Sitting of 7 March 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. GRAYsaid it would not, fortunately, be necessary for him to detain the House for more than a few moments. This Bill made provision for the repurchase by the City of London of Spitalfields Market. Many centuries back a market monopoly was granted to the City of London, long before the borough which he had the honour to represent came into existence. It was felt that the time had now arrived when that monopoly should be broken through. He fully concurred that this Bill was one which could not be properly discussed in the House. It required investigation by a Committee upstairs, and he was glad to know that the promoters took the same view, and were prepared to have that full inquiry. It was under-

  775
  stood that the other Bill referring to the same subject should go to the same Committee, and he did not therefore intend to press tin; motion which stood in his name.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he understood that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill acquiesced in the arrangement that the two Bills on this subject should go to the same Committee, and he, too, therefore did not press his opposition.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  DUBLIN (EQUALISATION OF RATES) BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,)said he wished in a few words to state the position of the Government in regard to this measure. It would be within the recollection of many hon. Members that a very similar Bill passed the House in 1899, but was abandoned owing to inability to arrive at an agreement in regard to the Lords' Amendment. A similar Bill was also passed by the House last year, and he might mention en passant that the ratepayers had already expended £54,000 in seeking to achieve the object aimed at by this Bill. The Bill of last year was referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses—a Committee of a very-representative character, which unanimously recommended that legislation should be pressed on Parliament following upon the lines of the Loudon Equalisation of Rates Bill. The Leader of the House, when that recommendation was pressed upon him, promised to give it careful consideration, and undertook to inform the promoters before November whether the Government would or would not be, in a position to lend its aid to carry such a Bill during the following session. But the General Election and the reconstruction of the Government rendered [it impossible for them to redeem that pledge. The Government
  776
  had examined the present Bill, and had found that it was drawn in almost exact accordance with the recommendation of the Committee. But it must be borne in mind that the cases of London and Dublin were not exactly on all fours. London constituted an entity of local government, but in Dublin there were several entities, and there was a danger that some hardship or injustice might arise to the townships concerned from the purely automatic effect of such a measure. The question was to what extent they would benefit from the road lighting and sanitation. The Government would, therefore, feel bound to introduce Amendments to safeguard the townships in that matter. They would not oppose the Second Reading, but it must be perfectly understood that their Amendments must be embodied in the Bill.
  MR. HARRINGTONon behalf of the promoters, undertook to accept the Government proposals, and MR. MOORE (Antrim, N.) also, under the circumstances, withdrew his opposition to the Second Reading.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  LONDON RIVERSIDE FISH MARKETS BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Second Heading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he did not propose to press his opposition to this Bill, although he considered that it was a very bad one. He was, however, confident that when it came to be considered by a Committee it would not be allowed to pass. It set forth statements which he, for one, could not accept, as to the right of the City Corporation to establish markets outside the City boundaries. This question of markets was a vital one to the people of London, and should the Bill pass through the Committee he proposed to reserve to himself the right a t a later stage to oppose it.
  MR. GRAYsaid he wished to make the same reservation. He understood, however, that the promoters were willing

  777
  that the Bill should be subjected to careful investigation upstairs, and he, therefore, would reserve his opposition. Personally, he thought that the City of London ought not to have the right to prohibit the establishment of markets in great towns which had grown up since the time it was granted its monopoly.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  THAMES LIGHTERMEN BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. ALBAN GIBBSin moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said it was intended to make further provision for navigating lighters and barges on the Thames and in the Port of London, and altering for that purpose Section 66 of the Watermen and Lightermen Act. It was claimed by the Watermen's Company that barges and lighters working in the Port of London and on the Thames between Teddington Lock and Gravesend should be navigated only by men whose qualification was a licence from the Watermen's Company. This Bill, therefore, destroyed a monopoly. If these lightermen went out on strike and refused to navigate barges, the owners had no remedy at all. It was quite true that they could get people in to do the work, as long as the lightermen were on strike, but supposing they had engaged a man to navigate a barge at eight o'clock in the morning, if any lighterman choose to present himself at one o'clock on the same day they were bound to get rid of the man first engaged and to take on the lighterman. Now, the foreign, trade of the Port at Loudon, represented something like 252 millions sterling, and much of it was dealt with by lightermen. It was of great importance that this matter should be looked into, especially when, as happened recently, the lightermen came out on strike for something like three months, with the result that the whole trade was disorganised and the Port of London greatly injured. The difficulty arose from the fact that the owners of barges were unable to
  778
  navigate their own vessels, and were compelled to employ licensed watermen. He did not think anything could be said against the desirability of making it possible for lightermen to work their own barges. At present the greater part of the work was done by tugs, and the lighterman simply sat in the stern of the barge, which was tugged down the river by steam, and received his pay when he condescended to call for it. His hon. friend opposite had put down an, Amendment to the effect that this Bill ought not to be proceeded with while the Royal Commission on the Port of London was sitting. But in the opinion of the promoters of this Bill this was not a matter which was referred to the Royal Commission. Moreover, it was a matter of great urgency that the Port of London should be protected and enabled to do its own work. He therefore hoped that the Bill might be allowed to pass. But if his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade considered that this really was a, matter which was referred to the Royal Commission, and which, therefore, could not properly be proceeded with in this House, he could only say that he would urge very strongly upon him that he should do his best to induce the Royal Commission to take this particular work in hand, and to issue an interim Report. Of course if that were done he would withdraw the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said he had no doubt whatever that this subject was within the reference to the Royal Commission on the Port of London. The Royal Commissioners had themselves taken the same view, for a day or two ago he received a letter from the Watermen's Company, in which the following passage occurred—
  "The Royal Commission on the Port of London have notified the Watermen's Company that their rights and privileges are to be inquired into by them, and have allowed the company to he represented by counsel before them."
  Under the circumstances it would be very undesirable for this House

  779
  to take into consideration a Bill dealing with the matter. As to the suggestion of his hon. friend that the Commissioners should be invited to make an interim Report, he was quite willing to bring that to their notice and to leave it for the Commissioners themselves to decide whether or not it was expedient to do so.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it seemed to him, without going into the merits of the question, that it would not be right, under the particular circumstances which had been drawn attention to, to press the measure, and he was therefore very glad that it was to be withdrawn.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz.:—
  Metropolitan Electric Supply Bill.
  Ordered. That the Bill be read a second time.

  DUBLIN CORPORATION (MARKETS, ETC.) BILL. (BY ORDER.)
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (SPITAL-FIELDS MARKETS) BILL. (BY ORDER.)
      SHIPLEY IMPROVEMENT BILL. (BY ORDER.)
      Read a second time, and committed.
      PAISLEY CAS PROVISIONAL ORDER.
      Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to Paisley, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.

      PAISLEY GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
      "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to Paisley," presented accordingly, and read the first time;
      780
      to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 89.]

    SELECTION OF MEMBERS FOR SER- VICE ON PRIVATE BILL COMMITTEES —EQUAL TREATMENT.
    MR. D. A. THOMASsaid the Instruction which he proposed to move spoke for itself, its intention being that equal treatment should be given to all Member's of the House alike, and he ventured to think that the present was a most opportune time for moving such an Instruction, having regard to the fact that this was a new Parliament. A practice had of late grown up to exempt barristers and others who did not care to serve on Select Committees. No such intention existed when such Committees were originally set up, and the practice should no longer be permitted. In the minds of most lion. Members, serving upon these Committees was nothing less than drudgery, and in many cases only performed from a high sense of public duty. A Return which was published in connection with this subject showed that half the Members of the House never served on a single Committee throughout the last Parliament, the result being that half the Members of the House had done the whole of this unpleasant work.* A large number of those who did none of this work were barristers, who claimed exemption, and what lie desired to put a stop to was any favour of this kind being granted to a particular class. Of all people in the world, of all Members of the House, barristers were least entitled to this privilege. They were specially fitted, from their legal training, to sit upon Committees, where the duties consisted of hearing and sifting evidence, and they were men who made the least sacrifices and had most to gain of any class of men who entered Parliament.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that, in selecting Members to serve on Committees for the consideration of Private Bills, exemption shall not be granted to any Member on the ground of
    *The Returns showing the service of Members on Private Bill and Select Committees are included in the Appendices to the last volume of Debates each session.

    781
    his private profession, business, or avocation, and all Members shall receive equal treatment and consideration."— (Mr. D. A. Thomas.)
    *MR. HALSEYas Chairman of the Committee of Selection, objected that the motion, if carried, would limit the scope and would take away all discretion from the Committee of Selection as to the choice of Members who should serve. If it were carried, the Selection Committee would be no longer able to select: they would have no choice; they would have merely to establish a sort of rota, every Member in turn having to serve, no matter how unsuitable he might be for the particular Committee for which he was selected. The existing instructions to the Committee were sufficient, in his opinion, and in the opinion of his predecessor, Sir John Mowbray. Therefore he thought the motion should not be accepted, but that the hands of the Committee of Selection should be left free. Neither practising barristers nor any other class had a right to be exempted on the ground of their profession or avocation, but on the other hand it was not right to say that no exemption should be given to any person on any ground. Every application for exemption should be considered on its merits, and the Committee should deal with each case as it came before them. All Members were bound to serve on Committees when called upon, and they ought not to be relieved of their duty except under special circumstances. The power in the hands of the Committee of Selection was a very great power; it was exercised with the greatest care. The way in which the Committee did its work was advantageous to Parliament, and, in. his opinion, it would be undesirable to reconsider the rules. Admittedly committee work was much more arduous than in former times, owing to so many more measures coming before it, and it was as much the duty of Members to serve on Committees as to attend the sittings of the House. He was glad to say that

    AYES.

    Abraham, Wm. (Rhondda)

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitlRoy

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

    Bam, Colonel James Robert

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Ambrose, Robert

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bell, Richard

    there were encouraging signs that Members were becoming more alive to this duty, and this session fewer Members had endeavoured to raise objections than had been the case for a long time past. On the other hand, he was pleased to say he had had many applications from, young embers eager to serve on Committees, and those applications would be encouraged. Under those circumstances lie urged the House to leave well alone and not to accept the motion of the hon. Member.
    MR. FLYNNdid not desire to occupy the attention of the House for more than a momont, but as admittedly there were many Members of me House who never sat on Committees, he thought the motion ought to be supported.
    CAPTAIN NORTONsupported the Instruction on the ground of the equality of all Members of the House so far as their duty to their constituencies was concerned. He was glad to learn that many new Members were, as had been suggested, desirous of serving on these Committees, but many new Members not in the position of distinguished lawyers, bankers, or merchants— Members representing Labour constituencies—devoted their time and did their duty as members of these Committees, whilst others were allowed to shirk their duty by obtaining exemptions. This was a matter which affected the whole of the Members of the House, and it was monstrous that one set of Members should receive exemptions which were not extended to all. The fact of the matter was that a certain number of Members wished to have the honour of sitting in the House, but shirked doing their fair share of this arduous and distasteful work. He cordially supported the Instruction.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Aves, 130; Noes, 282. (Division List No. 41.)

    Boland, John

    Hayden. John Patrick

    Partington, Oswald

    Boyle, James

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Brigg, John

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Hobhouse, C. E. H.(Bristol, E.)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Burns, John

    Hope, J. F. (Shef'ld, Brightside

    Rasch, Major Frederic. Carne

    Burt, Thomas

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Reddy, M.

    Caine, William Sproston

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Caldwell, James

    Joicey, Sir James

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Cameron, Robert

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Carew, James Laurence

    Joyce, Michael

    Russell, T. W.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Kennedy, Patrick James

    Sandys, Lt.-Col Thos. Myles

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col.W.(Salop)

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Colville, John

    Labouchere, Henry

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lambert, George

    Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Delany, William

    Leng, Sir John

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Dickinson. Robert Edmond

    Lloyd-George, David

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Lough, Thomas

    Strachey, Edward

    Duffy, William J.

    Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Elibank, Master of

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Taylor, Theodore Cooke

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Thomas, F. Freeman-(Has tings

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Mather, William

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

    Flower, Ernest

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Warner, Thos. Conrtenay T.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Weir, James Calloway

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Garfit, William

    Murphy, J.

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Newnes, Sir George

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'mlts

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Grant, Corrie

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Wodehouse, Hn. Armine (Essex

    Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wodehouse, Sir J.T (Huddersfd

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.

    Hammond, John

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Hardie, J. Keir (Mcrthyr Tydvil

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Harrington, Timothy

    O'Kelly. J. (Roscommon, N.)

    Mr. D. A. Thomas and Mr. Fenwick.

    Harwood, George

    O'Mara, James

    Haslem, Sir Alfred S.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex)

    Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Brassey, Albert

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Aird, Sir John

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Brodrick, Rt Hon. St. John

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Dewar, T.R (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo.

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Dickson-Povnder, Sir John P.

    Arkwright John Stanhope

    Burdett-Coutts. W.

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Arrol, Sir William

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Dillon, John

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Carble, William Walter

    Dimsdale, Sir J. Cockfield

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Cavendish, V. C.W.(Derbysh)

    Duncan, James H.

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Cawley, Frederick

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Dyke. Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

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

    Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

    Edwards, Frank

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Chaplin, lit. Hon. Henry

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Balfour, Maj. K.R. (Christch.)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Ellis, John Edward

    Banes, Major George Edward

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Emmott, Alfred

    Barry, Sir Francis T (Windsor

    Coddington, Sir William

    Faber, George Denison

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert,

    Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

    Colomb,Sir John Charles Ready

    Ferguson, R. C. Mun'ro (Leith)

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Manc'r

    Bigwood, James

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Bill, Charles

    Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

    Finch, George H.

    Black, Alexander William

    Craig, Robert Hunter

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Blake, Edward

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Fison, Frederick William

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Crombie, John William

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. Algernon

    784

    785

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Radcliffe, R. E.

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Macartney, Rt. Hn W.G. Ellison

    Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

    Forster, Henry William

    Macdona, John dimming

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Foster, Sir M. (London Univ.

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    M'Ciae, George

    Ridley, Hn. M.W. (Stalybridge

    Gibbs, Hn A.G.H. (CityofLond.

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Ratcme, Rt. Hn. Chas Thomson

    Gibbs, Hn.Vicary (St. Albans)

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin&Naim

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Roche, John

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, N.)

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

    M'Laren, Charles Banjamin

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S. Edm'ds

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    Gretton, John

    Malcolm, Ian

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Groves, James Grimble

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

    Hain, Edward

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E.(Wig'n

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Hamilton, Rt Hn. Lord G (M'd'x

    Maxwell, W. J.H. (Dumfriessh.

    Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

    Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nd'rry

    Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. William

    Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Middlemore, John T.

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Milner. Rt. Hon. Sir Eredk. G.

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Harris, E. Leverton (Tynem'th

    Milton, Viscount

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H.(Renfrew

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

    Mooney, John J.

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Heath, Jas. (Staffords., N.W.

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Helder, Augustus

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Spencer, RtHnC. R. (Northants

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

    Stanley, Hn.Arthur (Ormskirk

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Moutrose)

    Stanley,Edw.James (Somerset

    Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

    Hobhouse, Hy. (Somerset, E.)

    Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Horner, Frederick William

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptfo'rd)

    Stroyan, John

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Mount, William Arthur

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Hoult, Joseph

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Grav C.

    Talbot, RtHn.J.G.(Oxt'd Univ.)

    Howard, Capt J (Kent, Faversh.

    Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Myers, William Henry

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Hughes, Col. Edwin

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Tomkinson, James

    Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. L.

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Tomhnson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Tritton, Charles Eruest

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

    Tufnell, Colonel Edward

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Tully, Jasper

    Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Kimber, Henry

    O'Malley, William

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Wallace, Robert

    Kitson, Sir James

    Palmer, Sir C M. (Durham)

    Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

    Knowles, Lees

    Palmer, George W. (Reading)

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Law, Andrew Bonar

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Warr, Augustus Frideriek

    Lawrence, William E.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

    Lawson, John Grant

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Wason, John C. (Orkney)

    Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

    Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

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

    Lee, Capt A. H. (Hants, Fareh'm

    Percy, Earl

    Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Perks, Robert William

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Pilkington, Richard

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

    Leighton, Stanley

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Wills, Sir Frederick

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Powell, Sir Frances

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Price, Robert John

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

    Purvis, Robert

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Pym, C. Guy

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Lowe, Francis William

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

    Randies, John S.

    Mr. Halsey and Mr. Sydney

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Rankin, Sir James

    Buxton.

    LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS.
    Lords Message [5th March], communicating a Resolution relative to the appointment of a Joint Committee on London Underground Railways, considered.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,),in moving that the House do agree with the Lords in this resolution, said that no less than fourteen Bills had been presented to Parliament that

    787
    session dealing with tube railways. He had consulted with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the President of the Board of Trade, and they had come to the conclusion that to refer all these Hills to a Joint Committee would be the best course to pursue. It was obvious that before any of these Bills could proceed there were certain questions which must be determined, such as the shape of the tube, the method by which the power was to be applied, the precautions, if any, which might be taken against vibration, the damages which were to be paid to lessees and occupiers who might suffer from the working of these tubes or from any annoyance, and, perhaps the most important question of all what were to be the lines of communication of these tubes. Those were matters which must occupy the attention of Parliament for a considerable time. It was proposed that power should be given to the Joint Committee to say what Bills were not to be proceeded with that session, and the probability was that none of the Bills would be proceeded with that session. But if the Joint Committee, as be hoped it would, arrived at conclusions on these broad principles this session, it would enable those who proposed to bring forward such Bills to proceed on clear lines next session.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Resolution."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
    MR. JOHN BURNSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would get the authority of both Houses to consider the relationships of these tubes in connection with parks and open spaces, and also with the preservation of ancient buildings.
    *MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid that probably those subjects would come under the terms of reference, but be would call the attention of the Chairman of Committees of the other House to the matter.
    Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

    PETITIONS.
      CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
      Petition from Dorking, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
      ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUA- TION SCHOOLS).
      Petition from Salford, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
      SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
      Petitions in favour, from Driffield; Greenock (three); Ratcliffe; Kirton-in-Lindsey: Scotter; Whiteinch; Falkirk: Cranstonhill; and Lewisham; to lie upon the Table.
      SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
      Petition from Blairgowrie, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
      FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (PARTICULARS OF PIECE WORK WAGES) (PEN-MAKING).
      Copy presented, of Order of the Secretary of State, dated 12th July, 1900, applying, with modifications, the provisions of Section 40 of the Factory and Workshops Act. 1895, to Factories and Workshops in which is carried on the making of Pens [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
      GOLD COAST.
      Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to the Ashanti War, 1900 [by-Command]: to lie upon the Table.
      CHINA (No. 2, 1900).
      Copy presented, of Despatch from His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg respecting the Russo-Chinese Agreement as to Manchuria [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
      COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
      Copy presented, of Report No. 317 (Jamaica. Report for 1899–1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

      AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896.
      Return ordered, "in the following form, showing for each Parish in the

      789
      several Poor Law Unions situate wholly or for the most part within the counties of Carmarthen, Carnarvon, Dorset, Essex, Leicester, and Yorks (West Hiding) the rateable value of Agricultural Land and other property, respectively, in the years

      Country, Poor Law Union, and Parish.

      Rateable Value on the 20th day of July, 1896.

      Rateable Value on the 25th day of March, 1899.

      Total amount of Poor Rates collected in the year ended Lady Day—

      Estimated amount, based on Rateable Value, of Poor Rates collected in respect of Agricultural Land and other property, respectively.

      Year 1895–6.

      Year 1899–1900.

      Agricultural Land.

      Other Property.

      Agricultural Land.

      Other Property.

      1896.

      1900.

      Agricultural Land (Rate at same amount as that in respect of other property).

      Other Property.

      Agricultural Land (Rate at one-half of that in respect of other property).

      Other Property.

      1.

      2.

      3.

      4.

      5.

      6.

      7.

      8.

      9.

      10.

      11.

      £

      £

      £

      £

      £

      £

      £

      £

      £

      £

      —(Mr. Henry Hobhouse.)

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—NEGOTIA- TIONS WITH GENERAL BOTHA.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the case that communications have been passing between Lord Kitchener and General Botha, and whether he can inform the House of the nature of those communications.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): There have been communications, but the Government are not in a position at the present time to make any statement on the subject.

  REVERSE AT HELVETIA.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether an officer with eighteen men held a post during the attack on Helvetia against a greatly superior force of Boers after the main garrison had surrendered; and whether he can give the name of this officer, or state that lie has been commended.
  1896 and 1899; the amount of Poor Rates collected in the years ended the 25th day of March. 1890 and 1900; and the estimated proportion of such Hates collected in respect of Agricultural Land and other property:—
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): No official communication to this effect has been forwarded by Lord Kitchener. I have invited Lord Kitchener to forward any such case for such prompt reward as he may think fitting.

  MILITIA OFFICERS—SENIORITY.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of subaltern officers in embodied Militia battalions in South Africa, who are candidates for commissions in the line, and are placed at comparative disadvantage to those Militia officers who by staying in England are able to pass the, examinations for direct commissions, and thus gain a year or a year and a half seniority in the Army; and whether he will take steps to treat such officers who are on service in the field more generously by allowing them, on receiving their commissions in the line, to reckon the time served at the front for seniority and relative rank in the Army.
  MR. BRODRICK: We have done all that was possible to prevent Militia candidates for commissions from being placed

  791
  at a disadvantage by reason of their service in South Africa. On the occasion of each of the competitions held since Militia battalions went to South Africa, a liberal proportion of commissions has been allotted to units in South Africa, to compensate for inability to compete. These commissions bear the same date as those given to successful competitors at the examination. Lord Kitchener will grant fifty commissions in the pre-sent month. The hon. Members proposal to antedate commissions so as to cover the period of service in South Africa with Militia battalions would involve the supersession of many officers, and is, I fear, impracticable.

  COURTS-MARTIAL.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will direct that no officer shall be penalised through the decision of a court of inquiry or court martial without being given the opportunity of making his own defence.
  Mr. BRODRIOK: Certainly, Sir. The military authorities inform me that they are not aware of any ease in which an officer has been penalised through a decision of a court martial or court of inquiry without his view of the case being before them, and I will take care that no such case occurs.

  IMPERIAL YEOMANRY OFFICERS— PAY AND ALLOWANCES.
  Mr. SETON-KARR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the effect of placing officers commissioned with the Imperial Yeomanry, now being recruited under the special Army Order of 18th January last, on the ordinary cavalry rates of pay, is that the lieutenants and second lieutenants receive less actual pay than the regimental sergeant-majors, staff sergeants, and sergeant-majors of such Yeomanry, and that the second lieutenants receive less actual pay than sergeants; whether, in view of such discrepancy, he will, under the circumstances, reconsider the rates of pay of the officers of such Imperial Yeomanry; and whether he will, at the same time, consider the advisability of raising the present grant to Imperial Yeomanry officers for personal equip-
  792
  ment and saddlery to a larger amount, in view of the facts that the present grant does not nearly cover the lowest-estimate of cost of such equipment, and that officers of the Rhodesian Field Force forming part of the Imperial Yeomanry Force last year received for the same purpose nearly three times the amount of the present grant.
  Mr. BRODRIOK: So far as actual pay is concerned, the facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question. But it must be borne in mind that the officer receives a gratuity at the rate of £100 a year, and colonial allowance at 3s. a day while in South Africa, which the non-commissioned officer does not. I am not prepared to reconsider now the amount of the grant for personal equipment, which was fixed after very careful consideration, and has been in force throughout the raising of the Imperial Yeomanry.

  IRISH YEOMANRY PAY.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state upon what terms as to pay the Irish Yeomanry went to South Africa; whether the rate of pay was to be 5s. a day after twelve months service; and, if so, upon what date this rate begins.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lord Stanley,): The Irish Yeomanry received on enlistment the same rates of pay as the regular cavalry, as laid down by the Royal Warrant of the 24th December, 1899. The rate of pay for a private was raised by Royal Warrant of 13th February, 1901, to 5s. from the day following that on which they completed one year's service, or from the 1st February, 1901, whichever occurred first.
  *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I ask if the Irish Yeomanry proved themselves worth 4s. a day more than the poor Irish Fusiliers?
  *Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  YEOMANRY RECRUITS—ACCOMMODA- TION AT ALDERSHOT.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of

  793
  State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of a batch of Yeomanry recruits who, on leaving London at 11.30 a.m. on 5th February and arrivingly unexpectedly at Aldershot, were told they were, not expected and must come again at six o'clock; whether he is aware that forty-six of them were placed in a room which could only accommodate twenty; that no rations were served out for twenty-four hours, that for fourteen days and nights the majority of them had to live in the clothes they came in. and that the kits were not served out to all until 10th February, the men having to eat their rations with their fingers; that this arrangement lasted for one month; that there was no discipline in the room, and only one parade at nine o'clock; that not one of these men was ever put upon a horse; and that these men were described in official language as having undergone one month's official training in riding and shooting; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be held into the circumstances, and take steps to prevent their recurrence.
  Mr. BRODRICK: The difficulties in accommodating and providing for so many Yeomanry at Aldershot have already been fully explained to the House. The general officer commanding has personally dealt with these questions, and informs me that very few complaints were received. I believe that every effort has been made to cope with the difficulties, and that they were successfully and promptly dealt with, allowing for the circumstances that some 10,000 men have had to be passed through Aldershot and equipped during the last six weeks.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: Do I understand that my statements are correct?
  MR. BRODRICK: Well, Sir, I cannot say. I have referred many cases to Sir Redvers Buller. A large number were found to be incorrect; and I think it is much better to leave the matter in the hands of the general officer commanding.
  Mr. JAMES LOWTHER: Will the attention of the Commander-in-Chief be called to this matter?
  MR BRODRICK: Yes, Sir. I have forwarded the letters, but it has been found that many emanate from one Yeoman.
  MAJOR RASCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why this class of recruits are called Yeomen, which is precisely what they are not?
  Mr. BRODRICK: Yeomen are mounted troops, and that is exactly the class of troops that these recruits are intended to be.

  RIFLE RANGES.
  Mr. COURTENAY WARNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if any new rifle ranges have been completed since last September; and, if so, how many: and if any old rifle ranges have been closed; and, if so, bow many since that date.
  Lord STANLEY: The ranges at Parkhurst, in the Isle of Wight, and at Kilbride, in Ireland, have been completed since the date named. The only War Department range closed in the same period is the Les Landes range in Jersey, which was only used for field firing, and of which the lease has expired.

  SALFORD BARRACKS.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state who are the purchasers of the Salford Barracks, sold under the provisions of the Barracks Act of 1890; what is the amount realised by the sale; and to what purposes will the site and the purchase money respectively be applied.
  LORD STANLEY: The Salford Barracks were sold to the Corporation of Salford for £38,500. The site is, I understand, to be used by the corporation for the erection of artisans' dwellings. The purchase money has been applied to the purposes of the Barracks Act and the issues from the Consolidated Fund reduced accordingly.

  WEST INDIAN TROOPS AT ST. HELENA.
  Mr. DILLONI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether

  795
  on the 2nd of January last a number of West Indian troops now stationed in St. Helena raided the town with clubs and razors tied to sticks; whether a number of the people were injured, several women beaten, and some children cut with the razors, and twelve of His Majesty's sailors injured; whether the West Indian soldiers broke out of barracks, and set their officers at defiance; whether when they were ordered to leave the town they refused, and threatened to blow up the town; and, if so, will he state what punishments have been inflicted; and whether the West Indian troops have been removed from St. Helena.
  MR. BRODRICK: There was a quarrel between the sailors and the West Indian detachment, some men of which created disturbances; several had razors tied to sticks, and one is said to have had a club. Some few of the inhabitants were injured, but no women are reported to have been beaten or children cut; five sailors were injured. Several West Indian soldiers broke out of barracks, though they are not reported to have set their officers at defiance. They hesitated to march next morning, but eventually did so. Nothing is known of any threat to blow up the town. In consequence of the disturbance the detachment was moved at once to Sierra Leone, where fifteen men were tried by court-martial, six men were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment varying from six weeks to six months, seven were acquitted, and two are still in hospital awaiting trial.
  Mr. DILLON: With this experience will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that these regiments of coloured troops will not be moved into the more civilised portions of the Empire?
  MR. BRODRICK: No. Sir. I cannot give any such undertaking.

  LUDGERSHALL BARRACKS.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the attention of the War Office has been directed to the insanitary condition of the village of Ludgershall, close to which large barracks are to be erected, and in which the War Office owns much property; if so, what steps it is proposed to take to remedy the present state of affairs.
  MR. BRODRICK: The War Department property does not include the village of Ludgershall, and the new barracks will be two miles from the village and separated from it by a range of hills. The question of the improvement of Ludgershall has, however, not been lost sight of, and is under consideration.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Is it not the fact that the War Office is the lord of the manor of this village?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say with out notice.

  MILTTIA PAY.
  MR. FREEMAN-THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Militia non-commissioned officers and men will in future receive Army rates of pay and messing allowances when called out for preliminary drill or annual training.
  Mb. BRODRICK: I purpose to touch on this question in introducing the Estimates.

