposal he has made. But at the end of his speech he ceased to endeavour to persuade his opponents, and turned round for a vote of confidence to his friends. Sir, I am sure that that vote of confidence will be given. The Government must have sunk low indeed if upon a mere question of the management of the business of the House they cannot bring into the Lobby a sufficient number of their own friends to support them. But I did not quite follow the poetical metaphor with which the right hon. Gentleman closed his speech. As far as I understood it, he was the captain of a ship bearing a precious cargo-not particularly specified in any invoice that I know of, and we are the winds and the waves, so far as I can make out, which are threatening that vessel with shipwreck. Well, Sir, I do not know whether the metaphor is a very good one, but it certainly expresses, I should think,, very accurately some phases of the present situation. I myself am not endowed by nature with the qualities to make me enjoy a sea voyage, but I can only hope

    1609
    that the Government are happier in their vessel than I should be in any vessel, even a more seaworthy one than that of the Government. I am afraid, Sir, that they have more formidable dangers before them than the horrors of sea sickness. I think I see traces of the fact that the winds and waves, as the right hon. Gentleman expresses it, are gradually making their impression on that vessel, and that leaks—not very formidable leaks, perhaps—have been sprung, and have been stopped by methods of a not very permanent character. Meanwhile, however, I may reassure the right hon. Gentleman by saying that, whatever may be his future destinies, I do not think he is likely to suffer shipwreck to-day. The winds and the waves on this occasion, as on others, will do their best to impede his course, but he will survive our efforts. I do not think, however, that he has, either from the general point of view or from the point of view of the unofficial Members, shown any sufficient reason why we should give him privileges which in similar circumstances have never been asked for by his predecessors in Office.
    SIR D. MACFARLANEsaid, he was one of the unofficial Members who occupied one of the two first places affected by the Motion of the Government. He was not going to dispute the right of the Government to take the time of the House, but the Government must have known for weeks that about this time it would be necessary to take the whole time of the House, and he complained that they did not give notice four weeks ago of their intention, in order that hon. Members might be saved the necessity and worry of the ballot, and still more the necessity of getting up subjects. To-morrow night he should have had the opportunity, but for this Motion, of calling attention to the financial condition of India in relation to Great Britain, and he complained that they should be discussing the question of taking Tuesday only on the day before. Why should they not have got a month's notice? A cook got a mouth's notice, and surely a Member of Parliament ought to get as much. He trusted that in future the Government would, when they foresaw the necessity of taking the whole time of the House, give due notice to hon. Members, so as
    1610
    to avoid difficulties' and heartburnings, and appeals for exceptions. For himself, much as he appreciated the position he occupied for the two days which would be affected by this Motion, and highly as he appreciated the subjects he had intended to bring forward, he must, say honestly that he appreciated the stability of the Government more, and although it was a sacrifice, he would support the Government in a Division which would rob him of his privileges. He appreciated the advantages of a Liberal Government more than any private Motion that he could bring on, and for that reason he should support the Government in the Division.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, as an agricultural Member, desired to utter one or two words of earnest protest against the course which the Government had seen fit to adopt. Important as were all those questions, the consideration and discussion of which might be affected by the course of the Government, he ventured to say that none of them equalled in importance the great question of agricultural depression. How could the Party opposite and the Government any longer keep up their pretence of sympathy with the agricultural interest? He did not think the agricultural labourers would now continue to be their dupes. This ought to be the finishing touch to that gigantic fraud which, he was sorry to say, the Government had, with some success, carried out before the country during the last few years. It should be the last straw which should break the camel's back. What had been the conduct of the Government in regard to agriculture, and how had they redeemed those numerous promises with which they had deceived and cajoled the agricultural labourers? They granted a Commission to inquire into what everyone knew already, except the Minister of Agriculture—namely, the causes of agricultural depression; but when any remedy was proposed or desire evinced to bring this great question before the country, how were they (the Opposition) met? They were either opposed or snubbed. He called to witness as to this the way in which a deputation on a most important question was received the other day by the Minister of Agriculture. That was the way in which agricultural interests

    1611
    were treated, and now, when at last a chance was offered to bring the question of this great agricultural depression he-fore the House and the country by discussing the Motion of which the hon. Member for Essex had given notice for Tuesday week, how were they treated? Again the Government interposed, and by this most arbitrary and uncalled-for action made any discussion impossible. There were two things, to his mind, absolutely clear: first of all, that the Government were utterly incapable of managing the affairs of this country; and, secondly, that they were supremely indifferent to the agricultural interests.
    MR. J. E. REDMOND: I am not one of those Members who sympathise very much with the grievances of private Members. I have sat now in this House for 12 years, and my experience has been that the time devoted to private Members has not, on the whole, been very productive of good to the country, and I am bound to say, Sir, the Resolution proposed by the Leader of the House, if carried, would, in my judgment, leave a sufficient portion of every week available for private Members. It would leave Wednesday absolutely free for private Members to bring forward their Bills, and leave the evening sitting on Friday also available for the discussion of private Members' grievances. We cannot afford to forget the experience of past years, as indeed has been alluded to by the Leader of the Opposition—that when private Members have come down to this House to discuss these private Members' grievances, other private Members have taken advantage of the occasion to stay away from the House, with the result that the House was counted out and valuable time lost. Therefore, if the Government of the day has the confidence of the majority of the House of Commons, and the majority of the country, and if that Government has serious and important legislative work to perform, then, for my part, I think the supporters of the Government are justified in coming for at least as much of the time of the House as is asked for in this Resolution. But having said so much, I desire to press respectfully upon the Government for some information as to what the public business is that they intend to proceed with. This is an occa-
    1612
    sion upon which it seems to me that possibly a good turn may be done for the interests of the county I represent if Irish Members would use the opportunity of endeavouring to extract from the Government some promise as to their course of procedure with reference to Irish measures. I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that in the course of the Queen's Speech the first measure mentioned was an Irish measure, touching very nearly an important Irish question—that is the question of the evicted tenants. That measure was put in the very forefront of the Queen's Speech; but on the very first night, I think, of the discussion on the Address to the Throne, I and some other Members asked from the Government an assurance that the place accorded to that Bill in the Gracious Speech from the Throne would be observed in the order of Business during the Session. We had, Sir, a right to claim that that Bill should have precedence, because the House will remember how that question of the evicted tenants in Ireland has been treated. The House will remember that when this Government came into power in the month of August they were pressed to call an Autumn Session of Parliament together for dealing with that question, and many people thought in Ireland that the opportunity thus afforded would be the best opportunity available for the Government to settle this question. Very many people, even at that time, immediately after the General Election had taken place, when the opposition to the Government had not become so embittered as it afterwards did, owing to the discussions on the Home Rule Bill and other matters, thought that then possibly many of the landlord class in Ireland would have been willing to make a compromise on this question, and the Bill might have been passed into law. The claim that was then made on the Government was rejected by them, and, in spite of the protests which were made, they adjourned the meeting of Parliament for six months, and they issued a Commission to inquire into facts which were notorious, which every man in Ireland and out of it was perfectly well acquainted with. Then, when the next Session of Parliament assembled, of course the Home Rule Bill took precedence of the question of the evicted tenants, and

    1613
    again an Autumn Session was called last year. We asked from the Government for a limited portion of that Autumn Session to deal with the question of the evicted tenants, and again our claim was rejected. And what was the excuse made? I am speaking by the card when I say that upon 100 platforms it was stated that the Government refused to introduce this Bill in the Autumn Session because they intended in the Session of this year to make the evicted tenants' question the chief, the most urgent, and the first measure they would introduce, and, therefore, we asked on the Debate on the Address to the Throne whether the place accorded in the Queen's Speech to that measure would be maintained. We got an unsatisfactory answer, and it appears now that the measure is to be put back until after the Registration Bill has been passed into law. That much we know; we do not know how much further back still it may be put in the future. We do know, however, it is not to be taken until after the Registration Bill. I hope that the proposals which the; Chief Secretary is going to put forward will be laid before the House and the country immediately. But even that is not sufficient. Having done that, it is the right hon. Gentleman's duty to press on with the Bill as fast as possible. I see no reason why it should be put into a position next to the Registration Bill. I am not saying that the whole of the time of the House during the next few weeks should be devoted to this question alone; but I say it is not too much for us to say that the Registration Bill and the Evicted Tenants Bill should be taken pari passu. But instead of that it appears to be the intention of the Government to put back the Evicted Tenants Bill until the Registration Bill has passed into law. After that the Government is to consider whether this Bill shall have the second or what place. There appears to me to be some competition between the backers of the Evicted Tenants Bill and the backers of the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. Of course, the Welsh Disestablishment Bill is one which has my very hearty sympathy—first upon its merits, and also because of the many obligations which we are under to the Welsh Members who desire to have it passed. After
    1614
    all, charity begins at home. The Welsh Disestablishment Bill cannot be so urgent for the Welsh Members as the Evicted Tenants Bill is for us. I have mentioned these matters because I think it is due to the House and due also to Ireland that before Irish Members are asked to vote in favour of the Government proposal to give all the time of the House to Ministers it is right to inquire from the Government some assurance of what the course of public business will be in reference to these Irish questions. I have stated elsewhere, and I state here, that I am greatly afraid that the chance of passing the Evicted Tenants Bill into law has enormously diminished, if not entirely disappeared, through the delay which has already taken place. The duty of introducing that Bill and passing it into law rests with the Government because of the pledges which have been given in their name; and it is a violation of the spirit of those pledges to postpone any further the introduction of this Bill to restore tenants to their homes as promised by the right hon. Gentleman, who is a Member of the present Cabinet. Under these circumstances I, for one, although I have little sympathy with the claims of private Members, will not take the responsibility of voting in favour of the Motion of the Leader of the House unless we receive an assurance that this Bill will be introduced at once and pushed forward step by step with the Registration Rill, and not be relegated to the end of the year, when some crisis may precipitate a Dissolution, and the Session end without any serious attempt having been made to grapple with the matter. I hope the Government will state their mind openly upon this matter, seeing that up to the present they have spoken no straightforward word upon it, but have contented themselves with expressions of goodwill and sympathy to the evicted tenants without saying what practical step they would take to restore them to their homes and to bring this Rill to a successful issue.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to call for some remarks from myself. Those remarks will be very short, and I am afraid that in the course of them I shall not be able

    1615
    to inform the hon. Member of what he professes a desire to know—namely, the precise order and place we shall give in the business of the Government to the Evicted Tenants Bill: because we are now asking the House two things—first of all, to show that they have confidence in the Government, by placing time at its disposal for the accomplishment of the work they have in hand; and, second, to leave the distribution of that time in the hands of the Government, so that they may dispose of it in the way which to them seems most fit. The hon. and learned Member has related the history of the dealings of the present Government with the question of the evicted tenants, into which I do not think it would be right or relevant that I should follow him. He says we ought to have had an Autumn Session in 1892 in order to bring forward an Evicted Tenants Bill, which he believes would then have had a good chance of becoming law. I think I know as much about the inner concerns of the evicted tenants' question as the hon. and learned Gentleman, and all I can say is that unless all the information which I had at my disposal was faulty, it is not correct to say that the measure, if brought forward that year, was likely to receive the support of the Irish landlords in this House or elsewhere. Apart from that matter, I entirely deny the hon. and learned Member's assertion that the Autumn Session of 1892 was a favourable time for bringing forward that matter. The appointment of the Commission is an old story, and has been fully discussed in this House; but I do say that Commission was the means of collecting and bringing to light information without which no Bill could have been adequately and efficiently presented to this House. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot suppose that I, who am responsible for the administration in Ireland, am likely to allow the Evicted Tenants Bill to fall into such a position that it would be put out of our power to pass it into law this Session. I have said again and again in this House that I am as alive as any Irish Member, and more alive, perhaps, than some Irish Members, as to the urgent importance, if it can possibly be done, of persuading this House, and it might be another House, to pass this measure into law.
    1616
    I do not despair of bringing in that measure in a form which ought to command the assent of every reasonable man, both in this House and elsewhere. This is one of the measures for which we are asking that the time of the House should be given to us. The hon. and learned Member, and other Irish gentlemen interested in this matter, may rest assured that there is no intention whatever to play with this important question. On the other hand, we shall keep it where it now is, in the front rank of the measures with which we are prepared to go in this Session.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.): The Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced this matter in a tone so moderate and mild, and his speech was dealt with afterwards so humorously by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that I think it is possible that the extreme importance and magnitude of the change which it is now proposed to make in our Parliamentary practice may have escaped the observation of the House. That it is a change of great importance and magnitude is shown convincingly by the speech to which we have just listened from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who, falling as is his wont into terms which exceed in definiteness those of his colleagues, has made it clear for the first time that the Government are asking us to deal with the question of the disposal of the time of the House in the shape of a challenge upon a Vote of Confidence. I have never known before, upon a question of this kind, anything like the solemnity of the appeal which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to their followers to follow them into their Lobby upon this matter. As a rule, this excessive pressure has not been brought to bear upon the Members of a Party when a question of this kind is brought forward, and I think the House may fairly conceive that there is some good reason for it upon the present occasion. Why should we regard this as a matter of extreme importance? I suppose that, according to the definition given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the Opposition, I am a private Member of this House. I do not sit upon either Front Bench, and

    1617
    I was not a Member of either of the two last Governments. Although I am a private Member, I do not stand hero as an advocate of their claims, and I may frankly confess that I do not care a brass button what becomes of them. I have never seen any great utility in the discussions which under our present system take place on private Members' nights. It would be altogether different if the House had a power of selection; but I find that, according to our present practice, it is almost always the greatest bore who gets the first place. But although he is able to get the first place, he is not able to get Members to come and hear him; and the result is, that the time of the House, which might be much better occupied, is entirely wasted. Therefore, while I acknowledge the magnitude of the change, I rejoice that for the first time we have a Government which comes here and says that it is for the majority of the House—that is, the Party majority—to dispose of the time of the House, and proceeds to dispose of the time of the House by cutting the ground altogether from under private Members. The sham of private Members, after the vote which I suppose will be taken to-night, will be once for all disposed of. Hereafter every Government which desires time for its own measures will be entitled at the very beginning of the Session, before private Members have had a single day at their disposal, to come down and quote this precedent and say "the time of the House belongs to the Party majority, and the Government of the day make it a matter of confidence that they should have the whole time of the House."[Cheers.] Now, Sir, no doubt that is a change of very great magnitude which appears to be willingly accepted by my hon. Friends below me, and which undoubtedly will serve as a most useful precedent in the future. Therefore, so far as private Members are concerned, I do not feel at all antagonistic to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I do feel disinclined to give more time to this Government. I have no objection whatever to take it away from private Members, but I do not see that these gentlemen deserve it, and I do not see that they are in need of it, or that they have made out any case whatever. I have heard a good number of
    1618
    discussions on similar points, and hitherto always two things have had to be shown, or at all events two points have been brought against the Government, and they have been asked to show reason in reference to them: the first is, that there is an emergency which justifies the demand for time; and the second is, that this emergency is not the result of gross mismanagement on the part of the Government. I remember in the time of the late Government they had to ask for the whole time of the Mouse, but they never asked for it so early as it is asked for on this occasion. At that time my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton invariably attacked the then Leader of the House, and said it was a monstrous proposition, that he and his Government had got themselves into a hole through gross mismanagement, and that, under the circumstances, there was no justification for giving them the whole time of the House. I assume, at any rate, I am justified in applying the same sort of test to the present proposal. If there be an, emergency, it is wholly the fault of the Government, and why should we give them more time under the circumstances? They have misused the time they have had, and what ground have we for supposing that they will make any better use of the time for which they ask? What is the emergency? The emergency consists in the fact that this is April 9. Is there not a little confusion in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? What has the fact that it is April 9 got to do with the question? It shows that we are in the fourth month of the year, and is it because we are in the fourth month of the year that he thinks the period has come for asking for the whole time of the House? Usually, we have considered this question with regard to the time of the Session. As regards the Session, we are in the first month, and, as far as we have gone, the Government have every reason to congratulate themselves on the generosity of the House. They have got more in a month than the late Government ever got in two months. They have got the whole of the Supplementary Estimates and part of the ordinary Estimates. They have concluded the financial business of the year, and they have introduced and