  RETURN—NAVY (FLEETS).
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can say when the Return, Navy (Fleets), is likely to be circulated.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): It is now in the proof stage, and its issue will be pressed on as quickly as possible.

  H.M.S. "BRITANNIA"
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any provision will be made for the time lost by the naval cadets on the "Britannia" by reason of their being sent home owing to the recent epidemic on board that ship: whether the fees paid for the term will be returned or accounted for; and whether he will take prompt measures to see that a suitable ship is provided for the naval cadets.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The time lost by the cadets on board H.M.S. "Britannia" will be made up later on,

  797
  and there will, therefore, be no occasion for returning fees. The cadets have been sent home for three weeks, and efforts are being made to render the "Britannia" fit and healthy for continued use as a cadets' training ship until the new college now being erected on shore is available. In such case it will be unnecessary to provide other accommodation for them, but if the efforts to render the "Britannia" free from infection should fail in their effect special arrangements will, of course, be made.

  ROYAL VISIT TO THE COLONIES— THE "OPHIR" — ENGINE - ROOM STAFF AND CREW.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if ho will state the reasons for the arrangement by which the Royal Navy furnished the deck complement of the steamship "Ophir," while the owners provide the engine-room complement instead of the Royal Navy.
  I beg at the same time to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether lie will explain the arrangement made with the owners of the steamship "Ophir" as regards wages, victuals, clothing, and discipline of that part of the complement provided by the owners dining Admiralty charter.
  MR. PRETYMAN: It was considered that as the engineers of the Orient Company, accustomed to working the engines of the "Ophir," remained in charge of her machinery during her forthcoming voyage, the company should provide the whole of the engine-room staff. A subsequent decision has been come to to limit the staff provided by the company to the engineers and a few special ratings, the remainder being supplied by men of the Royal Navy. The portion of the crew of the "Ophir" not belonging to the Royal Navy have been entered under special conditions approved by Order in Council, which places them under the Naval Discipline Act, and they are paid the rates of pay agreed upon with the owners of the "Ophir," who victual the entire complement of the ship, including these men. Uniform is supplied at the cost of the Crown.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, before Vote I of the Navy Estimates is proceeded with, he will cause to be issued to the House a Return showing the nature and number of officers, petty officers, and men, and their rates of pay respectively, of the engine-room staff' of the steamship "Ophir," provided by the owners during the Admiralty charter.
  MR. PRETYMAN: I shall be happy to cause such a Return to be issued if the hon. and gallant Member will move for it, or I will send him the statement direct, whichever he prefers.

  ADMIRALTY COAL CONTRACTS.
  MR WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty entered into contracts last November for the supply of coals over 1901 at prices ranging from 19s. to 21s. per ton; and, if so, how many tons were contracted for.
  MR. PRETYMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The quantity contracted for was about 400.000 tons.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: How is it that the hon. Gentleman the other night told me the Admiralty never made contracts
  MR. PRETYMAN: We were discussing the excess quantities required, and not the minimum.

  EXPENDITURE ON NEW CONSTRUCTION.
  Sir JOHN COLOMB: I wish to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty a question of which I have given him private notice—whether the figures quoted in The Times to-day as to the amount of the expenditure on new construction, short of the Votes, are figures for the current year, or for some previous year.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The figures are not in respect to the current financial year. They are figures relating to the year ended March, 1900, and have already been dealt with in the statement of the, First Lord.
  † See page 483.

  NAVAL ORDNANCE STORE DEPARTMENT.
  Commander YOUNG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a Departmental Committee has been appointed at the Admiralty to investigate into and reorganise the affairs of the Naval Ordnance Store Department; and, if so, whether the Committee will be asked to report the advisability of officering the department by Naval officers, and whether the Committee's attention will be drawn to the many promises given to Secretary of State for India, but with the House of Commons by the Parliamentary Admiralty officials that the Admiralty would appoint Naval warrant officers to berths in this department as vacancies occurred.
  MR. PRETYMAN: Yes, a Committee has been appointed, and the matters referred to are being considered by them.

  INDIAN RAILWAY STOCK.
  MR. J. E. CORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the cause for the continued refusal by the India Office and the Bank of England to explain to the 15,000 shareholders of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company the details and methods recently employed: in calculating the average rate of interest received and paid on Indian Government Stock in London during the two-year period under consideration; whether he is aware that the amount of stock referred to in this contract and by the Bank of England is about £120,000,000, but that by an oversight the Bank of England has omitted from the calculation about £100.000,000 stock, and only dealt with that proportion which was invested in during the two-year period; whether he is aware that this intrusion of the key-word "invested," instead of "received" is contrary to all precedent; and what steps will be taken to satisfy the shareholders of the Great Indian, the Bombay, and the Madras Railway Companies that the India Office itself feels a direct responsibility for the due completion of their contracts.
  The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): (1) The letter from the Bank
  800
  of England dated the 9th November, 1900, which gives all the information, in my possession as to the methods employed in calculating the rate of interest, Was immediately communica ed to the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company, and if the hon. Member likes to move for the correspondence in continuation of that already given to the House, I have no objection. (2, 3, and 4) The hon. Member is no doubt aware that, under the contract, the decision as to the rate of interest lay, not with the decision as to the Governor of the Bank of England; and that his decision, when challenged, was upheld by two courts of law. This appears to me to create a very strong presumption that it was a sound and proper decision; but, in any case, the Secretary of State is bound, like the company, to accept it and to act upon it. He has no option in the matter.

  COOPERS HILL COLLEGE.
  Mr. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will explain why Sir Charles Bernard's recommendation not to reappoint a separate salaried President, to Cooper's Hill College was not adopted; and whether he can inform the House, if this recommendation had been adopted, what annual saving would have resulted therefrom since 1895.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The recommendation made by Sir Charles Bernard was not ignored. On the next vacancy, in 1896, Colonel Pennyquick was appointed to the Presidency on the understanding that he should in addition discharge the duties of professor of engineering. But after two years experience he strongly urged that he ought to be relieved of his professional duties, and to this the Secretary of State in Council, on the advice of the Board of Visitors, finally agreed. The saving which resulted from the combination of the two offices was about £600 a year. The salary of the President is £1,000 a year.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether the Board of Visitors recommended the dismissal of Mr. Hurst, accounts instructor; and, if not, who did so; and whether his successor has yet been appointed.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Board of Visitors recommended that the proposal of the President for a change in the system of tuition in accounts should be adopted; and this involved the retirement of Mr. Hurst and the appointment of a lecturer who should be conversant with the system of the Indian Public Works Department. Put as there is no course of lectures on accounts in the summer term no fresh appointment has vet been made.
  Mr. O'MARA: Well, I cannot find it in the Report.
  Then, Sir, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state how many new teachers have been appointed to Cooper's Hill College, and how many more it is proposed to appoint under the Report of the Board of Visitors, dated 24th July, 1900; what will be the total sum of the salaries of all these new appointments; what was the total sum of the salaries of the teachers who have been dismissed; and what reduction in the yearly cost of the teaching staff will result therefrom.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The number of new teachers to be appointed is four, and their salaries will amount to £1,367 per annum. The salaries of the retiring professors and lecturers amounted to £3,087, showing a saving of £1,720. Against this must be set the proposed increases in the salaries of the remaining teachers, amounting to £300. The net saving in salaries is therefore £1,420 per annum.

  INDIAN FAMINE COMMISSION.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence of 7th February before the Famine Commission of Mr. Lely, Commissioner in Gujarat, to the effect that, owing to the exhaustion of the soil, the fall in price of sugar and cotton, the disuse of the old custom of grain storage for home consumption, and the loss of 70 per cent, of their cattle, there has been a complete breakdown among the cultivators of Gujarat; and whether, seeing that Mr. Lely repeatedly urged a suspension of 15 per cent, of the revenues last year in Gujarat, he can
  802
  state the grounds on which the Bombay Government refused to remit more than 20 per cent.; is he aware that owing to the force of circumstances only 28 per cent, could be collected; and can he explain why the proposed suspensions of revenue were nit earlier made known to the people.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence before the Famine Commission of Mr. Dalai, Famine Commissioner in Baroda, showing the benefit to the suffering cultivators of the wells constructed by the Baroda State in the Kadi district; and whether, with reference to Mr. Dalal's statement that the people of Kadi are less poor than those of Ahmedabad, he will consider the desirability of extending the benefits of this system to the neighbouring British district of Ahmedabad.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: As the circumstances to which the lion. Member's questions refer are now being inquired into by a Commission in India, I must await the arrival of their Report before I can express any opinion on the subject.

  NEW INDIAN PROVINCE.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the area approximately, of that portion of the proposed new province situate beyond the present frontiers of His Majesty's Indian possessions, and stated to be as comprised in the political agencies of Dir, Swat, Chitral, the Khyber, the Kuram, Tochi, and Wano; and the estimated annual cost of the military occupation and political administration of these trans-frontier regions under the proposed scheme; and will the cost of maintenance be made an Imperial charge, this being a matter of Imperial defence.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The aggregate area of the present agencies will not be affected by the substitution for their control of the authority of the Government of India in the place of the authority of the Government of the Punjab. I have no estimate of their present extent. Until the details of the transfer are settled I cannot estimate the annual cost. The charges will continue to be borne,

  803
  as they are at present, by the Government of India.

  PUNJAB ADMINISTRATION.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India will the subtraction from the Punjab of its four western districts and placing them under the Political Department at Simla or Calcutta withdraw them and their populations from the jurisdiction of the Chief Court at Lahore and from the ordinary revenue and public works administration of the Punjab Government; and can he say if any dissents or opinions have been recorded pursuant to the Act of 1858, Sections 25, 24, in course of the correspondence and proceedings of the Secretary of State in Council during the working up of the scheme for organisation for the proposed new province; and whether such dissents or opinions will be placed before Parliament at an early date in accordance with Sections 54, 55, of the Act of 1858.
  LORD G HAMILTON: No final decision has been arrived at on the matters mentioned in the first part of the question. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, and the Papers relating to the subject should be in the hands of the House in the course of a few hours.

  CHINA—RUSSIA AND MANCHURIA.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any confirmation in writing of the promise given orally to the British Ambassador in St. Petersburg that the occupation of Manchuria by the Russians is to lie neither virtual nor actual; and, if not, whether he expects to receive such confirmation; and it so, at what time.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): The despatch from His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg reporting his conversation with the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs on the subject of the Russian occupation of Manchuria to which the hon. Member refers will be presented to Parliament at once. The text of this despatch was seen and approved by Count Lamsdorff at the end of last month.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Has the written assurance been received or not?
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My answer-to that is that the contents of the despatch were approved by Count Lamsdorff.

  CRIMEAN LOAN OF 1855.
  MR. BILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the negotiations with the Turkish Government concerning the Crimean Loan of 1855, to which he alluded in the debate on the Civil Service Estimates on 15th June of last year† have been concluded; and whether any arrangement has been arrived at for the conversion of the loan.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Warrington on the 14th of December last, which was to the effect that the negotiations were still suspended.

  TRADE OF MACEIO AND PERNAMBUCO.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Consular Report for 1899 on the state of trade in Maceio and Pernambuco has now been received by the Foreign Office, and when will it he published, if that has not been done yet.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The Consul has explained that his Report has been delayed in consequence of the difficulty experienced in obtaining the requisite statistical details; but that he hopes shortly to be able to furnish it.

  LEAD OXIDE IN EARTHENWARE GLAZE.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office will take steps to stop the introduction into this country of any china or earthenware from other countries the glaze on which contains lead oxide in excess of the amount allowed to manufacturers in this country.
  † See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxiv., page 246.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: This question should not be addressed to my Department.
  MR. COGHLLL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state what steps he proposes to take to prevent the sale of earthenware and china to the public described as leadless glazed, but the glaze upon which it is well known in many cases contains an appreciable quantity of lead oxide.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): I understand my hon. friend to suggest fraudulent misdescription, and not danger to health. The ordinary law provides a remedy in such cases, and I do not feel called upon to take any steps in the matter.

  MEDICAL WITNESSES' EXPENSES.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether lie will explain on what grounds medical witnesses in England and Wales are allowed only one guinea, per diem, while in Scotland they are paid two guineas, with further sum added for each case, and in Ireland the fee of one guinea only requires an attendance in court of three hours in the town of residence, and is changed to two guineas with travelling allowance in case of other towns; and whether he will authorise an inquiry into the matters, with a view to remedy the inequality of remuneration referred to.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I do not think the fees of medical witnesses can be touched without dealing at the same time with those of other witnesses, and this I am not prepared to do in view of the largely increased cost of prosecutions which might be the result of such a revision of the present scale.

  VALUATION APPEALS.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if lie can say (1) how many appeals under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1861), entered for hearing at the County of London? Quarter Sessions in the list of 1901 have been tried by the Court up to and in-
  806
  cluding 23rd February, 1901; (2) how many of such appeals have been allowed and how many dismissed, and whether with or without costs in either case; (3) and whether the Court has reviewed its judgment in any of the above appeals; and, if so, with what result.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The figures arc, respectively (1) 82; (2) 76 allowed, 13 with, (63 without, costs; 6 dismissed, 5 with, I without, costs; (3) 1—original judgment affirmed.

  NEW POLICE BUILDINGS (SHEP- HEKOESS WALK)—REHOUSING OF PERSONS DISPOSSESSED.
  MR. HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the public authorities have purchased an area now covered by cottage property in Shepherdess Walk. City Road, and that no provision has been made, or is proposed to be made, for the rehousing of the persons of the working class thus displaced; and whether he will take1 steps to compel the provision of houses for these persons.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I think my hon. friend is misinformed. Only five houses have been acquired by the Metropolitan Police in the neighbourhood of Shepherdess Walk, and under Section 5 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1886, from which the powers of purchase are derived, as under other Acts giving similar powers in London, the obligation, to rehouse does not arise unless twenty or more houses occupied by the labouring classes are taken.

  REHOUSING—GREAT NORTHERN AND CITY RAILWAY.
  MR. HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Great Northern and City Railway Company have demolished, as a result of secret purchase by their contractors, dwelling-houses occupied by the poorer labouring classes in Poole Street, Wick-ham Street, and Wiltshire Row, Shore-ditch, and have thereby displaced about 250 persons of the working classes, whose work compels them to live in. the neigh-

  807
  bourhood, without providing or proposing to provide any accommodation for the persons thus unhoused: and whether he proposes to take steps to compel the Great Northern and City Railway Company to rehouse persons of the working class whose dwellings the company purchases for the purpose of creating a depôt of the company.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I am informed by the Great Northern and City Railway Company that the facts are not as suggested in the first part of the question, but that the lands referred to have been openly acquired by the contractors working for the company for purposes of offices, yards, and so forth in connection with their works. If so, as the lands have not been acquired by the company, I have no such power to compel the provision of rehousing accommodation, as I might have, by statute if the houses were being purchased by the company under their Acts.

  REHOUSING—LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY.
  MR. HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Broad Street Buildings, Whitecross Place, Wilson Street, Finsbury, recently the property of the Land Security Company and occupied by 585 of the poorer labouring class, have now been transferred to the Chief Manager of the Estate Office of the London and North Western Railway Company, and the tenants given notice to quit; whether these buildings are in process of being cleared of tenants and demolished, and the land handed over vacant to the Railway Company to be used for the extension of that Railway Company's Broad Street Goods Station; whether his attention has been called to the fact that the acquisition of working class dwellings for this railway company's purposes through a secret agent enables the railway company to escape their statutory obligations in contravention of Standing Order 183A; and if he will give particulars of other purchases made by the London and North Western Railway Company in the same or a similar manner throughout the United Kingdom; and whether he will state the measures he has taken, if any to mitigate the hardships to the working
  808
  class tenants concerned, and to prevent overcrowding in congested districts of the metropolis.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I am informed by the London and North Western Railway Company that the property referred to has not yet been transferred to them, but that they have entered into a conditional agreement to purchase it. The case appears to involve questions as to the rehousing of displaced labouring, class persons, with regard to which I am bound to say that I consider the attitude adopted generally by this company to be very unsatisfactory. Without answering the latter parts of the question in detail, I may say that the "whole matter is engaging my most serious consideration.

  POLICE GRIEVANCES.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if in the event of grievances arising in any police force, county or borough, whether caused by matters of preferment, dissatisfaction over pay and allowances, time of service., or other legitimate cause for complaint, to what responsible officer of the Crown can these difficulties be referred.
  *MR. RITCHIE: County and borough police forces are by statute under the control of local authorities. The Secretary of State for the Home Department is the Minister most closely concerned, but he has no responsibility except in cases where the efficiency of a force is impaired, or where there is unsatisfactory administration of the pension fund; nor has he any power of direct intervention in matters of dispute between individual constables and the authorities under whom they serve.

  TEA LOTTERIES.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the fact of several convictions which have recently taken place for the illegal retail sale of tea upon a species of lottery system, notably at Coventry. Blackburn, Bury (Lanes.), Handsworth, and Hull; and, seeing that similar illegal forms of trading, have existed within the metropolitan

  809
  area for some years past without prosecutions being brought by the police, whether he will direct the attention of the Metropolitan Police authorities to any case brought under his notice forthwith with a view to bringing the offenders to justice.
  *MR. KITCHIE: The convictions referred to in the first paragraph of the question have not been brought specially to my notice. Sale-of-tea lotteries were begun in the Metropolis in 1895, and proceedings were promptly instituted, with the result that the defendants entered into an undertaking to discontinue such practices. Since that date no case has been brought to the notice of the Metropolitan Police.

  VACCINATION AT UETHNAL GREEN.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state how many prosecutions have been instituted by the vaccination officer of the borough of Bethnal Green since the passing of the Vaccination Act, 1898; (2) how many convictions were obtained; (3) and how many of the fines imposed remain unrecovered; (4) whether he is aware that most of the persons prosecuted were unable to defend themselves effectually owing to ignorance of the procedure provided under Section 2 of the aforementioned Act; and, if so (5), is he prepared to allow a remission of the fines imposed.
  *MR. RITCHIE: It would be impossible to give the information asked for in the first three queries without a search of the police court records or without reference to the guardians, and the work of obtaining the information would involve much time and labour. I have no reason to suppose that persons prosecuted under the Vaccination Acts in Bethnal Green have found any greater difficulty in defending themselves than persons similarly prosecuted in other places: but if the hon. Member will furnish me with full details of any case in which he thinks the defendant has suffered injustice I will inquire into it.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is
  810
  aware that vaccination prosecutions in Bethnal Green and adjacent boroughs are being rigorously pursued against persons who have a conscientious objection to vaccination, and have resulted in convictions owing to the difficulty encountered by the accused persons of proving that their objection is based on a conscientious belief; and, seeing that in this respect and owing to loss of time and wages which is occasioned by the process of asserting their objection under Section 2 of the Vaccination Act, 1898, that Act does not give full relief to objectors, whether he purposes adopting any steps by which the operation of that Act might be rendered more easy and effective in future.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I am not myself aware of difficulties of the kind referred to in the first paragraph, of the question, and I should regret if any such difficulties were experienced. The answer to the second part of the question must, however, be in the negative.

  FOOD ADULTERATION PROSECU- TIONS MISTAKES OF PUBLIC ANALYSTS.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in several prosecutions recently against tradesmen for the alleged sale of adulterated articles, notably at Portsmouth and Hackney, it has been shown that the public analysts on whose statements action has been taken have been guilty of grave mistakes; and whether he can take any steps to prevent respectable tradesmen being unjustly summoned upon erroneous certificates.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have communicated with the public analysts as regards the two instances referred to by my hon. friend. I find that certificates given by them in two cases were not upheld on reference to the Government Laboratory. The circumstances do not appear to show, however, that the analysts were open to blame-In one of the cases the analyst seems to have taken special care in the matter. I have no power to take any steps for

  811
  the purpose mentioned in the last paragraph of the question, and I may say that, speaking generally, it appears to me that the tradesman is sufficiently protected by the power to have an analysis verified at Somerset House.

  UNCLAIMED MONEYS AT THE BANK OF ENGLAND.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: On behalf of the lion-Member for North Hackney, I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can inform the House as to the amount of unclaimed dividends and other unclaimed moneys in the custody of the Bank of England; and whether there is any precedent for the application of such moneys to the public service, the Exchequer being liable to refund such moneys to proper claimants.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Various funds of the nature of unclaimed dividends in the hands of or under the control of Government have from time to time been applied to the public service, the Exchequer remaining liable to refund the money to any persons who may subsequently prove their claim. I am not aware of any-precedent for dealing in this manner with funds outside the purview of Government. At the present time unclaimed dividends on British Funds are under statute handed over by the Hank after ten years to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt. Unclaimed dividends on India Stocks are similarly surrendered to the Indian Government. The amounts at present in the possession of the Bank of England are: British Funds, £34,575: India Stocks, £41,496. The amount of other unclaimed dividends in the possession of the Bank is inconsiderable. With regard to unclaimed money of private customers, the Bank is, of course, in the same position as other banks.

  SCHOOL BOARD OFFICIALS AS MEM- BERS OF COUNTY COUNCILS.
  MR. HORNER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the recent election to the London County Council
  812
  of a schoolmaster who holds an appointment under the London School Board; whether it is permissible for a public official of the London School Board to use the time he should be devoting to his official duties for any other purpose than that for which he is paid by the ratepayers; and what steps he proposes to take.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GOIIST,): No; my attention has not been called to the matter. The only regulation of the Board of Education bearing on the matter is to be found in Article 85 (e) of the Code.
  MR. HORNER: But has he not ceased ipso facto to be an official of the London School Board?
  SIR J. GORST: My hon. friend must ask the London School Board.
  MR. HORNER: The information has been asked for, and no reply was obtained.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  MR. TOLLEMACHE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the reported discovery in France of a cure for foot-and-mouth disease; and if he will cause inquiries to be made on a subject of such great importance to the agricultural community.
  MR. WALTER LONG (for MR. HANBURY): The attention of the veterinary officers of the Board of Agriculture has been directed to the statements to which my hon. friend refers, and they will keep themselves informed of any further developments of the matter. I may say, however, that in view of the special characteristics of foot-and-mouth disease, it is not likely that the discovery of a remedy for it will lie of much assistance to the Department in keeping this country entirely clear from it, a result which I trust may soon be once again secured, as it was from 1887 to 1891, and again from 1895 to 1899.

  SWINE FEVER.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the

  813
  Board of Agriculture whether he is prepared to advise that compensation be given owners in case of deaths resulting from swine fever when such deaths are occasioned by the carelessness or incompetence of the veterinary surgeon employed by the Board of Agriculture.
  MR. LONG (for Mr. HANBURY): The power to pay compensation in cases of swine fever only extends to swine slaughtered by order of the Board of Agriculture in the exercise of their powers under the Diseases of Animals Acts. Any complaints with regard to the conduct of veterinary surgeons employed by the Board would always be fully investigated and such action taken as the circumstances might require.

  ELECTION PETITIONS.
  MR. J. E. GORDON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been drawn to the misuse of the Election Petition Courts by persons, lawyers, and laymen, who to their own pecuniary advantage employ themselves in making serious but fictitious charges against Members of this House with impunity; and whether the law has any penalties for such conduct.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINEAY,): The procedure in the Election Petition Courts is no doubt capable of being abused, but I am not aware that this has been done for the sake of any pecuniary advantage. There is great difficulty in entirely obviating the danger of abuse without throwing obstacles in the way of recourse to the Courts in proper cases. I may refer my lion, friend to the Report of the recent Committee on Election Petitions in 1898.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Has the lion, and learned Gentleman considered the judgment of the judges in. the Cocker-mouth petition?
  SIR ROBERT FLNLAY: Yes, Sir; and I certainly agree with the conclusions arrived at.

  ELECTRIC RAILWAYS—SUPPOSED RISK TO ALUERT MEMORIAL, ETC.
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of
  814
  Works whether he has considered the; risk to the Albert Memorial and the Albert Hall which may be caused by the proposed electric railway at Kensington; and whether he proposes to institute inquiries and to take action should the reports be unfavourable.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER or WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent,): Yes, Sir. The matter is under careful consideration as regards the Albert Memorial, but for the Albert Hall I am not responsible. The Government are in communication with the promoters of the Bill, and any necessary precautions for the safety of the Memorial beyond those provided in the Bill will be insisted upon. There will, of course, be other Government interests to be protected.

  INTERIOR CEYLON TEAS.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the fact that quantities of inferior Ceylon and other teas alleged to contain microbial products dangerous to health are being sold in bond in London at prices ranging below 4d. per pound; if the Customs officers have taken and analysed any samples of such teas, and with what results; and what amount has been seized and destroyed during the last twelve months; and if, in the interests of public health, he is willing to consent to an inquiry into the best methods of checking the sale of such unwholesome teas by determining some minimum standard of purity, and by securing a proper analysis of such teas before they are blended with other teas.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): Since my hon. friend put his notice on the Paper, lie has been good enough to send me papers on the subject, and I should be obliged if he would postpone his question till Monday, to give me time for their consideration.

  REGISTERED LETTERS—COMPENSA- TION.
  MR. THORNTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as

  815
  representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the statement and table of figures printed on the back of the envelopes made to enclose registered packets, that, subject to the conditions published in the Post Office Guide as to registration, compensation for loss or damage is given in respect of inland registered packets of all kinds according to the following table which includes a fee of 2d. to secure compensation limited to £5; and seeing that this statement may lead the public to believe that by paying the "2d. registration fee they are ensuring repayment in full up to £5, of money which has been registered but which is lost in course of post, instead of the £2 limited by the above-mentioned conditions, whether he will give instructions that on all future issues of such envelopes a clearer statement shall be printed of the amount of specie recoverable through registration in the post.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In view of the distinct reference to the conditions published in the Post Office Guide the Postmaster General thinks that no misapprehension ought to arise as regards the amount of compensation payable; but after careful consideration of the subject he has come to the conclusion that it will be safer to discontinue the table of rates now printed on the backs of the official registered letter envelopes, and merely to notify that compensation for loss or damage is given in respect of inland registered letters and packets subject to the limitations and conditions printed, in the Post Office Guide under the head of "Registration and Compensation."

  MANCHESTER TELEPHONE OPERATORS.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can say what is going to be done with regard to the female operators in the telephone department of the General Post Office, Manchester, who were transferred to the General Post Office from the National Telephone, Company in 1897, with regard to an advance in their wages; and whether, seeing that they are all senior operators of from eight to fifteen years experience in telephone work, but have
  816
  had no advance for three years, though juniors of three years experience are said to be receiving higher wages, and that various applications have been met with the statement that the question is under consideration, he could, if these statements be correct, conic to a decision in favour of an increase of wages.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In reply to the hon. Member I have to state that the Postmaster General is in. communication with the Treasury on the subject of the position and pay of the telephone operators at Manchester and elsewhere; and he hopes to be in a position to announce a decision very shortly.

  POSTAL TELEGRAPH CLERKS' ASSOCIATION.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, having regard to the fact that the secretary of the metropolitan branch of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association applied for leave of absence to attend the annual business meeting and conference at Manchester on the 7th March, and that the postal officials took fourteen days to consider the application, and in view of past difficulties, whether the Postmaster General will direct that no obstacles are to be placed in the way of officials of trades unions in the Post Office performing the legitimate business of their organisation.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: All facilities, consistent with the proper performance of the work of the department and with the proper discipline of the service, are allowed to officers of the department who app y to attend the annual meetings of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association and similar bodies, on the legitimate business of those bodies. The delay in according leave, complained of in the present case, was in part due to the fact that the officer concerned did not in the first instance provide efficient substitutes on his duty.

  INFECTIOUS DISEASE AT SOUTH UIST.
  MR JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that,

  817
  although it is stated in the Fourth Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Scotland (1898), page xxiii., that the Commissioner for the Local Government Board made an exhaustive inquiry into an outbreak of infectious disease in South Uist, it is true that the Commissioner refused to take the evidence of the clerk to the Parish Council of South Uist, who was the first person officially most conversant with the facts at issue; and, seeing that the parish council complained to the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland as well as to the First Lord of the Treasury of the misstatement of facts and refusal by the Commissioner to take evidence, whether any steps have been taken to inquire into or to rectify the statements complained of as misrepresentations by the parish council.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed by the Local Government Board that they are not aware that their Commissioner ever declined to receive the evidence of the clerk to the parish council. On the contrary, the clerk to the parish council was cited to Lochboisdale with other witnesses but was unable to be present, being stormstaid at Castlebay. Any books and documents which the clerk might have produced were produced by the inspector of poor. It is not the intention of the Local Government Board to reopen the inquiry which they consider sufficient.

  TREATMENT OF PAUPER CHILDREN IN IRELAND.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board for Ireland have issued an order compelling boards of guardians in Ireland to supply out-nursed children with clothing; whether he is aware that there are boards of guardians who out-nurse children, and make arrangements with the foster parents to clothe and rear these workhouse children with their own children, with the view of removing the taint or appearance of pauperism; whether he can say if it is the intention of the Local Government Board, under the new rule, to compel out-nursed workhouse children to wear poorhouse suits when attending
  818
  schools which they attend: and whether he will request this rule to be withdrawn by the Local Government Board.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The order referred to in the first paragraph requires guardians to provide suitable and sufficient clothing for orphan and deserted children placed outside the workhouse with foster parents. So far from it being the intention of the Local Government Board to compel these children to wear pauper uniform, the order expressly requires that the clothing shall not be of such shape or colour as may denote connection with the workhouse; and, moreover, with a view to avoid uniformity in the clothing, it was further pointed out that particular care should be taken that the materials, shape, and colour should not be alike in all cases. The Board are not aware of any case in which foster parents arrange with guardians to clothe the children. Any such arrangement involving payment to the foster parents by the guardians would be contrary to the regulations.

  ROSCOMMON SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEES.
  MR. HAYDKN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that there are several schools in Roscommon district the teachers of which have not yet been paid equivalent for results fees, although the annual examinations were held in those schools early in December; and, seeing that the said equivalent for results should have been paid with teachers' ordinary salaries on 15th January, whether he can state when this money will be paid the teachers, and what is the cause of delay.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Some delay was occasioned, I understand, by the necessity for correspondence; but the equivalent for results fees is in course of payment to schools which were examined in December in this and other districts, and in nearly all cases payment has been actually made.

  LIVE STOCK IN COUNTY MONAGHAN.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of

  819
  Ireland whether lie is aware that the County Council of Monaghan, under The Technical and Agricultural Act, 1899, invited each district council in the county to formulate a scheme for the locality interested, that the Monaghan Rural and Urban District only allotted £130 for the improvement of live stock while Carrickmacross Rural District Council required £600 for this purpose, and that at a meeting of the Live Stock Committee, held in the town of Monaghan the scheme from Carrickmacross District Council was not considered, and that the Monaghan District scheme was made the basis for expenditure; whether he is aware that at the meeting of the Live Stock Committee in Monaghan, Mr. Cordon, of the Technical and Agricultural Department, stated that if £600 was carried instead of £260 the Department would not sanction it, which caused the members present to adopt the smaller sum; and will he say if Mr. Gordon had power to state the views of the Agricultural Department without consultation with that body, and if he will direct that a larger sum than £260 be spent on the improvement of live stock.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It was the Live Stock Committee of the Monaghan County Council who themeslves decided the amount to lie allocated from the local rates to the county live stock schemes. This amount, which the Department approved, makes, together with the grant from the. Department, a total of £520 applied to the improvement of live stock in the county Monaghan. Mr. Gordon, the Department's representative, did not interfere or advise the committee in fixing this amount, but he gave his opinion that the Department would not sanction a proposal which was made by the non-members that a sum of £600 should be applied from the local rates for the schemes in the Carrickmacross Rural District alone.

  ULSTER WINTER ASSIZES.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, although it was originally promised that the Ulster winter assizes should be held in Armagh every fourth year, they have been held there only
  820
  once; and whether, seeing that Armagh is as central, and in possession of as good railway and other accommodation, as Derry, Omagh, or Belfast, he will see that this grievance is redressed by the holding of winter assizes in Armagh.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A question similar to this was addressed to my right hon. friend the Attorney General by the lion. Member for East Mayo on Tuesday last. †. I have nothing to add to the reply given to that question.

  LOUGH NEAGH.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a large part of the district surrounding Lough Neagh has been flooded to such an extent during the past winter that in many of the houses of the inhabitants water for several weeks covered the floors to a considerable depth; and whether, seeing that epidemics of fevers and other like diseases have usually followed that state of matters in the past, he will direct the Local Government Inspector to visit and report upon the sanitary state of the district with a view to the adoption of measures to prevent such diseases in the district during the summer; whether his information shows that the drainage scheme planned and carried out by the Irish Board of Works has failed to provide the relief from flooding promised for it by their engineer; whether he is aware that the chief cost of the complete scheme of drainage has been assessed on and paid for by the tenant farmers of the district; and whether he will take immediate steps to have the drainage of the district for which the people have paid conflicted at the public expense.
  MR. WYNDIIAM: The Local Government Board have received resolutions from local bodies to the effect that part of this district is subject to floods, but they have no information that epidemics of fever have resulted from such flooding. The works of the drainage district, which were completed in 1859, were entirely successful for the purposes sought to be effected for a number of years. The cost of the works in 1859 was charged in the
  † See page 583 of this volume.

  821
  usual way on the interests of the proprietors. I am not in a position, without further inquiry, to state to what extent increased rents have been imposed on the tenants consequent upon the improvements. I am not prepared to introduce in the present session legislation similar to that introduced and subsequently withdrawn in 1889.

  IRISH MAYORS AND COMMISSIONS OF ASSIZE.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the mayor of the city of Waterford is entitled, under charter of Charles I., to be included in the commission of assize for the city of Waterford; and whether he can give any explanation of the fact that the present mayor of the city has been excluded from the commission issued for the spring assizes this year.
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. ATKINSON,): With my right lion, friend's permission. I will reply to this question. I have not as yet been able to procure the patent to which the question refers. My impression is however, that it only qualified the mayor to sit as a member of the commission, not entitled him. I would refer the hon. Member to an answer given by me on the 20th of February last year to a question put by the hon. Member for East Clare for the explanation why the mayors of the different assize towns in Ireland have been omitted from the commission of assize.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be kind enough to inform the present House of Commons the reason why these mayors who are qualified, if not entitled, to sit on these commissions, and have been so sitting from time immemorial, have been suddenly struck off?
  *MR. ATKINSON: I have already explained that they have not been struck off. Their names simply have not been included. The positions winch they occupy make them liable to be parties in litigation likely to come before the judges, and that is the reason why they
  822
  have not been associated in the commission.

  KILLARNEY LAKES.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that barbed wire fences have been erected by the Earl of Kenmare along the Ross Castle entrance to the Lakes of Killarney; and that a large number of visitors have complained of the existence of these barbed wire fences; and whether, having regard to these complaints, he will take steps to have these fences removed.
  *MR. ATKINSON: The fact is as stated in the first paragraph, though, so far as the police are aware, no complaints have been made by tourists of the existence of the barbed wire fences. It is permissible to place barbed wire on the fence of a public road unless it be in such a position as to amount to an obstruction. I am not aware whether the wire has been placed along the public road in the present instance, but in any case I am informed that it is the intention of Lord Kenmare's agent to remove the wire without delay.

  ARMAGH MAGISTRACY.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number and religious beliefs of the resident magistrates in county Armagh.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The county Armagh is comprised in the districts of three resident magistrates, all of whom, I believe, are Protestants.

  IRISH SCHOOL INSPECTORS.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return respecting school inspectors in Ireland, notice for which stands on to-day's Paper.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The number of Inspectors of National Education in Ireland is eighty-six. A list of their names and various ranks is published in Thorn's Directory. I am inquiring whether a Return containing this information, supplemented by the dates of

  823
  the appointments of the inspectors, should be published as a separate Parliamentary Paper, or whether it cannot be embodied in the Annual Reports of the Commissioners which are laid before Parliament. As at present advised, I am not prepared to consent to the Return in the form asked by the hon. Member.

  CLIN INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL.
  *MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution by the Board of Management of the Glin Industrial School in reference to the want of railway or steamship accommodation, to Glin, whereby the school board is put to expense in obtaining its supplies, which would be reduced if the steamboat plying between Limerick and Tarbert called at Glin; also is he aware of the hardship that the children from the various unions in said county undergo in travelling on outside cars to the school; and whether he will take steps to have the steamboat plying between Limerick and Tarbert call at Glin, and also have a light railway laid from Foynes to Tarbert viâ Shanagolden, Ballyhahill, and Glin, which would be a benefit to the public and render access to said industrial school easier.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Waterford Steamship Company are willing that their steamer should call at Glin provided that certain conditions, which have been communicated to the Board of Management of the Industrial school, are fulfilled. There are no funds available for the construction of the railway suggested in the question.

  BIRR AND PORTUMNA RAILWAY.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord? Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that the Government have already consented to give a grant of £12,000 in aid of the reconstruction; of the Birr and Portumna Line, and that the International Railway Corporation have offered to spend £12,000 more in its reconstruction, if necessary, and also to equip and work the line, he will i allow the line to be re-opened.
  MR. WYNDHAM: As already stated by me, the proposals of the International Railway Corporation have been brought by the Irish Government before the Treasury, who did not see their way to hold out any expectation that they will consent to a grant of £12,000 in aid of the reconstruction of the line.

  LONGFORD SPRING ASSIZES.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the address to the grand jury of county Longford at the spring assizes on 4he March, complimenting them on the entire absence from all serious crime of the county of Longford, and stating that it was a matter of the greatest satisfaction to find the general condition of the county so peaceful and orderly; and will he, in view of this fact, direct the police to discontinue all interference with the organisation of the United Irish League.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have seen a newspaper report of the judge's address to the grand jury at Longford assizes on the 4th inst. The judge's observations, so far as I can gather, appear to have been based on the number of cases in which bills were submitted to the grand jury, and did not refer, as alleged, to "the entire absence from all serious crime of the county of Long-ford" The police do not interfere with the organisation of the United Irish League.

  UNITED IRISH LEAGUE AT BALLINALEE.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain by whose order County Inspector M'Dermott, with District Inspectors Rodwell and Millar, attended by 100 policemen armed with rifles, proceeded to Ballinalee on Sunday last to prevent the East Collumbkille fife and drum band from Playing outside the League rooms in Ballinalee, in which the North Longford executive of the United Irish League vas holding its monthly meeting; is he aware that these policemen kept following the band up and down the village of Ballinalee, and refused to

  825
  allow them to stand for a moment at any house; can he explain what was the meaning of such conduct considering that the hand had come a long distance merely to exercise; whether he is aware that no public meeting of any kind was intended or attempted, and no person or persons were boycotted or in any way interfered with in the neighbourhood; and whether the county inspector ordered this display contrary to the advice and wish of his subordinate officers; and will an [inquiry be made into all the circumstances of the ease.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have called for a detailed report dealing with some of the allegations contained in this question, and would prefer to postpone my reply until I have received the report. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the question on Monday.

  TENANCY OF IRISH GRAZING TRACTS.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that those in occupation of the grazing tracts in the congested districts of Ireland are only eleven months tenants, and therefore have no interest in the land, he will use his influence with the Congested Districts Board when contemplating the purchase of such lands, with a view to induce it to treat directly with tin; landlord and not with those eleven months tenants.
  MR. WYXDHAM: This question will be brought before the Congested Districts Board at its next meeting on the 15th inst., and I must ask the hon. Member to defer it, therefore, until after that date.

  IRISH LANGUAGE IN IRISH SCHOOLS.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in order to enable Irish National teachers to meet the desire that at present exists for the teaching of the Irish language in Irish National schools, the Commissioners of National Education will establish classes for the teaching of Irish to teachers during the summer holidays, as they have already done in the case of manual instruction, and also to estab-
  826
  lish Saturday or evening classes for the same purpose.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There are no funds at the disposal of the Commissioners for the purpose stated.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that the managers of schools in Ireland are at present unable to find teachers who can teach the Irish language, in consequence of the lack of funds?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot by way of question and answer across the floor of the House debate a question which can be raised on the Estimates.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Could not the right lion. Gentleman suggest that a special Estimate should be put on for this purpose?
  MR. WYXDHAM: It is too late to suggest any addition to the Estimates for the present year.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Supplementary Estimates are not unknown.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Neither are Votes on Account.

  DUBLIN POSTAL STAFF.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, as the scale of the male supervising force was increased at last revision, a proportionate increase will be granted to the female supervising officers of the Dublin staff; whether the Postmaster General will remedy the grievances of the Dublin female telegraphists, as numbers of them have been for years at their maxima, and are constantly performing supervising duties: whether the Postmaster General will, by increasing the number of female supervising appointments in the Dublin General Post Office, abolish the practice of female telegraphists supervising; whether the proposed increase in the Dublin female staff is to be made by giving appointments to telegraphists drafted from other offices; and whether it was in consequence of this drafting that no competitive examination was held in Dublin last December for female learners: and will the Postmaster General now have the proposed

  827
  increase in the Dublin female staff supplied altogether from candidates chosen after open competitive examination, thus giving opportunities to candidates who have been preparing for these examinations.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is not aware that the scales of salary for the male telegraph supervising staff at Dublin were increased at the last revision. The scales for the female supervising officers are those proper to their class at offices such as Dublin, and no reason is seen for increasing them. As regards any addition to the number of supervising appointments, this question will be dealt with on its merits in the revision now under consideration; but, as stated in the answer given on the 28th ultimo, the number of such appointments cannot be increased merely in order to afford promotion to telegraphists at the maximum of their scale. It was found necessary during the course of the year 1900, and pending the revision at Dublin, to provide by experienced assistance for the increase of work in the telegraph office; and a small number of telegraphists were, in these circumstances, transferred to Dublin from other offices, thus rendering a competitive examination in December, for female learners in Dublin, needless. It is proposed to make the transfer permanent in the case of any officer who satisfies the requirements of the post to be filled. It is necessary in order to provide for emergencies that such transfers should be occasionally made, and while the expedient is not resorted to unless in exceptional instances it is not possible to forego ifs use.

  IRISH GOVERNMENT PRINTING.
  MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the printing required for the office of Clerk of the Crown and Peace in Ireland, not merely in connection with franchise and jurors' lists and Crown business, but also for the purposes of its equity business, is obtained at the expense of the local rates; and whether, seeing that the various fees paid by the public in connection with the latter business are lodged to the credit of the Treasury, the Lords Commis-
  828
  sioners of His Majesty's Treasury will direct that the printing be supplied from the same source.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has been misinformed. No printing is required in connection with equity business, and all books so required are supplied by the Stationery Office, on application. Local rates bear no expenses in connection with such business.

  THE ROYAL DECLARATION AGAINST ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has taken through the usual channels any steps to ascertain if a Bill to modify the Royal Declaration would pass without serious opposition from any organised section of the House, and would thus facilitate instead of impeding public business; and whether his attention has been drawn to the numerous resolutions now being passed by public bodies against the idolatrous terms of the Royal Declaration.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This question is on precisely similar lines to many which have already appeared on the Paper, and which I have already answered. I have nothing to add to h e many statements I have already math to the House.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is going to bring in a Bill, and whether he has ascertained through the usual channels what time it would occupy to pass.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any right to ask me questions as to how or whence I derive my impressions as to the time to be taken up by any Bill.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, but I should like him to give me some information on tin subject.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will tin-right hon. Gentleman say whether he has received resolutions of protest against the idolatrous terms of the Declaration from the Limerick Corporation?
  MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

  THE NEW COINAGE.
  MR. BRIGG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will consider the propriety of postponing the issue of any new coinage having on it the head of the King until decimal coinage is introduced.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The new coinage must be settled in the course of the current year. I do not think that the country is prepared for any fundamental change such as the question suggests.

  ELECTORAL ANOMALIES—IRISH REPRESENTATION.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the Romford Division of Essex numbers no less than 33,000 electors, and is increasing I that number by about 5,000 per annum, and has only one representative, he will consider the advisability of permanently suspending two of the writs of Irish Members and issuing them to that portion, of the county of Essex comprised in the Romford Division.
  MR. FLYN'X: Did the hon. Member before putting the question consult the Irish Members whom he has asked to back his Bills?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUE: I am quite aware that my hon. friend's constituency is perhaps I he greatest of the many great anomalies which at present signalise our Parliamentary system. But I think that his method of dealing with those anomalies is somewhat crude. I do not think I can promise him legislation on those lines.

  ROVAL VISIT TO THE COLONIES— SUGGESTED VISIT TO INDIA.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it would be possible to include in the course of the forthcoming tour of their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York to the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of Canada a visit to the Empire of India, where the presence of the Heir to the Throne with his consort would be regarded as a most gracious compliment by the princes and peoples,
  830
  and be productive of beneficent results similar to those which followed the memorable visit thirty years ago of His Majesty the King as Prince of Wales.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to my hon. friend I have to say that the pressure upon the time of their Royal Highnesses is so great that it would be impossible, I am afraid, to carry out the scheme which he suggests.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman as to the business of the House, and especially with regard to two points—on what days he proposes to take the appointment of the Committee on the Civil List, and the statement of the Secretary of State for War on the Army Estimates. I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be desirable, seeing that that statement, if all things we hear are, true, will be of unusual complexity and importance, that the discussion should be postponed until Members have the opportunity of considering it in print.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As regards the Civil List, my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bring forward his motion as the first Order on Monday next. The arrangement for to-morrow stands—namely, my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War will make his statement, with Mr. Speaker in the chair. I think the right hon. Gentleman's request that there should be an adjournment after the statement is made is reasonable, and I shall be glad to comply with it. The business to be taken after the statement will probably be the Army Estimates; and they will be taken also after the motion with regard to the Civil List is disposed of.

  SUSPENSION OF MEMBERS (5TH MARCH)—POLICE IN THE HOUSE.
  MR. DILLON: I desire to ask by whose orders a body of police entered this House last Wednesday morning; under whose command the police were when inside the House; and whether since Oliver Cromwell entered the House with soldiers in 1653 there is any precedent for the entry of

  831
  soldiers or police into the Commons Chamber for the purpose of forcibly removing lion, members of this House.
  *MR. SPEAKER: To whom does the hon. Gentleman address the question?
  Mr. DILLON: I addressed the question to you, Sir; but perhaps I ought to have addressed it to the Leader of the House.
  *Mr. SPEAKER: I have no objection to answer it, though, strictly, it is not a question that ought to be addressed to me. The police entered this House by my orders. They were under the immediate control of Inspector Scautlebury. As to the historical question, I am afraid I have not made the necessary research.

THE CASE OF MR. JORDAN.
*MR. SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that I have received the following letter from the hon. Member for South Fermanagh (Mr. Jordan). It reached me yesterday afternoon.
To the
6th March, 1901.
Right Honourable William Gully,
Speaker of the House of Commons.
Sir,
I, the undersigned Member of the House of Commons, desire to bring the following facts under your notice.
On this day I was reported by the Chairman of Committees to you as having refused to leave the House when a division was called, and having defied his ruling. There is no foundation for that statement, as I did leave the House when the division was called, and only returned to it, in common with the other Members in the lobbies, when the Chairman announced his intention of reporting those Members who did not leave the House.
I am now prevented from entering the House, and I desire to claim my right to enter the House, and discharge my duty to my constituents.
(Signed) JEREMIAH JORDAN.
Upon receipt of that letter I informed the hon. Member for East Mayo that I thought, as it raised a strong prima facie case of error in the report, the hon. Member was entitled to have the advantages of priority—such as are given to questions of privilege—in order that an alleged mistake directly affecting the Parliamentary position of an hon. Member may be corrected, and therefore I informed him that J would call him on early with his motion. At the same time,
832
I desire to state that this decision arises out of the special circumstances of the case, and must not be taken as a precedent in any way for the proposition that where the House has suspended a Member, and in order to rescind that order and to restore him again to the House, he is entitled to any privilege. He is not entitled, as such, to any privilege. The other point to which I would call attention is that, in granting precedence to this motion as a matter arising out of the special circumstances of the case, discussion upon it must be confined strictly to the question whether the hon. Member for South Fermanagh is the victim of error, and whether in point of fact he did disobey the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. DILLON: The motion I have to make is as follows: "That the Order made on Tuesday, 5th March, suspending twelve Members from the service of the House, be rescinded in so far as it applies to Mr. Jordan." I must not be taken as accepting the view that the other Members mentioned in the Order—[Cries of "Order" from the Ministerial benches.] I would be out of order in entering into that matter on this motion, and I allude to it only for the purpose of safeguarding myself from an inference which might very easily be drawn from the form of the motion I now submit to the House. I pass from that subject, merely placing on record my belief, gathered from the evidence of colleagues, that besides Mr. Jordan there were several others mentioned in the Order who did not defy the authority of the Chair, but some of whom at a later period did refuse to obey the Chair through indignation at the treatment they had received.
In recommending this motion to the House, it will plainly be necessary for me very briefly to recall to the memory of the House what occurred on this Wednesday morning. I was not present myself, and I have collected the facts. [Cries of "Order."] Hon. Members might give me fair play. We may have an angry debate by and by, but this is a matter on which I have always known the House of Commons to give fair play. This is a question of an injustice, as I claim, inflicted upon a Member of this House, who has just as good a right, as far as his action is concerned, to sit here and take

833
part in the debates as any other Member. I wish to explain the absolute necessity under which I lie of giving a brief resume of the facts of Wednesday morning, in order to establish my case. I shall do nothing more than that. Why do I. lie under that necessity? It is because there is on the official record of the House a distinct statement on the authority of the Chairman of the House, that he had observed Mr. Jordan to be one of the Members who had refused to obey his ruling. I am not entitled to do what some hon. Members apparently, from the interruption I heard a moment ago, thought I was entitled to do—namely, appeal to Mr. Jordan's letter and claim the privilege that the lion. Member for South Fermanagh should be taken at his word. I am not in a position to base my case upon that moral claim, because there is a conflict of testimony between the statements in that letter and the official record of the House, the declaration of the Chairman that he had himself observed Mr. Jordan as one of those who refused to obey his ruling. That places upon me the absolute necessity of endeavouring to establish my case in favour of Mr. Jordan. I have collected the facts from three sources—the official record, which I hold in my hand. The Times report, which is rather full, and which, although it has no official value, is, on quantum valeat, considerable testimony, and the evidence of my colleagues, and of some other Members whom I have consulted as to what happened. The official record is as follows—
"Several Members refused to leave the House to proceed to the division lobby. Whereupon the Chairman directed the doors to be unlocked in order to report the matter to the Speaker.
"Mr. Speaker resumed the chair.
"The Chairman reported, That several Members, the hon. Member for South-East Cork, North Kerry, South Tipperary, North Meath, North Leitrim, East Limerick, North-East Cork, West Cavan, East Tyrone, South Fermanagh, East Cork, and West Cork, bad refused to leave the House and proceed to the division lobby when directed to do so by him."
Therefore the Chairman is responsible for stating that of his own knowledge. The official record proceeds—
"Mr. Speaker appealed to the hon. Members in the interests of the House not to persist in their refusal to obey the Chair."
834
But note that this is a very important matter, because the record in this case, I will contend, is inaccurate.
"But the said hon. Members having repeated their determination not to leave the House for the division—"
"The said hon. Members having repeated their determination." Now, I am authorised on the part of Mr. Jordan to say that he did not refuse in the first instance, that he went into the lobby to vote like all the other Members, and, in the second place, he did not repeat his determination. It was an intention which he never entertained, and therefore in both these particulars I have to maintain that the official record is inaccurate. That will. I think, make it clear to hon. Members that my motion is very simple. I have consequently to impugn the authority of the Chairman on a matter of fact, and to impugn the correctness of the official record of the House in two particulars. I take, as my first evidence, The Times report, and I think hon. Members when they listen to it will see the enormous importance, even supposing the report is not minutely and verbally accurate, the enormous importance of the account of the transactions given in The Times. This is what The Times report says—
"The CHAIRMAN: Order, order! If the hon. Members decline to proceed to the division lobbies, I must report the circumstances to the Speaker.
"Mr. P. M'HUGH: Bring in your policemen [cheers], but we are not going to divide.
"The CHAIRMAN then despatched a message to the Speaker.
"Members now came back from the lobbies and re-occupied the benches, while Mr. Nicholson, one of the Clerks at the Table, proceeded to the Irish benches to take the names of the recalcitrants."
That clearly shows—and I have abundant other evidence to the same effect—that the names of the so-called or supposed recalcitrant Members were actually being-taken down in. as J contend, an utterly irregular fashion by one of the Clerks of the Table, and that the Chairman had called the division off and Members on both sides had commenced to troop back from the lobbies.
Now, that is my first point, and my statement, which I am authorised and requested by Mr. Jordan to make,

835
is that when he heard the division called, he immediately obeyed the order of the Chairman, that he proceeded into the "No" lobby and remained in the "No" lobby until he heard the division was off, and that be then returned to the House along with a number of other Members on these benches. On his return to the House after he had obeyed the order, he was met by one of the clerks, who, with a pencil and paper in his baud, took down his name as one of the recalcitrant Members. I proceed with The Times report. The Chairman on the return of the Speaker, reported and spoke as follows—
"Mr. Speaker, I have to report to you, Sir: that during the course of the division I had put the question which I was ordered to put by the House as a result of the division upon the closure. During the course of that division a certain number of Members of the House declined to leave their seats [loud Nationalist cheers] and to proceed into the division lobbies. I requested them more than once to proceed, but I gathered from the observations which fell from these hon. Members or some of them that they declined to proceed. Thereupon I thought it was due to the House, in the position in which we found ourselves, that I should follow the precedent which had been set on a former I occasion and ask you, Sir, to return to the chair. It was impossible for me, Sir, to see all I the hon. Members who declined to leave their seats, but I may say that among those whom I was able to observe"
—note, confirming the official record—
"were the Members for South-East Cork, North Kerry, Smith Tipperary, North Meath, North Leitnm, East Limerick, North-East Cork, West Cavan, East Tyrone, South Fermanagh, East Cork, and West Cork."
MR. SPEAKEE: I must point out to the hon. Member that, as be is quite aware, no attack must be made on the action of the Chairman of Committees except upon express notice.
"Mr. DILLON: All I was saying was that, as a matter of fact, the Member for South Fermanagh did not decline to leave the House. He went into the lobby as I have already stated, and it was on his return from the lobby, after obeying the Chair in the fullest sense, that his name was taken down and returned as one of the recalcitrants. That is the story which I have to tell to the House from the hon. Member himself, and in a most important particular it is confirmed
836
by The Times report, because, as hon. Members will recollect. The Times report declares that the Clerk at the Table was busy taking down the names of Members after Members on all sides of the House had returned to the House. What I contend is that in this instance a departure was made from the usual practice, and that, as a matter of fact, the names submitted to you. Sir, were, at all events to some extent, collected by one of the clerks at the Table, and that in the case of Mr. Jordan, and in some other cases which I am not bringing before the House for various reasons, a mistake was made owing to that fact. It may be said—and I have no doubt it will be said—why did not Mr. Jordan, when the Speaker, on returning to the chair, made an appeal to hon. Members to obey the order of the Chair, stand up and declare that his name was wrongfully reported? I must deal first of all with what actually occurred. According to the official record and the report of The Times, you, Sir, addressed a question to hon. Members collectively as to whether they persisted in their determination not to clear the House. There was then no division going on—
*MR. SPEAKER: The names of hon. Members bad been called out by their constituencies, and I did not call on hon. Members collectively, but only on those whose constituencies had been named.
Mr. DILLON: I recollect that fact perfectly, and I was coming to it. I have made careful inquiry on this point, and I am assured that your question, I Sir, was answered by a shout from the Irish benches, and in the general I uproar and excitement it would have been perfectly impossible for anyone to say, as regards all those Members, whether all of them declared that they were determined to persist in. their refusal. That is a very important point, and I assert on behalf of Mr. Jordan, an absent Member, that he did not answer Mr. Speaker in that sense; that he had no intention of offending against order; and that he did not offend against order. The only precedent exactly on all fours which I have in my mind was that of 21st May, 1896, when the Chairman interrupted the proceedings on the Agricultural Land Eating Bill and sent for

837
you, Mr. Speaker. What occurred on that occasion?
* MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now proceeding to discuss the conduct of the Chairman on Tuesday night. He is not entitled to do so. The discussion must be entirely confined to the question of whether there was or was not an error in the report he made. The hon. Member cannot go into the precedents and say that the Chairman should have acted in such and such a way, as was done on previous occasions. That is to attack the conduct of the Chair.
Mr. DILLON: But, Sir, I am entitled, surely, to use any argument calculated to carry my point, which is of importance to the discussion. I do not desire to attack the. Chair, but surely my mouth will not be closed on the all-important question to the, fate of my motion—namely, as to why Mr. Jordan did not reply when you, Sir, made the appeal from the chair. I maintain that it was impossible for anybody in the circumstances to judge, when that collective appeal was made, whether Mr. Jordan was a party to that refusal.
*MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to avoid attacking the Chair.
MR. DILLON: Certainly, Sir. I was only alluding very briefly to the fact that on a previous occasion, when a similar suspension took place, you, Sir, asked each individual Member, myself included, this question—" Do I understand the, hon. Member also to decline to leave the House? Mr. Dillon: Yes, Sir, I do decline." Then you asked Dr. Tanner and each other Member, man by man, and each admitted his offence and his intention to persist in that offence in spite of your appeal. Then and then only you took action against those Members. I was not for a moment endeavouring or desiring to find fault with your procedure, but I mention that case for the purpose of explaining how it came to pass that an error may have arisen, and you may have been led to think that Mr. Jordan was defying the Chair. In this instance Mr. Jordan left the House, as he tells me, without waiting to be removed from it; and the only point of controversy is why he did
838
not rise up and there and then protest against being named. In this instance, according to my information, all those Members who did stand up were shouted down. I am told that even a right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench endeavoured to address the House, and it was impossible in the state of excitement which prevailed for any man—much less for one, of those incriminated— to get a fair hearing for his statement. In the temper and excitement which prevailed, it was not unnatural for an hon. Member, smarting under a sense of great injustice, and guilty of no breach of the rules, to think that the wisest and most dignified course to take was quietly to walk out of the House. That is my case. I do not wish to enter into anything which is not essential to it, and therefore I beg to move.
COLONEL NOLANseconded the motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order of the House made on Tuesday, the, 5th day of March, suspending twelve Members from the service of the House, be rescinded so far as it applies to Mr. Jordan."—(Mr. Dillon.)
"*The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): After the letter which you, Sir, have read from the hon. Member for South Fermanagh, I desire frankly and at once to say that I admit that I must have made a mistake. Therefore, as fat-as I am concerned, I have no objection whatever to the, acceptance of the motion. But I think, at the same time, that it is due to myself as well as to the House to explain as briefly as may be the circumstances in which that mistake arose. I am sure I shall receive the sympathy of a great number of Members of the House in the very difficult position in which I found myself. The difficulty was much increased by the fact that a great number of Gentlemen on Tuesday night challenged my decision, and refused to leave their places. In order to make certain I jotted down, as far as I could judge from my position at the Table, the names of those Gentlemen whom I saw remaining in the House and refusing to leave; hut, in order to make absolutely certain, I requested the Clerk at the Table to lie kind enough to obtain the names of the

839
Gentlemen who refused to leave. Whilst that proceeding was going; on it is perfectly obvious, after what has fallen from the hon. Member for East Mayo, and his statement of the circumstances—it is perfectly obvious that certain hon. Members returned to the I louse. But I must point out that it was not until my list was completed that I sent to ask you, Sir, to return to the chair. The only objection which I have to make to the statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo in his relation of the circumstances is the statement that I sent for the Speaker before my list was completed. That is not so: I completed my list, verifying it from the list which I had received from the Clerk at the Table: and it was not until that list was completed, and I saw those Gentlemen in the House, that I formally sent for you. Mr. Speaker. I have no doubt that the mistake arose from the fact that the hon. Member for South Fermanagh was under the impression that the Speaker had been sent for and thereupon returned to his place; and so his name came to appear on the list. I take upon myself full responsibility for the mistake which occurred. I admit that it was a
mistake, and I am extremely sorry that it occurred. I apologise to the House and to the hon. Member for South Fermanagh for any inconvenience which he may have suffered.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: After the statement of the Chairman of Committees, and after what has fallen from the hon. Member for East Mayo, I have no doubt that the House will, Without further discussion, agree to the motion of the hon. Member.
Question put and agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
Motion made, and Question put. "That the proceedings on the Amendment of Standing Order No. 21, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order, Sittings of the House."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
The House divided:— Ayes, 304; Noes 181. (Division List No.42.)