    1619
    taken the First Readings of one or two Bills. What more do they want in a month of only eight days of Government time? Under those circumstances, it is perfectly absurd to pretend that there is any emergency. It may be said, and it is quite true, that, although this is only the first month of the Session, it is the fourth mouth of the year. If we are to consider January and February and part of March as part of this Session, and if we are to deal with the matter as though we were in the fourth month of the Session, we must consider what was done in January and February. The Government would be in the position of a Government which in the fourth mouth of the Session had already succeeded in passing two Bills of first-rate importance—the Parish Councils Bill and the Employers' Liability Bill—and had, in addition, accomplished the other work to which I have referred, and who then came down prepared to make arrangements for winding up the Session. Under these circumstances, the first thing we should expect the Government to do is to tell us what Bills they are going to drop. The illustration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a very unfortunate one, and when it has been so heckled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition I am almost ashamed to return to it. I must, however, point out that when a vessel in the position in which he describes himself and crew—a vessel which some of us think is badly managed and overladen, and which, as he says, has got, above all, to get to a fixed destination—finds itself in trouble, in a storm or a hurricane, those in charge jettison a part of the cargo. If the time has come when we must consider that we are in the fourth mouth of the Session, I think we have a right to call upon the Government to jettison a part of their cargo, and no longer to flourish in our faces the more pretence, as we all know it is, of a whole number of Bills, like the Evicted Tenants Bill and a great number of others that had been put down for electoral purposes without the slightest chance of being proceeded with. I now come to consider whether this so-called emergency—which I do not think is an emergency at all—is not due to the mismanagement of the business of the House by the present Government. I will put my charge against the Government in one word—
    1620
    that they have wasted an immense amount of time in pressing forward a Bill which has not a hearty supporter even on their own side. I refer, of course, to the Home Rule Bill. I say there is not a single section of the Party which supports the Government which was heartily in favour of the Home Rule Bill. [Cries of "Oh !"] Certainly not the Irish Members—certainly not either section of the Irish Members, at whose instigation the Bill was presumably brought in, but both of which sections took opportunity again and again in the course of debate to show that they regarded it as a very imperfect satisfaction of their demands. And certainly no one here can honestly say that it was a Bill which was popular with the constituencies in the country. That is what has made the difficulty. Had that been a popular Bill the whole course of matters would have been perfectly simple; for when that Bill was defeated the Government would have appealed to the country, and if they had come back, as they would have come back, on the hypothesis that the Bill was popular, with as large or a larger majority, they would have been able to proceed with the Bill with every chance of immediate success. But they did not dare to go to the country on that Bill. There is not a man on this side of the House who will contradict me when I say that not one of them advised the Government to take a Dissolution on the Home Rule Bill. There is not a single one of them who believes that, if they had taken a Dissolution on that Bill, they could possibly have obtained a majority. As the Government did not dare to take their principal measure, which had never been before the country, and obtain a decision upon it, what was the position in which they found themselves? They were bound to endeavour to retrieve the situation by bringing in a whole lot of other measures which they thought would be more popular than the Home Rule Bill. This is the reason why the Queen's Speech has been crammed on two occasions with the most contentious items of the Newcastle Programme, and that is the meaning of the Autumn Session which has brought about the state of things in which we find ourselves. Even then the Government did not carry out their policy properly. Their object was a bad object, because I

    1621
    call it neither more nor less than an attempt to deceive the constituencies of the country. I call it nothing more nor less than an attempt to take the decision of the country upon the wrong issue. But, even if the object were right, the methods by which they endeavoured to secure it have been entirely wrong. What ought they to have done? They know what they ought to have done, because they professed when they asked for the Autumn Session that they would bring forward non-contentious Bills. They brought forward Bills which, so far as principle was concerned, were non-contentious. I refer to the Employers' Liability Bill and the Parish Councils Bill; but when those Bills came into the House how did the Government treat them? The Employers' Liability Bill was conducted throughout, I do not hesitate to say, by the Home Secretary in a more aggressive manner than any Bill in our time. [Cries of Oh!"] Does anyone deny that? Will anyone toll me of any other Bill of the same importance upon which the Minister conducting it has refused every single Amendment which was moved by his opponents? I do not believe such a case can be quoted; and I go further, and say——
    MR. ASQUTTH: My right hon. Friend has made an assertion as to facts on most imperfect information. He was not present in the House when a great part of the Debate on that Bill took place. I will inform him that there was hardly a single clause in the Bill as it left this House which was not amended, and in which Amendments proceeding from the right hon. Gentleman's own friends were not accepted by the Government.
    MB. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is quite true that I was not present during the whole of the Debate; but I am able to read, and I have read most carefully all that took place. The right hon. Gentleman says he accepted a number of Amendments. Yes, he did; he accepted an immense number of Amendments from his own side. But my point is, that he did not accept one single Amendment, except formal Amendments, not one Amendment of the slightest importance from his opponents.
    MR. W. M'LAREN: Yes, he did. There was my own Amendment.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I know; but do you call that an Amendment from an opponent?
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to go into a discussion as to the details of the proceedings upon the Employers' Liability Bill.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to you, Sir. I am afraid I was about to be led away by the interruption to which I was subjected. My point is, however, simple. I say, as regards the Employers' Liability Bill, there was, in effect, one Amendment of great importance urged on the right hon. Gentleman even by his own supporters, which he refused, and before which, in a fit of temper, he dropped the Bill. The Parish Councils Bill was introduced in a most conciliatory speech by the Secretary of State for India, and had he been allowed his way that Bill would have been carried in less than half the time which it actually took. I do not hesitate to say that many weeks of the time of the House were wasted because the right hon. Gentleman was put aside by his colleagues, and highly contentious matter was introduced at the last moment into the Bill. I say, under these circumstances, the Government have no one to thank but themselves for the condition in which they find themselves. They occupied the House until the 5th of March, or an Autumn Session they ought never to have held at all, and which in any event ought to have been concluded before Christmas, and it is because of the manner in which they treated those two Bills, which were brought in before the Autumn Session, that we find ourselves now on April 9 without having made any considerable progress with the legislation of the present Session. Nor in this Session have they done much better. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the extraordinary folly of the Government in introducing a highly contentious Constitutional question like the Scotch Committee question at a time when, as they say, the)' cannot possibly deal with the important business which they have put upon the Paper. Why did they not introduce the Registration Bill instead of the Scotch Committee? I beg to warn the Government that, if they go on with the Scotch Committee proposal, they will waste at

    1623
    least two, and very likely three, weeks of the time of the House. Do not let me be misunderstood. I do not mean the discussion upon the Committee. That, of course, will be concluded in a comparatively limited space of time; but just see how a proposal of that kind will affect all our business. Already notices are down to refer Bills coming before us to a Committee of London Members, and I suppose a similar Motion will be made with regard to Welsh Bills. I think you will find that if this proposition is carried out the question will be continually cropping up in the course of the Session, and there will be a most unjustifiable waste of time in reference to a proposal which is brought before us by the Government as though it were a matter of business of comparatively small importance. I think I have shown that not only is there no emergency, but that the delay in business is entirely due to the attitude of the Government. Under these circumstances, I do not think they have the slightest right to call upon us to give them all the time of the House. What use are they going to make of it? Will they tell us now in what order they are going to take their Bills? If they continue to go on as they have been doing we shall only have a repetition of what occurred last Session. We shall only have a waste of time and temper without being much more forward at the end of the Session than we are at the beginning. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to admit that the Government made a mistake last Session, because he said there seemed to be a universal agreement that business ought not be conducted in the same way this Session as it was last Session. But unless the Government are willing not only to continue this Session for an unusual time, but to have an Autumn Session, it is impossible for them to make any reasonable progress with the Bills they have put in the Queen's Speech. It is perfectly well-known that if there is kept hanging before the House of Commons a large number of Bills, one is apt to interfere with the others. It would be a much more straightforward course and a much better course for the progress of business if the Government would undertake to say what are the Bills to which they attach importance, and then we should know upon official authority that as regards the other Bills
    1624
    in the Queen's Speech they are put there for show, and not with any idea of serious progress. There is only one other suggestion I have to make to the Government. I see they are in really an embarrassing condition. I am afraid these difficulties will crop up again and again. I do not think that if they got the whole of the time of the House they would be able to do much better than they are doing now, and I would advise them to cut the Gordian knot at once and give us a Dissolution.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had commenced by saying that he was neither an official nor an unofficial Member. He (Mr. Labouchere) wondered what he was. In his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman was neither fish, flesh, nor fowl, nor good red herring. He thought he had never heard a speech which had gone so much round the subject without coming to the actual question before the House as the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. It appeared that the right hon. Gentleman did not care one brass farthing for private Members, but that whilst he did not want them to have the time of the House he did not want the Government to have it. Who, then, in the name of wonder, was to have the time of the House unless it was to be the right hon. Gentleman himself? Was the House to have speeches inflicted upon it by the right hon. Gentleman every evening? The right hon. Gentleman said the Government had mismanaged their affairs. He (Mr. Labouchere) had not perceived that the Government had more mismanaged their affairs than every Government he had known had done. They commenced the Session late. That was not their fault. [Opposition cries of "No !"] Well, it was their misfortune and not their fault. They had to go through Supply, and it was impossible to say that they had mismanaged their business on the three Government days which had since elapsed. As to the Scotch Grand Committee, he could not understand how any English Members could object to allowing the Scotch Members to leave other Members in peace while they went into a room by themselves and discussed the Law of Hypothec or any other Scotch question. He should have thought that no proposal would have secured such

    1625
    universal consent as a proposition of that character. The right hon. Gentleman said the Government mismanaged business last Session. Apparently, in the right hon. Gentleman's view, they were to be forced to waste the time of this Session because they wasted the time of last Session. The right hon. Gentleman complained that the Government had brought in last Session an Employers' Liability Bill, and bad not been conciliatory over it, and he went on to suggest that they should be punished because the former President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had been exceedingly conciliatory over the Parish Councils Bill. No matter what the Government did they would never find favour with the right hon. Gentleman. Whether they were conciliatory or uneonciliatory; whether they wasted time last Session or not; whether they were anxious or not to waste time in the present Session, the right hon. Gentleman was prepared at any moment to make a speech against them and to find some recondite reasons for voting against that which he supported in former times. He (Mr. Labou-chere) had noticed that almost every Member who had spoken had declared that for private Members he entertained the greatest contempt. From the Government point of view a private Member was a public nuisance. The private Member was expected to go down to the House and to hold his tongue; be was expected to cheer Ministers, to vote for them whatever they did, and invariably to declare that his Leaders were the wisest and best human beings in the world. When the Party was in Opposition, the private Member was told not to "let things go too quick," and he was expected to keep alight the sacred lamp of Opposition. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Labouchere) thought that private Members were most useful, whether their Party was in power or was in Opposition. As to private Members' Motions, it was obvious that when 600 gentlemen balloted not very wise Motions would occasionally be brought forward. But, at the same time, the ballot sometimes gave priority to some very useful Motions. Last week a very valuable proposal in regard to Home Rule for Scotland was made by a private Member and was adopted by the House. Of course,
    1626
    the adoption of that Motion would encourage Ministers to go on in the path of Home Rule. It had always been held that reforms wore agitated outside the House at first; that they were then brought forward in the House by private Members' Motions, and such Motions were subsequently moved again and again until at last the majority became so large that the proposal was taken up by the Government. He never knew a Government yet that did not object to private Members' Motions, because very often a very nasty and inopportune Motion was placed on the Paper. The tendency of Governments on a variety of questions was to "sit on the fence," and the object of their supporters was to bring them over to their side of the fence. It frequently happened that, by means of a private Members' Motion, Ministers were obliged to show their hand and to adopt a course which they would not have adopted but for the bringing forward of that Motion. The same thing was always said on one side or the other in these Debates, the only difference being that when gentlemen were on the Treasury Bench they said one thing and when they were on the Front Opposition Bench they said the other. He was sorry the Government could not make an exception in favour of the Tuesday which had been obtained by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Dalziel). He was bound to say that if the Government were ready to leave the question concerning the House of Lords as it stood at present, he did not think their supporters need even complain of his hon. Friend's day being taken away. The House had passed a Resolution of a most drastic character in regard to the Lords. The majority of the House who had voted for that Motion stood on firm ground, for all they had to do was to call upon the Government to give effect to the will of the majority. If the Government were not prepared to do that, he confessed that, as far as he was concerned, they would not enjoy that amount of confidence which he at present entertained for them. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) in thinking that it was somewhat unfair on the part of the Government to make this question one of confidence. He had always thought that these matters were