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Rentoul, James Alexander

Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft

Richards, Henry Charles

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Lucas, Reginald J(Portsmouth)

Ridley,Hn.M.W(Staleybridge

Graham, Henry Robert

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Ritchie, Rt. Hn.Chas.Thomson

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Macartney, RtHnW. G.Ellison

Robertson,Herbert (Hackney)

Greene,SirEW(B'rySEdm'nds

Macdona, John Cumming

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Grenfell, William' Henry

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Gretton, John

Maconochie, A. W.

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Greville, Hon. Roland

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Round, James

(Groves, James Grimble

M'Calmont,Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M'lver.SirLewis(Edinburgh W

Russell, T. W.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

M'Killop, Jas, (Stirlingshire)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Hain, Edward

Majendie, James A. H.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Malcolm, Ian

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

Hambro, Charles Eric

Manners, Lord Cecil

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Middx

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

Hamilton,Marq.of (Londond'y

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Massey-Mainwaring,Hn. W.F.

Seely,(Capt J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Maxw'ell,RtHnSirHE(Wigton

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Harris, E. Leverton(Tynem'th

Maxwell,WJH(Dumfriesshire

Shaw-Stewart,M. H. (Renfrew)

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Milner,RtHon. Sir Frederick.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Heath, Arth. Howard (Hanley

Milward, Colonel Victor

Smith, JamesParker(Lanarks.

Heath, James(Staffords,N.W.

Molesworth, Sir Lew is

Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)

Heaton, John Henniker

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon

Spencer, Ernest(W.Bromwieh)

Helder, Augustus

Montague,Hn.J.Scott(Hants.)

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Henderson, Alexander

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Moore. William (Antrim, N.)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

Hoare, Ed. Brodie(Hampstead

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Stock, James Henry

Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset,E.

Morrell, George Herbert

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Hogg, Lindsay

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Stroyan, John

Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Bright'de

Morrison, James Archibald

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Horner, Frederick William

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Mount, William Arthur

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hoult, Joseph

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray

Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUni.

Howard,Capt. J. (Kent Faversh

Muntz, Philip A.

Tennant, Harold John

Howard,J. (Midd.,Tottenham

Murray, RtHnAGraham (Bute

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Thornton, Percy M.

Hindson, George Bickersteth

Murray, Col.Wyndham(Bath)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw.Murray

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Myers, William Henry

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Valentia, Viscount

Jackson, Rt.Hon.Win.Lawies

Nicholson, William Graham

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Nichol, Donald Ninian

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Johnston, William (Belfast)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Wason,JohnCathcart(Orkney

Kenyon,Hn. Geo.T. (Denbigh)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Webb, Col. William George

Kenyon, James (Lanes., Bury)

Parker, Gilbert

Welby. Lt.-Col. A.G.E (Tauntn

Kimber, Henry

Parkes, Ebenezer

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Pease, Herbert P.(Darlington)

Whitmore. Charles Algernon

Knowles, Lees

Pentberton, John S.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Penn, John

Williams,RtHnJ. Powell (Bir.

Law, Andrew Bonar

Percy, Earl

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Lawrence, William F.

Pilkington, Richard

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Lawson, John Grant

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wills, Sir Frederick

Leeky, Rt. Hon.Wm. Edw.H.

Plummer, Walter R.

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

Lee,Capt.AH.(Hants,F'areh'm

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wilson-Todd,Wm. H.(Yorks.)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

Leighton, Stanley

Purvis, Robert

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Leveson-Gower,Frederick N. S.

Pym. C. Guy

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Randies, Joint S.

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Rankin, Sir James

Young, Commander(Berks,E.)

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Long.Rt.Hn. Walter(Bristol,S

Ratcliffe, R. F.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Reid, James (Greenock)

Sir William Walrond and

Lowe, Francis William

Remnant, James Farquharson

Mr. Anstruther.

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

NOES.

Abraham, Wm. (Rhondda)

Ambrose, Robert

Atherley-Jones, L.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Barlow, John Emmott

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc.Stroud

Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

842

843

Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bell, Richard

Harrington, Timothy

Palmer,Sir Chas. M. (Durham

Black, Alexander William

Harwood, (George

Palmer,George Wm. (Reading)

Blake, Edward

Hayden, John Patrick

Partington, Oswald

Boland, John

Hayne, Rt. Hon.CharlesSeale-

Paulton, James Mellor

Boyle, James

Hayter,Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D).

Perks, Robert William

Brigg, John

Heime, Norval Watson

Pirie, Duncan V.

Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon.CharlesH.

Power, Pairick Joseph

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hobhouse,C.E. H. (Bristol.E.)

Price, Robert John

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Horniman, Frederick John

Reckitt, Harold James

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Reddy, M.

Burt, Thomas

Joicey, Sir James

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones,David Brynmor(Swan'a

Redmond, William (Clare)

Caine, William Sproston

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Rickett, J. Compton

Caldwell, James

Joyce, Michael

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Cameron, Robert

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robson, William Snowdon

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Kennedy, Patrick James

Roche, John

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth

Roe, Sir Thomas

Carew, James Laurence

Kitson, Sir James

Samuel. S. M. (Whitechapel)

Carvill,Patrick Geo.Hamilton

Labouchere, Henry

Schwann, Charles E.

Causton, Richard Knight

Lambert, George

Scott, ('has. Prestwich (Leigh)

Cawley, Frederick

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Cogan, Denis J.

Leese,SirJoseph F. (Accrington

Sinclair, Capt. John(Forfarsh.)

Colville, John

Leng, Sir John

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lloyd-George, David

Soares, Finest J.

Craig, Robert Hunter

Lough, Thomas

Spencer, RtHnC.R.(Northants

Crombie, John William

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Stevenson, Francis S.

Dalziel, James Henry

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Strachey, Edward

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Sullivan, Donal

Davies,M. Vaughan (Cardigan

M'Crae, George

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Delany, William

M'Dermott, Patrick

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.

Dewar, J. A. (Inverness-shire)

McKenna, Reginald

Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan,E.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

McKillop, W. (Sligo, North)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Dillon, John

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Thomas, F.Fresman-(Hastings

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Markham, Arthur Basil

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

Duffy, William J.

Mather, William

Tomkinson, James

Duncan, James A.

Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dunn, Sir William

Mooney, John J.

Tally, Jasper

Edwards, Frank

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Wallace, Robert

Elibank, Master of

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds,S.

Ellis, John Edward

Morley,Rt. Hn.John(Monirose

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan

Emmott, Alfred

Morton, E.J. C. (Devonport)

Weir, James Galloway

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Moulton, John Fletcher

White, George (Norfolk)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Murphy, J.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Farrell, James Patrick

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whiteley, George(York,W. R.

Fenwick, Charles

Newnes, Sir George

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Ferguson, R.C.Munro (Leith)

Nolan,Col. John P. (Gal way,.N

Williams, Osmond(Merioneth

Flynn, James Christopher

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Wilson,Fred.W.(Norfolk,Mid

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, Henry J. (York,W.R.

Eurness, Sir Christopher

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, John Durham, Mid.)

Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

O'Brien, James F. N. (Cork)

Wodehouse.Hn. Armine(Essex

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Brien. K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Hudrsfld.

(Grant, Corrie

O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

ODonnell,T. (Kerry, W.)

Haldane, Richard Bunion

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

TELLERS FOE THE NOES—

Hammond, John

O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

Mr. Broadhurst and Mr.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

D'Malley-William

Channing.

Eardie,J.Keir (MerthyrTydvil

O'Mara, James

NEW BILLS.
  TROUT KISHINO ANNUAL CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND).
  Bill to provide an Annual Close Time for Trout Fishing in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland and Mr. Anstruther.
  TROUT FISHING ANNUAL CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To provide an Annual Close Time for Trout Fishing in Scotland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

  BURIAL GROUNDS (SCOTLAND).
  Bill for the better regulation of Burial Grounds in Scotland, ordered to be

  845
  brought in by The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, and Mr. Anstruther.

  BURIAL GROUNDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "For the better regulation of Burial Grounds in Scotland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 91.]

AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDER No. 21.
Standing Order No. 21 read.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I shall best consult the interests and the dignity of the House if in introducing the Amendment to the Standing Order which is in my name on the Paper of the House I abstain wholly from any irritating topics, and, as far as possible, from anything in the nature of unnecessary comment. The unhappy incidents of Tuesday night, or Wednesday morning, are so fresh in the recollection of the whole House that it would be superfluous were I to recall them to the House, or to dwell upon them at any length. It is sufficient for me to say, and it is the justification, after all, of this proposed change of the Standing Order, that there was at that time an offence committed which, if not a new offence, certainly was never committed to the extent and with the aggravation which attended it on that occasion, and that this offence under our Standing Orders as they now are meets with no summary punishment at all. The Members of this House who were named by you, Sir, and were suspended by the House, are at this moment suffering from the week's expulsion from this House, which is the penalty inflicted by the Standing Order. But the fact that after they had been so suspended from their service in the House they resisted, even to violence, your directions that they should leave the House is a crime against the order of this House which receives, and can receive under our system of summary jurisdiction in this House, no punishment at all.
The House is aware that up to a comparatively recent period the power of the House to deal with those of its Members who had offended seriously against its rules depended on what I may call the traditional
846
powers of this House—the common law powers, if I may so call them, to borrow a phrase from the law of the land. Those common law powers, however, are rather cumbrous and elaborate in their application; and although they still exist in their full force, and although I think it is very undesirable in any way to interfere with them, the House has felt from time to time that it is absolutely necessary in the interests of order in this House that its powers of summary jurisdiction should be increased. There are two Standing Orders on which that power of summary jurisdiction depends. There is Standing Order No. 27, which deals with disorderly conduct. Under that Standing Order it is in the power of Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of Committees, to order any Member who is guilty of disorderly conduct at once to leave the House, and the Member so ordered is suspended from the service of the House during that sitting. No division is taken; the judgment of the House is not called upon to confirm the judgment of Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman; and, as a consequence of that order, as the natural result of it, the sentence is in itself of the lightest possible description. The other Standing Order which deals with this matter is Standing Order No. 21, which is the Standing Order I propose to amend by the resolution standing on the Paper. Standing Order 21 differs from Standing Order 27 in this, that before any penalty is inflicted upon a disorderly Member he is named by the Speaker of the House, and the House has an opportunity of expressing its opinion as to whether he should or should not undergo the consequent penalty. The House being thus called on to back up the authority of the Chair, the penalties described in Standing Order 21 are of a more severe description than those Standing Order 27. A Member may be suspended, is suspended, for the first offence in a session for a week, for a second offence for a fortnight, for a third or any subsequent offence for a month. It is that Standing Order which I propose to amend by adding a clause which shall provide a penalty—I do not say whether an adequate or an inadequate penalty—but a penalty which, as it seems to me, is the most proper we, can fix upon.
This is a new penalty for the further offence of resisting Mr. Speaker's

847
direction. This contingency that Mr. Speaker's direction should be resisted was not prominently before the House, happily, at the time when these Standing Orders in their prevent shape were framed. Our subsequent experience has been of a kind to bring that possibility very prominently before us, and I do not think, having regard to what occurred on Tuesday last, we can leave that offence wholly undealt with. It will be observed that unless some change such as I propose is passed in the rule, the existing penalties almost stand in the way—they are a certain obstacle in the way—of dealing adequately with the punishment of physical resistance to Mr. Speaker's order, because a Member having been suspended is relieved of any further attendance in the House for a week. You could not proceed next day to deal with these Gentlemen who are now suffering from their suspension, because they cannot be in their places. They are necessarily and by our order absent; and we think it would not be proper to deal in their absence with men who have no opportunity of alleging any extenuating circumstances. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that we should provide some immediate summary and, if possible, adequate and proper punishment for tins additional offence. This does not pretend to be a general reform of those Standing Orders which deal with disorderly conduct, Those Standing Orders I think in some particulars deserve revision. I think the time of the House might be well devoted at some period less crowded with necessary businesss than the present to a re-survey of the Orders. But I make no such proposal at the present time. I merely come forward with an immediate method of dealing with an immediate evil. I do not ask the House to regard the Standing Order as it will be amended as a perfect embodiment of the expedients we should take for dealing with disorder. I only say it would be very greatly improved, and would not be wholly insufficient to deal with the evils which experience has shown us we have to fear.
I trust the House will unanimously agree to this. [Nationalist laughter.] I do not know whether I am to interpret that interruption as indicating that hon. Gentlemen, that any hon. Gentlemen in
848
whatever part of the House we see them, think we ought to be quite helpless in the face of any member who commits a crime against the order of this House more aggravated in its character, I think, than any other crime of which we have knowledge. Disorderly conduct may take many forms; it may be more or less aggravated, but when disorderly conduct reaches the pitch of absolutely refusing to obey the direction of the Speaker to leave the House, everybody will feel that a discredit is cast upon our proceedings which it is impossible for us patiently to tolerate. Even those hon. Gentlemen who most sympathise with—or, let me put it, least condemn—what took place on Tuesday night, even they, I think, will feel that the Government and the House would show themselves unworthy of their traditions and unworthy of the duty which is cast upon them to keep the proceedings of this House orderly if they did not take the first occasion of providing a punishment—an adequate punishment—for an offence the danger and reality of which have been so painfully and so impressively brought to our notice by the unhappy events of two days ago. I beg to move this motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Standing Order No. 21 be amended by inserting, after line 27, the words, 'Provided also, That if any Member, or Members acting jointly, who have, been suspended under this Order from the service of the House, shall refuse to obey the direction of the Speaker, the Speaker shall call the attention of the House to the fact that recourse to force is necessary in order to compel obedience to his direction, and the Member or Members who have refused to obey his direction shall thereupon, and without further Question put, be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of the session.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
Questions proposed, "That those words be there inserted in Standing Order No. 21."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:: The right hon. Gentleman has acted wisely and has set a good example to all Members of the House in the calm, dispassionate, and

849
moderate tone in which he has spoken of this very delicate question. We all speak with a perfect consciousness of the heated atmosphere which might easily arise, and which we have seen within but a few hours existing in this House; and I trust that, whatever view we may take of the proposal of His Majesty's Government, we shall endeavour to imitate the example which the right hon. Gentleman has set us. What strikes me principally in looking back on the deplorable events of the other night is this, that it is an instance of what may often happen to us in the course of our lives—that we are to a large extent oblivious of the degree to which many of the circumstances of our life and the conditions of society rest upon physical force. It is rather a humiliating fact when one comes to recognise it. Although we must be more or less aware of it, it is not the less odious a thing when it thrusts itself in its naked power upon us. Undoubtedly it is the ease that, after all, the rules of this House, which usually work so quietly and equally, rest for their ultimate authority upon force. It seems to me that the other night we had that force displayed to us in a way which was very repulsive to the feelings of every one of us, and which certainly did not add to the dignity and the credit of the House of Commons. To that we were reduced by the grossly disorderly conduct of some Members. I am finding no fault whatever with the action of the authorities of the House, or of you, Sir, in authorising the introduction of the police; but I con fess frankly, and I think I shall he approved in this by many Members of the House, if they will be frank in acknowledging their own feelings, that it is this introduction into the House of a body of police for this painful duty that has struck so heavy a blow at our dignity. What we have to do, it seems to me, in any rule that we pass is to make our rule such as to avoid the necessity of any such display of force in the future.
In criticising or passing some observations upon the particular proposal of the Government I would wish, in the first place, to make one thing clear—that a somewhat unusual course, as I think, has been followed in this matter. This is not a thing affecting party or political
850
divisions. It affects the honour and dignity of the House; and I am much mistaken if it is not a fact that on all similar occasions in any Government, when the Leader of the House had a proposal of this sort to make, not in the interest of the Government, but in the interest of the dignity of the House, there was some consultation beforehand with those who sat opposite him, with those who did not share his views in all political matters, and who are not entitled to be consulted where it is a mere question of the mode of prosecuting Government business. This was not done on this occasion, and the first that my friends and I knew of this proposed rule was when the right hon. Gentleman read the terms of it at the Table yesterday.
In coming to the actual proposal I would point out some respects in which, at all events, the new rule might, I think, be amended. I think the House will follow me in this—that where a Member behaves in a disorderly fashion and is named, and is suspended from the Chair, in the usual and recognised manner, there are three separate stages, as it were, possible. There is first of all, the possibility of a Member of his own accord, under the compulsion, of course, of the decision of the House, but under no other compulsion, removing himself from the House. A further stage is when the public officer appointed for the purpose—the Serjeant-at-Arms—goes up to a Member and calls upon him to obey the order of the House and remove himself from the precincts of the House. He subjects himself, no doubt, in one sense, to force, but it is only constructive force. The Serjeant-at-Arms may touch the Member lightly on the shoulder and formally ask him to leave. That is legal force, but not physical force. Then with a friendly sign. hon. Members have obeyed without a murmur. Their idea of their own independence of action was vindicated, but they obeyed under compulsion. Up to that point, I think, a member is within his right, as it were, if he choose to take that course. The other night we came to a further stage, to which we have not been accustomed. There was actual physical resistance to this legal compulsion; and there lies the danger to the order and

851
decency of our proceedings against which we ought to guard. Now I think that there ought not to be any intervention of a new rule previous to the occurrence of that last stage; and I would suggest, not by way of moving an Amendment or suggesting even that I should move an Amendment to the rule, that after the first word "Speaker" in the third line there should be inserted —I have jotted the words down hurriedly—"if a member shall refuse to obey the direction of the Speaker and disregard the action of the Serjeant-at-Arms in enforcing that decision." The rule would then read—
"If any Member, or Members acting jointly, who have been suspended under this order from the service of the House, shall refuse to obey the direction of the Speaker, and disregard the action of the Serjeant-at-Arms in enforcing that decision, the Speaker shall call the attention of the House to the fact that recourse to force is necessary in order to compel obedience to his direction,"
and so on. That is the point at which we pass from a perfectly orderly proceeding to that which is necessarily disciplinary. I think it is there that the new provision, which would guard us against this sort of proceeding of which we complain, should come in. I think the adoption of the addition I suggest would make a great difference in the way in which the Rule would be regarded by a large number of Members of the House—if the new provision did not intervene too early, as it were, and if it was only after there was clearly a danger of actual physical force being required that we should proceed to the strong measure contemplated by this Order. I think that would sufficiently guard against a recurrence of such a scene as we all deplore, and at the same time it would leave Members free to adopt a certain form of protest, which they may consider a dignified form of protest, against the enforcement of the rule of the House.
Another point upon which I think the debate will probably disclose some difference of opinion is as to the extent of the punishment inflicted. The whole of a session is a very long time—[HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!]—when the occurrence takes place at an early period of the session; you practically disfranchise a constituency. Well, I
852
name it as a point upon which I think difference of opinion will be found amongst men who are just as anxious as any hon. Member opposite to prevent such scandals as we saw the other night, and to vindicate the dignity and honour of the House, I leave it there. Of course there is not a word to be said, and I am not one to say a single syllable, by way of excuse for what happened; there can be no excuse, much less justification or palliation, in one sense. But there may be, circumstances when there has been an unnecessary occasion given for a state of feeling leading and contributing to such conduct, and I venture, before, I sit down, merely to point out, in a word or two, that when you have a Vote on Account, which you take by the closure in one night, for a, sum large enough to carry over the Government till the end of the session, that is rather a strong order.
MR. A. J. BALFOHR: On a point of order, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman is, I will not say criticising my conduct in moving the closure the other night, but saving it was a very strong order. [An IRISH MEMBER: So it was.] I have no objection to that if I have the right of reply, but I do not think the charge ought to be made if I have not the right of reply.
*MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has the right of reply.
MR A. J. BALFOUR: On a specific charge?
*MR. SPEAKER: I was going to say that it is not relevant to go into the question of the history of the debate through which this disorder arose.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: All I argue for is this, that in framing and applying a rule of this sort we must not forget that there may even be a series of circumstances in the conduct of the business of the House which lead to a very great exasperation of feeling, and, therefore, make it not unnatural that hon. Members should sometimes take up a strong position in opposition to the ordinary course of business. I go no further than that. We must bear that in mind when we are laving down rules

853
of this kind, which have the effect of preventing disorder, yet may do so in such a way as to appear to interfere with the privileges of Members and their constituents. That is all I wish to say in reference to what you, Sir, have said, I had no intention of going into the question of the circumstances which led to the incident before us. Of that incident I have nothing but condemnation to express, and my only object is to assist the Government, if they will allow us to do so, in framing such a rule as, without being unnecessarily severe, may have the effect of preventing the development amongst us of those scenes of violence which we all so deeply deplore.
MR. DILLON: On a point of order. I have some Amendments to move which I think will come in before the right hon. Gentleman's.
*MR. SPEAKER: Dose the right hon. Gentleman move?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I wish, to associate myself with both the right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in the expression of a desire to discuss this matter calmly, and not to import any heat into the discussion, it is my intention to follow that line. I do not know whether I shall succeed or not. [A laugh.] Yes, because the House must in fairness recognise, that I come to the consideration of this question from an entirely different standpoint to that of either one or the other of the right hon. Gentlemen. From the point of view of the calm consideration of this matter, I think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would have been well advised if he had postponed for a few days bringing this matter before the House. However, I trust that none of what I may call that bad blood which arose the other night still exists, and that we may be able to discuss the subject with calmness.
This new rule is of course directed against the Irish Members; but I desire to say that in my opinion it is a matter which concerns the House of I Commons and the Parliament of England
854
and its British Members far more than it concerns the Irish Members. I have risen to protest against this rule, and, leaving aside just for a moment the peculiar Irish aspect of the question, I would venture to impress upon the House that in a free assembly, or what professes to be a free assembly, the enactment of penal provisions such as these is a hateful and degrading proceeding, which is not to be tolerated unless in the first place it is absolutely necessary, and, in the second place. I suggest he had the duty thrown upon him of seeing that the particular proposal that he made was the least oppressive and the least degrading he could devise to effect the object he had in view. Let me ask, is any change of this kind in the Standing Orders of this House necessary in order to prevent proceedings such as those which took place on Tuesday? The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is justified in his mind, and in the mind of the majority of this House, by the proceedings of Tuesday night; and it will be in your recollection, Sir, as no doubt it will be in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman, that yesterday afternoon, when I desired to discuss the whole circumstances connected with that event, I was unable to do so on a motion of privilege, but the Leader of this House said—
"Now the hon. Gentleman desires that there should be an opportunity for discussing what has occurred; I suppose for considering also what means may be taken of preventing its recurrence."
And then he went on to say that he would make a statement and a motion which would give me that opportunity.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman is unintentionally misinterpreting what I said, or it may be that I expressed myself badly. The point raised was whether there would be an opportunity of discussing the case of the hon. Member for South Fermanagh and the case of another Gentleman which the hon. Member for East Mayo desired to raise yesterday. When Mr. Speaker explained that it could not be raised yesterday, I got up and said that, although it could not be raised yesterday, I understood from Mr. Speaker's ruling that it could be raised on some subsequent occasion. I then added that there would

855
be an opportunity given for discussing how such scenes could be prevented. That is all I intended to convey.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I do not wish to raise any conflict of recollection between the right hon. Gentleman and myself, but be will forgive me perhaps if I read the, words in The Times report. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that I had raised the narrow point of these two Members; but my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo asked an additional question with reference to the discussion of the whole subject. Then the Leader of the House spoke as follows—
"I understood from the question of the hon. Member for Waterford that what he desired was an opportunity of discussing the case of these two gentlemen who regard themselves as being aggrieved. That opportunity will be granted as soon as they have put themselves in communication with Mr. Speaker. Now the hon. Gentleman desires that there should be an opportunity for discussing what has occurred, I suppose, for considering what means may be taken for preventing its recurrence."
And he goes on—
"I think it possible—although I can make no statement at the present time—I shall be able to make a statement within a few hours for an opportunity to be given to the House to discuss both these questions."
I have only alluded to that matter to explain the line I intend to take in the few remarks with which I shall trouble the House. Admittedly this proposed rule springs out of the proceedings of last Tuesday; and I feel that if the proceedings of last Tuesday are to be used as an argument justifying the passage of this proposal, I am entitled to consider what those proceedings were.
In the first place, I say to right hon. Gentleman that, speaking generally, if the government of this House is in the future to be carried on by closure, by the suppression of adequate discussion, upon large Estimates, then not the most stringent rule which the wit of man can devise will save this House from a recurrence of scenes which no man in any part of the House desires to see interrupting the course of business here. For the proceedings of Tuesday last I say there is no precedent. The right hon. Gentleman may tell me that there have been other occasions in recent
856
years when the discussion on Votes on Account for large sums of money was confined to one night. I say that within recent years there is not one single precedent of a Vote on Account of this magnitude being passed after one night's discussion; and especially there is no precedent of such a Vote, covering a multitude of subjects, including millions of money affecting Ireland and Scotland, being passed after only one topic of discussion had been raised. I saw in the Daily News to-day—["Oh, oh!"]—I give it for what it is worth. Hon. Gentlemen will perhaps allow me to remark that what I am going to quote from the Daily News is not an impersonal statement in a leading article, but a statement from the well-known House of Commons correspondent of that paper. In that he states that he was aware of his own personal knowledge that the Leaders of the Opposition were approached by the Government as to the Votes to be discussed on Tuesday, and were asked to select the first Votes; and the Opposition selected the Education Vote and the Board of Trade Vote; that the education discussion went on and that the, closure was moved, cutting out the discussion on the Board of Trade as well as other things, without any word of explanation being given here to the Leaders of the Opposition with whom this understanding had been arrived at.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There was no such understanding.
A Member OF THE FRONT OPPOSITION BENCH: Oh yes, there was.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I am not making this statement, of my own authority. If it is wrong, of course it can be corrected. But what I do want to say on my own authority is that, having taken particular pains myself to make inquiries in every unofficial quarter of the House. I ascertained, I satisfied myself at any rate, that it was the universal impression that no attempt would be made to closure the Vote on Account. Under these circumstances very many Members left the building. I left and a number of my colleagues also—a number of Members from all sides of the House, under this impression, left. And then suddenly, after twelve o'clock, after only

857
the one subject had been discussed, the closure was moved, and there occurred what I will say, with a full sense of my responsibility, was a natural ebullition of feeling on the part of a number of Members in this quarter of the House. They have been told since that they ought not to have objected to this procedure because all the items mentioned in the Vote on Account could be discussed afterwards in Committee of Supply. But those who make that statement forget that it was only the other day that an additional day for the discussion of Irish Estimates was refused by the right hon. Gentleman, and that we are confined to three days out of the whole session for the discussion of the multitude of questions arising on Irish Supply. It has been stated that, what I have called the ebullition of feeling on the part of a number of my colleagues —as I venture to assert with great malice in some of the newspapers of the country—was a premeditated and deliberate action on their part. I desire to give that the most unqualified and absolute denial. I am sure that even those who are most bitterly opposed to the line I take in the House will believe me when I say that it was absolutely unpremeditated, and that no one was more astonished than I was next morning when I opened my newspaper. I say it was a natural ebullition of feeling on the part of a number of Members of this House, and if it was an isolated instance of the closure I would not use that epithet. But this procedure on Tuesday night was part and parcel of a deliberate system of closure which has been put into operation this year. We are told that the discussions on Estimates must be scamped because certain financial arrangements must be completed by 31st of March, the House having met on 14th February. Is that an argument? Next year, perhaps, the House will not meet until 1st March, and then the same argument will be used—"You must have less discussion this year because there is less time." No, Sir, that is no answer, no argument.
The fact is there is and there has been on the part of the Government and of the majority of the House for a number of years a deliberate attempt put on foot to stifle the voice of independent criticism of the Estimates, and to reduce
858
to an absolute nullity what is the first and greatest constitutional right of this House—namely, discussion of grievance before the voting of money. I assert deliberately that the whole, moral responsibility for what occurred on Tuesday last rests on the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House of Commons has a post of great responsibility—not merely responsibility to the Government, whose business he is trying successfully to manage, but the higher and wider responsibility for the freedom and efficiency and the dignity of the House of Commons. And I say from the double point of view, both of the interests of the Government and the wider interests of this deliberative assembly, he is morally responsible for what occurred. I have been in this House now for a considerable number of years, and my experience has been that Government has never in the long run gained by what I may call Parliamentary sharp practice, by an attempt to use constant closure and by an attempt to deprive the voice of independent criticism of free utterance. Any such attempt that I have ever witnessed by either of the great English parties has recoiled upon itself, and this is a case in point. What has the Government gained by, without the slightest intimation or notice, closuring this seventeen millions of money? It was done, we are told, in the interests of time. What is the result? You have dislocated entirely your programme of business, and you have had to give up to another thorny and most dangerous subject time, which could be usefully and quietly employed in the further discussion which was necessary. And from the point of view of the House of Commons as a great deliberative assembly, which boasts that it is the mother of Parliaments, which boasts that it is a free assembly, what is the result? I regard the action of the right hon. Gentleman from the point of view of the English Parliament as absolutely fatal. Does the saving of a few hours, even if you had succeeded in saving a few hours, to convenience the Government in the passage of Supply, compensate you for having the credit and renown of this assembly dragged in the mire as it was on Tuesday night, and, as I venture to assert, dragged in the mire as it is being dragged to-night, when you are proposing

859
this monstrous resolution? Year by year you have been lowering and degrading the status of this Parliament; step by step you have been depriving it of its historic rights, privileges, and freedom. If I were to regard this solely as an Irish Nationalist, I might perhaps find in that fact some consolation, because, after all, having robbed Ireland of her Parliament and having compelled us to come across the water to your Parliament, it cannot but be some consolation to us to find that the price you have to pay is so high and bitter.
Is there no remedy possible for the state of things that has arisen except the enactment of these penal regulations? I will say respectfully to the House of Commons the remedy is to be found, not in these penal regulations, which, however you may devise them, may be broken, and, if this system goes on, no doubt in the future will lie broken—the remedy lies in the more considerate government of the affairs of the House, and the abstention from tyrannical interference with the fair liberty of discussion. I believe that this proposal is unnecessary, and that yon can deal with the situation that has arisen better by leaving the rules as they are and showing more consideration to private Members. Therefore, on the ground of want of necessity, I say the case for this resolution has broken down.
Apart from that, the resolution itself is, in my opinion, a most extravagant one. I remember well when, in 1880, Sir Stafford Northcote, then Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House, was proposing the original very moderate rule dealing with the suspension of private Members for a day or a week, he recognised the danger of leaving it in the power of any person, no matter how highly placed, by naming a number of men to suspend them from the exercise of their function as Members. He said on 28th May, 1880—
"They recognised the importance of giving the. Speaker and Chairman of Committees an opportunity of putting a stop to an offence on the spur of the moment but they did not deem it right to give to any authority, however high, acting upon short notice, the power of suspending Members for a considerable time."
That was the original view expressed when the resolution was first introduced. I well remember coming down to the House in 1882, when the proposal was
860
made to extend that Order and make it more oppressive—I well remember how Lord Randolph Churchill fought this proposal line by line. I remember well his phrase, which rang through the House when he denounced the proposal to suspend Members for one month, as a last resort, as "a ferocious and savage" proposal. Now it is proposed to leave in the hands of the Chairman of Committees or the Speaker—because that is what it comes to—the power of naming any number of men for disorderly conduct, and then following on that comes their suspension practically. [Cries of "No."] Yes; the interruption is puerile. The Speaker or the Chairman of Committees names the men and the House then votes for or against their suspension. That is quite true. But have we not had the experience this afternoon of how docile the House is in accepting the motion to expel men whose names are read from the Chair, even although some of those men have not been in the premises at all? I take the constitutional ground that you have no right to suspend the action of a Member of Parliament for a whole session. It is a penalty in very many cases not inflicted upon him. I know that a great number of the Members of this House do not regard their attendance here as any great pleasure or privilege. I know a number of Members whose attendance in this House means for them practically ruin in their professions, and who come here simply from a sense of public duty, and' who would not suffer in the slightest degree if you suspended them for the remainder of the session. But you are inflicting a penalty on the constituency, and a penalty upon the constituency for an act to which the constituency cannot possibly be privy in any way. If you answer me by saying that the constituency ought not to elect men capable of such conduct, then I say—"Have the courage of your convictions and expel the men." Ah, Sir, the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich is the only man I have come across so far who is perfectly frank and honest in this matter. He has the courage of his convictions. He is going to move a proposal to the effect that instead of being suspended indefinitely we should be imprisoned indefinitely. I congratulate the noble Lord in being

861
thorough in this matter, although I confess I am rather surprised that he did not put into his Amendment not imprisonment, but the block. From the purely Irish point of view I desire to say that the Irish Members regard this rule with indifference and contempt—with indifference because no penalties you can devise, will have the effect of deterring us from doing what we believe to be our duty, and with contempt because the penalties inflicted in this way we regard not as a reproach, but as an honour. I say that if you go on, if the House of Commons goes on, upon the lines on which it has embarked in this matter, the logical result, and the only logical result, is the disfranchisement of Ireland. I am not sure that that would not be far better. I am sure it would be a far honester system than the present one. As long as you deprive Ireland of the substance of constitutional government and preserve the empty form by bringing us here to this Parliament, where we are always in a permanent minority as compared with the representatives of another country and another nation—so long. Mr. Speaker, as that is the case you will have in your midst a foreign element. There is something deeper in this matter than mere ebullitions of temper on the one side or mere new rules on the other. There is something deeper, something that goes right down to the bed-rock of this Irish question. The Irish Members, brought as they are to this House, are a foreign element in this House, and just like a foreign substance in the human body, when they are here—
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I do not consider myself a foreign substance.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I hope I am more experienced and more sensible than to take any notice of the interruption. I say that, just as in the human body the presence of a foreign substance is a constant source of irritation and a constant source of danger, so the presence of a foreign element in this Parliament is the same, because the foreign element is made up of a body of men who are with you, but not of you; a body of men to whom the ancient glories and the great traditions of this
862
House have no meaning; a body of men who regard this House and this Parliament simply as instruments for the oppression of their country; and in dealing with such an element I assert that no rules the wit of man can devise can possibly save your Parliament from being injured and degraded in the eyes of the world. Sir, that is the penalty that this country is paying to-day for the Union, and will continue to pay for it as long as it lasts. I say, therefore, that we treat the whole of these new rules with indifference and with contempt. I say that every such rule as you are proposing to-night is a weakening and degrading of your own Parliament, and the passing of every such rule as this amounts to the turning, if I may so say, of a searchlight upon the system of government in Ireland, which will expose the system to the knowledge and criticism of the nations of the world. It discloses to the world the fact that, with all your constitutional forms, you hold one portion of the so-called United Kingdom simply by brute force. I say to you, under these circumstances, speaking for myself and, I believe, for many, many Irish Members, go on with your new rule, suspend, expel, and imprison Members, we will not be in the smallest degree deterred. So long as we are forced to come to this House to endeavour, in the midst of a foreign majority, to transact our Irish business, we will use every from of this House, every right, every privilege, every power which membership of this House gives us—we will use these things just as it seems to us to be best for Ireland, quite regardless of the opinion and so-called dignity of British Members, and absolutely careless of the penalties you may devise for our punishment. In conclusion I would only say that my own strong feeling is this, that if in your effort to hold Ireland, according to your present system of government, by force, you degrade and paralyse, and in the end destroy, this famous Assembly, it will be but a just retribution upon you for the baseness and the cruelty with which you destroyed the free Parliament of the Irish people.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it is necessary for me to reply on the main

863
question to the two speeches before we go into Amendments to this resolution. I shall deal very briefly with the two speeches to which we have just listened. The Leader of the Opposition made some complaint against the Government that they had not consulted hon. Gentlemen opposite. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing could give me greater pleasure than to ask his co-operation in matters concerning the common interests of the House; but what was done yesterday was done rapidly, and I am sorry there was no opportunity for consultation. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested an Amendment to the rule, which I think in substance would be an improvement, and if he will move it we will accept it, or if he prefers that it should be moved from this bench my hon. and learned friend or some other Member of the Government will move it, or something substantially identical with it, at a later stage of our debate.
I now turn to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, which was going to be pitched, as he told us, in a calm key of dispassionate discussion.
MR. J. REDMOND: I said I would do my best.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is true the hon. Gentleman said he would do his best. The hon. Gentleman is a great ornament of debate in this House, and I can hardly believe from what I know of him that a person of so great oratorical ability could so completely and so disastrously fail in carrying out the intentions with which he set out. If the hon. Gentleman intended to be conciliatory, that intention most certainly evaporated under the influence of his own oratory at a very early period of his remarks.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I said calm, not conciliatory. It is not an occasion in my view for conciliation on my part.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman says he was not conciliatory, I can hardly describe his speech as "calm." The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say, among other calm observations, and amid the vociferous cheers
864
of his friends, that the whole burden of responsibility for the unhappy incidents of Tuesday last rests upon my unhappy head. The hon. Member has described me as attempting to play the tyrannical master to the House, as unduly curtailing debate, and as consequently affording, if not a justification, at all events some excuse for the strange and unhappy proceedings with which Tuesday night's discussion terminated.
Let me remind the House, by giving a bare statement of facts, what the situation is with regard to Supply. The hon. Gentleman said the excuse the Government put forward for moving the closure at twelve o'clock was that it was necessary to get Supply by 31st March. Sir, that is not the main reason why I moved the closure on Tuesday night, nor was that proceeding of so strange and unprecedented a character as the hon. Gentleman appears to suppose. The hon. Gentleman talked as if we were voting seventeen millions for the services of the year in a manner which would abstract the subjects to which the money was to be devoted from any further discussion by the House. The hon. Gentleman knows that that does not represent the facts. The old practice of the House was that a Vote on Account, as it was merely in anticipation of the Estimates, was not an occasion on which subjects could with advantage be raised. For reasons which I need not go into, discussions in Supply became longer and longer, more and more inconvenient to the Government of the day, and more and more were carried on until late in August, under what were admittedly impossible and disastrous conditions. Now, the result was that two or three Votes on Account were at different times put forward, and the House, being deprived of legitimate opportunities for discussion, naturally took advantage of the Votes on Account to raise matters of importance. All that was subsequently altered, with the approval of the House, and new Supply rules were introduced allowing a maximum of twenty-three days for Supply, distributed evenly over the session, so as to give Gentlemen on both sides full opportunity for discussion of the actions of the Government. A division on a Vote on Account on the first night is an almost

865
necessary corollary of that rule, because as long as the Vote on Account is included in the twenty-three days, if it goes over two days it takes away one day from the regular discussion of the Estimates. To the Government that matters nothing, as the total amount of time taken for the Estimates cannot exceed twenty-three days. Feeling that that was so, I did, with the approval of the House, move the closure on the first night of the debate, not merely in 1901, but in 1900, 1899, 1898, and in 1897; and I venture to say that every man who occupies my position, so long as the Supply rides continue, will feel himself driven, in the general interest, to do the same, so that miscellaneous and vague discussions on Votes on Account shall be ended as soon as possible, thus allowing as much as possible of the twenty-three days for genuine discussion on the items in the various Estimates laid before the House. That is a simple, straightforward statement of the motives which animated me, acting with my colleagues, not only this year, but last year and the years before, as I have stated. I have never suggested in any of the discussions on the Supply rules that the Vote on Account should take more than one day; on the contrary I have always said that in order to carry on the business of the House decently and in order it was entirely inexpedient that we should give more than a day to that preliminary stage.
The hon. Gentleman accuses me of trying to burke discussion. I do not want to be egotistical, but I say that this Government has done more to make discussion in Supply a reality than any previous Government has done, and the freedom of debate of which the hon. Gentleman complains has never been so largely enjoyed in Supply as during the last Parliament, and as I hope it will be during the remaining sessions of the present Parliament. The hon. Gentleman says that he and his colleagues come to this House as citizens of an oppressed nationality, and that when they do come here they are not allowed a fair share of debate. Has the hon. Gentleman sat here through all the debates conducted by his friends in the course of the present session? Does he know that this oppressed nationality has taken up one-
866
fourth of the whole time which has been occupied in debate during the present session? The session is not old, it is still young, but the hon. Gentleman and his friends had two Amendments on the Address, and they occupied the greater part of the time on every other Amendment to the Address. Since Supply was brought in they have made endless speeches. If I remember rightly, they have made no less than eighty-four speeches, and forty-three of these were made in Committee of Supply. This is the gagged nation! These are the Gentlemen who are not allowed to open their lips by a tyrannical Minister! The House has listened with weary patience to attacks made, not upon politicians, for they are indifferent to those things, but upon the honour and courage of our troops and their conduct in the field. Can anybody say, even the most fanatical partisan, that this House has not proved itself, in this session as in all previous sessions, tolerant to views, however opposed to them and however expressed, so long as they are believed to represent opinions honestly held by even the smallest section of the Opposition?
The hon. Gentleman did not disguise from us towards the end of his speech, when the calmness with which he began had completely disappeared, that he regarded with pleasure, or without displeasure, the fact that his countrymen had inflicted by their conduct a great injury upon the honour and the tradition of this House. He told us that he and his friends were foreigners in a strange land, and that, like any other foreign body introduced into an organism, it produced inflammation, disease, and, as he almost hinted, ultimately death. I will venture to urge upon the House that these concluding words of the hon. Gentleman are ample justification of the rule which, he says he is going to treat with contempt. He does not wish that the traditions and the honour of this House should be maintained. Sir, I confess that there is no Member of this House from whom I should have heard those sentiments with greater pain. The hon. Gentleman is endowed above his fellows, above. I had almost said, any man in this House, with the talents which would enable him to be, what so

867
many of his countrymen have been in the past, a distinguished ornament and Member of the greatest free assembly in the world. If he elects deliberately, and for some unknown motive, to use those talents or encourage others to use their talents in a manner destructive of the honour and dignity of this House, I can only say that the hon, Gentleman is not only doing a great disservice to the Empire of which he is a citizen, and of which, I imagine, he still wishes to be a citizen—he is not only doing a great disservice to that Empire, but he is doing the greatest of all disservices to that portion of the Empire in which he professes to be particularly interested. He tells us that scenes like that on Tuesday night are the penalty we pay for refusing Home Rule to Ireland—a scarcely veiled threat—and are at intervals to be used, if we permit them to be used, to force us, as by a process of torture, to dismember the Empire which we are guarding. Sir, the hon. Gentleman forgets that under the Home Rule scheme which he accepts the blessing of freedom from the presence of Irish Members, as he would describe it, is not to be vouchsafed. The foreign body is still to be in the organism.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have no such desire. When that was proposed, it was proposed by an English party, and was accepted by us, because we thought it was not worth while—[Cries of "Order."] My point is, we do not want to be here.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not going into a discussion on Home Rule. I did not start it; I do not wish to continue it. But I hope hon. Gentlemen above the gangway, if they still take any interest in that question, will take note of the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman of the form in which alone Home Rule would be agreeable to the Irish nation. Sir, I have said sufficient, I think, to defend us who sit on this bench, on whom the responsibility of guiding the House finally rests, to absolve us from the charge so recklessly levelled against us of having unduly curtailed the liberty of Members. I hope I have answered that fully. And as for the main subject of our discussion to-night,
868
I venture to say that if any stranger had come into the gallery for the first time, not knowing what occurred on Tuesday except by report, after hearing the hon. Gentleman's speech, he would have said that that speech, especially its closing portion, was the amplest justification for the measure we are proposing from this side of the House.
*MR. JOHN ELLIS: The right hon. Gentleman has wandered over a very wide field in his speech, and I. have no intention of following him, but perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in this debate upon the proposal immediately before the House, namely, the Amendment to the Standing Order No. 21. I share the pain and humiliation that must have been felt by every Member of the House when I read the record of those proceedings on Tuesday evening. I think the introduction of the physical element on that occasion was a degradation to this House of Commons—I was about to say it was a crime, but it most certainly was a blunder. We who recollect the late Mr. Parnell and the discipline that he maintained in the Irish ranks, discipline without which no party in this House can be effective—we who remember Mr. Parnell recollect that when he found occasion to protest against the proceedings of this House, even to the extent of refusing to obey the orders of the Speaker or Chairman, he did so in a dignified manner. In cases of this kind the late Mr. Parnell was content to retire after a tap on the shoulder from the Serjeant-at-Arms. I venture to say that hon. Members from Ireland would have been better advised if they had followed that example. I have no sympathy whatever—on the contrary, I condemn it root and branch—with anything in this House that requires the introduction of the police within this Chamber. I hope I have made myself clear in that matter.
That, however, does not exhaust the question. I notice that, as the discussion has gone on, other circumstances of that night have been dealt with, although there was an attempt earlier to narrow the discussion. Before a Vote on Account of £17,000,000, carrying the Government on through many months, is put from the Chair

869
such an arrangement ought to have been made as would have enabled the different items to be discussed, but in this case the whole evening was consumed by the interesting discussion on education. Then the Leader of the House came in and moved the closure on that £17,000,000 at the close of the evening, and I say without fear of contradiction that such action is reducing our proceedings to a perfect farce. The right hon. Gentleman has said something about the history of Votes on Account; but, if be will allow me to say so, I do not think he was quite accurate in that history, and no doubt he is relying for the statement upon information supplied to him by some other person. Everyone knows that a Vote on Account is dealt with in an exceptional manner, and it ought not to be included in the twenty-three days allotted to Supply. The proceedings of the other evening are sufficient to illustrate that point. I for one complain that the scene of the other night was led up to, and was the consequence of the manner in which the business was conducted. There certainly was a want of method with regard to the arrangement of the business of the House. The right hon. Gentleman himself had to apologise because he had not taken the usual courteous step of consulting the Leader of the Opposition. Was there ever such a state of things before? The amendment of our Standing Orders is a most serious thing, and when this omission on the part of the right hon. Gentleman was referred to he gets up in an airy way and says that time did not permit him to do so. There was ample time for the Leader of the House during the whole of yesterday to consult the Leader of the Opposition. That argument will not stand a moment's examination.
All our Standing Orders have been drawn up with very great care, and this particular Standing Order No. 21 was the subject of a great deal of discussion in the year 1882, and it was protested against at the time by a man who knew this House better than most Members who have ever sat in it—I allude to the late Lord Randolph Churchill. He protested against it in the strongest manner, and I think it is absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to come down here to-night
870
and move this addition to the Standing Order in the way he has done. As it stands on the Paper the Amendment is drawn in the most slovenly fashion. The Leader of the Opposition has pointed out already one defect in it, and his suggestion has been accepted. When you have previously amended these rules the Amendment has always been made on the motion of a Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was chairman in the year 1886 of a very important Committee, which examined into the rules of our procedure, and he knows very well how much every recommendation of that Committee was discussed before arrived at. I should not think for a moment of voting for the Amendment now on the Paper.
I pass from this point, and I say boldly and unhesitatingly that what you have to rely upon for the preservation of dignity and order in the proceedings of this great assembly are the personal qualifications and the character of those who are elected to the position of Chairman and Speaker and the general spirit and sense of the House. No Standing Orders will bind men who are determined to disobey them. Moral force is the only force that is effective in this case. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out at the beginning of the session that it is on the spirit that pervades the House that you must rely for preserving the efficiency and the dignity of its proceedings. I can find no word strong enough to express my alarm and disapproval of the rashness of this proceeding on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, and, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, there is great danger in the words as they stand on the Paper. For my own part, as a Member of this House who yields to no man in the desire to maintain the dignity of this great place as an instrument of public good, I do not feel myself at liberty to vote for the proposal put forward in its present form.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): I rise to propose an Amendment to the motion.
MR. DILLON: On a point of order. I have an Amendment on the first line which is of very great importance, and

871
I may be shut out from moving it if the Attorney General moves his Amendment now.
*MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member is prepared to move his Amendment now, I have no doubt the Attorney General will give way.
MR. BROADHURST: I have another point of order. I am sure that there is a very general feeling that the general discussion on the main question should go on and a vote be taken upon it. I want to know, if the Attorney General moves his Amendment now, will we be precluded from continuing the general debate?
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not be precluded from entering into the general question now. There is no Amendment before the House.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: May I ask, on a point of order, whether, if hon. Members desire to continue the general discussion, they will be shut out from so doing by the Attorney General moving an Amendment at this stage?
*MR. SPEAKER: If there is a desire to continue the general discussion, it would be more convenient that it should take place before an Amendment is moved. I had no information of any such general desire.
*MR. BLAKE: I wish to ask whether it is not in accordance with our usual practice and custom that, when a number of Members desire to move Amendments on different parts of the main motion, the proceeding should be so adjusted as that these Members should not be deprived of the opportunity of presenting their Amendments? Some of us feel very strongly in regard to this question.
*MR. SPEAKER: The proper and more convenient course would be if the Amendments were laid on the Table. There is no Amendment on the Table. I have every wish to accommodate hon. Members.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: If there is a general desire that my Amendment
872
should come further on in the discussion I am prepared to give way.
*SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to say a few words on the main question, and they shall be brief. I think, however, that the great majority of the House is agreed that if any possible means could be adopted to prevent a repetition of the deplorable scenes of Tuesday night they should be taken. Although I would be glad to sec the resolution amended in certain respects, I certainly should support it in the main. The great majority of the House is so agreed on the point of general regret for the scenes that have occurred that it is hardly necessary for me to dwell upon them. My purpose in rising, mainly, is to express my deep regret that the closure was moved the other night. I do not think the moving and the carrying of the closure were any justification for what happened, but I want to say a very few words with regard to the defence made by the First Lord of the Treasury for moving the closure on a Vote of Account. I do not believe that there is any precedent for closuring a large Vote on Account when only one single item on that Vote had been discussed. At all events, I do not recollect such a closure before. My memory may be in error. Possibly the only precedent for it was during the discussion on the Jameson Raid, which of course was a matter of great interest, and caused much excitement in the House. But even on that occasion there was a, two nights debate on the Vote on Account. What was the, defence of the First Lord of the Treasury? He said that every single item of the Votes would be open to discussion on a future occasion. If that happened in practice it would be a very good defence, but no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that it never does happen. This is not a charge which I bring against the present Ministry alone. Over and over again it has been proved that discussion in Supply of the most important subjects has been constantly burked. Therefore that is a strong argument against closuring the Vote on Account. This is one of the few occasions on which we can discuss everything. [Mr. BALFOUR was understood to dissent.] Well, this is one of the very few

873
opportunities of discussing most important questions. What was the course of procedure that night? A special subject was brought forward, a very important subject, no doubt; an Amendment was moved, and the result was that no other subject could be discussed; and hon. Members were encouraged to speak in order to keep the debate going [HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] I make this general statement, which I am quite able to prove. I simply say that this was an occasion on which above all others the closure ought not to be have been applied. There were many subjects of great importance that ought to have been discussed. I do say that the rights of private Members have been so grossly infringed upon within the last few years, and the discussion of great public questions has been so frequently burked, that it is time independent Members made a protest. The idea that by closuring the debate on the Vote on Account you thereby ensure discussion of most important subjects in Supply is a purely fantastic idea of the Leader of the House. I blame the Leaders of the Opposition very much on this point; for of recent years Members on the Front Opposition Bench have not fulfilled their duly in insisting that important subjects should be discussed. They might have done a good deal to support independent Members in this respect. I think this is an occasion on which, in view of the turn which the debate has taken, independent Members are justified in making protest. I venture to enter that protest, because I feel very strongly the taking away from the House as a whole what I regard as one of its greatest privileges—namely, the insistence on the discussion of grievances before granting Supply.
MR. BROADHURST: I think if anything could justify the complaint which has been made to-night it has been the heated passion displayed in the course of the debate by the Leader of the House. He made a most passionate appeal to his followers to support this motion, by a reference to subjects which had not been mentioned in the debate—I mean, the speeches of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland parties to Army affairs in South Africa. We have evidence sufficient to-night to show us that the decision to
874
move this Amendment on Standing Order No. 21 was taken on the high-tide of excitement of the Government in regard to the proceedings the other night. The right hon. Gentleman had to admit to the Leader of the Opposition that he had not consulted him because he had not time. Why, to come down to the House and move an Amendment to the Standing Orders which will disfranchise constituencies for six months at a time, is a proceeding which ought not to have been taken in heat and hurry, and without proper and due consideration. Now, I was here the whole of the night on Tuesday, and of course I never took part in supporting any Member of this House in disobeying the Orders of the House. But had you, Mr. Speaker, been here during the whole of that evening, had yon been a witness to the accumulating indignation of the House between ten and twelve o clock, you would not have been so surprised that something irregular should arise before the House closed. Those of us who were here at the time were discussing a subject of the utmost importance to the interests of our country, the question of education; and many of us had no opportunity of taking part in the debate because of the short time at our disposal. Then, the only member of the Government who was present for the greater part of the night was the Vice-President of the Council, who was left without the patronage and sympathy and support which he might have received from other members of the Cabinet during the debate. That was the condition of things that led up to the excitement which culminated in the unfortunate and regrettable incident on the benches below the gangway.
The Leader of the House has, with all the marvellous skill of which he is so great a master, tried in the two or three speeches he has made to-night to locate this as a question between the Members for Ireland and his own party. No, Sir, this is a House of Commons question. I would like, if the Leader of the House will permit me, to take the liberty to remind him that there are still other parties in the House than that which owns allegiance to his sway and great power. There are still a few Liberals left, and we as well as Irishmen are con-

875
cerned for the liberty of the House and the freedom of action of its Members. I am here to-night to say that we have known occasions when disobedience to the orders of the House by an hon. Member has borne great fruit, and produced great results for the welfare of a large section of the community. I remember when the late Mr. Plimsoll, then Member for Derby, came down to the House and gave an exhibition of his earnestness almost amounting to a threat of violence to the Leader of the House. And the immediate result was the passing of the Shipping Act of 1876, which formed the basis of many Acts which followed, and which have saved the lives of thousands of British seamen.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going beyond the limits of discussion on the point before the House.
MR. BROADHURST: Probably I am, and I am not surprised. I took an active part in the proceedings in those days. Although not at the time a Member, I was within the precincts of the House and saw the whole proceedings, and I know, from my subsequent official connection with the work, what was the great blessing that resulted from it. I say that it is our duty to resist any inroads on the liberties of the House, or upon the freedom of Members, to take such action as they may think proper before granting Supply to the Government. I rather think that the disposition so prevalent in a distant part of our Empire is travelling with great rapidity towards our own country. I have heard it rumoured that some hon. Members desire to strengthen this sentence of exclusion which the Leader of the House has proposed by imposing a sentence of penal servitude, or something of the kind, for disobedience to the rules of the House. What we want is more tact in the general control of the business of the House. In the great Parliament of 1880, with which the First Lord of the Treasury is so intimately acquainted, and of which I am sure he has the most lively recollection, many scenes and incidents took place. I admired the skill with which he and his friends succeeded on those occasions in drawing attention to themselves and to the subjects which, for the time, they espoused. Sir, not-
876
withstanding the high state of obstruction in that Parliament, of which the right hon. Gentleman was one of the leaders, some of the greatest measures of our time were passed; and it is only a want of skill in the management of business on the part of the Front Government Bench that has produced that state of things which led to the revolt on Tuesday night. I hope sincerely that we shall have an opportunity of voting upon the main question before Amendments are introduced on it. I am sure we shall take a large number of Members into the Division Lobby against tampering with our liberties, and I hope the motion will be defeated. When the passions of the moment have cooled down, let the Leader of the House take counsel with the Leader of the Opposition, and then take the House into his confidence, We are all concerned for the honour and dignity of Parliament, and if there is any good ground for mending or modifying the present rules of procedure let it be done with due consideration, and with the advantage of the experience of men in all parts of the House. In that way we might arrive at a discussion of the subject with something like reason, and with some hope of doing something effective for the better control of the Members of this House. I do think that the Leader of the House must admit that he has been most ill-advised in taking this hasty step. He himself has had to admit already that he was so hasty that he had not time to think of the Opposition. He had got it into his mind that there was only one side in the House besides the Irish Members; but he has learned to-night that there are other parties in the House, and that he has shown a want of consideration of the due proportion of things. As I have said, I hope we shall have an opportunity of voting against the main question, and that we shall have a majority against the motion. We might then refer the matter to a Committee representing the whole of the parties in the House. We should not then run a further risk of impairing the authority, the dignity, the honour, and what respect is left to the House of Commons after ten years mismanagement by the Tory party. There should be no attempt to patch up for party purposes