    1627
    left entirely to the discretion of the House. He himself had moved Amendments on proposals of this kind, and those Amendments had been accepted by the late Mr. W. H. Smith when Leader of the House. If he thought the Government would assent to an Amendment he should move one now, but he did not want Ministers to be turned out. If they chose to make this a question of confidence, they really obliged him to vote for them. He would not allude to all the measures that had been referred to in the Queen's Speech, for, to tell the truth, he did not believe that many of those measures would be brought in or carried. Members knew, however, that they would have a Budget. He hoped the Budget would be an excellent one, and he should be sorry if Ministers were deprived of the opportunity of bringing it on. He knew also that they meant to bring in a Registration Bill. He thought that before a General Election took place the franchise ought to be expanded more than it was at present, and it was, therefore, desirable that the Registration Bill should pass. Until, therefore, the two eggs of the Registration Bill and the Budget had been laid, and, if they were good eggs, hatched by the House, he should not vote against the Government on a mere matter of detail such as that which was now before the House when he was told that if they were beaten they would resign.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt) had been quite correct in dividing Members into official Members, ex-official Members, and unofficial Members.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: And double ex-official Members.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he was not competent to dilate upon the last category mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. Having occupied a seat in the House of Commons for a long time, and having sat on every Bench in it, with, he thought, scarcely an exception, he was of opinion that the discription given by the right hon. Gentleman of the various classes of Members was a correct one, and it was certainly the one adopted by Mr. Disraeli and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). To leave this somewhat technical point, he must enter a
    1628
    most distinct protest against the manner in which a very formidable fundamental change not only of the Standing Orders of the House, but in the practice and Rules of Parliament, had been treated by the Government on this occasion. The House was asked to make a very stringent Regulation under which the Government might forward their business during the remainder of the Session. It was also asked to alter fundamentally the Standing Orders of the House. He had frequently seen Standing Orders of the House made subject to alteration, but how had these alterations been accomplished and prefaced? When they had been at all of a formidable and drastic character they had always been preceded by a thorough inquiry before a carefully-selected Committee of the House. He had known many such Committees appointed in his time. These Committees had been composed of the most experienced Members of the House, selected impartially from both sides with an admixture of Members of lesser experience, so as to make the Committee representative of all sections of the House. The Government had cast these precedents to the winds, and they seemed to think that a casual majority was to be at liberty at any moment to tear up Standing Orders, to be a law unto itself, and to establish such Rules as it thought tit for the purpose of driving through Party business according to the exigencies of its own political organisation. He ventured to say that was a revolutionary proposition. It was all very well to say the majority must prevail, and that that was to decide how this business was to be carried on. He (Mr. Lowther) could only say that search where they would through the annals of Parliament and the Constitutional history of this country no precedent for such a doctrine could be found. He would undertake to say that the Standing Orders of the House, originally framed with the utmost caution and care, had never been subjected to any permanent or quasi- permanent alteration without the most careful scrutiny and inquiry. Reference' was made a short time ago to the proposal of the late Government with regard to carrying Bills over from one Session to another—a measure of which he strongly disapproved, and should have voted against

    1629
    It if it had been pressed in the House of Commons. The Government of the day relegated that proposal to a Committee impartially chosen—chosen according to the recognised principle in which Committees had always been hitherto appointed—with the result that the proposal did not meet with sufficient support to justify the Government in proceeding with it. The Government, he said, had upset all precedents. But what did they now ask the House to do? They asked the House to hand over to them this additional time without having complied with another condition which under these circumstances was always recognised—and that statement he challenged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to contradict. In making an application of this kind it was customary for the Government to inform the House of the specific purposes for which they demanded the unusual facilities. The right hon. Gentleman opposite knew that towards the end of the Session or the close of the financial year the Government found that the state of business was such that additional facilities were urgently needed for the transaction of public business, and the practice had been to inform the House precisely how matters stood and state the actual measures that were urgent, and give an assurance that those measures and none other would be submitted for consideration. He defied any Member of Parliament, be his experience what it might, to controvert that statement. How did the Government propose to allocate this time? They were driven to the ordinary sources of information to arrive at any conclusion. He had a strong suspicion that this House was being made use of for purposes which were usually discharged by a vacant hoarding round a building in course of building on the streets. This House was to be made a block on which were to be plastered advertisements and sky-signs of the most hideous and ghastly description. So far from the time which the Government asked the House to place at their disposal being used for the purpose of making up arrears in the business of the country, it was for the purpose of advertisement—Party and political advertisement—that their time was to be appropriated and misused. He ventured to say that there
    1630
    never had been a greater abuse of what he might call brute force and Party vote. Many Members who had preceded him had assumed that the Parliamentary conscience was sufficiently dead to swallow a proposition of this kind on purely Party grounds. He dared say hon. and right hon. Gentlemen had gauged the situation with adequate care and forethought. He regretted to find that there appeared to be very little disposition to discuss the question as one of great Constitutional precedent, but rather as an exhibition of Party strategy and political chicanery which either Party would be justified in using—or misusing. He was afraid that was the tendency of this Debate. His sympathies were with those who had hitherto had by the Standing Orders of the House certain privileges and facilities placed at their disposal by fundamental Rules which were not capable of being altered at the mere caprice of Ministers or will of a Party majority, He deeply regretted this dangerous innovation in Parliamentary practice. It was one which, he thought, boded ill to the independence of the House, and he trusted there would be many Members who would record an emphatic vote against it.
    MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, that as far as the non-official or private Member was concerned, he had not received very much satisfaction from any of the Leaders of the Parties who had spoken during the Debate. There seemed to be only one opinion amongst: the whole of these gentlemen, that was that having got beyond the necessity of using private Members' nights themselves they wanted to wreck them and take them away from other Members as speedily as possible. This Debate was one of the annual farces which occupied so much of the time of the House. If the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition really believed what they had hinted to-night, that so little good occurred from the advantages that private Members enjoyed, the sooner they made arrangements between themselves to alter the Standing Orders permanently the bettor it would be for procedure in the House. Private Members would then know that it was not worth their while putting their names down for the ballot and co-operating with their

    1631
    friends and trying to get an expression of opinion upon some subject which they were deeply interested in, although it might not be interesting to the Party opposite. He hoped that if it was understood that Tuesdays were to go away from private Members, the change would be affected in a Constitutional manner in the future. There was nothing for which they had to thank the Leaders of the House. He was sorry the Government would not listen to the private Members who had gone through the ballot, and who represented a very strong body of opinion in the House. He had himself given notice of a Motion in reference to election expenses, a subject upon which some hon. Members held very strong opinions as to present arrangements. Of course it would be out of Order to discuss that matter, and he would only say they desired very earnestly to get an expression of opinion of the House how far they would go in the direction of giving equality of opportunity to poor men for entering the House. However, he was to be sacrificed with the rest of the Members who had already succeeded at the ballot. The course taken by the Opposition had made it impossible for this Motion to be discussed as it might have been as one with regard to the procedure of the House of Commons. The Opposition had chosen, as far as he could see, to make it an occasion of a Vote of Censure on Her Majesty's Government. The whole question of procedure had been put on one side, and they were not able, therefore, to take the action they should have liked to take with regard to the way in which the time of the House should be occupied. If they were to have an alteration in the procedure he sincerely hoped it would be made at once, and then private Members would know where they were; but he was one of those who took a different view as to what private Members had done in the past. He differed from those who thought that the action of those gentlemen had not been beneficial to the legislation of the country. Looking at the history of the country, some of the greatest reforms which had passed through Parliament had been introduced in the first instance, and pressed year after year whenever opportunity had offered, by some private Member who had started
    1632
    alone or with only a small number of Members at his back; but by persistence, and by the growing strength of that small Party, those reforms had eventually been placed upon the Statute Book—not, he admitted, by the private Members themselves, because just as their efforts were coming to fruition the Government for the time being had taken up those measures, and had taken good care to secure all the reward due to the efforts of the private Members. He looked sadly, therefore, upon the way in which, during several past Sessions, the time of private Members had been gradually encroached upon, and if that kind of thing was to go on the sooner the private Member was swept out of existence in that House the better, and every Member would then recognise that he was only a voting machine when he took his seat within those walls.
    MR. SETON-KARRsaid, he hoped the hon. Member who had just sat down would have the courage of his convictions, and would oppose this proposal. They had not heard many protests from private Members in the House, hut he ventured as one of them to oppose this most unprecedented proposal. He was not surprised at the Leaders of the House, of the Opposition, and of the little Unionist Party on the other side sneering at the rights of private Members, because they could get a hearing whenever they chose. They were in a very different position to the ordinary Members, and were not, as a matter of fact, affected in the least. What they were called upon to decide was whether they were to have any rights or privileges at all. These proposals hitherto, during the last few Sessions, had been supported by some kind of excuse, some kind of apology to the House from the Government for making that request; but on this occasion they had heard nothing of the kind. They were simply asked, practically, to establish the principle that in future private Members had no right except to vote. Private Members on the other side of the House need not be afraid of consequences if the Government were beaten. The Government had by this time got used to that operation. They were beaten on the Address, and had been beaten on the average about once a week ever since. Still, that did not seem to affect their position,

    1633
    and therefore he did not see why hon. Members opposite need he afraid of voting- in opposition to this dangerous proposal. Were private Members to have any rights at all? Arguments had been put forward that they did not make very good use of their time; but that had nothing to do with the question. If they did not choose to come down to the House on Tuesdays and Fridays, that was their own business; and he thought it was better sometimes that the House should be counted out than occupied in assisting the present Government to forward their measures. The question was, whether private Members wore justified in supporting their own rights? If hon. Members opposite chose to vote like sheep, as if this was a Party question, the consequences must be on their own heads. He did not think, however, as far as Parties were concerned, they need be afraid of consequences. He had no desire to bring forward any special grievance of his own, though, as a, matter of fact, he had put down a very useful Bill, which he thought would have received the sanction of the Government. They were, in fact, being deprived of the right to bring in private measures, and he could submit to the House a list of Bills and Resolutions by private Members which were quite as useful as anything the Government had brought forward. He regretted very much the attitude taken by the hon. Member opposite, who always, when he sat on that side of the House, used to be the guardian angel of private Members' rights. How he had come to change and run away from his principles it was hard to understand. His action that, evening tended to destroy the last rag of faith in the consistency of eminent politicians. There was no reason, however, why other private Members on either side of the House should follow his example; and if they allowed themselves to be slaughtered on this occasion they would never get another chance. They would certainly lose their privileges if they failed to stand by one another.
    MR. DALZIEL&c.)said, if anything would justify Her Majesty's Government in bringing this Motion before the House it would be the attacks made on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had stated to the House and to the country
    1634
    that private Members' Debates were useless, and that it would be far better there should be no opportunity afforded for such Debates to take place at all. That example had been followed by another right hon. Gentleman, for not only had he said that the private Members' evenings were employed uselessly, but he justified the proposal of the Government by saying that two or three weeks' additional time would be required before the Scotch Grand Committee could be carried through the House if the Government persevered in it. Clearly the plea for the private Members was a delusion and a farce. It was time that the Radicals on that side of the House had some kind of intimation of what the attitude of tins Government was going to be towards the Second Chamber. It would be to the advantage of the Government, the House, and the country, if they had a Debate upon that question. He was simply putting that forward from a friendly point of view. The Government must feel strongly upon that point, for they had seen the work of last year thrown to the winds, and the prospect was that their work this year again would be practically useless. That seemed, therefore, one of the most pressing questions for the moment to the Government. He was content to rest in the belief that at the proper time, some occasion probably more favourable than the present, the Government would be prepared, not on a private Member's Motion, but upon their own initiative, to put forward a policy on the question. He had no doubt as to his duty upon the present proposal. Hon. Members opposite had invited them on that side, of the House to join in defeating the Government. That was, in reality, the purpose they had in view, but the hon. Member opposite was hardly a, skilful tactician if he thought he was going to take them with him into the Division Lobby. As far as he had had an oppor-tunity of judging, none of them had any idea of taking action in the slightest degree embarrassing to the Government, in which they had complete confidence. They believed the Government were about to bring forward a programme which would justify them in giving it their confidence, and that this demand was made to enable them to carry through the programme to which they were

    1635
    pledged. They would hold the Government responsible if those pledges were not fulfilled, and for those reasons they had no hesitation in giving the Government their support.
    THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN (Lambeth, Brixton) moved to leave out the words "for the remainder of the Session," and to insert "until Whitsuntide." A great deal might be said for the Resolution if there were any fear that the present congestion would still he existing in three or four weeks' time. That was a matter which rested not with Members of the House but with Her Majesty's Government. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had pointed out, it was for the Government to state how much of their proposed legislation they intended to go on with and how much of it they meant to abandon, and by that means lighten the ship. If they would get rid of part of their cargo the congestion would be to a great extent relieved, and a good deal of valuable time would be left to private Members. He pointed out the absence of any proviso that this appropriation by the Government of the whole time of the Session would not be extended to any Autumn Session. It had always been agreed that whenever such a demand was made it should only be for the Session and should not extend beyond. With regard to the limitation to Whitsuntide, the Government would themselves admit that the time after that was not of such great value to them. In the first place, before Whitsuntide the Budget would be introduced, and as they were told that this year the Budget was going to be of great interest and of supreme importance, it would be better if the discussion upon it could proceed virtually de die in diem, if it was going to be very controversial and to contain, as was stated, matters of great moment. Therefore, as regarded taking the whole time of the House for that particular measure, he did not believe there would be strong opposition from any part of the House. But what they did object to was that the whole of the private Members' time should be sacrificed for the purpose of introducing and parading a number of Government Bills which it was impossible could ever become law. That would be a deliberate and indefensible waste of time. Upon that point he would earnestly appeal to hon. Mem-
    1636
    bers opposite who were interested in Private Bills, because after Whitsuntide Tuesday evenings were of great value to private Members, because Bills which had then reached any stage were proceeded with; and private Members' Motions never had the same amount of vitality after as they had before Whitsuntide, if very substantial progress was not made with them. He therefore appealed to hon. Members opposite for their support on this occasion. Allusion had been made to the Evicted Tenants Bill, the Local Veto Bill, and the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. Did hon. Members prefer to see a merely formal introduction of those measures, or did they prefer that progress should be made with useful legislation of their own? Then several contentions measures, like the Rating of Machinery Bill, had been mentioned, raising questions which ought to be taken seriously into consideration. Most heartrending appeals were made to hon. Members last Session in charge of Bills, which the)' had got read by overwhelming majorities, not to press them, and they were asked whether, as they could not be passed owing to the Government taking the time of the House, they would not allow them to be referred to Select Committees? They recognised that impossibility, but should have thought of that before giving up their rights to the Government. It was very easy to be wise after the event; and if private Members wished to have a chance for their measures they must make up their minds now which way they would act. If they would vote for his Amendment they would know they had done their best to forward their own Bills; but if they did not they could not in justice expect hon. Members on that side of the House to strike a blow for them to enable them to pass their Bills into law. He was sorry one hon. Member was absent who last Session, when this proposal was made, said he would always, no matter what Government was in power, stand up for the rights of private Members, but would give the Government the time they wanted for the purpose of passing the Homo Rule Bill. The hon. Member for Sunderland then said, as the occasion was exceptional, he would not struggle for private Members' rights, for it was not every year that the Government had to remodel the Con-

    1637
    stitution. It was to be hoped the Government did not intend to remodel the Constitution this year, and he therefore hoped his Amendment would be supported. This was not a merely temporary alteration which the Government was making, but they were absolutely going to the whole root of Parliamentary procedure. Unless private Members would unite to strike a blow now, it would be absolutely useless for them to attempt any private legislation whatever, and he earnestly appealed to them for support.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "for the remainder of the Session," in order to insert the words "until Whitsuntide."—(The Marquess of Carmarthen.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR G. OSBORNE MORGANhoped that Liberals would not listen to the voice of the charmer opposite, charm he never so wisely. With regard to this invasion of the rights of private Members, private Members were themselves to blame for the position in which they stood. Talk of driving six omnibuses through Temple Bar! Why, 600 would be nearer the mark. On the second day of the Session he took his chance of the ballot, and came out 243rd. Of the 242 gentlemen before him, not more than four or five who were successful in obtaining first places had the slightest chance of getting their Bills beyond a Second Reading. It was said they should preserve their Tuesday evening rights on the chance of being able to ventilate questions with a view to subsequent legislation. But how were their Tuesday evenings to be used? One hon. Member wished to bring forward a question dealing with the House of Lords. But he should remember they had already had a Debate on the privileges of the House of Lords, and he thought the time had arrived when there should be action and not discussion. Then there was the proposal of his hon. Friend below him (Mr. J. Rowlands), which was very important, but it was not new, for it was upon this very question be gave his first vote on entering the House 25 years ago. The hon. Member for Flintshire had down an important Motion for another Tuesday, and he had no doubt the hon. Member was most anxious to save that particular Tuesday. He had heard a good many Debates
    1638
    on bimetallism, and while they were going on he had felt very like James II., who when he heard the plaintiffs case wanted to decide for the plaintiff', and when he heard the defendant's case wanted to decide for the defendant, but when he heard the reply he did not know how to decide. That was very much the position in which he found himself on the question of bimetallism. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) had contrasted the position of the Evicted Tenants Bill with the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, but unless the Motion of the Government were carried there was not the slightest possibility of either the Tenants Bill or the Welsh Bill being passed further than the Second Reading. As a rule, he was not an advocate of questions of this kind being decided on Party lines, buthehoped this Motion would be decided on Party lines, because then they would be able to recognise not only their open enemies but their false friends. Of course they should have against them the Conservative Party and the Liberal Unionists, but he hoped that every man calling himself Liberal, and that all Irish and Welsh Members, would vote in favour of the Motion of the Government.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid that, as a private Member be wished to remind the House that upon many occasions during the last Government he supported the rights of private Members. The large bulk of the House were private Members, and without doubt much of the important legislation had been brought about in the first instance by private Members. There was one point raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should like to answer. The right hon. Gentleman asked what was the Business of the House? That was exactly what they had been asking over and over again, and could not get to know from the Government. He ventured to-day to ask a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the Behring Sea Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman did not condescend to answer until the question was put a little later by the Leader of the Opposition.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Debate now must be confined to the Question of taking the time of the House up to Whitsuntide—that is the particular Amendment before the House.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, of course he bowed to the ruling of the Chair, but from now to Whitsuntide the House had

    1639
    certain privileges which it would lose afterwards, and this emphasised, with all respect to the Chair, the point he was making. Unless the Amendment of his noble Friend was carried, those of them who had chances in the ballot would really be cut out altogether by the proposal now before the House, and they said that if the Government had taken advantage of their opportunities, and not wasted the time as they had done, there would have been no reason why this Motion should have been introduced before Whitsuntide. He did not know whether he should be in Order in referring to the circumstances of last week, but last Thursday was lost because the Government thought proper to become the partisans of a certain Municipality. On that day which was thus wasted they ought to have had brought on one of those measures the Government wished to introduce. They thought they ought to have the Tuesdays and Fridays up to Whitsuntide for the Motions that were down for those days, and they were most anxious for, and not the least afraid of, the great Debate there was to have been on the House of Lords. That Motion was to have been brought forward by a supporter of the Government, but the Government seemed to be afraid to bring it forward, as they did not know on what side they were going to stand; and, therefore, the Government were desirous of burking these awkward questions. He, therefore, thought that as private Members they ought to resist in every possible way the action of the Government on this Motion. They (the private Members) were a very downtrodden race, and their only chances lay in the early period of the Session, usually before Whitsuntide, when they had an opportunity of bringing Motions forward. His experience was that after Whitsuntide the private Member became practically a voting machine. They desired to have an opportunity of bringing before the House those questions in which their constituents were interested, and, therefore, he thought that private Members on both sides of the House were bound to support the Amendment.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, that having given notice of an Amendment, he should like to say that in giving notice of it his object was to impress upon the House that the words
    1640
    "for the remainder of the Session" were remarkably indefinite. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have told them something more of what was in the minds of the Government. They had got now an indefinite term—"the remainder of the Session," and they might have the experience of last year over again, with a Session lasting over 14 months, and they were to give the whole time of the House for those 14 months to the Government, because under the Motion as it now stood the Government could not only take the whole of the usual time of the House, but could keep the House sitting until next April, or any other time, and then claim, under this Motion, to have the whole time of the House, and take it for any Bill or any subject they chose. The Government had not told them even now what Bills they intended to press forward; therefore, he did not think they should have the time of the House for an indefinite period without letting the House know what further they intended to do. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he (Mr. Heneage) was more liberal than the noble Lord, and had put down the date as the 10th of August, and if the right hon. Gentleman refused his Amendment be would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was going to sit through the whole of the Autumn? If the Government meant to do that which was generally the object for which the whole time of the House was asked, wind up the Session, why not accept the Amendment, or some other date, say the 1st of September? Unless they wore told what the Government intended, he thought it was perfectly monstrous for the Government to come down, without a single Bill being read a second time, and say they wanted the whole time of the House for what they liked. Unless the Government gave them some more information than they had given them already, they ought to do everything they could to restrict the period. So far as he was concerned, he should support the Amendment of the noble Lord, and then he presumed that his own Amendment would be out of Order.
    MAJOR RASCHsaid, he only desired, in supporting the Amendment of the noble Lord, to enter

    1641
    a protest against the proposal of the Government. He was only a simple agricultural Member, and last Tuesday be put down a Notice of Motion on the Paper dealing with agricultural depression. The Notice did not obtain a good place, but it would develop for tomorrow three weeks. His object in putting down that Notice and in speaking now was not factious opposition, or was—to use the expression of the hon. Member for Norfolk which had now become classical—the vote at the bottom of it, but because he believed that, with the exception of his colleague in the County of Essex, no one knew the ruin and disastrous condition prevailing in the Eastern Counties. That was solely his reason in speaking now, to point out that the condition of agriculture in the Eastern Counties was absolutely deplorable.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he would not detain the House long, but there was one point he desired to mention. It seemed to him the Government, by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was going wholly against every precedent they had on this matter. He remembered that on the 28th of November, 1891, a Motion was made of this kind, and an Amendment was moved to it. The proposal was to take the time of the House until Christmas. That Motion was made by the late Mr. W. H. Smith, and was a very modest proposal to that now made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But how was it met? The then Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), used these remarkable words—
    "There is no precedent touching such a Motion as this. He has precedents to show that on former occasions, after the commencement of the Session, demands have been made on the House for certain important measures, but this was not an application for this or that important measure, but for Government business generally,"
    and on that account the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Midlothian opposed Mr. Smith's Motion, although it was only a modest Motion up to Christmas, and the whole of the then Gladstonian Party supported their Leader in opposing it. The hon. Member below him, the Member for Bradford, used very remarkable language. He said—
    "You have wasted the whole of last Session with your Compensation Bill."
    1642
    The hon. Member drew a graphic picture of the waste of time and said—
    "You punish private Members for the mismanagement of business by the Government during the last Session of Parliament."
    That was exactly what he said now, the Government had mismanaged the business of last Session and they made private Members suffer for their mismanagement, and it was because the noble Lord proposed to limit the Motion that at all events he should support him, and in doing so he thought they had precedent all along the line.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 268; Noes 244.—(Division List, No. 19.)
    MR. HANBURYsaid, the next Amendment stood in his name, and he proposed to move it in a somewhat different form to that in which it stood on the Paper, because, of course, it was perfectly true, even under the present Standing Orders, that Government business had priority on Tuesday mornings. He should, therefore, propose to alter his Amendment by omitting the words "Government business do have priority upon," so that the whole paragraph would run thus—
    "That for the remainder of the Session on Tuesday and Friday the House do meet at 2 o'clock."
    He made this proposal in order to bring the Government proposal more into accordance with what had been the usual practice of Governments when they had taken the time of the House. The precedent of departing from the Standing Order ought not to be lightly adopted. There was no doubt whatever that if this Motion was passed it would relate, as the Leader of the Opposition had stated, not only to Government business this Session, but it would serve as a precedent for all succeeding Sessions. That was to say, that this was about the last opportunity they would have of fighting for the rights of private Members. He agreed that very often the time alloted to private Members was wasted, and the principal advantage of a private Members' night was that most of them could go to bed at a reasonably early hour, which was a strong argument for private Members' nights in a Session like the last, which extended over 11

    1643
    months. If the Government had said they would afford private Members another opportunity of discussing grievances by putting down Supply at a reasonable time—even once a week for the remainder of this Session—he would not have brought forward this Amendment, because Supply would afford a much better opportunity of discussing grievances than would a Motion on a private Members' night. But, instead of that, the Government had brought forward a proposal which was so distinctly against the Standing Orders, and against the established practice of the House, that it ought to be passed by something more than a mere Party majority. If hon. Members sitting on the Government side of the House attached any importance to their own Motions which they had on the Paper they would undoubtedly vote for his Amendment. The Government had only got 18 of a majority at the best, and of the Motions down for the next four Tuesdays no less than 11 of them were in the names of hon. Members sitting on the Government side of the House. No less than eight of them had got the first or second places for their Motions, whilst only three Members on the Opposition side of the House had got their names down for Motions at all, and they had not got first place. If these hon. Members attached importance to their own Motions they could not vote for the proposition of the Government as it stood, and they ought to vote for the Amendment. He claimed that, the Amendment was not brought forward from Party motives, but simply in the interests of private Members and of fair discussions in this House. All preceding Governments that had asked for further time for public business had not dropped private Members. They had taken only Morning Sittings on Tuesday, with the result that there had been plenty of time for the consideration of public business without private Members being deprived of the opportunity of bringing forward important Amendments. The present Government, however, had not adopted this course. They had, instead, brought forward a Motion which absolutely shut private Members out, and he was not at all sure that the time they were to give themselves would be actually devoted to urgent public business. If he felt it was
    1644
    to be profitably employed, he might agree to the proposal of the Government; but they had got no guarantee whatever of this. Take last Session, for instance. The Government, took the whole of the time; it was the longest Session on record, and yet it was the most barren of legislation. He thought more work might be done in this House if they did not take up so much time. The eight hours day which had been adopted in the Government factories might very well be applied to Government time in this House. If the Government followed the usual practice, and only took five or six hours on Tuesday, they would get through as much in those five or six hours as if they took the whole day, and then private-Members who had important Motions could bring them on at 9 o'clock. In ordinary Sessions he admitted that a good a good many of the Motions brought forward by private Members were crotchets, but that was not the case this Session. The Motions which stood for the first four Tuesdays really related to matters of the greatest possible importance, and which might be discussed with advantage and profit, such as the Indian home charges, the payment of returning officers, the question of the currency, and the depression in agriculture. Then there was the Motion, which was to have been proposed next Tuesday, upon the House of Lords. The latter was not a subject that could be discussed on mere Amendments in Committee of Supply, but one which ought to be dealt with, and decided one way or another, and upon which the Government ought to give a definite opinion. It was the last legacy of the right hon. Member for Midlothian, when he was leading the House. Had it dropped already, and become a subject in which the Government took no interest whatever? There could be no doubt that the object of the Government in not bringing forward the usual Motion, which was brought forward by all Governments at this time of the year, but in its stead bringing forward a Motion to exclude all private Members, was to burke the discussion by Members on their own side of the House of these questions. The Opposition were-not afraid of discussing them; they ought to be brought to a definite issue, and they wanted the country to know the views of the Government upon them. It was,

    1645
    because such questions could only possibly be brought to a decision upon Tuesdays that he did not want Tuesdays to go. The only possible opportunity a private Member had of raising an important Motion was by bringing it forward on Tuesday—the private Members' day—as a substantive Motion, which could be brought to the test of a Division, and upon which the Government had to express an opinion by its vote one way or the other. Unfortunately, these were the very Motions which the Government, departing from the practice of all other Governments, were about to preclude them from discussing. The only argument of the Government was that of urgency. That was the cry they heard the whole of the last Session, and they knew what came of it. Only four weeks of the Session had passed; there might be 10 months yet to run for ought they knew, and for this Motion now to be brought forward on the plea of urgency was one of the most ridiculous proposals ever made. Would the Government themselves give effect to the last legacy of the hon. Member for Midlothian? Would they allow a private Member to bring on his Motion about the House of Lords and give the House an opportunity of discussing it? Last Tuesday the Government ran away from the discussion on Scotch Home Rule, but the House passed an important Resolution upon that subject, which he should like to know if the Government intended to give effect to? Were they going to give effect to the decision of the House of Commons or not? If not, how were they to deal with the Lords for not doing so? The House of Commons had deliberately said that this matter of Scotch Home Rule was of urgent importance, yet following the example of the House of Lords—whom they never ceased to abuse—the Government said they attached no importance to what the House of Commons might say, and declined to take any notice of this question of Scotch Home Rule. There were several Bills of a neutral character which were of the greatest importance to the commercial community and others, such as the Bills for the amendment of the law relating to Building Societies, Limited Liability Companies, and so on; but if the Government were to have the whole time of the House, how did they
    1646
    know that any of these measures would be brought forward? His main reason for not agreeing to the particular suggestion of the Government was that for the first time they were now asked to vote the whole time of the House in confidence. That was a perfectly unheard-of thing. The Government asked them to shut their eyes and vote them the whole time of the Session without in the least knowing what it was to be devoted to. The conduct of the Government in the way they had hitherto wasted time was not such as to induce them to comply with such a demand—which was unprecedented—especially when they had no indication whatever of what they were going to do when they had got the whole of the time. What they had heard to-night was that the Government did not know themselves. The fact was, that a struggle was going on between the different groups who formed that brotherhood, who dwelt together in unity in such a remarkable fashion, as to particular Bills in which they were interested, and the Government kept these things in the dark because they intended to deceive as far as possible each one of these groups. He repeated that it was in the interests of private Members generally that he had brought forward this Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Government business do have priority on Tuesday. That," in order to insert the words "on Tuesday and."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I should be ill-occupying the time of the House if I endeavoured to answer the observations made by the hon. Member. I have already stated by anticipation all that the Government have to say in answer to that part of the speech which may be called argument, and there was a great deal of abuse of the Government to which it is not necessary I should reply. A very large percentage of the time of the House has been occupied by the hon. Member. Now, his point of view is that the right of private Members is a sort of personal privilege. I take it that private and unofficial Members bold that