877
and party conveniences the ancient rules and customs of this great House of Parliament, the mother, as it has been called, of the free institutions of the world. Then we should allow time to consider the proposed changes in moments of coolness, and not rush helter-skelter at express speed through the destruction of our liberty such as is proposed by the Leader of the House.
MR. MARKHAM: It is my intention to vote against the resolution of the Government, not for the reason that it goes too far, but that it does not go far enough. The proposed Amendment to the Standing Order will not prevent a recurrence of the disgraceful scenes of Wednesday morning. In my opinion, when any Member defies the authority of the Chair after being called upon to leave the Chamber, the sitting of the House should be suspended for a quarter of an hour. The galleries—the strangers', the ladies', and the reporters'—should be cleared, and the contumacious Members or Member should be forcibly removed in the presence only of the police. I think that in that case there could be no advertisement for any Member wishing to be turned out of the House, and the Members would walk out quietly. I think that to suspend to the end of the session, which may be only a week or a fortnight, a Member who has been guilty of conduct that would disgrace any parish council in Great Britain, does not cover the case. The resolution does not go far enough, and will prove a mere farce. Hon. Members from Ireland have definitely stated that it is their intention to repeat these scenes and these tactics of Wednesday morning. (Cries of "No" from the Irish benches.) I do not wish to advertise the paper, but hon. Members will no doubt know to which one I refer. In that paper several Members of the Irish party who were removed from the House on Wednesday morning bad been interviewed, and they stated that they proposed to go on again with these disgraceful proceedings. The hon. Member for Waterford stated that the most stringent rules which the wit of man could devise will not prevent a repetition of these scenes. Something must be done if we wish to maintain the dignity of a
878
Parliament ruling four hundred millions of human beings under just and equitable laws.(Cries of "No" from Irish benches.) If you have any laws in Ireland which are not just, there is a desire on every side of the House to remove them. But when you come here and say that you are a foreign element, and intend to bring disgrace on everything connected with Parliament, you must remember that when you do so you insult not only Parliament, but the Empire.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Off with our heads!
MR. MARKHAM: The first Lord of the Treasury has referred to the attacks made by hon. Members sitting on the Irish benches on the soldiers of the Empire. Let me say to these hon. Members that in behaving as they have done they are damaging the interests they wish to serve. In the course they have taken these Irish Members are the worst enemies of Ireland. If they would only come here and present their case to the House with moderation, I am certain the House wishes to do what is right. I trust my fellow countrymen will never he coerced into doing what is wrong.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Neither will we.
MR. MARKHAM: While hon. Members choose to defy the authority of the Chair, and attempt to make this House nothing more nor less than a pot-house, not only lowering Parliament, but the nation at large. I say that the time has come when a protest should be made against it. Members should have the courage of their convictions, and never mind whether Ireland be disfranchised or not. If Ireland chooses to send representatives to this House who refuse to obey the laws and rules of order, then let Ireland be unrepresented. There is no injustice done to them by that, if the decencies of law and order are not observed in this House by hon. Members from Ireland. If they will not conform to them, then let them remain away. No injustice whatever would he done to Ireland, and the course I suggest would be merely following the dictates of common sense.

879
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
*MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The House of Commons has in its long and splendid history witnessed many strange sights. It has seen its privileges invaded by a monarch, its doors have been barred and locked, and access refused to Members by a soldier, and I have myself seen a Member duly elected to this House dragged across the lobbies and the corridor, and ejected from the building, although the House was glad enough and willing enough to admit afterwards that they were wholly wrong, I have seen a free fight on the floor of this Assembly, originated not by the Irish Members, but by English. Members; but I think that a sadder or more terrible sight was never witnessed in this occasion I voted against the First Lord or any other legislative Assembly in Europe than the scene of Tuesday last. I am one of those Irish representatives who deeply deplore what took place, and who sincerely regret the dishonour done to this House and the injury that I believe has been done to Ireland by it. Feeling that, I shall vote for any reasonable resolution that will make a recur rence of such scenes impossible in the future, and that will punish any offender who violates to that extent the order and rules of this House. I desire, having said so much, to state two things. I am with those who have said to-night that there is some responsibility for this trouble elsewhere than on the Irish benches.
Let me say that I voted on Tuesday night for the closure. I say that frankly, but I did not vote for the closure because I thought it ought to have been applied. I voted for it simply because of the exigencies of Supply, and because of the difficulty of the position in which His Majesty's Government was placed as to time. That was the real reason that made me vote for the closure, and if I had had the opportunity I should have voted for the granting of this £17,000,000 on Account. But I do think that the First Lord of the Treasury has gone a little out of his way to vindicate the closure on the Vote on Account after one day's discussion. I remember
880
that in the year 1892 I was engaged in discussing the Chief Secretary for Ireland's salary, and he was a Home Rule Chief Secretary. I was engaged discussing it on a Vote on Account, and when the discussion had lasted one day the Vote was closured, and the present First Lord of the Treasury supported me in resisting the closure. It is all the same whatever Government is in power, for they will use the rules upon the Order Book to secure their own purposes, and the House of Commons may make up its mind that these weapons now used against Irishmen may be used against Englishmen as well. As I stated before, my objection to the closure was on account of the exigencies of Irish Supply. I made a strong appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury for Irish Supply, that is, to give us four days instead of three. That appeal of mine was refused, and on that occasion I voted against the First Lord of the Treasury, and I was not the only Ulster Member on this side who voted against him on that occasion. It was refused, and the Vote on Account was put the other night. I am bound to say that it was a startling proposal to vote £17,000,000, £2,000.000 of which were for Irish services, without a word having been said upon anything in the Vote but an English subject. There are a great many new Members in this House, and the Irish party is to a large extent made up of new Members. I was a close observer of what took place the other night, and on the question of the closure being put an Irish hon. Member desired to speak upon the motion, but he was pulled down to his seat by those sitting near him. What I want to point out is, that there are a great many hon. Members in the Irish party who are new to the House, and who are not aware of the strictness of the closure rule, and who in ignorance of that fact took opposition to that rule, which, had their leaders been present, they would not have taken.
I heard the speech of the hon. Member who spoke last with great pain. What is the use of any English Member coming down to the House of Commons and lecturing Irishmen? Of course, I know that it was a new Member who did it, for no man who had been in this House for years would have ever have dreamt of doing

881
it. It is one thing to address sound arguments to the House, but quite another thing to lecture Irish Members and tell them that England would do this and that. Irish Members do not care a row of pins for that sort of argument, which, instead of doing good, does harm. What I rose principally to state to-night is this. This House of Commons must never forget one important fact—that when they are dealing with Ireland and with the representatives from Ireland who sit on the opposite side of the House they are dealing with a country and with men who pay an unwilling allegiance to it. I say that the statesman who leaves that out of sight, the politician in this House who refuses to recognise it, misses the whole fact of the situation. We are governing in Ireland a people without the consent of the over whelming majority of those people. In all our dealings with Ireland, and in all our dealings with hon. Members opposite representing Ireland, I. say that we ought never to lose sight of this fact, and in everything we do we ought to try to conciliate and to meet the arguments and the desires of those representatives, so far as they can be met within the principles professed by the Government on this side of the House. We ought to conciliate and try to meet these men as far as it is possible to do it. Conciliation will go a long way where coercion will break down utterly. My point is that it is no use for English Members sitting on these benches to lecture Irishmen, and they had better recognise at once that the Irish Members in this House are fighting England in the only way in which they can fight her. They have their constituents at their back, and the sterner the fight the better the constituents will like it. It is a lamentable thing, a hundred years after the Legislative Union, that this spirit, this reckless spirit, should still prevail. Disorder cannot be tolerated; disobedience to the Speaker and the rules of the House must be put down with a stern hand; and I shall vote to-night to do it; but the disorder is tar deeper seated than Members on this side of the House appear to think, and it will require far different treatment than the imprisonment suggested by the noble Lord to remove it. The treatment will have to be far different. The House,
882
recognising the fact that these men are unwilling guests there, that England destroyed their own Parliament, must first of all try to conciliate them, and meet their wishes so far as they can be fairly and honourably met consistently with the principles the Government were placed in power to support.
MR. DILLON: On behalf of the Nationalist Members I think I will be expressing their feelings when I thank the hon. Gentleman for the remarkable speech to which we have just listened. He is one who has been a great opponent of ours in the past, and he is still a champion of the Union, arid I warn the members of that party in this House that if they are wise they will listen to the voice of an Irish Unionist who knows something about the subject. For my part, I do not believe in the possibility of maintaining the Union, but I believe if it had a chance it would be on the lines of the speech of the hon. Member—in making an attempt to prove to the Irish people that we are wrong in our contention. For if the people of Ireland come to believe that their representatives here will not get a fair hearing, and are subjected to treatment that would not be meted out and a spirit displayed to them which is not displayed to any other section in the House, then you will increase the disaffection in Ireland, and convince the Irish people that they have been quite right all along, and have no reason to look here for justice. I listened to the speech on this side of the House to which the hon. Gentleman alluded in his speech; that was the speech of a Liberal Imperialist, and I gladly accept him as an example of that abominable creed. The Tories opposite are Liberals compared to him, and in the course of this debate, so far, I have heard nothing from Members opposite of insult or of a desire to increase the severity of this "scandalous and ferocious rule"—to adapt the words of Lord Randolph Churchill. It has been reserved for a Liberal Imperialist to turn round and talk to Irish Members in the fashion that we used to hear in '80 and '81. There are some of us who remember those days, in which we were patriots. Time vindicated our efforts, and the measures we were then howled at for advocating have been placed upon the

883
Statute Book, and the spirit which existed in those days has died completely out, and I for one, who passed through them, know this, that there are men who are now ashamed of the part they took in them. In the opinion of the hon. Member to whom I allude, the wording of the motion is much too mild. I have a great deal more experience than he, and when he comes to my age he will have learnt that the tone and spirit which he, displayed is precisely the tone and spirit which would make the maintenance of order and decency in any assembly in the world absolutely impossible. Nobody knows, Sir, better than yourself that without some good feeling, without some sense of respect for every Member, without that sense which makes every man feel in his own person the humiliation of a colleague, no rules ever devised in any assembly in the world would preserve decency or order. I maintain—and I have been twenty years in the House, and I have never taken part in such a scene as that which took place on Tuesday night last—that if the Government think that by tightening the bond more and more every day, by cutting off year after year, as they have done for the last five years, what I might call safety valves for the expression of opinion, and trusting to and relying alone upon coercive legislation—if they think they will improve the order and decency and respect of this House, they are preparing for themselves a most painful disappointment. There was a time, comparatively recently, when this assembly contrasted very favourably for the order and decency of its debates with any legislature in the world. That day has gone by. The scene of Tuesday night could not be paralleled in the French Chamber, nor in the Reichstag at Berlin, and if the spirit displayed in the ludicrous and absurd Amendment of Lord Hugh Cecil was to govern the proceedings of the House the time would soon come when the British House of Commons would occupy the same position in the opinion of Europe as the Austrian Reichsrath does to-day. I do not desire to see that. I believe, and always have believed, and I have governed my conduct for twenty years in that belief, that within the rules of order in this House the power of an organised Irish Party, supported by
884
our people at home, is sufficient to win the rights of Ireland, and, believing that. I do not want to have a recurrence of these disgraceful scenes in which we suffer; but if you rely on coercion, if you drive any large section of the House into a repetition of Tuesday night's scenes, we will not be the greatest sufferers.
I would ask hon. Members in all seriousness when they are addressing themselves to the consideration of this question, which seems to have been put before the House by the First Lord of the Treasury with singular callousness and want of thought, whether this rule is not important in its wording? I think it is an odious thing to hear the Leader of the House talk about the "punishment" of Members. The House, of course, must insist on maintaining its rules of order, and whatever measures are necessary to enforce the authority of the Chair and the order of debate the House is entitled to take, but you must always remember that it is your colleague who is subject to disciplinary action, and having purged his conduct he becomes your colleague again, and you must not forget that men who are guilty of breaches of order are not criminals, and we are bound to assume that they are incited, whether right or wrong, by some conviction of public duty, and so long as they are going to be your colleagues in future, in going upon this theory of punishment you are on the wrong road, which will lead only to disaster. It should not be a question of punishment; it should be merely a question of such discipline as may be necessary to enforce the ruling of the Chair.
Now, I listened with astonishment to the speech delivered by the First Lord of the Treasury. When he was introducing this rule he made a statement which I am compelled to characterise as an absolutely inaccurate statement. He said that this scene the other night was an outrage on the part of the Irish Members without parallel. I challenge that statement, and say it is absolutely contrary to fact. No doubt the scene of policemen promenading up the floor of the House was unparalleled. Since the day when Oliver Cromwell marched into the House surrounded by soldiers and seized

885
the mace and carried it away, no such scene has been seen, but when the First Lord of the Treasury said it was an unparalleled outrage committed by Irishmen I absolutely deny it. I will take two cases where outrage committed by hon. Members not Irish were infinitely greater than that of last Tuesday night. The Irish Members last Tuesday night are regarded as felons. I say that statement is absolutely contrary to the facts. No doubt the bringing of a large body of police on to the floor was unparalleled, but the Irish Members offered violence to nobody until they were assaulted by a large body of police. What happened in the Committee of this House in 1893? It is within the recollection of many of the older Members of the House. The case is very analogous to the present one. The closure had been moved by Mr. Gladstone. When the hour was coming when the automatic closure was to operate, the Opposition of that day put up Mr. Chamberlain, the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary for the Colonies, and at ten minutes to the hour he made a speech of the most ferocious and inflammatory character I have ever listened to. He was put up with the deliberate object of exciting passion. He compared Mr. Gladstone to Herod upon his throne calling to be adored. What was the result? Twenty Members of the House refused to leave their seats and to clear the House for a division. The clamour and the disorder far exceeded what, according to what I have heard, occurred on Tuesday night. They defied the Chairman of Committees. Who were those twenty Members? They are all Ministers and officials since. Amongst them were the hon. Member for East Worcestershire (the son of the Colonial Secretary), the hon. member for South Tyrone, and the hon. Member for Fulham, who is now a Lord of the Treasury. These men refused in precisely the same way, and committed the same offence which the Irish Members committed on these benches, but they were under less provocation—because on that occasion in 1893, they committed it as the result of a cold-blooded conspiracy. They were not taken by surprise, their leader was not absent;
886
their leader was there goading them on to the fight. They had full warning that the closure was coming. Irish Members are held up to execration in connection with the incident of two nights ago. But what happened in the case of the English Members on the occasion to which I have referred? The House was in a wild state of confusion, and Englishmen of the Tory and Liberal Unionist Party were openly defying the authority of the Chair. One hon. Member seized another hon. Member by the collar and endeavoured to throw him on the floor. It was the greatest outrage I have ever heard of in the House. It was an outrage because an English Member committed that violence on an hon. Member of this House without any provocation. That hon. Member is a Lord of the Treasury to-day. That outrage was the worst ever committed in the House of Commons in my memory, and, so far as my reading goes, the worst ever perpetrated in the history of the House.* It led to a free fight on the floor of the House. Mr. (now Lord) Peel, who was then Speaker, when he returned to the Chair, and Mr. Gladstone, a man who had at heart the honour and dignity of the House and of the humblest of its Members, and whose leader-ship was very different from that under which we sit to-day—Lord Peel and Mr. Gladstone spoke words of conciliation and of soothing. What did Lord Peel say? He said, "Let there be no recriminations and let the incident cease."
Now, Sir, one of the things I complain of in the proceedings of the other night is this. I was not here, but I understand there were no words of conciliation, and I am told that the tone of that bench [the Ministerial Bench] was one of insult and contempt. I say deliberately that I do not care in what part of the world you have a large assembly of men, whether it be in Vienna, Berlin, New York, or London, if you attempt to govern a body of free men forming the Members of legislative assemblies on these lines, if you throw away conciliation, and abandon the
*There is an instance, in 1678, of "giving of blows" between two Members on the floor of the House. See The Parliamentary History, vol. iv., page 1045.—ED.]

887
policy of give and take, it is impossible to carry out that rule which we all desire. I thought it necessary to make that protest, because I repudiate again in the most emphatic manner in reply to the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that this was a gross outrage perpetrated on the House. It was nothing of the sort, because no Irish Member offered violence of any kind until the police came in and endeavoured to pull them out of the House. Their resistance up to that time was passive resistance, which has again and again been indulged in by other Members of the House. Your own Members have done it, and, of course, they were treated in a different manner because they were English. I repeat again, that the reason of the feeling which has been displayed in regard to this resolution is because the offence on this occasion was committed by Irishmen. If it had been committed by Englishmen, or by any other section of the House, an attempt would have been made at conciliation, and no such penal rule as this would have been proposed.
I come to another case almost equally in point. Some of us remember the days of Charles Bradlaugh, a man I learned to like and have a respect for. Those who were responsible for his maltreatment came to regard him with respect. The case of Mr. Charles Bradlaugh is an instructive case from two points of view. First of all in regard to the different way you treated an English constituency. I desire to associate the privileges of the constituency with those of the Member. You cannot dissociate them. Charles Bradlaugh for two or three years deliberately and repeatedly defied the Speaker and the rides of order in this House. He marched into this House and sat on the cross-bench when an unsworn Member, and over and over again he walked up to the Table and stood there defying the Speaker. He was again and again conducted down by the Serjeant-at-Arms. He himself administered the Oath in defiance of rule and the repeated ruling of the Speaker. This was done deliberately and not as the result of excitement, a sudden impulse of passion, or as a protest against the action of the Ministry. At last the Speaker
888
ordered the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove Mr. Bradlaugh from the precincts of the House. That was an occasion which few of us who witnessed it will ever forget. It was in 1881. Mr. Bradlaugh was seized by a great number of messengers in the House, and just outside the door of the House he was dragged with great violence, while he was kicking, struggling and using his gigantic strength to the utmost extent of his ability. He was dragged across the lobby in presence of crowds of people, dragged down Westminster Hall, and expelled into Palace Yard. No doubt he had been guilty of much worse and more persistent breaches of the rules of the House and the authority of the Chair than any Member on these Irish benches. After this dreadful scene a question of privilege was immediately raised, and Mr. John Bright, an honoured name in this House, came back after witnessing the spectacle, and used the following words—
"I will put the question to hon. Members opposite and also to some hon. Members on this side of the House—Where are they leading us?"
That is the question I put to Ministers to-night. That question was received with jeers and contempt by the Gentlemen who were the majority in those days —the vast majority in this House. They bad, of course, the idea, which has been expressed here to-night, that Mr. Bradlaugh had inflicted a gross outrage on this House. But Mr. Bright, with the true instinct of a constitutional statesman, saw behind Mr. Bradlaugh the constituency that sent him into the House. He saw that the constituency was struck at and wounded through the Member who was dishonoured. You are struggling now not with one constituency but with several constituencies. At the end of that struggle—which was maintained for four years and ended in the capitulation of the Government—every Member admitted in his soul that Mr. Bradlaugh was right. Apply the lesson to the position of to-day. Rules, orders, and regulations are of no avail to deal with this evil. The real master factor of the situation is that we have the constituencies at our backs. The Irish people will not think worse of the Irish party for what has happened. The noble Lord's proposal is to imprison us all, while the Liberal Imperialist would

889
disfranchise Ireland. If you expelled the Irish Members from this House you would at once have an Irish Parliament in Dublin, and the Irish Secretary would find we are more trouble in Dublin than we are here. The Gentlemen who make these proposals are novices in this business. Bigger men than they will ever be have tried their hand at crushing the Irish representatives; Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, and Mr. Trevelyan did their best, but were finally converted. The First Lord has tried and seems inclined to try again, but I do not think he will listen to the proposal which has been made. The truth of it is, we are old hands at the game. I was suspended within a week after I took my seat twenty years ago. You will never preserve order and decency by brutality and coercion, nor by such insolence as we have listened to—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not the way in which to refer to the speech of another hon. Member.
MR. DILLON: I withdraw the word "insolence" and substitute "offensive-ness." The experience of twenty years ought to have taught the Leader of the House that in dealing with Irish Members you can do infinitely more by a little give and take than by any amount of coercion. I say with confidence that if on Tuesday night the sitting had been suspended and two or three hours given to the discussion on the Vote on Account on Thursday, the scene would have been entirely avoided. Would not a small concession of that character have been an infinitely less evil—if we are discussing an evil at all—than the dreadful introduction of a large body of police into this House for the first time, and the scenes of violence which occurred?
Another very important point is that you have a new House to deal with. As regards our own Irish Members it is very important. Dozens of Members are not accustomed to the sudden closure of debate; they do not understand the machinery of a Vote on Account. It is all very fine to give us a long history of the procedure with regard to Votes on Account. The First Lord ought to have looked at these benches and seen that accidentally a great many of the senior Members of our
890
party were absent, and that the benches were crowded with young men who were inexperienced in the ways of the House. He would have taken all these circumstances into consideration if he had been a man fit to lead the House. The hon. Member for Waterford was perfectly justified in saying that a large share of the moral responsibility for Tuesday's occurrences rests, and will in the opinion of a great body of this House rest, on the shoulders of the First Lord of the Treasury.
I propose to move an Amendment raising an extremely important issue. This proposed resolution is an extraordinary and enormous increase of the punitive powers of the Chair. In all our previous discussions it has always been held that the Chair should not have the power to sentence any Member of the House at his discretion to a severe punishment, but that that power should be reserved to the House itself. Then the rule was extended to Standing Order No. 21, giving to the House authority to suspend for the first offence for a week, for a second offence in the same session for a month, and for a third offence for the remainder of the session. Moreover, the House in those days had an amount of provocation which is really quite unknown to the present House. The scene which occurred here the other night would be mild compared to it; at all events, it was a scene which, though very painful, did not last long. But the House which, in 1881 and 1882, originally passed this rule had for months—I might say for sessions—suffered from a series of scenes of violence, and defiance of the Chair, and prolonged all-night sittings, of which the House now has no conception. And yet all that that House could bring itself to do was to take the power of inflicting these graduated punishments. If the House turns to Standing Order No. 27, it will see that the only power ever conferred upon the Chair without a vote of the House was the power of ordering an individual Member to withdraw for the remainder of the sitting, and that is the only power the Chair now has. Standing Order No. 27, as I interpret it, and as it always has been interpreted, gives the Chairman the right to order individual Members to leave the House, naming them indi-

891
vidually at the time when they are disorderly. My Amendment is that in line 1 of the resolution the words "or Members acting jointly" be omitted, and then the resolution would read "provided also that any Member who has been suspended." The proposal of the Leader of the House taken in its entirety places in the hands of the Chairman an enormous power of punishment unparalleled in the annals of the House, such as would enable him without a vote of the House to disfranchise constituencies for a whole session, and suspend Members for a whole session. My Amendment provides that in such cases Members should be dealt with separately. I have already alluded to what the Speaker did on a former occasion when five Members were reported, and when each of them was named one by one. The consequence of that precaution was that no question could arise as to a mistake in dealing with the matter. My contention now is, that if you give to the Chair this enormous power of punishment you should hedge round this power with all possible precautions, so as to prevent a mistake being made, as was made the other night, the result of which we saw to-day, when the Chairman of Committees was obliged to admit that he committed a grave error. I believe it was not one mistake alone that was made. I am inclined to think that two or three other Members were unjustly suspended also; at all events there is a great deal of doubt in regard to some other suspensions which took place, and if the mistake had such serious consequences in this case, what would it be to suspend a man for the whole of the session, if it were not absolutely clear that he was guilty of the offence charged against him? Therefore I hold there should be no difficulty in applying this rule to deal with each Member separately, and that would be all the more reasonable, in view of the fact that the punishment is to be inflicted without giving the House any opportunity of expressing its opinion.
I must say that I think the system of wholesale suspension is a most dangerous system to introduce in this House, for it is bound to lead to the most ridiculous and most extraordinary mistakes. I myself went home from this
892
House one night in the session of 1881, leaving an angry debate in progress, and when I returned at six o'clock in the morning I was stopped at the door and told I could not be admitted, that I had been suspended an hour before for obstructing the House. I remember another instance where a similar mistake was made. One of my colleagues was actually named and suspended when he was in mid-Channel on his way to Ireland, owing to a mistake about his name. The same thing could easily happen now when we have so many O'Briens and O'Connors in our party. Therefore I say, that in the exercise of these punitive measures the Chairman should spare no precaution in order to be able to state to the House, from his own knowledge, and not through information supplied to him by a Clerk at the Table, that an hon. Member was an offender. I say, further, that when this House passed this Order giving you, Sir, authority to name a Member, it was never contemplated—no one even dreamt—that the Chairman would send a clerk round the House with a paper and pencil trying to ascertain the names of hon. Members who were alleged to be offenders. What happened on Tuesday night? The Clerk at the Table went down the House, took the names of some of my colleagues, and brought the list to the Chairman; then the Chairman picked out some names and omitted others. I say that sort of procedure is an outrage on the House, and one of the results of it was seen to-day when the Chairman of Committees admitted his mistake and expressed his regret for it. I say, then, with the most perfect confidence, that if the Chairman or Speaker is in doubt as to the identity of an hon. Member he should give that hon. Member the benefit of the doubt, for it would be far better to let off an offender for the time being than that an innocent man should be punished and subjected to the humiliation of being driven out of the House. For these reasons I now move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"In line 1, to leave out the words 'or Members acting jointly.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The Government cannot possibly accept this Amendment. The whole rule was specially framed to meet the case of Members banding themselves together to resist the authority of the Chair. The proposal of the Government as it stands does not interfere with the right of naming hon. Members separately. I submit that it is clear to demonstration that, if several Member's are acting in combination, so as to render force necessary, it ought to be within the discretion of the Chair to name them.
MR. HARRINGTONsaid no explanation had been given by those who spoke for the Government as to how this new rule would expedite the business of the House. If Members in such cases were to be taken out separately, surely it would be convenient to name them separately. It was not suggested that two or three at a time, or the whole lot together, should be seized by the police at the same moment and borne out all in a group. He wished to ask, what did the Government expect to gain by this new rule? If the Irish Members were prepared to co-operate with the Government in maintaining respect for the traditions of the House, this rule might be of some use, but if the Irish Members wished to disregard the authority of the Chair could they not, after having disregarded it, go back, and in the last week of the session get suspended one by one? If they did that they would be received by their constituents with open arms. In bringing forward this new rule the right hon. Gentleman was really reducing this question to a fine art, and merely giving those Members who wished to deny the authority of the Chair an opportunity of bringing the House into ridicule and contempt at the end of every session, when they might disregard the Chair, and the whole of them might be suspended in the last week of the session. How did the right hon. Gentleman propose to deal with an hon. Member who was suspended and sent back to his constituents? There was not a single Mem-
894
ber on the Irish benches who would not be returned again without the slightest opposition within a week of his suspension.
*MR. SPEAKER: The question now before the House is the omission of the words "Members acting jointly." The hon. Member must confine himself to the question before the House.
MR. HARRINGTONsaid he would take the case of the Members acting jointly. If they were expelled and went back to their constituents they would be returned within a week, and then a further amendment of the rules would be necessary. Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive them back? If the intention was to disfranchise certain constituencies, it would be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to introduce a further rule, by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be precluded from giving the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds to Irish Members. But even then there would be nothing to prevent these Irish Members from coining back to the House by making an interchange of constituencies. What he wished to point out was, that if there were people who wanted to cast discredit on Parliamentary institutions, this amendment of the Standing Order would put into their hands the very machinery which would bring the House into contempt.
MR. LOUGH: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has given this matter his full consideration. The point made by the hon. Member is a fair one. He suggests that under this rule a whole group of Members might be suspended at one blow without the case of each, or the action of each one, being considered and proved. It is difficult to define the words "acting jointly," and that makes this Amendment absolutely necessary. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to explain to the House how "acting jointly" could be proved.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The words are already in Rule 21.
MR. LOUGH: Even so; but we had the House placed to-day in the most humiliating position of apologising unani-