    1647
    time in trust for the country, and this sort of claim was put forward humorously by the Leader of the Opposition that it was the privilege of private Members to have a Count-out if they liked, and that they could do what they pleased in their own time. That really is an admirable illustration of the point of view which champions of the rights of private Members take of the situation. The hon. Member was extremely indignant with hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House who, having obtained by ballot places for their Motions, have thought it right, for considerations which seem sufficient to them, to waive that right in the interests of those subjects which they thought even greater than those subjects in which they take a special interest. In my opinion, the Members who have taken that view have taken a more worthy view of the duties of private Members than the hon. Member opposite takes. He seems to think that a man has nothing to do but to think of himself and the position he will occupy in reference to his Motion. The hon. Member is perfectly entitled 10 take that view and to act consistently upon it, which he does very much; but he has no right to condemn other Members who take a less egotistical view of their situation in this House. As to taking the whole of Tuesday, a day on which some Members have important questions to bring forward, these Members looked at the question very carefully, and have come to the conclusion that there is something even superior to their own Motions, and that is the general policy of the Tarty to which they belong and the Government which they support. In desiring to further that policy and support the Government, which after all is their organ and instrument for carrying out their views, they are taking a course which, I venture to say, the country will approve much more than that which the hon. Member opposite has suggested they should follow. The Government fully considered this matter, and they think that they ought to ask the House for the whole of Tuesdays. At the Morning Sitting on a Tuesday it is quite true that when there is formal business we get on very well; but it often happens that some controversial question prevents the main business from being reached until a late hour in the afternoon, and
    1648
    then the Government make very little progress. Therefore, it is thought better to take the whole sitting. The hon. Member says that the Government have a long Session of 10 months before them. That really depends on hon. Members who occupy the time of the House; and the hon. Member himself would be well advised if he would spare the House of Commons a little more than he does. I hope that the manner in which the business will be conducted this Session will not necessitate any such expenditure of time as the hon. Member contemplates, and that the House under the circumstances will not accept his Amendment.
    ME. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman was at perfect liberty to abstain from replying to the speech of my hon Friend. There is nothing in our procedure to compel a reply to the speech of the speaker immediately preceding him. But, though the right hon. Gentleman has chosen not to deal with the arguments of my hon. Friend, he need not have introduced into his own speech a most unnecessary and personal attack on my hon. Friend, who may have delivered himself very freely about the Government as a Government, but certainly did not condescend to personal invective upon any Member of the Government or any hon. Member opposite. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has repeated what he told us earlier in the evening, as to the reasons which induce the Government to prefer the whole of the Tuesday sittings. Of course, if the Government want time it is very natural that they should prefer to take the larger than the smaller slice of the time of private Members. But that preference on the part of the Government is the only argument which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thought right to adduce against the course which all his predecessors have adopted under similar circumstances. The Government fail to understand that they are making not only a great, but an unprecedented, demand on the time of private Members, and have not realised that they should give something in return. What we ask in return is a little confidence on the part of the Government. During the four hours which this Debate has occupied the Government have not vouchsafed a single reply either to the questions I myself put, or to the questions

    1649
    put by other hon. Members. We have all pressed on them, as a simple return for the immense demand they were making on us, that they should tell us what their own programme is to be. At present we know absolutely nothing about it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recited the promises which the Government have given us, and which I am sure the Government will fulfil with regard to certain Debates on certain questions; but we know absolutely nothing as to the course they mean to pursue in the case of the absurd Scotch proposal, or as to the order in which they mean to bring in their Bills. A most interesting quotation was given earlier in the evening by my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone from a speech by the late Prime Minister on a similar, but less drastic, Motion by the late Mr. Smith. The late Prime Minister laid down that these demands on the time of the House should be made in reference to particular business of great importance. What is the particular business of great importance in this instance? They have not told us. Their language almost suggests that they do not know themselves. I do ask, in the name of common sense and the ordinary conduct of our affairs, that, before the main question is finally disposed of to-night, the Government will tell us for what specific purposes they hope in the immediate future the unexampled privilege they ask from us is to be employed. I do not say that such a statement would remove all our objections. But we should, at all events, feel that we were not wholly without guarantee as to the way in which this blank cheque was to be filled in, and that we were not voting away our time and convenience while getting absolutely nothing in return.
    MR. P. SMITHsaid, the Leader of the Opposition had seemed surprised at the change in the tone of the two speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Mr. Smith), however, could not say that there was anything very astonishing in the change. At the time of the first speech, the ship was labouring in the sea with the winds and waves beating on it, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was constrained to make a vow to any saint or god who
    1650
    would help him out of his difficulty. At the time of the second speech the ship had weathered the point, and the right hon. Gentleman was able to return to his usual and well-understood mode of sailing in his handling of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston. The right hon. Gentleman had said that Morning Sittings were of comparatively little use. Then why did the Government ask for Friday mornings? Let them agree to a compromise if they did not care to accept the proposal before the House; and if they considered Morning Sittings of such little value, let them give private Members the whole of Friday and take to themselves the whole of Tuesday. But he (Mr. Smith) confessed that in this matter he very much differed from the right hon. Gentleman. He thought that a great deal of work did get done in Morning Sittings, and, from the point of view of private Members, he thought that two short sittings were better than one long one. He would prefer sittings from 9 to 12 on Tuesdays and Fridays to one long sitting on Friday. If the Government would take the mornings of Tuesdays and Fridays and retain those evenings for private Members, they would not only greatly help in their own business, but would also be following precedent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer declined to have anything to do with precedents. No doubt precedents taken from the calendar were of no use. It was useless to say what was the state of things on the 9th of April in other years, because the whole situation had been so altered by the abnormal length of last Session and the way it had encroached on the present Session. They could not found any argument as to what was reasonable to-day on considering what was reasonable on the 9th of April last year, or the year before, or the year before that. But they could found an argument upon precedent if they looked at the number of sittings in previous Sessions. In 1889 private Members had nine evening sittings on Tuesday, and in no case did they have the whole of that day. In 1890 they had four evening sittings on Tuesday, and only the whole day in two instances. In 1891 they had five evening sittings on Tuesdays, and six whole Tuesdays; and in 1892 they had 10 evenings, and only four whole

    1651
    Tuesdays. Morning Sittings were greatly developed by the late Government, and the length of evening sittings was reduced. At first they could continue until 1 o'clock in the morning, but subsequently they were cut short at midnight. No doubt a sitting from 9 to 12 in the evening did not give time for a full and elaborate discussion, but it did give time to bring forward and ventilate a subject and take the opinion of the House upon it. With regard to the argument as to "Counts-out," they must happen so long as the selection of subjects was left to chance; but it would be perfectly easy to propose a scheme by which priority at evening sittings should be given to the subject which obtained most support. If that system were adopted, it would, he thought, be a considerable improvement upon the present arrangement—of leaving the whole thing to chance. It would get over what seemed to him the only serious argument against the value of evening sittings—namely, the chance of an uninteresting subject getting the first place, and the House getting counted out. No doubt, it was not possible for private Members to carry through serious legislation, except on the most rare occasions, but it was quite possible for them to take hold of questions in their preliminary stages when no Government would commit itself upon them—when even hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Opposition Bench would not commit themselves upon them. Gentlemen on the back Benches could take up such questions, and many instances might be cited in which measures which were now admitted to be of great value had been first brought forward by private Members. Perhaps the most striking case in point was the way in which the present Secretary for Scotland (Sir G. Trevelyan) had brought forward the question of the County Franchise whilst occupying the position of a private Member. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right to despise precedents. Private Members had rights which the House had admitted year after year. He did not say that those rights were definable according to the calendar, but he maintained that taking previous Sessions the figures worked out very much to the same effect so far as the privileges of private Members were con-
    1652
    cerned, and this formed a strong argument against the present action of the Government. It was all very well for a professional cynic like the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to take the line that one Party was just as had as another, and that when in power each proposed that which when in Opposition it resisted. But there had been a very substantial and considerable difference between the attitude of the present Opposition when they were in power and that of the present Government. In 1889, 1890, and 1891 Government business had precedence at 108 sittings, while private Members' business had precedence at 33 sittings; but in 1893 Government business had precedence at 211 sittings and private Members' business at only 19 sittings. Under the late Government private Members had one-quarter of the time of the House, but under the present Government they had had less than one-tenth. During the present Session the case of private Members was a good deal worse, because they had scarcely had any evenings at all. He admitted that eight days a month was not time enough for the Government to carry their business; but, as a matter of fact, statistics showed that eight days a month, or two-fifths of the whole time of the House, was not all the time Governments had taken during recent years. Instead of two-fifths of the time, they had taken three-fourths, and that seemed to him a much more reasonable fraction of the time of the House for the Government to have than that they should have the whole of the time. What security was there that the Government would leave private Members the Wednesday Sittings and Friday nights? They were entitled to some assurance from the Government on that point. In any case, it seemed to him that the precedent which was now being set would be followed in future. All Governments wanted more time. Any Government that ever existed could make excuses for asking for the time of the House just as good as they had heard to-night. Every Government that had the confidence of the House could come down and make a pathetic appeal to its supporters, and make the question one of confidence. That precedent was one which he did not think any Government in the future would forget.

    1653
    Certainly, he did not think the Opposition would forget it when they came into power. This matter of precedent, which Radicals and Home Rulers might very well set some store by, because it was for more gentlemen who supported the Government than Unionists of any shade who were anxious to have an opportunity of setting down Motions, and of arguing them as private Members. It might well be that a Unionist Government on coming into power might feel embarrassed by some Resolution set down by some Member of the Opposition. They would have an excellent weapon to their bands—a certain defence which the House might be confident they would avail themselves of in this precedent of coming down without any particular reason and without specifying the purpose for which the time was required, and demanding as a matter of confidence nearly the whole time of the House. After this he did not see how hon. Gentlemen could oppose such a claim. It was because he thought the Government would have ample time if they took only Tuesday mornings instead of the whole of Tuesdays, and because he regarded it as a safer precedent—better in the interest of the House, if private Members and of the Government itself—that he urged the acceptance of the Amendment.
    MAJOR DARWINsaid, that of the Debates in the House gentlemen sitting on the Front Benches usually got the lion's share. It was right that they should, because these gentlemen were to a certain extent the spokesmen for the rest of the Members. Rut when they came to a subject relating to the rights of private Members, he thought the House should be indulgent to those who wished to take part in the discussions. Those on the Front Benches who had long had a dislike to Tuesdays and Fridays Motions took a rather prejudiced view of the subject, and for that reason it was especially desirable that private Members should intervene. They were asked to give up Tuesdays to the end of the Session, and the hon. Member for Preston proposed that some modification should be made in the demand. And in making the proposal it was only right to point out that the Government had already had an abnormal amount of time
    1654
    this year—from Christmas to the beginning of the present Session. That ought to be taken into account. There had been only two Tuesdays available for such discussions as usually took place on those evenings this year, and the demand of the Government was that there should be no more Tuesdays available. The Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer entirely did away with the privileges granted to private Members by the Standing Orders. The proposal of the Government involved a complete change of precedent. On every previous occasion when a Government had asked for privileges of this kind they had been able to show what actual time of the House had been previously spent on measures, and that that time would be wasted unless their demand was acceded to. It had always previously been the case that the Government had introduced large proposals, and that any restriction in their legislative programme would lead to the wasting of the time already spent on legislation. The present Government, however, could put forward no such argument, for they had introduced no large measures, and not a single hour of Parliamentary time would be wasted if no restriction of private Members' time was made. Such a change in precedent could only be justified by showing that the existing Rules of the House were not suitable, or by proving that the circumstances were very exceptional. They did not know what line the Government took up. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was true, had said that at present there was not a reasonable distribution of the time of the House. Why, then, did he not propose some alteration of the Standing Orders of the House? That was the way to meet the case. There were many Members of the House who doubted whether the time taken up by abstract Resolutions usually discussed on Tuesdays and Fridays was really a good distribution of rime. But when they came to discuss individual cases of this so called waste of time they found great difference of opinion. There was hardly a subject brought before the House which some Members would not think justified the time occupied on it. On Tuesday last they had a discussion on mining royalties, and those gentlemen who brought it forward expressed what he might call

    1655
    the official view of the miners. It appeared to be of interest to the mining industry that they should——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must not follow up the discussion on mining royalties.
    MAJOR DARWINsaid, he apologised. He was only trying to illustrate the advantage of such general discussion to the country at large. He agreed that the question as to whether these abstract discussions were useful or not was an open one; but if the Government thought that time should not be devoted to them, let them propose an alteration of the Standing Orders. But he did not understand that the Government based their argument upon that. The Government claimed exceptional circumstances as their reason for demanding the time of the House. The only exceptional circumstance the Government could allege was that they were endeavouring to force more legislation into the Session than was possible; and if that was accepted as an excuse for the Government taking the time of private Members thus early in the Session, it was a certainty that every future Government would be able to claim the same indulgence. He was afraid they were now doing away for all time with the rights of private Members on Tuesdays—at the end of the Session, if not for the whole of the Session. Still, as the present Government did not make the change by altering the Standing Orders, when they were again in Opposition they would resist a Motion like this in the interests of private Members, and so obstruct Unionist legislation. It appeared to him that they ought to deal with the question at large, and settle permanently what was to be done in the interests of both Parties in the House. He should certainly vote against the proposal of the Government if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston—which would afford a reasonable solution of the difficulty—were not accepted.
    SIR M. J. STEWARTsaid, he objected most strongly to the course proposed by Her Majesty's Government. He was not going to argue the matter out because they had already had it argued out much better than he could have done it. The absence of all precedent for the Government proposal had been shown. He felt that in launch-
    1656
    ing forth this policy and in laying down practically new Standing Orders they were making a new precedent which would be followed in future years, so that practically from this time private Members' Motions would be shut out on Tuesdays. The only way in which a private Member could bring forward a question was by making a Motion, and whether they were crotchets or not their constituents in many cases had sent them there with a mandate to bring certain matters before the House. If they were shut out they could not fulfil that mandate. But he had risen rather to suggest that the Government should give some indication of the subjects they intended to press upon the attention of the House, because it now had before it a bill of fare for which all the time of the House would be insufficient. Only the other day he (Sir M. J. Stewart) was one of a large deputation to the President of the Board of Agriculture. The answer the right hon. Gentleman gave was unsatisfactory and a Motion was down for next Tuesday on the subject. The go-by had now been given to the subject. They were threatened in this respect with a great divergence from the policy pursued during the past 18 months. They were led to believe that the Minister in charge of the Department was as convinced of the utility of slaughtering animals imported into this country at the port of debarkation as they were; but the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion were directly opposite. That was one of the subjects that would be shut out from discussion by the Motion of the Government. He would ask the Government whether they really thought that by forcing a Motion of that sort on a very large minority of the House they were really advancing the business of the House? When they were compelling 244 Members as against 268 to do a certain thing, it required a good deal more compulsion than taking Tuesdays and Fridays to accomplish their purpose. He therefore thought the Government were making a great mistake in the action they proposed; and if they accepted the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Preston, they would in all probability advance their measures more than if they had a large Opposition struggling hard against what they had been com-

    1657
    pelled to do by a small majority. Members, and especially Scotch Members, would like to know what questions were to be brought before the House by the Government on Tuesdays and Fridays. The House had been assured, on the authority of the Minister in charge of Scotch business, that they were to have a Grand Committee, and that the Government were pledged to do all they could to secure that result. The next day they had had an assurance from the same right hon. Gentleman that Scotland was to have Home Rule. They should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman's Colleagues agreed with that view; and what they really intended to do with regard to Scotch business?
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he thought the discussion had not been very complimentary to private Members. If private Members who never aspired to oven the most subordinate position in the Government would have no opportunity of expressing their views, or of doing useful work, the attractions of the House would be reduced to a great number of independent men. Private Members who took up questions at present formed a very useful percentage of the House. Many not very ambitious, but very useful, Bills had been carried by private Members. A great many questions had also been raised by private Members the discussion of which had laid the ground for legislation. Resolutions had been moved and carried by private Members which convinced the Government of the necessity of dealing with certain questions, and legislation had been the result. A great deal of most useful work had been done in this way on Tuesdays and Fridays as well as on Wednesdays. No doubt a certain number of private Members got first places for questions of no importance. But that was the misfortune of the business being arranged by the chance of the ballot. It certainly was no argument against the policy of appropriating a reasonable portion of the time of the House for private Members to occupy in raising questions in which they were interested. Take the four Tuesdays which the proposal of the Government would completely cut out. Next Tuesday one of the Members for Somersetshire proposed to call the attention of the House to the Charity Commission, and to suggest that
    1658
    it should be reconstituted so as to place it more directly under Parliamentary control. He saw no more useful or more practical subject than that. Since he had had the honour of being a Member of the House—now some years—he had frequently heard dissatisfaction expressed with reference to the Charity Commission. A great deal of the time of the House had been taken up at inconvenient times with the question of the affairs of charities and the action of the Commission. Then the hon. Member for Argyllshire, who had had a large Indian experience, was to have called the attention of the House to East India home charges. He did not know of a more practical subject than that. It was true that the hon. Member for Argyllshire had said he considered the introduction of the question of less importance than maintaining the Government in Office, and that as the defeat of the Government would lead to resignation he thought it better to subordinate that particular question to the interest of the Government; but the consequences feared need not happen. If the hon. Member for Preston's Amendment were carried, the Government might still remain in Office, and an interesting discussion would be secured just the same. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had also an important Motion for discussion—namely, the plurality of offices in the Public Service; and, lastly, one of the Members for Essex had a Motion relating to agricultural matters. The Member for Essex represented a constituency suffering from grievous agricultural depression; and he wanted to call the attention of the House to a phase of the question which could be very profitably discussed at the present time. The Minister for Agriculture had refused to inquire into the present rules as to the compulsory slaughter of cattle imported into this country at the port of debarkation. Deputations had waited upon him, but no opportunity had been afforded for pressing any argument upon the attention of the Minister. If the hon. Member for Essex had only the smallest opportunity of pressing this matter upon his attention, useful and practical service would be done to the agricultural community. These subjects might be dealt with in a concise way, and suggestions made of great value which would pre-

    1659
    pare the way for the action of the Government later on. If the Amendment were accepted, while the Government would get the Morning Sittings for their business, there would be left an opportunity for the discussion of a number of matters which could be usefully discussed in the best interests of the House and the nation. To take another day, Tuesday the 17th the hon. Member for Wandsworth had a subject for discussion with regard to the disparity of representation between the various constituencies of this country. The hon. Gentleman represented 100,000 people, which was twice as large a population as many other Members of that House represented, and he naturally wanted to press this subject upon the attention of the Government. On the following Tuesday, the 24th, the hon. Member for Finsbury proposed to move a Motion relating to the expenses of returning officers. Very great advantage would be obtained by discussion upon that matter, which actually bore upon one of the subjects—the Registration Bill—which the Government had in hand. On the following Tuesday, the 1st May, they had again the question of the depression of agriculture down for discussion; surely that was a fitting subject to occupy the attention of the House. He must say he viewed with serious apprehension this inroad of the Government's upon the rights of private Members. As it was, the Government enjoyed not only the two days which were usually known as Government days, but practically a considerable portion of the private Members' days. The questions which were put to Ministers and the answers which were given were more or less Government business, and Government business frequently cropped up, and therefore it was "unjust to say that private Members took three days a week as compared with the two days alleged to be taken by the? Government. He should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston, and, if that was not carried, against the Motion of the Government.
    MR. FREEMAN-MITFORDsaid, the hon. Member who had preceded him had made reference to the deputation which had waited upon the Minister for Agriculture. He 'was a Member of that deputation, and he placed upon the Paper a
    1660
    Motion with regard to that matter. He wished that the Motion had fallen into better hands than his, but, at the same time, as it stood in his name, he should like to express the bitter disappointment which he was sure would be felt by the agricultural community—that it was impossible to make any Motion with regard to this question. The reply which was made to them was simply read from a prepared document, and contained no answer to the arguments which had been advanced by speakers. They were used to such replies from the Treasury Bench. He wanted to bring forward a most important Motion which stood in his name, but he desired to point out that he was deprived of any opportunity of presenting to the House a Resolution which might have some beneficial influence upon the agricultural interest of the Kingdom.
    SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, that he much regretted this extraordinary proposal of Her Majesty's Government to take away the time of private Members. These encroachments had increased rapidly within late years, and he had always done what he could to oppose them. But this case was the most indefensible of all. We were not now, as now presented, at the close of the Session, but quite at the commencement. The Session had not yet lasted a month, and of that month—he did not complain of it, because there were special and sufficient reasons—the Government had monopolised almost the whole of the time that the House had sat. Now, why did they make this unusual demand? It was not that our Rules and Regulations had proved in any way defective. His hon. Friend the Member for Islington moved a few days ago for a Committee to inquire into the Rules, and the Government resisted the proposal as being quite unnecessary. Nor could it be from any unusual prolongation of debate on the part of the Opposition. The Government would not allege that. They were allowed to introduce their Bills without opposition and almost without debate, and as a matter of fact they had made unusually rapid progress with Supply. The Government, by their proposals for a Scotch Committee, had themselves frittered away the time of the House on what the hon. Member for Glasgow called a pottering

    1661
    and peddling Amendment. They had told us that they were in favour of Home Rule for Scotland; why, then, did they press for a Grand Committee? Was it for the present Session? He believed that they could certainly have got their Scotch Bills through Committee in less time than it would take them to obtain the Grand Committee and then get the Bills referred to it. The Government would not allege that the time allotted to private Members was wasted. What had been the greatest changes made in our laws during the past century? The answer would include the reform of Parliament, the extension of the franchise, free trade, and education measures. But all these were private Members' questions—some of them had been repeated year after year; and it was only after private Members had educated public opinion that Governments took these questions up. Of course, when questions were ripe for solution the Government had advantages in carrying Bills which no private Member possessed. Yet there were many important measures which had been actually carried by private Members. He might mention the Free Libraries Act. Again, the Bills of Exchange Act, which codified and regulated the whole law relating to bills and cheques, was a private Member's Bill. Even when private Members' Motions wore negatived, the discussions often were of great value, so that even if the measures failed to pass, the time of the House could not on that account he considered as having been wasted. The Motion of Friday last with reference to royalties was rejected, but the announcement of the view of the Government in the able speech of the Home Secretary was important; it would clear away many fallacies and misapprehensions, and soften, if not remove, the feeling of grievance which undoubtedly existed. There was a general impression that the object of this proposal was to shelve inconvenient questions. The Government would, he supposed, carry their Motion about a Scotch Committee. Well, then they could not, with any semblance of justice, refuse them an English Committee, but they might deprive them of any opportunity of proposing it. Would they give them a day to bring it on? He himself was in charge of two ques-
    1662
    tions at the present time, and he would endeavour in a few words to point out the importance they were to the country generally. They were all agreed as to the importance of conciliation and arbitration in trade disputes. Now, one of the Bills he was in charge of related to that subject, and was brought in on behalf of the London Chamber of Commerce. It was supported by the Chambers of Commerce throughout the Kingdom; it had been drafted under the instructions of the London Conciliation Board, and was supported by the great London Trade Unions. Surely such a Bill and one so supported ought not to be shut out. It was true that the Government had a Bill of their own relative to the same question, but there was hardly more in it than in the dummy which his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade presented at the Table. The Bill, as the Government had framed it, really did nothing at all, and gave the Board of Trade no power which it did not already possess. The other question was one dealing with the terribly long hours of labour in shops. It was no question of eight hours, or 10 hours, or 12 hours even, but of 14 or 16 hours a day; and most of the shop assistants, it must be remembered, were women. The facts had been unanimously reported on by a Committee of this House, and their Report had never been denied. There was not a city or town where great meetings had not been held and resolutions passed in support of their Bill. It was founded on a Resolution passed unanimously in that House, supported on behalf of the Government by the Home Secretary, which was to the effect
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the excessive and unnecessarily long hours of labour in shops were injurious to the comfort, health, and well-being of all concerned; and that it was desirable to give to Local Authorities such powers as might be necessary to enable them to carry out the general wishes of the shopkeeping community with reference to the hours of closing."
    These long and unnecessary hours undoubtedly affected the health, comfort, and even the life of probably 1,000,000 of their countrymen and countrywomen, and yet the Government could not give them an evening or even an hour for its discussion. What were the questions for the sake of which this

    1663
    course was proposed? He would allude only to those that had been mentioned in the Queen's Speech. The first measure mentioned in the Royal Speech was the Evicted Tenants Bill. Why were the tenants evicted? Because they did not choose to pay their rents. Not that they could not, but because they would not. Speaking, for instance, of the Lugga-curren tenants, the hon. Member for South Kerry said that
    "they were able to pay their rents, but it was a fight of intelligence against intelligence—a case of diamond cut diamond."
    And yet as they would not pay for themselves, though they could, it was now proposed that somebody else was to pay for them. He would not, however, discuss the merits of the measure; but he should like to ask, How' many persons did it affect? The Mathew Commission reported the number of tenants on the Plan of Campaign estates at 1,300, of whom 400 had been reinstated, leaving something less than 1,000. Yet to these 1,000 individuals the time of the House was to be devoted, and for the 1,000,000 shopkeepers and shop assistants the Government could not spare an evening, and worse than that, not even an hour. Another subject mentioned in the Speech was
    "the reform of the present method of conducting inquiries into fatal accidents in Scotland."
    That might be useful and desirable, but surely it was not a matter more urgent or important than many of those which private Members wished to bring before the House. In conclusion, he submitted that the Government had no case for the Resolution they proposed, and he hoped the House would maintain the rights of private Members, and leave them the moderate proportion of time which after careful consideration had under the present Rules been allotted to them.
    SIR J. GORSTsaid, that the right hon. Baronet had called great attention to the various measures of usefulness that had been introduced by private Members in the first instance, and had put that fact forward as one reason why the time of private Members should not be limited, even for the purpose of giving more time for Government business. He had been in the House for
    1664
    many years, and he was bound to confess that during that time he had seen a great deal of the time of the House wasted by private Members. It was not the first time that a Government had found it necessary to ask for the time which, under more favourable circumstances, would have been at the disposal of private Members. It was a usual thing for the Government once or twice in each Session to make such an appeal to private Members. The real reason, he believed, that induced the Government to ask for this extra time was never stated to the House. But in former cases they had given some reason for their doing so, which, if not very readily believed as the real motive by the private Members who were affected by the change, was at any rate a plausible one on the face of it. He ventured to say that the Government was always anxious to have their movements wrapped in a little mystery. Moreover, they undoubtedly had an inclination to make as much of any little emergency which might give them an opportunity to make this request as was possible under the circumstances. What the Government most disliked was a sharp criticising of any measure they introduced. They were always animated by a very powerful object. They had to submit their measures to the criticism of independent Members of the House. The House existed for two purposes. Its sole business was not that of legislating. In his judgment, a far more important function than the business of legislating was that of watching the administration and policy of the Executive Government of the country, and giving utterance to public dissatisfaction with such policy and administration, and making the Government defend themselves in public and give the reasons for the particular measures they proposed. The Government did not like this. It was a very odd thing that people never liked to be criticised. But if the independent action of their political opponents was intolerable to the Government, still more intolerable was the independent action of their political friends. If Governments generally were nervous about the action of their supporters, he supposed Her Majesty's present Government were more nervous about that action than any Go-

    1665
    vernment which had ever existed. Their political supporters had so many different views, were animated by so many different objects, and were supposed to pursue their views in such a very inconvenient and headstrong fashion that he imagined the Government lived in constant terror as to what their supporters might do next. There was a very remarkable illustration of independent action on the part of Government supporters last Tuesday night, and he had no doubt that the experience the Government had that evening of independent Tuesday evening Motions had induced them to make up their minds to suppress them altogether, otherwise why should they have pursued the totally unprecedented course they were pursuing this evening? If the Government would propose an alteration of the Standing Orders so as to give them the whole time of the House, the House would, no doubt, he disposed to discuss such a proposal, and there might be very strong reasons why such a course should be taken. Speaking entirely for himself, he had a perfectly open mind on the subject, and was perfectly ready to discuss any Amendment of the Rules of Procedure and the Standing Orders of the House which the Government might propose. As it was, the Standing Orders were, Session after Session, being made into a farce. What was the good of having Standing Orders if during nearly the whole of the Session they were to be suspended. If the Resolution of the Government were passed the present Session would be remarkable as the only one in modern times in which independent Members had had at their disposal only a single Week of the time of the House. Before Easter the House had to suspend the Standing Orders in order to enable the Government to pass their financial business. By way of showing their gratitude to the House for their action in that matter, the Government asked hon. Members a week later to suspend the Standing Orders for the rest of the Session. He should have thought it would have been better to alter the Standing Orders so as to give the Government the whole of the time, and to allow private Members to have Tuesdays and Fridays as an exceptional thing. Hitherto Governments, in taking the time of the House,
    1666
    had done so piecemeal. They had taken Tuesday morning first and Tuesday evening afterwards. A great deal of business could be done on Tuesday morning, which was an excellent time for discussing Bills in Committee. Never before had the Government asked in the first instance for the whole of the Tunes-days, and their only reason for doing so now was that they wished to get rid of a number of inconvenient questions which would otherwise be brought forward by their own supporters. They did not want to have to continue to exercise their ingenuity in fencing with questions or to adopt the manœuvre of leaving the House in order to avoid the necessity of giving an opinion or of voting on Motions brought forward by their own supporters. They, therefore, took the bull by the horns, and suppressed the Tuesday Motions altogether. The Government could not trust their supporters, and consequently they dare not allow the House any longer to enjoy those privileges which the Standing Orders were intended to safeguard. This was the reason why at the very beginning of the Session they asked the House by this unprecedented Motion to suspend the Standing Orders all round.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.): There are many arguments that can be urged against the proposal of the Government. In the first place, I lay down that there is no precedent for this Motion at this time of the year, and I have a right to speak on the subject, for my Parliamentary memory is long, extending over 20 years, and is also very active. I say positively that this is an unprecedented Motion in the first month of a Session of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) commented on the fact that this was the 9th of April, and argued that the Motion was premature. But what has been the origin of this Motion. Yon, the Government, kept the House sitting last year for an unprecedented period, amounting to nearly 10 months in the year. That is the cause of your difficulties now. Having kept the House of Commons sitting for 10 months you called Parliament together again on the 12th of March. You had your necessary finance Votes to pass,