895
mously to a single man, just because of those words. It was because of a hurried ruling of the Chair that certain Members had acted jointly that that humiliating apology had to be made, and we may be found in the same difficulty again if the words "acting jointly" are retained. My hon. friend wants that three, four, or five Members should not be suspended in a bunch, but that A, B, or C should be dealt with separately; and I certainly think that, if not his precise Amendment, some other should be adopted which will secure that every one shall have his case dealt with separately.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot help thinking that these words are wholly unnecessary, although not from the point of view of some of the arguments which have been used. The words in Standing Order No. 21 were put in that where a number of Members had acted simultaneously the Speaker should have the power, instead of wasting the time of the House by naming and suspending one after another, to name and suspend them en bloc. But under this rule you are not going to have any action of the House or motion made which would involve any loss of time. Each man will necessarily be dealt with separately. He has to be accosted by the Serjeant-at-Arms, and he has to show that he does not yield to the action of the Serjeant-at-Arms. You cannot deal with them en bloc; that is impossible. Therefore, not for some of the reasons urged, but in the interests of unburdening the rule of superfluous words, I think they should be omitted. Another thing is that the rule as it stands is very bad grammar.
*MR. BLAKE: The grammar is bad, no doubt, but our objection to the rule is much more serious. The hon. Gentleman has put before the House an enormous change proposed to be made with reference to automatic action on a word from the Chair. And consequently he must recognise the greater necessity of avoiding a repetition of that which was the deepest humiliation of these whole proceedings, when the House was obliged a little time ago to acknowledge that it had taken erroneous action, and had unjustly condemned a
896
colleague. Up to this time the question whether a Member should be suspended has had to be put to the House. On certain conditions Members might be suspended en bloc, but generally it is done separately, and always by vote. But what is now proposed is that on the simple announcement by the Speaker to the House that a Member or a number of Members acting jointly have not obeyed his directions, without the House having any opportunity of dealing with the question, they are by that mere announcement suspended, and this for the whole session. You therefore propose by one stroke to enormously increase the punishment, and enormously diminish the security for justice being done. All that we now suggest is that you should name A, B, C individually, instead of referring to them en bloc. I do think that calm and cool deliberation will lead the House to see that the Amendment is moderate, and that the rule as it stands is not only bad in grammar, but bad in principle.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The rule as it stands is capable of a very serious and unjust interpretation. Take the case that happened on Tuesday night. Twelve Members altogether were suspended because they resisted by force the order of the House. It is true they resisted nominally, but they did not resist the police men who were called in. What would be the result of an order of the kind proposed? Some Members might protest against what they regarded as an injustice, but might not be prepared to go to the extent of compelling physical force to intervene. Suppose two or three resisted the police, but forty walked out of the House on the suggestion of the Serjeant-at-Arms. Surely to suspend all these forty Members forthwith for a whole session would be a gross injustice, and the Leader of the House I cannot contemplate that result. On Tuesday night two or three Members took part in resisting the police, but there were others who did not carry disobedience to that extent. One hon. Member walked out of the House at the suggestion of the Serjeant-at-Arms, and it would be exceedingly unfair that his constituents should be disfranchised, as

897
would be the case if you are going to deal with them en bloc.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The rule only applies to those against whom, jointly, force would require to be used.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Exactly; that is what I want to point out. The Chairman reports that a body of Members demand the interference of the police; but it may be that only two or three would persist in disobedience to that extent. This is a question of the rights of the constituencies, and not that of the Members. And it would be exceedingly unfair that some constituencies should be disfranchised, not for the offence of their Members, but for the offence of Members representing other constituencies. If the right hon. Gentleman does not see the injustice of that, he has made it perfectly clear that he does not want to maintain the dignity of the House, but that the object is to disfranchise the whole of the Irish Members and their constituencies.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: We are dealing with Standing Order No. 21, which already provides, as my hon. friend has stated, that where Members are merely acting jointly it is within the power of the Speaker to name them jointly, and by one division settle the question whether or not they should be suspended. Now we proceed to go a step further. I do not see the necessity for these words being put in. The process is this. Members are suspended by the vote of the House. They are ordered to leave the House, and they refuse to leave. The Speaker directs them to leave the house, and they refuse to obey his direction, and then the Serjeant-at-Arms must go to each man individually and not to the Members jointly. He cannot possibly do that. He goes to A, who may get up and go out, and therefore A would be out of the business altogether, and there would be no necessity for calling in physical force. But B might say, "No, I wont go," and thus refuse to obey the direction of the Speaker, or the summons of the Serjeant-at-Arms. Then the Speaker, this being done in the view of the House, and the Members witnessing
898
what is going on, says that physical force is necessary to secure compliance with his order. Then this new order; would apply only to that Member.
MR. DILLON: No, to all the rest. Why not strike out the words.?
SIR HENRY FOWLER: You cannot put a dozen men out jointly.
MR. DILLON: Yes, you can. The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. It is not a question of putting them out. It is a question of suspending them for the rest of the session.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: It simply comes to this, that the Speaker reports to the House—and the House itself is the judge at that moment—that a certain Member refuses to obey the order of the Chair, and that it is necessary to use physical force to secure that obedience. Following upon that report the individual Member is suspended under the operation of the rule.
MR. CRIPPS: I think that what we are discussing is a mere verbal amendment. This really means that any Member who does not obey the order of the Speaker when summoned by the Serjeant-at-Arms comes under the penalty of this Order. Under these circumstances, the words "any Member" would in themselves be quite sufficient. The words "or Members acting jointly" might well be left out, and then the new Order would be in the simplest possible form. It would cover any Member who disobeys the Order.
MR. FLYNN: The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has made it perfectly clear that he means to disregard all suggestions coming from this side of the House, and to rely on his majority to carry the motion. It would appear from the way in which the new rule is drafted that the First Lord of the Treasury has not very much regard for grammar; but there is something more than slipshod grammar. It is admitted that the other night a mistake was made in regard to one Member. I can say of my own knowledge that a mistake was made

899
in regard to two Members. Constituencies all over Ireland are to be disfranchised for acts their Members have not committed. I cannot for the life of me conceive how the Government, after what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member opposite, will stick to the phraseology of the Amendment which was hastily drafted. Surely nothing can be clearer than the fact that on Tuesday night a mistake was made by the Chair, unwittingly, no doubt. Would it not be a very great matter that the Standing Order should be so simplified that the disfranchisement for the remainder of the session of a large number of Irish Members of this House should not take place? How do the Government treat this Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo? They put up the English Attorney General, who in a few offhand phrases, and without paying any attention to the context of the Amendment, says that there is really nothing in the matter, and that he cannot accept the Amendment. Members get up on the Front Opposition Bench and point out the reasonableness of the hon. Member for East Mayo, and the members of the Government sit tight and keep mum, and they will call their obedient followers to support them in the lobby. This is but another illusstration of the spirit that underlay their action on Tuesday night when the closure was moved. Surely the Government have something more to say about the Amendment. The only independent Member on the other side of the House who spoke on this matter is the hon. and learned Member who recommended to the House the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo. Are they going to do nothing but rely on their majority, whipped up by a fire-line whip, to carry the motion? The only reply we have from the Government on this Amendment takes the form of a conspiracy of silence.
MR. DALZIEL: I think the Government might very well, without any loss of dignity, reconsider the position they have taken up on the Amendment. I ask them to do so for two reasons. Their object is the same as that of Members on these benches who support the Amendment.
900
For the life of me I cannot understand the object of the Government in refusing to accept the Amendment. Is it that they imagine themselves so much above criticism? [An HON. MEMBER: No.] Why is it? Every speech made in support of it has been reasonable, and the hon. and learned Gentleman behind them stated that the Amendment was reasonable and carried out the object the Government had in view. It seems to me that we have a strong case for protest in this matter. This is a reasonable Amendment and ought to be accepted. I say it is not the duty of the Government, and it is not the duty of the Leader of the House, to put the authority in the Chair in the position in which the resolution will place him. This Amendment might be the means of suspending fifty-Members of the House, and it might disfranchise a large number of constituencies. The House is very much divided as to the real meaning of the rule, and the exercise of it may bring about an intolerable situation and place the Chair in a position which would give rise to the greatest dissatisfaction to the House at a moment when it is least desirable that dissatisfaction should be felt. I appeal to the Leader of the House not to shut his ears to the views which have been expressed in support of the Amendment. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in the interests of those who propose this resolution, and in the interests of the Chair, to accept the Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has made a direct appeal to me, and I am very unwilling not to reply to it. He asks me whether the Government have come down to the House with this resolution in a stereotyped form determined to resist all Amendments and to fight the thing through without a comma or a stop being changed. I hope that we have manifested that we have not done so, for we have already accepted an Amendment—I do not say of very great importance, but certainly an Amendment of substance—proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not think that any hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House who has argued this question has been able to prove that the rule as it is drafted will produce injustice.
MR. DILLON: Really I take an entirely different view. I think the rule as drafted might have this result, that the Serjeant-at-Arms might approach one or two Members said to be acting jointly, and might then report to the House that the whole body were acting jointly. Then a number of Members quite willing to go out might be suspended.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that result is possible under the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, and we must consider the rule as if it were amended. The Serjeant-at-Arms would have to touch each Member separately.
MR. JOHN ELLIS: Then why do you want the words in?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The point I was putting to the House was that nobody pretends that injustice would occur.
MR. DALZIEL: Yes; we all feel it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman's own Front Bench say that they do not for a moment suggest that the words are likely to lead to injustice, nor do I see how injustice can be done.
MR. DALZIEL: It places on the Chair the duty of saving whether or not Members are acting jointly.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it extremely probable that Mr. Speaker also might make an appeal separately with regard to each individual if force was necessary, but I should imagine that in cases in which there was joint action the fact of each Member being separately touched would prevent the necessity of a separate appeal to the House in regard to each one of them. It surely is desirable that we should keep to the leading idea which governed the framers of the rule, that one of the most formidable dangers that this House runs is not from the isolated action of any individual disorderly person, but from the joint action of a number of Members. It seems clear that no substantial injustice can arise from the form in which the rule is drawn up. I think it is in conformity with the earlier part of the rule.
902
It keeps the continuity of the drafting from one clause of the rule to another, and it keeps to the end of the rule that idea which dominated the original framers of the rule, that conspiracy or joint action to defeat the orders of the House on the part of any body of Members is one of the great dangers against which this rule is essentially directed.
MR. BRYCE: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten the ordinary rule of interpretation in law, namely, that when you find words which appear to be surplusage you are bound to try to find some other meaning for them. Our contention is that these words are pure surplusage, and I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman to argue that they are necessary. He refers entirely to the rest of the rule in order to find a certain model and style. Nothing whatever is gained by keeping these words in, because all that Mr. Speaker has to do is to name each person individually. It is not a question of going to a division; it is not a question of consuming the time which divisions require; it is merely that an individual has to be named by Mr. Speaker. It is surely far better, in view of any possible accident that might occur, that Mr. Speaker should name each person individually than lump a number of people together. I agree with the hon. Member opposite, that this is purely a question of drafting. Any person, lawyer or not, who applies his commonsense to the rule and the draft order, and reads it leaving out these words, will see that all the object the Government can possibly have in view will be attained if this Amendment is accepted. Under these circumstances I make, one more appeal to them to give way on this point.
MR. TULLY: I think the rule has been framed in this form in order to cover the bungle made by the officials the other night in the case of the hon. Member for South Fermanagh. Under this rule it could be held that although a Member went into the division lobby, if he sat on these benches and some Irish Members were expelled he was acting jointly with them, and would be suspended also. These words introduce an altogether new element into the

903
Standing Order; they import some of the conspiracy law, so that a Member who might be in any other part of the House could be held to be acting jointly with others, whereas the original rule was that they should be present together and disregard the ruling of the Chair. That is a very dangerous innovation. Even distinguished Members on the other side of the House cannot understand what the rule means in this form, and if you cannot understand it yourselves how can you expect us—uncultivated Members as we are called—to be able to follow it in all its devious windings? This conspiracy law can be stretched very far. I have been twice convicted of conspiracy myself—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is making no reference to the Amendment before the House.
MR. TULLY: I was trying to illustrate the danger of the resolution as framed by the Government by a case which came under my own knowledge. [Laughter.] This may be a laughing matter for lion. Gentlemen opposite, but it is framed especially for Irish Members, although it is very probable that the worst offenders and those to whom it is first applied may not be Irish representatives at all. These words "acting jointly" are very dangerous, and the Government would be well advised to accept the Amendment.
*MR. DUKE: I think it will be obvious to men who are familiar with the principles of drafting that the terms of description which are used in the Standing Order here proposed to be amended are Properly retained as the description of the class of Members with whom it is proposed to deal by this Amendment of the Standing Order, and for my part I agree with the Attorney General, if I may say so, in thinking that to drop in this part of the Amendment the form of words used in the existing Standing Order for the purpose of describing the persons to be dealt with by these punitive measures would involve some danger in the administration of the Standing Order. But I feel with hon. Members opposite that there is a danger that in the practice of the
904
House the terms of the Amendment to the Standing Order would leave it open to the Speaker, or whoever might be exercising the powers conferred by the Standing Order, to deal collectively with, a body of Members who had brought themselves within its terms. I do not think that the proper mode of avoiding that danger is to omit the words of description which properly occur in the first line of the proposed Amendment. I think the proper mode would be to insert before the word "refuse" the word "respectively." Then the Member, or Members, of the House acting jointly, would be designated as persons who are appropriately to be punished by the action of the Chair, but there would be required a demand upon each Member severally for conformity to the order of the Chair. That demand would be made upon each Member for compliance and obedience, and if the individual refused to obey the order of the Speaker the penalty would follow. I am sure the Attorney General desires to have nothing in this Amendment to the Standing Order which would leave it possible for any such mistake as that of Wednesday morning to recur, and I think the suggestion I have made would leave both the principle of the Standing Order and the mode of its operation perfectly clear, and the case of each individual Member could be dealt with as might be necessary.
MR. HARWOODsaid the proposal appeared to him to apply to Members who were jointly resisting the application of force. The meaning of the word was not very clear, and he would like the Attorney General to give some clearer explanation.
MR. KIMBER: I think that if the Government yield to the Amendment moved from the opposite side of the House they will fall into a trap. The Standing Order as it stands provides for two cases—that of a single Member behaving in an improper manner, and also the case of a number of Members acting jointly. They are presumed to have been suspended, and if they are suspended at all, then, of course, they must be suspended for a week. This proviso adds a further punishment in

905
case, after having received the order from the Chair to leave the House, they refuse to obey that order. In that case the punishment is extended to the end of the session. The proposal, therefore, applies to two cases—single action and joint action. If the Government yield to this suggested Amendment, then the very ease which happened on Tuesday last will not be covered. The proposal clearly alludes only to such Members as refuse to obey the Chairman's direction, and I trust that the Government will not yield to this inducement which has been offered.
MR. WALLACE: According to the statement of the last speaker, if Members act jointly they are suspended jointly, and afterwards you can deal with them individually. I presume that the Serjeant-at-Arms will approach each one of these Members and request him to leave, and then if they all refuse this rule comes into operation. Now, I have no wish to weaken the force of this resolution at all, but f do ask the Attorney General to consider this point, and inform us what he gains by keeping in these words. We have spent some hours discussing the point, and I do not think the words are necessary.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree that the discussion on this drafting Amendment has hardly been worth the time given to it. For the reasons given by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, I should like to adhere to the words "Members acting jointly," but what everybody appears to desire can be gained if weamend the Amendment which was originally suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, by inserting after "shall refuse to obey the direction of the Speaker" the words "when severally summoned Tinder the Speaker's orders by the Serjeant-at-Arms to obey such direction."
MR. CHAINING: I suppose the object of this is to extend the rule to such deplorable scenes as were witnessed on Tuesday night. I think if you omit the words suggested you will be achieving that purpose, for they are admittedly surplusage. Even the Amendment suggested by the First
906
Lord of the Treasury will not relieve the rule from the uncertainty which appears to prevail.
MR. DILLON: I have only got a word or two to say in reply to the First Lord of the Treasury. We know what happened on Tuesday night, and what is possible under the rule is that the Serjeant-at-Arms might order—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member has no right of reply on the Amendment.
MR. DILLON: I was simply going to say that I accept this Amendment, because I can get nothing better, and because it carries out to a considerable extent the object I have in view, although I think that object would have been accomplished better by my Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I beg to move in the third line after the word "Speaker" that occurs first, to insert the following words, "when severally summoned under the Speaker's orders by the Serjeant-at-Arms to obey such direction." I think these words prevent any possibility of doubt as to the meaning of our proposition.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
*MR. BLAKE: I must confess that I do not find that care taken in this proposal in regard to the announcement to the House of the offending Members which I think ought under such circumstances to be taken. There is nothing to say that the Speaker shall report to the House that A, B, or C are the persons who have refused to obey his direction. There is nothing to define upon whom the axe is to fall. The Speaker is simply required to announce that force is necessary in order that his directions may be obeyed. That seems to me to be an unsuitable method likely to produce added injustice. I suggest that after the words "Member or Members" in the fifth line, the words "who have" be

907
deleted for the purpose of inserting the words "named by him as having."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I accept that Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendmend agreed to.
MR. DILLON: I propose to move an Amendment, if in order in doing so, to omit in line 6 the words after "thereupon" to the end, for the purpose of inserting, "be suspended from the service of the House for such period as the House may determine." I have not much hope of securing acceptance of this Amendment, but I do wish, before dealing with the proposed new Standing Order as a whole, to raise the issue in a clear and simple form as to whether you are going to put into the hands of any official the power to suspend a Member and practically disfranchise a constituency for possibly the greater part of a session. My proposal is that, the Speaker having reported to the House that certain Members have been named by him as having declined to act on his direction, and that force is necessary to compel them to do so, the House may proceed to deal with them as to the House seems best. I know that this will be open to the old objection that debate will ensue, and time be consumed. But I think if we are going to deal with five or six Members we should have a debate. It is, however, perfectly easy to amend the Amendment. The course of proceeding would then be, that the Leader of the House, having all the circumstances of the case in his mind, would report to the House on the report of the Speaker, and move a motion to suspend the Members for one month or six months. Consider what you are asking. It is to put into the hands of the Speaker a most unreasonable power; for, mark, towards the close of the session the punishment would be no punishment at all, but a farce. At the beginning of the session, however, there would be no alternative but to suspend for the whole of the session. I want to leave it to the House to assign the amount of the punishment, and I am prepared to accept an Amendment on my Amendment that the question should be put to the House for acceptance without debate.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, as amended, in line 6, to leave out from the word "thereupon" to the end of the proposed Amendment, as amended, in order to add the words, "be suspended from the service of the House for such period as the House may determine."—(Mr. Dillon.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'and without further Question put' stand part of the proposed Amendment, as amended."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has put his Amendment before the House in two alternative forms. Under the first form, which was that put from the Chair, the House is to decide after debate on the length of the sentence of deprivation; but the hon. Member suggests another form, in which the rule would still be one of summary jurisdiction. As to the first form, the very fact that it permits debate would entirely destroy the value of the rule. It is absolutely necessary that there should be no debate. The rule must remain an addition to the summary jurisdiction of the House. The alternative form is open to this vital objection, which perhaps no one feels so keenly as I do. The idea is that the Leader of the House is to propose that "Mr. So-and-so" and "Mr. So-and-so" should be deprived of the right of sitting in the House for one, two, three, or four months, according to the sweet will of the Leader of the House, and that that proposition is to be immediately decided by the House without debate. I have been called a great many hard names in the course of the debate; and I may be the tyrant which I have been represented; but I can assure the House that my appetite for absolute power would be surfeited long before I would consent to exercise the jurisdiction with which the hon. Member wishes to entrust me. Imagine the Leader of the House having to make, on the spur of the moment, a rough estimate of the relative wickedness of a number of Gentlemen, and proposing rapidly to the House punishments corresponding to the scale of wickedness. Imagine also the position of the House having to vote "Aye" or "No," without debate or deliberation, on the proposal of the Leader of the

909
House. In neither form is the proposal of hon. Member admissible, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persevere with it.
*MR. BLAKE: The hon. Gentleman has pointed out a difficulty attending summary jurisdiction in the exercise of a discretion as to what punishment should be imposed, whether for one, two, three, or four months. I wish to point out the bearing of these difficulties in the plan which he himself has proposed to the House. He suggests with all the weight of his authority that the punishment should always be the extreme punishment. Under the rule the Member is to be suspended for the longest period for which you can suspend him at all. The very worst is to be done. And the opportunity of making that worst a little less, and of thus making the punishment a little more proportionate to the case, is what the hon. Gentleman now rejects, because his emotions will not permit him to discharge that pleasing duty.
*MR. STUART WORTLEY: The supporters of this Amendment forget another fatal objection, namely, that it would involve the taking of another division, and they ignore the fact that the proceedings of the other night prove that it might be made physically and materially impossible to take a division at all. Unless that is provided against we shall play into the hands of those who organised these proceedings. ["Withdraw!"] I fully accept the statement of the hon. Member for Waterford that the proceedings of the other night were not organised, but after that experience it would be madness to assume that no such proceedings would ever be organised in the future. In making provision against such an occurrence the Government are doing no more than their duty. We must be ready for the same kind of thing being repeated, and any kind of rule which makes it possible for Members to make a division physically impossible will fail in its object. The desire of the hon. Gentleman is quite clear. He wants to have some differentiation made between offences varying in character. But the rule does that already. In any case there is an equally good way of
910
obtaining the same object. If the rule provided that there should be this instantaneous and automatic suspension until the pleasure of the House was further known, the same object would be attained. But the rule as it stands secures that object, because there is nothing whatever to prevent the House from voting the suspension of any of its Standing Orders. The essential thing is that the House should remain master of the time and manner of taking any proceedings in the direction of clemency.
MR. VICARY GIBBS: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that the question of time would be one of the matters which would lead to great difference of opinion, and I imagine that the Amendment we are now discussing is moved because it is supposed that the proposal of the First Lord is too severe. But circumstances may easily occur in which it will not be severe enough. If such an offence as this rule is aimed at should come at the end of the session, the punishment proposed will be practically nil. I quite agree with the hon. Member for East Mayo that this is not a question of punishment at all. It is a question of protecting the House from breaches of its rules. It is essential that we should so protect it, and all who have heard the speeches of the hon. Members for Water-ford and East Mayo must see that they do not hold out any hope of our not having in the future such scenes as we have had in the past, but, on the contrary, they plainly threaten a repetition of those occurrences. I consider that it is a question not so much of the individuals who make these disturbances, as of the constituencies who return men to this House who are unable to conduct themselves properly; they should be taught by experience that this House will not tolerate such scenes, and they should have the opportunity of thinking over the matter until another Parliament has assembled, so that they can then select men who are more fit to occupy positions as Members of this House than those who have so disgraced themselves. This question has nothing whatever to do with whether the First Lord acted in a grossly tyrannical manner—[Cries of "Order, order!"]
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
MR. VICARY GIBBS: I imagine I was going beyond the scope of the Amendment, but I could not hear your words, Sir, in consequence of the uproar. I consider that the time allotted under this Standing Order may be far too short instead of too long. This is a most serious question, involving the credit of the House in the country. If the House

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Carlile, William Walter

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Causton, Richard Knight

Fenwick, Charles

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cautley, Henry Strother

Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

Aird, Sir John

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

Allan, William (Gateshead)

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

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud)

Cawley, Frederick.

Finch, George H.

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Allsopp, Hon. George

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

Fisher, William Hayes

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Fison, Frederick William

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Arrol, Sir William

Chapman, Edward

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Charrington, Spencer

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Flower, Ernest

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Forster, Henry William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

Foster, Sir M. (London Univ.)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Fuller, J. M. F.

Baird, John George Alexander

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Garfit, William

Balcarres, Lord

Colston, Charles E. H. Athole

Gibbs, HnA. G. H.(CityofLond.

Baldwin, Alfred

Colville, John

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

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

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Gladstone Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Balfour, Rt nGerald W (Leeds

Cook, Frederick Lucas

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Balfour, Maj KR(Christchureh

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Banbury, Frederick George

Gorbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Gordon, Hn J. E.(Elgin&Nairn)

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Hartley, George C. T.

Craig, Robert Hunter

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

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Cranborne, Viscount

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Crombie, John William

Goschen Hon. George J.

Beckett, Ernest William

Cross, Alexanler (Glasgow)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bell, Richard

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Graham, Henry Robert

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Grant, Corrie

Bigwood, James

Cust, Henry John C.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Bill, Charles

Dalrymple, Sir (Charles

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Blundell, Col. Henry

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Greene, SirEW(B'rySEdm'nds

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Dewar, J. A. (Inverness-shire

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Bond, Edward

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Grenfell, William Henry

Boscawon, Arthur Griffith-

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph C.

Gretton, John

Bousfield, William Robert

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Groves, James Grimble

Bowles, T. Gibson(King'sLynn)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Brassey, Albert

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Brookfield, Col. Montagu

Duke, Henry Edward

Hall, Edward Marshall

Brown, Alexander H. (Shrop.

Duncan, James H.

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hambro, Charles Eric

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Dyke, Rt. Hn. William Hart

Hamilton, RtHnLordG.(Mid'x

Bull, William James

Edwards, Frank

Hamilton, Marqof(L'nd'nderry

Bullard, Sir Harry

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Harcourt, Rt Hon. Sir William

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashfrd

Burt, Thomas

Emmott, Alfred

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Butcher, John George

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Faber, George Denison

Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th

Caldwell, James

Fardell, Sir T. George

Harwood, George

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

does not mark with sufficient severity its sense of what has taken place, it will lose its position in the eyes of the country. On that ground I think the Government, if they make any alteration in the resolution, should make it in the direction of increased severity rather than of leniency.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 413; Noes, 79. (Division List No. 43.)

Haslett, Sir James Horner

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

Richards, Henry Charles

Hay, Hon. Claude George

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Rickett, J. Compton

Hayne, Rt. Hon.CharlesSeale-

Majendie, James A. H.

Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Staly bridge

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Malcolm, Ian

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

Manners, Lord Cecil

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Heath, James(Staffords, N. W.

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Heaton, John Henniker

Markham, Arthur Basil

Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

Helder, Augustus

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Robson, William Snowdon

Heltne, Norval Watson

Massey-Main waring, Hn W. F.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Henderson, Alexander

Mather, William

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

Maxwell, RtHnSirHE (Wigt'n

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire

Round, James

Hoare, EdwBrodie(Hampstead

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Hobhouse, C. E. H.(Bristol,E.

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Russell, T. W.

Hobhouso, Henry(Somerset, E.

Milner, Rt. Hn. SirFrederickG.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

Milton, Viscount

Sadler, Col. Sadler Alexander

Horner, Frederick William

Milward Col. Victor

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Horniman, Frederick John

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. ThosMyles

Hoult, Joseph

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Howard, Capt J. (Kent, Favers.

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.)

Hozier, Hn. JamesHenry Cecil

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Seely, Charles Hilton(Lincoln)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Seton-Karr, Henry

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Morrell, George Herbert

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm Lawies

Morrison, James Archibald

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Sinclair, CaptJohn(Forfarshire

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Joicey, Sir James

Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East)

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

Muntz, Philip A.

Smith, HC(North'm bTyneside

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Murray, RtHnAGraham (Bute

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Smita, Samuel (Flint)

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Kenyon, James (Lancs.,Bury)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Soares, Ernest J.

kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Newnes, Sir George

Spencer, Rt. Hn CR(Northants

Keswick, William

Nicholson, William Graham

Stanley, Hon Arthur(Ormskirk

Kimber, Henry

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Stanley, EdwardJas(Somerset

Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Kitson, Sir James

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Stevenson, Francis S.

Knowles, Lees

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir JohnM.

Lambert, George

Palmer, SirCharlesM. (Durham

Stock, James Henry

Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Law, Andrww Bonar

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Stroyan, John

Lawrence, William F.

Parker, Gilbert

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Lawson, John Grant

Parkes, Ebenezer

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Partington, Oswald

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw.H

Paulton, James Mellor

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'dUni.

Lee, CaptA H(Hants. Fareham

Pease, Herb.Pike (Darlington)

Tennant, Harold John

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Peel, Hn. WmRobert Wellesley

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pemberton, John S. G.

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Penn, John

Thomas, J A(Glamorgan, Gow'r

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Percy, Earl

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

Leng, Sir John

Pilkington, Richard

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Thornton, Percy M.

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Plummer, Walter R.

Tollemache, Henry James

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Tomkinson, James

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Long, RtHn Walter (Bristol,S.)

Price, Robert John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Lowe, Francis William

Purvis, Robert

Valentia, Viscount

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Pym, C. Guy

Wallace, Robert

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Randles, JohnS.