    1667
    and you got all the assistance you could from the Opposition. How do you recognise it? Before three weeks are over you come down to the House and you propose to appropriate Tuesdays as a whole and Fridays for Morning Sittings, You knock on the head the whole of the rights obtained by ballot by private Members during the first few weeks of the Session. That is your treatment of your supporters; that is your treatment of your opponents. I do not believe that any Leader of the House has ever made such a proposal before. I would remind the House that the proposal will not long rest here; the Government will before long endeavour to appropriate the whole of the time of the House. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes, that is cheered. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed a faint hope—and it struck me he had a faint heart—that this Session might not be like last Session. You are on the high road to producing a fac-simile of last Session. What is the worth to private Members at this period of the Session of Wednesday and Friday Morning Sittings? Coercion of the House of Commons like this does not lead to the passing of those innumerable Bills which are controversial in the highest degree, and which you apparently, from the Queen's Speech, hope to pass. You have concealed from us the order of your Bills. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says the order is administrative. Has he forgotten the Budget Bill, and does he think that from the nature of his Budget it will not require a great deal of discussion? Does he think he will be able to go into the Budget Bill immediately after he has introduced his Budget? It is absurd to think that he will be able to bring in the Budget Bill before Whitsuntide. What Bills are you going to bring in before Whitsuntide? Have you the right to take the time of the House of Commons and not say what you are going to do? Have you the right to leave not only your supporters, but the Opposition, whose numbers are very nearly as high as yours, in utter ignorance as to your programme up to Whitsuntide? You take all the time of the House practically. Is the taking away of the Morning Sitting on Tuesday consonant
    1668
    with precedent when you conceal from the House every information they desire? I have never known of any Ministerial proposal equal to that. The proposal of the Government last year was as had as ever was made, but this exceeds it. Yet your majority fluctuates from a defeat by one on an order for a Bill which the Government supported to majorities first of 18 and then of 15 on the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate on the Scotch Grand Committee, and on no occasion can you muster more than 24. Are you going to take all the time of the House with a majority like that? What was your majority last year? It averaged 45. What is your majority now? Heaven knows! There is another point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the only Member of the Government who has spoken to-night. Nobody has had the courtesy to reply to the very courteous, the very humorous, the very good-natured, and the very brilliant speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I say that is extraordinary conduct. You make an enormous demand, and one Member of the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, makes a most curious speech, which pretends to tell everything and concede everything. The Chief Secretary for Ireland made a brief speech, and did not notice a single argument used by my right hon. Friend. These are strange proceedings; they are proceedings which I have never seen practised in my Parliamentary experience; they are proceedings which will not profit you, because the Opposition is nearly of the same strength as yourselves, and in time you may find yourselves defeated. Your policy is certainly against the interests of the House. You may possibly persuade your followers to vote for you mechanically to-night; but you will find it hard to carry through the Newcastle Programme and the great Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a majority of from 1 to 15. I express the opinion which I have a right to express from a long experience of this House, and from a good deal of knowledge of its customs. You are pursuing a policy which was initiated last year of abandoning all the privileges and customs of private Members, and you are asking us

    1669
    to be your accomplices in an act which is unprecedented, and which from the Parliamentary point of view is unnecessary.
    ME. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he rose principally to ask a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, He did not join in the attacks which had been made on private Members and on their Motions, for he would remind the House that there was scarcely a single measure of any importance passed by the House that had not been brought within the range of practical politics by the action of private Members on private Members' rights. Therefore, he should express his regret that the Government had taken all the opportunities of this Session from private Members. But he noticed that on the fourth Tuesday there was a Motion down to consider the question of the depression in agriculture. Unless the Amendment were assented to, the opportunity for discussing the question would be absolutely taken away. He would remind the House that there was scarcely a single Member—certainly not a Member of a rural constituency—who did not in his election addresses and speeches declare his anxiety to consider the question of the depression of agriculture: and though it might appear to affect only the rural constituencies, he ventured to say that there was not a trade or a branch of manufacture in this country that was not affected by the condition of agriculture. Good trade and had trade were relative terms for prosperity or depression in agriculture. He had a question to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, he was sorry to see, was always popping in an out. He thought they ought to have the head of the Government present when important questions were addressed to him, and especially when they were discussing a question moved by the right hon. Gentleman himself. But he would ask any Leader of the Government, if there were a Leader present—and he hoped the House would insist on some sort of answer—whether the Government would give a day for the discussion of the condition of agriculture in this country? They had promised a day for the discussion of several matters, including the Miners (Eight Hours) Bill; but would they promise a
    1670
    day for discussing a matter affecting the greatest industry of the country? The question was—Would the Government give a day for the discussion of the condition of agriculture—a question affecting our greatest industry, and which affected every man, woman, and child in the country, whether living in our towns or in the rural districts. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the country would approve of the action of the Government in shutting out all opportunity of discussing that important question, but the Government displayed a singular objection to testing the opinion of the country upon that or upon any other point. He wanted some assurance on the part of the Government on that subject. He had listened to the attack that the hon. Member for Northampton had made upon private Members. The hon. Member had tried his best to get out of the category of private Members, but had failed in doing so, and perhaps that was the key of the temper he had displayed, and had made him so bitter in his attack upon them. The Government were having a bit of electioneering practice that evening, but shuffling their cards would not change their hand. If the Government refused to give a day for the discussion of the depressed condition of agriculture the country would know what value was to be attached to the abundant promises which they and their supporters had made during the last General Election. He reiterated his request, which he hoped would be backed up by other speakers, and as the Government were practising electioneering tactics he suggested that they might go a step further and give the day he asked for.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, this was not merely a question affecting private Members, but whether the Standing Orders of the House were to be put aside without any reason being assigned. The cynical levity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, relying as he did upon his majority of 24, and the careless levity of hon. Members opposite in dealing with so important a question, was surprising. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had used lamb-like language to which they were unaccustomed from that quarter

    1671
    with a tremendous majority of 24. But finding that if he had the majority of votes he had the minority of arguments on his side, the right hon. Gentleman had turned round, and, like a modern Goliath, had fallen on the unfortunate Member for Preston. The hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Division had been pleased to show a great contempt for private Members, who were, he said, a farce and a delusion. They might have expected support from him as the private Member who carried the famous Motion for giving Home Rule to Scotland. Was that a farce and a delusion? Perhaps it was, and this was the more to be suspected, because having a still more important Motion for one of these very days now in question, he had now ran away from it, and had announced that he was going to vote with the Government. However, private Members were not a, farce and a delusion, whatever the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Division might be.
    MR. DALZIELexplained, that in what he had said he was only putting Ins own interpretation on the speech of the hon. Member's Leader.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he was not, a private Member. The question was whether they were going to try to save any remnant of their Standing Orders and privileges from the capacious maw of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had himself a very important Motion on the Paper for to-morrow with regard to pluralists which he had already on three occasions postponed at the request of the Government on the very ground that he would be able to bring it on tomorrow, which he was now to be prevented from doing. Consequently he had been defrauded. Private Members had balloted, and some of them had got forward places for their Motions, had prepared all their facts, and were ready to come down gravid with argument when they were thus summarily disposed of. His own place was not a very forward one, but he was not unmindful of the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who said that the bores always got the first places. In these circumstances, it was very hard that the Government should now snatch away the opportunities which private Members had thus secured. Having examined all the precedents from 1868
    1672
    down to the present time, he asserted that such a proposal had never been made except either upon special grounds for a special purpose, or at the end of the Session in order to wind up business. No special ground had been here put forward, nor had any emergency been shown. No Bill had been named that it was urgent to pass. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had merely said that he was in charge of a precious cargo; but why did he not bring up a few bales and cases of this cargo and let them see what it was like? The right hon. Gentleman was fond of calling himself an old sailor. He (Mr. Bowles) called him an old soldier. Before Easter the right hon. Gentleman had begged for the time of the House on the ground of financial necessities and had got it. Now he turned round on his benefactors. Having like a mendicant begged them to give the Government more time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer now came forward with a bludgeon to rob them of the remainder, like a foot-pad. All he alleged was that this was the 9th of April, as though they were well advanced in the Session, whereas they were only at its fourth week. No obstruction was oven alleged. It was not their fault that the Session did not begin until the 12th March, but the fault of the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues in overloading the ship, and the Government could not complain if the same result followed again, for as last year, like Pharaoh's lean kine coming up out of the river, their measures had eaten up the Session, so they would eat up this Session too and be none the better for it—they would still be as lean and ill-favoured as ever. This proposal was not made in good faith, because of the necessities of the Government or of the situation, but it was a last despairing attempt to cover previous failure and to prepare for future failures. Nobody knew that better than the right hon. Gentleman himself—it was simply a last despairing attempt to amuse the electors, while it would only give Ministers and their supporters further time to make further blunders.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 247; Noes 219.—(Division List, No. 20.)
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, that, although the Government proposed to take the whole time of the House for the rest of the Session, they had given the House no information as to the purposes to which they intended to devote it. Last year, in spite of the large time at I the disposal of the Government, the whole of Supply was crowded into a fortnight, and did not receive fair discussion. He, therefore, moved the addition of the following proviso to the Motion of the Government:—
    "Provided that in each week during the remainder of the Session the consideration of the Estimates in Committee of Supply shall be sot down as the first Order of the Day on one night on which Government business has priority."
    If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not undertake to give one day a week for the purposes of Supply, would he undertake to say that Supply should be dealt with fairly and at an early period of the Session? If the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance to that effect it might meet the difficulty: if not, he should certainly press the Amendment to a Division.
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words,
    "Provided that in each week (hiring the remainder of the Session the consideration of the Estimates in the Committee of Supply shall be set down as the first Order of the Hay on one night on which Government business has priority."—(Mr. Heneuge.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I must say, Sir, that the Motion of my right hon. Friend is unnecessary, because under the Standing Order Supply is always set down one day in the week. But I take it that that is not the real meaning of the Motion. What my right hon. Friend means, I presume, is that the Government should undertake that on some day in each week effective Supply should be taken. We have, however, shown that we are inclined to deal fairly with Supply, because in a short time we have had at our disposal I think we have made as much progress with Supply as has ever been made at this time of the year. No Government has ever been called upon to fulfil such a condition as this Amendment would impose upon them, for no
    1674
    Government can undertake beforehand what may happen during the Session. My right hon. Friend asks me to give an undertaking that Supply should be fairly dealt with, and I have no hesitation in giving that undertaking. I hope my right hon Friend will not press the Motion, as the House is desirous of proceeding with the very important business involved in the Behring Sea. Fisheries Bill.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the right hon. Gentleman has met the appeal of my right hon. Friend in a conciliatory tone. The position, however, is that there will be no opportunity at all for an unofficial Member to bring forward any question except by moving the Adjournment of the House. At the same time, if the right hon. Gentleman is able to carry out his present intention with regard to Supply, I think the Amendment might be withdrawn.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question proposed.
    COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid, he would like to ask whether any opportunity would be afforded by the Government for discussing the present position of agriculture, and he would like to know whether they refused to give a day?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not deny the importance of the subject to which the hon. Member has referred, but if I should undertake to decide as to the competing claims of different subjects upon the attention of the House I should inevitably become involved in complications from which it would be vary difficult to extricate myself. I feel sure, however, that in the course of the Session, and practically at no very distant date, an opportunity will present itself for a discussion on the subject of that agricultural depression which we all deplore.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he hoped an opportunity would be given for a discussion of the depression in agriculture, on the ground that the Government had deprived an hon. Member of an opportunity of moving a Motion on the subject early in May. Days had been granted for the eight hours for miners and for

    1675
    other questions, and it was not unreasonable to ask for a single day to discuss the agricultural question, and so to test the pledges which had been given by so many Members.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I am asked to give a day in exchange for one which I am said to bo taking away, but I must question the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman, because the Motion to which reference has been made is the third on the Paper for Tuesday, May 1. The first Motion refers to the currency question, and the second to what is called "Peers' disabilities," so that the agricultural question has to take its chance after those two engrossing questions have been discussed. I think, therefore, that the demand made upon me is not a fair one under the circumstances.
    MR. MUNTZsaid, it seemed to him that the present Government had failed altogether to appreciate the present position of the agricultural interest, which was in a most deplorable condition, and he asked whether the Government could not give a day for the discussion?
    Main Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 249; Noes 223.—(Division List, No. 21.)
    Resolved, That for the remainder of the Session Government Business do have priority on Tuesday. That on Friday the House do meet at Two of the clock, and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to Tuesday and the Morning Sitting on Friday.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, To-morrow resolve itself into Committee of Supply."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer)

    THE COURSE OF BUSINESS.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does that mean that the Navy Estimates will come on first to-morrow? Would it be in Order to ask a question about the course of business for the rest of the week?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes; our intention is that when the Navy Votes are concluded we shall then go on with the Motion on the Scotch Committee, and immediately after that we shall proceed with the Registration Bill.
    MR. GOSCHEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Budget will be taken on Monday?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the question of Uganda is to be taken on Thursday?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: There will be a statement made by the Government on the subject.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: Will there be any opportunity for Debate?
    SIR W. HARCOURTwas understood to say not.
    Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BEHRING SEA AWARD BILL.—(No. 123.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: In ordinary circumstances I should not have troubled the House at all with any statement after the discussion which took place at some length upon the occasion of the Second Reading, but since then certain questions have been put by hon. Members in the House, and certain statements—not of an official kind—have appeared in the public Press this morning, which render it necessary that I should make, with the permission of the House, a very brief statement. The questions addressed to me have been, amongst others, whether the two Bills—namely, that introduced in Congress, and that introduced in this House, exactly correspond. The statement has been previously made that they substantially agree although they do not exactly correspond. I will mention what strikes me as the main differences. Under Section 8 of the United States Bill there is a provision, in the event of an offence against the Act, of absolute forfeiture of the ship and the contents of the ship. In the English Bill the ship and its contents are made liable to forfeiture,, but the Court has an alternative of imposing a fine for the offence not exceeding £500. Again, in Section 10 of the American Bill there is a provision-putting the onus of proof upon the

    1677
    accused party in certain cases with which I need not trouble the Committee. That is a matter of form more than of substance, and it is a form of clause not very usual in our legislation. It is merely a question of satisfying the Court, and the only object of the clause is to put the onus on the accused party. We have not any such clause in our Bill. There is a clause in our Bill giving the commander of an English cruiser seizing an offending ship the power of endorsing the certificate and directing the ship to be sent to a port for trial. That has been done in order that the cruisers shall be available for the real purpose for which they are there—namely, of preventing offences against the Act, and if a cruiser was obliged, having seized an offending ship, to accompany that ship into port, it would detract from the effectiveness of the cruiser to see that the Act was carried out. The only other difference is the clause which is referred to in the paragraphs that have appeared in the papers this morning. I have to begin by stating that the clause—which is Clause 7—has been entirely misunderstood by those who have commented upon it in the American Press——
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: On a point of Order, Sir, may I ask is the hon. and learned Gentleman in Order in referring to Clause 7 when we are only on Clause 1?
    THE CHAIRMAN: This is a Ministerial statement, which is being made by the indulgence of the Committee.
    SIR. C. RUSSELL: Sub-section 2 of Clause 7 provides that—
    "Where, on any proceeding against a person or ship in respect of any offence under this Act, it is proved that the ship sailed from its port of departure before the scheduled provisions were published there, and that such person or the master of the ship did not after such sailing, and before the alleged offence, receive notice of such provisions, such person shall be acquitted, and the ship shall be released, and not forfeited."
    That clause was designed to meet the cases of notoriety which the Award and the discussion of the proposed legislation has obtained, and the clause is one which would have an exceedingly limited operation, if any operation at all. The effect would be to prevent the forfeiture of the ship where that ship had bonâ fide sailed without any notice of the Award, and if it
    1678
    satisfies the Court it, has bonâ fide sailed without any intention of violating the Act. In the; comments in the American Press several serious mistakes have been committed in mentioning the effect of that provision. It has been thought, for instance, that it gives impunity to ships that have sailed before the Act came into force. It does nothing of the kind. The only effect it could have would be that if a ship had sailed without notice, and had committed what would otherwise be an offence against the Act, bonâ, fide in ignorance of the provision of the Award, then as regards what it had done it could not be punished. But from that moment it has full and absolute notice of the Act, and it is debarred from any further offences against the Act under penalty of seizure. It has been also thought by some of these commentators that the commanders of cruisers would be the judges of whether or not the ship had had notice of the provisions of the Award. That is not so at all. Those who are at all skilled in reading these things will see that no option is given to the commander of the cruising ship at all. It is a mutter that has to be proved to the satisfaction of the Court, which Court will deal with the matter, and if it is proved to their satisfaction that what has been done has been done in bonâ fide ignorance, the persons will be acquitted and the ship released and not forfeited. Therefore, in a case in which a seizure is effected, the matter will have to be dealt with by a competent Court, and the section will have no operation whatever unless it shall be affirmatively proved that there was that state of bonâ fide ignorance to which I have adverted. I have some reason to believe that the explanation I have now given will be satisfactory even to those who have made the objections to which I have referred, and I do not know that I am justified in saying more than this: that the explanation has been given, and that we have every reason to believe that that explanation will be satisfactory. The clause was inserted in response to the demands of the Canadian Government, who thought it a reasonable clause to insert, and the Government here, thinking it reasonable, inserted it accordingly. I have only one other word to say. It is for the Imperial Parliament

    1679
    to discharge this, which is its Imperial obligation. We desire loyally and fully to give effect to the Award, and to secure by this legislation adequate sanctions for enforcing the provisions of the Award. But we are not bound to follow verbatim at literatim the legislation of the United States, nor is the United States bound to follow verbatim is literatim our legislation. As a matter of fact, I have never yet seen the complete Bill of the United States, although I have seen the original draft, which was introduced by a Senator or Member of the Congress. I have, as I have said, never seen the Bill in its completed form. There have been undoubtedly some discussions between the Representatives of the two countries, and something like approximation to general agreement upon the main principles of the legislation has been arrived at. One final word I will say. It has been stated by one of the Senators, Senator Morgan, a gentleman who was one of the Arbitrators, and who did not agree with the rest of the body, that this clause was introduced in had faith and was not to be found in the draft of the Bill submitted originally to the Secretary of State at Washington. I am informed that is a misapprehension on the part of that Senator, and that this clause was in the draft as it was originally submitted to the Government at Washington. I hope the House will, therefore, see that the clause does not bear the erroneous interpretation put upon it on the other side of the Atlantic, and that there has been no want of good faith, and, as no Amendment is down, I hope the House will see fit to pass this Bill without amendment and give us a Third Reading to-night.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELLdesired to point out that the Members of the Senate of the United States saw some very serious objections to this clause, and he must confess he could not quite understand the explanation given by the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman told them that the words, "before the scheduled provisions wore published," did not mean the scheduled provisions of this Bill, but the scheduled provisions of the Award. Now, the scheduled provisions of the Award were published to the world last August, and it seemed to him, therefore, an entire work of supererogation
    1680
    to introduce a clause in this Bill which would deal with ships or persons sailing on sealing expeditious since last August. There were no sealing ships that left anywhere near that period. In August they knew of the provisions of the Award, and what was the use of putting a clause now into the Bill to deal with vessels which would not leave until the following January or February at least? It seemed to him that the explanation was of a very curious kind, and there was no doubt the words "scheduled provisions" would be read as presumably belonging to the Bill. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would amend the Bill so as to make it clear that the words related to the Award and not to the Bill, because if not it was clear that schooners which left the ports after last August would have no cause to complain——
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES, on a point of Order, desired to know if they could discuss Clause 7 on a Motion which related to Clause 1? Such a course was highly inconvenient, as there were other matters to be raised before reaching Clause 7.
    THE CHAIRMAN: On the point of Order, I have to say that we can only discuss Amendments to Clause 1 on Clause 1.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he wished, on the first clause, to ask a question which had been asked twice before. The Canadian Government were, of course, highly interested in this matter, and they had a right to know—had the Canadian Government agreed unreservedly to this Bill? When the consent of the Canadian Government was asked to the modus vivendi Act of 1891 they specially annexed the condition of compensation. Had they annexed any such condition to their consent to this Bill?
    SIR C. RUSSELL: I have heard of no such condition being annexed, and I think, if I may express an opinion, that it would be an impossible condition. I beg to remind the Committee, as I said a few minutes ago, that though Canada has been most keenly interested in the whole question, yet this is a matter of Imperial obligation, and even if Canada were not a consenting party—as I believe it is—to this Bill, it still would be the duty of the House to see that it honestly

    1681
    and loyally discharged its obligations. I do beg the indulgence of the House, and ask them on a question of this kind not to protract the discussion. I may take this opportunity of pointing out, in answer to my hon. Friend opposite, that if he will look at Clause I, third line, he will see that the provisions of the Behring Sen, Arbitration Award are thereby described, and this Act is referred to as "The scheduled provisions." If, however, there is any doubt upon the point it is a matter which may be set right.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, there was an important principle involved in this clause. There was a provision that Orders under this clause were to be laid before Parliament, but it did not enact what was the usual corollary to that, provision—namely, that, the Order should lay upon the Table of both Houses during the Session for 40 days before coming into effect. It did seem to him, if the Orders were to be placed before Parliament, that the minimum opportunity of 40 days should be given in which to call attention to the matter.
    SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, the question was quite a reasonable one. There were, however, precedents for inserting the provision in the form in which it appeared in this Bill. For instance, a similar provision, he was informed, appeared in the Fishery Convention Bill. Circumstances might arise which would involve a necessary modification of this Bill, and it had been thought best to have this power as it appeared in this form without the 40 days.
    ADMIRAL FIELDthought that under Sub-section 3 of Clause 3 considerable friction might arise unless the instructions to the officers of cruisers were carefully drawn. There should be an interchange of views between the Naval Authorities or the Governments of both countries to prevent any possible friction. If the powers given to the officers of cruisers of the United States were reciprocal powers exercised by both, it seemed to him that the officers of one Power should not capture a vessel of
    1682
    another Power if there were a ship of that Power in sight at the time.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned that point to me before, and I have taken care that attention shall bo drawn to it in the proper quarter.
    MR. CHANCEsuggested that this clause ought to provide for the publishing of the scheduled provisions. He did not find in the Bill any method specified by which the provisions were to be published.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: The notoriety they have received.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 4, 5, and 6 agreed to.
    Clause 7.
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, his attention had been called to the second sub-sect ion of this clause, and he thought it would be necessary for the Attorney General to consider whether in another place that sub-section should not receive some slight alteration. It provided that—
    "Where on any proceeding against a person or ship accused of any offence under this Act it is proved that the ship sailed from its port of departure before the scheduled provisions were published there," &c.
    It seemed to him that considerable doubt might be raised as to what "published there" meant. There might not be publication in the port itself: and while he quite agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that it meant notoriety, he thought the Court, might think it meant some form of publication, and this view was rather strengthened by the succeeding words of the sub-section—
    "Such person or master of a ship did not after such sailing… receive notice of these provisions."
    He would suggest that the sub-section should be made a little clearer, so as to provide for non-conviction in the absence of notice as distinguished from form of publication.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: The scheduled provisions should in some way be defined.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: They are defined in Sub-section 1.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: There is a possible ambiguity, but not, I think, a serious

    1683
    one. I will see that both points are considered.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 8.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that by a section of this clause the Act would remain in force so long as the scheduled provisions remained in force and no longer. It seemed to him that was an inconvenient way of defining the duration of an Act of Parliament, and in accordance with precedent he would suggest that the Act should only last as long as the necessities of the Government required it. The stipulation was made that these Regulations were to be revised and possibly renewed and changed entirely every five years; therefore he should move to omit all the words after the word "force," and to insert "until 1st May, 1900." This would give them six years, and during this time they could consider whether the Regulations should be renewed.
    SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, it was provided that the Award should be a final settlement of all questions of difference between this country and the United States, and the Award fixed these as the permanent Rules until the parties by agreement should alter them. Besides that, it suggested—but this was not a mandatory part of the Award—that after the experience of five years then the two Powers should examine and consider these Regulations in the light of such experience.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLEScould not agree that this was not mandatory. What was the phrase,
    "The said concurrent Regulations shall be submitted every five years to a new examination?"
    That was part of the Award. That was not a suggestion, but it was mandatory. These Regulations had to be examined every five years; consequently, he submitted that six years was eutirely adequate for the necessities of the Government, whilst the Attorney General had made no case for giving these powers to a Government in perpetuity over the high seas. He therefore moved that the Act should only last until the 1st of May, 1900.
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 4, to leave out the words "so long as the scheduled provisions remain in force and no longer," in order to insert the words "until 1st May, 1900."—(Mr. Gibson Bowies.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause agreed to.
    It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill."—(The Attorney General.)
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought the Motion of the Attorney General was a strong measure. It meant that the House could proceed with a Bill in spite of the Standing Order. It was not fair to those hon. Members who were not present.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: This is a course which has on more than one occasion been taken, and on far less important Bills. This is a Bill on which I think the reputation of the country is at stake. It is a question of dealing fairly with this Award, and that Award is of immense importance not only in itself, but in the example which it sets. Therefore, it would be a pity that there should be any carping upon the Award when the United States are dealing straightforwardly with it. That we should talk it out might set a had example. This course has been taken before, and I hope that the Motion being in the power of the House the House will assent to it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quite sure that no gentleman on this side of the House ever desired to carp at the Award or to interpose for a single moment unnecessarily in the passage of a Bill with respect to which we all feel the honour, not only of the House, but of the country,, to be concerned. With regard to the proposal of the right hon. Member for Bodmin, we all feel, no doubt, that the Twelve o'Clock Rule is an important

    1685
    bulwark of our liberties and is not lightly to be dispensed with, but I think that if ever the straining of the Rule were justified—aud I do not suggest that it is here—it would be justified on this occasion, and I hope that no objection will be made to the Motion.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill again considered in Committee.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Preamble stand part of the Bill."
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELLsaid, that he deprecated the language of the Leader of the House in accusing any one of Party spirit in dealing with this Bill. All wore equally anxious to see the Award carried out, and carried out effectively; but he regretted that the Government had been unable to place in the hands of Members before they brought in the Bill information sufficient to dispel the doubts suggested in the newspapers as to the objections of the United States Senate and the disagreement of Canada. He was sure, however, that Canada, equally with England, would loyally carry out the Award of the Arbitration Court. He could only wish that the Bill had been drafted with greater care, and that the Government had given more time for its consideration.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he could not permit the suggestion to pass unchallenged that anyone had been carping at the Award, or had endeavoured to oppose the passing of the Bill. The Government had given them only a short quarter of an hour for dealing with the matter at this stage, though the question was of the utmost importance, If the Bill had to be hurried through it was because the Government had chosen to keep the Award back for eight months, instead of laying it before the House and having it properly and leisurely discussed and passed in good time. Whatever difficulty had arisen was entirely due to the Government. They had kept the Award in their pockets for eight months, and then flung it on the Table, and asked the House to approve of it without due consideration.
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he thought it was unfortunate that the Leader of the House should have suggested that hon. Members were carping at the Award. Feeling as he did the immense importance of the Bill, he should like it to be understood that the Regulations only had been criticised, and rightly criticised, because they were matters of great importance, and it was not to be expected that a body of men who had not got as much as they hoped to get, and who thought their interests would be interfered with, should refrain from pointing-out, through their Representatives, where the Regulations were unsatisfactory. No one had carped at the Award as an Award. Having allowed the Bill to go through without opposition, because they felt that the honour of the country was involved, and that the country must show its willingness to carry out the arbitration, they were entitled to express their opinion with regard to the Regulations which were matters of discretion. He would only add that the working of the Regulations must be carefully watched, and it would be the duty of any Government dealing with the subject in the future to see that the Regulations had effected their purpose, and had not unduly interfered with British interests.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment: read the third time, and passed.

  SOLICITORS' EXAMINATION BILL. (No. 112.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading road.
    SIR A. ROLLITsaid, the Bill was a Bill of only three clauses, and was promoted by the Incorporated Law Society to encourage University education among law students. It proposed to exempt solicitors' articled clerks who had taken a University law degree from the intermediate examination. It was a question altogether of internal regulation on the part of the Incorporated Law Society, and he respectfully asked the House to agree to the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir A. Rollit.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.—(No. 3.)
    Read the third time, and passed.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.—(No. 1.)
    Read the third time, and passed.
    NORTH BERWICK PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 89.)
    Read the third time, and passed.

    PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL.—(No. 41.)
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

    COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION (SCOTLAND) EXPENSES BILL.—(No. 97.)
    Read a second time, and committed for Wednesday.
    TRUSTEE ACT (1893) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 58.)
    Read a second time, and committed for Wednesday.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. George Russell, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, under "The Metropolitan Police Act, 1886," relating to lands in the parishes of St. Pancras and St.
    1688
    Giles, Camberwell, ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Russell and Mr. Secretary Asquith.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 147.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir W. Foster, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the urban sanitary districts of Baildon, Burnley, Burton -upon-Trent, Leicester, Margate, Norwich, and Wigan, and the Port of Cardiff, ordered to be brought in by Sir W. Foster and Mr. Shaw Lefevre.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 148.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 5) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir W. Foster, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the urban sanitary districts of Bredbury and Romiley, Leyton, Swadlincote and Wilmslow, and the Rural Sanitary District of the Wharfedale Union, ordered to be brought in by Sir W. Foster and Mr. Shaw Lefevre.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 149.]

    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 1) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Mundella, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Bangor, Dartmouth. Littlehampton, and Seaford, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mundella and Mr. Burt. Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 150.]

    FATAL ACCIDENTS INQUIRY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    On Motion of The Lord Advocate, Bill to make provision for Public Inquiry in regard to Fatal Accidents occurring in industrial employments or occupations in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate, Sir George Trevelyan, and The Solicitor General for Scotland.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 151.]
    House adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.