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Rankin, Sir John

Warner, Thomas C. T.

Macartney, RtHnW. G. Ellison

Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Macdona, John Cumming

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Reckitt, Harold James

Webb, Col. William George

Maconochie, A. W.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.(T'unt'n

M Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim,E.)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Whiteley, Geo. (York, W. R.)

M'Crae, George

Renwick, George

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

914

915

Williams, Col. E. (Dorset)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Williams, RtHnJ. Powell-(Bir.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

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

Sir William Walrond and

Wilson, F.W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Mr. Anstruther.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

Ambrose, Robert

Harrington, Timothy

O'Malley, William

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Mara, James

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Black, Alexander William

Jordan, Jeremiah

Pirie, Duncan V.

Blake, Edward

Joyce, Michael

Power, Patrick Joseph

Boland, John

Kennedy, Patrick James

Reddy, M.

Boyle, James

Labouchere, Henry

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Brigg, John

Lloyd-George, David

Redmond, William (Clare)

Broadhurst, Henry

Lough, Thomas

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Burns, John

MacDonneli, Dr. Mark A.

Roche, John

Caine, William Sproston

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Cameron, Robert

M'Dermott, Patrick

Sullivan, Donal

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Carew, James Laurence

Mansfield, Horace Kendall

Tully, Jasper

Carvill, Patrick George H.

Mooney, John J.

Weir, James Galloway

Channing, Francis Allston

Murphy, J.

White, George (Norfolk)

Cogan, Denis J.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

Delany, William

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Dillon, John

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Duffy, William J.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Yoxall, James Henry

Elibank, Master of

O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

Ellis, John Edward

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Farrell, James Patrick

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Mr. Patrick O'Brien and

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Mr. Haviland-Burke.

Hammond, John

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

LORD HUGH CECIL: Perhaps I ought to apologise, being of such junior standing and experience in the House, for introducing an Amendment of so much importance in the discussion of a question which is necessarily so delicate and in my opinion of the utmost gravity. I only venture to do so because my feeling in the matter is a very strong one, and if there be, as doubtless there may be, Members of longer standing who are inclined to criticise my action, I hope I may mitigate their ill opinion by the studied moderation which I desire to display. I have listened with great interest to the greater number of the speeches delivered in this debate, and I think only that of the lion. Member for the Mansfield Division reflected the view I am anxious to urge upon the House. What is the feeling of the great body of sober and well-judging people in this country about violent disorder? I am not speaking of the past, I do not desire to speak of the past, I am speaking of the future—the disorder that has to be dealt with should
916
it arise under the Amendment of the Standing Order which has been proposed
I am satisfied that the great body of sober, well-judging people of the community, who are, let us not forget, the true governors of the country, entertain feelings of repugnance against violent disorder which are not to be described by milder terms than abhorrence and contempt. If this House as a body were to show itself unable' to deal with that kind of disorder, it would pass away as a body enjoying any moral authority, it would cease to be what the House of Commons has been in the past. I will not dilate at any length on the moral authority of the House of Commons. I will only submit two aspects of it. We hear often of the infringement of the rights of private Members, and it cannot be denied that there is going on a transfer of political power from the House of Commons to the Cabinet. I am not thinking of this Cabinet or of that, but of the Cabinet as an institution. The Cabinet is apparently an institution which is grow-

917
ing in influence and in repute with their countrymen; it is the House of Commons which is apparently losing it. Why is it that appeals for the rights of private Members fall, outside the walls of this House, on deaf ears? Why is it that nobody cares outside these walls about the rights of private Members? Because there is a deep-seated feeling that the House is an institution which has ceased to have much authority or much repute, and that when a better institution, represented by the Cabinet, encroaches upon the rights of a worse one, it is a matter of small concern to the country. But there is another institution in the country which the Members of the Opposition are accustomed to regard with great jealousy—I mean the House of Lords. Hon. Members opposite are accustomed playfully sometimes to remind us that, whereas we employ the closure or encroach on their rights now when we are in a majority, we will suffer when we are in a minority. I will venture to address a similar argument to them. The time may come when hon. Gentlemen opposite will be in a majority and they may be anxious to rally popular support in a contest or dispute with the House of Lords. In such a case, of course, the active matter in dispute is of great importance, but there is also the element of the moral authority of the two Assemblies that are in conflict. Is the moral authority of the House of Commons growing stronger as against that of the House of Lords? I would remind the House how the House of Lords was employed on Tuesday evening. There was a debate in which men of great eminence took part. There were sharp divisions of opinion and even sharp criticisms, but they were expressed with the utmost dignity and decorum—attributes which the great body of English people admire and expect in a Senate.
MR. DILLON: They have no closure.
LORD HUGH CECIL: The issue is of the greatest possible importance. If this House fails in moral authority, the whole balance of the Constitution is upset. If it decays, another set of institutions will take its place which we may live to regret, and hon. and right
918
hon. Gentlemen opposite perhaps more than anyone else, if they do not make a stand against that disorder which must destroy an institution in the esteem of the country. It may be said that the Amendment I intend to propose is of a more drastic character—that it militates against legitimate opposition, or might be used improperly against those who oppose a measure, perhaps with some extravagance, but still substantially fairly and properly. Let me remind the House of the most celebrated opposition of recent times—that to the Home Rule Bill. It may be held by hon. Gentlemen opposite that that Opposition was unreasonably, obstructively conducted, but in no solitary case did any of those who were opposing the Home Rule Bill come in conflict with the Chair. In the last Parliament the Voluntary Schools Bill was vehemently opposed, but no Member was suspended during the proceedings upon it. On the Agricultural Rating Bill it is true that during an all-night sitting a large number of Members were suspended. But these cases would be beyond the scope of and would not be affected by the Amendment. The Standing Order as framed is not adequate to the gravity of the occasion in my view. Suspension is a remedy which varies in effect with the period of the session in which it is imposed. At the present time it would be very severe, later in the year less severe, and in July hardly a penalty at all. So it is not a good remedy. Violent conduct in the House is not only an offence against Parliamentary orders and manners, but an offence against the ordinary law of the land; it is a criminal offence. If the violence were done in the street those who committed it would suffer imprisonment. Why should violence when it is aggravated by a gross Parliamentary offence be more leniently treated here? Sober, well-judging people do not draw a distinction between Members of Parliament and other persons; if they do, it is to expect a higher degree of morality and orderliness from their legislators. "Why," they ask, "if a Member of Parliament is violent and assaults those acting in the execution of their duty, should he not be punished with the imprisonment which would

919
overtake one of ourselves?" I think the punishment of imprisonment will express our indignation against the offence, and that is one of the great objects of punishment.
Sir, I will end as I began, by appealing to the opinion of the community. In our country the constitution is not written in a document. It is not amended by formal legislation. It grows in one direction or another. It is hardly possible for an observer to trace its growth, A custom grows up one hardly knows how, and there is a change. Be sure of it, that if we neglect disorder it will gain a hold on the House, and the usefulness and power of the House will be gone never to return. Though we have conducted ourselves in a light vein, we are engaged in the gravest constitutional question which has been before us since the Home Rule Bill. It goes to the vitals of the Constitution. I have no scruple in moving that imprisonment should be assigned for the offence of violent misconduct. Imprisonment for such an offence in the House is not unknown. It was formerly the chief punishment for disorderly conduct in the House. On Tuesday night it would have been perfectly lawful for the Speaker to have committed every Member who was then guilty of disorderly conduct. What I am proposing is that the authority of the Chair, which may be exercised under the order of the House, should be exercised without the order of the House. A more constitutional proposal could not be made. I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given notice.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"In line 6, after the word 'put,' to insert the words 'shall be committed to prison until the further order of the House, and shall.'"—(Lord Hugh Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment, as amended."
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: My noble friend has moved an Amendment and he has made a speech. I draw a distinction between the speech and the Amendment. With the great body of the speech I agree. I thought his
920
speech an impressive statement of fact. I think many of the dangers which he has signalised are real dangers. I think it is true that if this House is to retain, as I believe it still retains, the great position which it occupies of authority in the country, it can only do so by seeing that its rules are respected and that order prevails within its walls. I do not go into certain, aspects of the question brought forward by my noble friend. Ho travelled into far regions. I feel that I could not with advantage, on the present occasion, follow him into the respective developments to which he referred of Cabinets and Parliament in the way of a balance, or the growing or waning influence of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. These are considerations which lead far beyond the necessities of the occasion, but they were not out of place in the speech of my noble friend, because he desired to present his own strong and earnest convictions of the vital interests with which we have got to deal in discussing the Amendment of the Standing Order now before the House. Therefore, though I cannot comment adequately in the space of a speech on his proposal, with the general trend of his argument I have no particular desire to quarrel; but when I look into his speech I find a lack of cohesion, a certain want of rigid political logic, between the means and the ends. Though the ends aimed at by my noble friend are excellent, the means are not, I think, likely to achieve them. My noble friend took objection to our proposal on the ground that the punishment to be meted out will diminish as the session goes on, so that towards the end the punishment would be very small. My noble friend forgot to notice that that objection—and I think it is a weakness in the Standing Order—attaches as much to the Standing Order as it stands as it attaches to the Standing Order proposed by us. My noble friend is under the impression that a Member in prison towards the end of the session would not be released when the prorogation arrives.
LORD HUGH CECIL: Even a short period of imprisonment would be an improvement.
Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Send for two resident magistrates.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My noble friend does not quite follow me. I was not touching on that part of his speech in which he seemed to indicate that the punishment we propose would be unequal. I was arguing that our punishment was unequal, and that the inequality attaches both to imprisonment by the House and to suspension. I leave that argument, because I understand my noble friend now abandons it. I am not at all sure that there may not be cases of disorder and violent acts for which the punishment provided would be totally inadequate; but remember we are dealing with a summary and automatic procedure, and that in dealing with that procedure it is essential that the punishment should not go beyond a certain amount. Now, Sir, let it be noticed that the House maintains all the powers it at present possesses. Nothing in this rule affects the existing powers, but it strengthens the action of the House in ordering suspension for the session. It is open to the House to amend the rule and inflict severe punishment. It is also conceivable—I trust it is only conceivable, not probable, not measurably probable—that criminal proceedings might have to be taken against a Member of this House. After all, the immunities of this House do not extend to committing with impunity a crime in this House which out of it would be a punishable crime. But when my noble friend suggests that as part of an ordinary rule we should have this procedure, let me call the attention of the House to a few considerations. I gather that he feels that imprisonment is not a punishment that can be inflicted without the power of revision by the House. How would that work in practice? Let us suppose for the sake of argument that a deplorable scene, similar to that of last Tuesday night, again took place. If this rule were passed, the Members who were guilty of taking part in that scene would be at once sent to prison. For the rest of the session the question would conspiracy always be arising, Is the House to release them or is it not to release them? How is that question to be decided? Is any Member to have the power of raising the question when he likes as a question of
922
privilege? Is it to be brought forward, let me say, by the hon. Member for Water-ford whenever he thinks his friends have been sufficiently long in prison? Is he to have the right to say to the House that the sentence should be brought to an end? If it does not rest with individual Members, is it to rest with the Government? If it is to rest with the Government, I have to say to my noble friend that we cannot take upon ourselves this duty of considering and reconsidering how long the sentence ought to be of any Gentleman who has been imprisoned by the House. It is not a fair responsibility to put upon the Government. It is not a responsibility which, as part of the ordinary procedure, I should recommend the House to adopt, and it is inconsistent with the automatic and summary character of the whole of these proceedings. I therefore think that the machinery my noble friend proposes is open to the gravest objections. There is another objection. My noble friend regards imprisonment as a very severe punishment. I have known cases where a great deal of cheap martyrdom has been derived from imprisonment.
MR. DILLON: The Jameson case.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have known cases when a great deal of cheap martyrdom was very easily obtained by confinement as a first-class misdemeanant, and of course it is only as a first-class misdemeanant that this House has the power to confine anybody. And there have been those who have been cynical enough to suggest that a time might come when, as part of a conspiracy to excite sympathy outside the walls of this House—outside, perhaps, even the four corners of the United Kingdom—there might be a scene got up within the precincts of the House. I cannot imagine, if such a scene were got up with this dramatic intention, how that intention could be more admirably fulfilled than by committing to prison as first-class misdemeanants those who took part in that let me say, for a week at the end of the session. I strongly urge my noble friend to consider whether his own view would be furthered were we to accept his Amendment. For my own part, I feel quite clear that the House, in

923
adopting this rapid, ready system of administering justice and meting out punishment, would be very ill-advised if it were to inflict a sentence, possibly perfectly proper in itself, but which would only be proper after all the precautions of an elaborate trial. When I add to these considerations the fact that imprisonment itself may be a punishment more in appearance than in reality, and that it may call forth a stream of sympathy with the offender to which he is not entitled, I think all these considerations taken in their cumulative effect make a conclusive case against the proposal of my noble friend.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I cannot help feeling a certain measure of respect for the manner in which the noble Lord, a new Member of this House, has lectured this ancient assembly. The House of Commons has become democratised, and there are hon. Members in it of all classes. It is the fashion of the class to which the noble Lord belongs to speak in somewhat supercilious contempt of the democratised House of Commons. But the noble Lord will permit me to say that through the vast multiplicity and complexity of the duties of Parliament there has been a tendency in recent years to concentrate power in the hands of Ministers, and to trench on the reasonable rights of private Members. There is none the less growing up among Members—at any rate, among thoughtful Members—the opinion that the abstraction of the time of the House of Commons by the Government is approaching something of the nature of a public scandal, which will have to be resisted at no distant date by very definite action on the part of private Members. Although I have been fifteen years in the House, I have never ventured to touch on questions of procedure previously, because I thought that such matters should more properly, be relegated to the care and discretion of the experienced and older Members.
I approach this subject with the greatest reluctance, but with reference to the Amendment of the noble Lord I may say at the outset that I do not think he has given due consideration to the practical effect of the operation of any such rule as he suggests. For
924
my part, I believe with a distinguished Member of the Conservative party now gone—Sir Stafford Northcote—that the greatest security for the decorum and dignity of this House is the placing of the fullest responsibility on the Members of the House, and that the more you apply restrictions and punishments the greater will undoubtedly be the sense of weakened responsibility, and the greater the risk of confusion. Does the noble Lord really suppose that he is going to raise the standard of honour and dignity of this House, and increase the sense of self-respect of its Members, by keeping permanently—or more or less permanently—a considerable contingent of its Members in prison? The idea is as fantastic as it is absurd. Further, let me ask the noble Lord not to test this question by his own fastidious notions of what imprisonment may mean. Does he suppose that the Irish Members are likely to be deterred from doing what they believe, rightly or wrongly, to be their duty by imprisonment? On the contrary, it would be an additional incentive. It would not be from any desire for cheap martyrdom, as the First Lord of the Treasury cynically observed. It would be from a desire to show that they are willing, in spite of any dangers and penalties, to serve what they conceive to be the interests of their country. In conclusion, I desire to say that I have at heart, as much as any hon. Member opposite the maintenance of the decorum and dignity of this House. I will go further, and say that I believe that the bulk of the Irish Members have the honour and dignity of the House equally at heart, [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I cannot forget—having been a long time in this House—that there was no man more jealous of maintaining proper discipline among the Irish party than the late Mr. Parnell. He resorted to obstruction, but never did be tolerate, encourage, or permit any deviation from the strict course of gentlemanly, honourable, and Parliamentary conduct. That is a view which I know will be shared by the older Members of the House. I consider that no greater stain or slur has in my humble judgment, been ever inflicted on the House of Commons—and I fully associate myself with what has been said by

925
the Leader of the Opposition on the subject—than when it was invaded, no doubt in obedience to proper authority, by the police. By all means maintain the dignity and prestige of this House; but I for one believe that that object can best be secured by increasing and not by diminishing the sense of individual responsibility.
LORD HUGH CECIL: I do not think this is an occasion on which I can usefully serve any purpose by dividing the House against the Government. I would therefore ask to be allowed to withdraw my Amendment. [Cries of "No."]
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The noble Lord having introduced this startling proposition ought certainly to allow the Members of the House to have the advantage of discussing it at some reasonable length. The noble Lord seems to have been greatly influenced in his decision by the speech of his relative the First Lord of the Treasury. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman must wish that all his speeches would have an equally ready effect on all Members of the House. But as the noble Lord has been kind enough to propose that certain Irish Members should be sent to prison because they perform what they conceive to be their duty in this House, I think he will admit that it is reasonable that Irish Members should be allowed to say a few words on the subject. Personally I should not have intervened in the debate were it not for what I undoubtedly thought was a rather ill-natured remark which fell from the First Lord of the Treasury on the question of imprisonment. He spoke of having some knowledge of cases—where they occurred he did not say, but we all know where he was alluding to—
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Not in Ireland.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman now says that these cases were not in Ireland, and I am very glad to have that disclaimer, because I and a number of other Irish Members suffered imprisonment under the right hon. Gentleman's rule in Ireland, and the hard labour we had to perform,
926
and the bread-and-water diet to which we were subjected, ought, at least, to have protected us from the cheap taunts of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not thinking of anything that occurred in Ireland. The cases which I had in mind were not Irish but English cases, and cases of first-class misdemeanants.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I at once accept the disclaimer of the right hon. Gentleman, but it does not altogether impress me, because the right hon. Gentleman knows what a number of Irish Members suffered in the way of imprisonment for doing what they considered to be their duty.
Now the noble Lord is really very hard to please. We know that the historical records of his noble house are stern and grim records in many respects, but surely he might have allowed the Irish Members to carry out what they conceive to be their duty in this House without subjecting them to imprisonment. What does the noble Lord mean? He belongs to a great family, which dominates every single great Department of the State—the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Foreign Office—and now it appears that nothing will satisfy him except to put everyone in prison who does not agree with him. All I can say is, that if this proposition is carried out it will not in the slightest degree deter any Irish Member from acting in the way he considers he ought to act, and further, I believe that there is not a single hon. Member in this House who imagines that there is any Irish Member who would be deterred by the paltry threat of a few months imprisonment from doing what he conceived to be his duty. A more outrageous and, at the same time, a more ludicrous proposal was never heard in this House. The noble Lord spoke at some length of public opinion and its effect on this House and on the House of Lords. I think his proposal to-night shows to some extent the state of abject panic into which public opinion in this country has allowed itself to drift in connection with the proceedings of Tuesday last. We hear of good feeling having been outraged, and of acts having been committed

927
within the House which would not have been tolerated outside it. If illegal acts were committed by the Irish Members, it was to protest against what would be protested against by every portion of the community, against what I would call little short of the robbery of the taxpayers by imposing millions on millions of taxation at one sitting, without allowing a single representative from Ireland to say a word as to whether he thought that the taxation was to be expended justly or not. We are entitled also, in considering this Amendment, to consider the causes which led up to the scene which took place. I say that if a fair limit of time had been allowed for discussion no scene would have taken place, and I tell the noble Lord that there is no Legislature in Europe—
*Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question before the House is whether imprisonment should be ordered. The causes of the disorder last Tuesday cannot be gone into.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I have no desire to stray in the slightest degree from what is appropriate to this Amendment, but I thought I was entitled to answer the noble Lord and the references he made. I will pass from the subject by saying that there is not one of these legislatures which would have tolerated the closure which took place in this House. The noble Lord referred at length to the House of Lords. Some hon. Members seemed to think that that was not altogether relevant to this Amendment, but I should think that on a question of imprisonment a reference to the House of Lords would be always quite in order, for it is a proposal that might be more reasonably looked for from the House of Lords than from the democratic House of Commons of Great Britain. The noble Lord has not gone far enough, and I submit to him that instead of withdrawing this Amendment he should do what I have no doubt he would like to do, what I have no doubt many Members opposite would like to do, and what I know their forefathers did in days gone by with the Irish people's representatives, and that is to cut this matter short by making a rule that hon. Members who may disobey under any
928
circumstances shall be committed not to prison, but to the Tower of London and forthwith decapitated.
COLONEL NOLANsaid that such an Amendment as they were now discussing should, he fancied, have come from those responsible for the conduct of the business of the House, and not from so close a connection of the head of the Government. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment was treading on somewhat dangerous ground. The hon. and gallant Member did not for a moment say that disobedience to the orders of the Chair was not a serious offence, but the punishment that had been proposed by the Government was political and it was very severe, for the suspension of a Member for possibly six months practically meant the disfranchisement of the constituency. But that was not a personal punishment. It was reserved for a near relative of the Prime Minister to propose for the first time in that House that a period of imprisonment should be given. He hoped that most of the hon. Members, even on the other side of the House, would not try to push their opponents too hard. He hoped they would not thirst for, he would not say the blood, but for the imprisonment of offending Members.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Although the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich has asked leave to withdraw his Amendment, still he has presented an exceedingly grave issue to the House, and has done good service by proposing the Amendment. He is the only hon. Member who seems to appreciate in full the gravity of the situation. It is true that his view is different from that of his relative the First Lord of the Treasury. He proposes that the Member guilty of the offence should be punished; the Leader of the House proposes that the constituency should be punished. Of the two, I must say that I think the noble Lord the more logical. At the same time he has presented an exceedingly important issue, not merely to the House but to the country. The noble Lord says there is a decline in the influence and authority of the House of Commons. He might have gone further, and said that that decline was contemporaneous

929
with the two Unionist Governments which have been in power. This is really a very important matter. I think the House of Commons will pause even at this hour and consider really whether either the noble Lord or the First Lord of the Treasury has hit upon the real cause. The noble Lord says that certain disorderly Members must be punished. He says that the Amendment proposed by the First Lord of the Treasury is inadequate. I say it is not merely inadequate, but it is absolutely irrelevant to the cause of the whole disturbance. Let me take the three cases instanced by the noble Lord, and they are most singular cases. The first case was the Education Bill. Let us examine that for a moment, and the House of Commons can easily discover who is at the bottom of this decline in its authority. What was done in the case of the Voluntary Schools Bill? A Bill was introduced of a most important character, which created a perfect revolution in the educational machinery of this country. It proposed to hand over to the ecclesiastical authorities the management of half the schools of the Kingdom, and what did the First Lord of the Treasury do? He came down and said he would carry the Bill. He would listen to no Amendment, not a single comma was to be disturbed. The House of Commons was not allowed to deliberate and criticise. It had nothing to do but to register the decision of the First Lord, who himself did not understand the Bill. All I can say is that this is reducing the business of this House to a farce.
*MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord referred to two or three cases in which there was great feeling. That does not entitle the hon. Member to discuss the merits of the Bills.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I was simply going to point out that the Amendment of the noble Lord had nothing whatever to do with the cause of disorder. The cause of disorder is not to be found in anything he referred to. The same thing applies to the Agricultural Rating Bill, which is another of the cases he referred to.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid it would not be in order to discuss the merits of the Bill.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Then, I shall be in the position of not being allowed to substantiate what I have stated. As long as it is perfectly understood that I shall not be in order in pursuing that matter, I shall not carry that further. There is the last illustration, which I think will be absolutely relevant. The noble Lord said they had there the gravest constitutional question of modern times, but there was no conflict with the authority of the Chair. The noble Lord has not acquainted himself with the history of that particular transaction. I have just been consulting Hansard about it. An order was given to clear the House for a division, which is exactly analogous to the present case—the very thing that has precipitated this rule. I One Member—and I believe he is a Member who has to-night been denouncing the disorderly conduct of the Irish Members, who has been saying that they are not fit to be Members of the House, and should be expelled—turned round and said, "Do not let us go out," and stimulated his colleagues around him to acts of disorder. What happened in that case? After all, we are supposed to be here on a basis of equality, but I am not clear that it is anything beyond a mere supposition. There are hon. Members here from Ireland in a permanent minority, belonging to a different race, and with a different attitude towards the Imperial Parliament. They have not yet been reconciled to the Imperial Parliament. I think they represent a country which has suffered a good deal at the hands of the Imperial Parliament. That is acknowledged by both parties in the House. Nobody denies it, and both parties endeavour to effect a remedy, each in its own way. I say, in a case of that kind it is the business, and it ought to be the pleasure, of the Imperial Parliament to treat the Irish Members with even a greater amount of indulgence than Members belonging to other portions of the United Kingdom. But what happened in the case? am referring to, when English Tory Members of Parliament grossly and openly defied the Chair? No one got up and moved that Mr. So-and-So be named. The First Lord of the Treasury talks very solemnly to us about the dignity and

931
honour of this House. Where was he then? He was present. Did he rebuke the Members? Did he get up and dissent—
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is entirely misrepresenting history. He is not stating the facts.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg the First Lord's pardon. I have been acquainting myself with the history within the last few minutes. I am simply giving a case which is strictly analogous—
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I was not in the House; he says I was.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This case—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! There is an Amendment before the House, and this detailed discussion with regard to the Home Rule Bill is not in order.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am sorry if in replying to the First Lord's observations I was disorderly, but I think I am entitled to reply to the challenge of the noble Lord to Members on this side of the House by that precedent. He says. "This is how we conducted ourselves."
LORD HUGH CECIL: My argument was that no one was suspended.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is exactly my point. The only difference between the two cases is that nobody interferes with English Tory Members; they are not punished; but the First Lord makes them Ministers at the first opportunity. More than that, there was not a single Irish Member sitting here on Tuesday night who offered violence to anybody. But in this other case the Member for Fulham did that.
A LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR. HAYES FISHER,): I hope the hon. Member will make some approach to accuracy. I altogether deny that I offered any violence to any Member— [An Hon. Member: We saw you.]— until the hon. Member for the Harborough Division came across the floor of the House and made an attack upon me.
*MR. SPEAKER: Anything that took place between the hon. Member for Fulham and the hon. Member for the Harborough Division is surely not germane to the point under discussion.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Of course I am sorry if I. have travelled beyond the point of issue, but I have not travelled an inch beyond the precedent set me by the noble Lord, and, in justice to an absent man who is at present ill, I think I ought to be allowed to say that the hon. Member for the Harborough Division was not guilty of touching the hon. Member for Fulham.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Whether the hon. Member for Fulham or the hon. Member for the Harborough Division was the more to blame in a transaction which took place in 1893 has nothing to do with the matter under discussion.
MR. LLOYD GEORGE: All I say is that I congratulate the First Lord of the Treasury, who moves this amended resolution and approves of the speech but not the Amendment of the noble Lord, that he has selected as one of those responsible for maintaining discipline in his party the hon. Member for Fulham. There is no reason why the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich should be ashamed of his Amendment; he has presented the case fairly between the two parties in the House; he resorts to the good old Tory principle that punitive measures are the only ones with which to deal with cases of this kind. We say that you ought to get at the root of the difficulty, and deal with that. The worst thing you can do is to peddle with these little Amendments of the Standing Orders instead of dealing with the real evil itself. The fact of the matter is this: You will effect nothing by this Amendment of the Standing Order. You have got to deal with the real difficulty, and that is that you are governing a nation against its will. The First Lord has referred to the precedents that occurred during the last five years. But he knows very well that during that time there was no real Opposition, and the I precedents that then occurred are of no I use at all. We have now from Ireland

933
a resuscitation of the Nationalist movement, and what has disturbed the House is, if I may say so, the reappearance of the Irish banshee in its midst. We have here a motion for imprisoning the Irish Members for protesting against the mismanagement of the business of the House by the First Lord of the Treasury, and for standing up for the rights of their constituents. We are engaged in crushing out a nationality 6,000 miles away, and imagine that we are going to do it in a few weeks; but here we have a nation which has for 700 years protested against your rule.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The speech of the noble Lord excited in me feelings of astonishment and of indignation. He and others have spoken of the degradation of this House and the gradual diminution of its authority. I accept the statement as accurately describing the feeling of the world outside this Assembly. This degradation was partly or largely caused, at least for the moment, by the action of some of my lion, friends the Members from Ireland, and the. House has now for nearly an hour and a half, with the sanction and approval of the Leader of the House, as the guardian of its honour and dignity, been discussing the question whether or not the right of Members to exercise their duties in this House should subject them to imprisonment. Talk of the degradation of Parliament, when the son of the Prime Minister—not a young and untried man from Ireland, but a Member of this House for years—has the courage, I use the word "courage" because I wish to be polite, to come here and declare that a Member of this House because of his nationality should be subject to imprisonment because he protests against what he considers to be a wrong done to his country! I say because of his nationality, because some of those who are to night the loudest advocates of order and dignity did exactly the same thing as the Irish Members did on Tuesday night, with this difference, that they were rewarded by office, while the Irish Members were turned out of the House. Did I not see the hon. Member for Fulham sit in his seat for twenty or thirty minutes absolutely declining to leave the House or join in the division, shouting and howling at the then Chair-
934
man of Committees, and defying his authority? Yet he was never suspended I even for one hour. I am not saying this in any spirit of rancour or bitter recollection; the hon. Member was suffering from strong political excitement—
MR. HAYES FISHER: So also was the hon. Member himself; He shouted out "Judas Iscariot!"
MR. JOHN BURNS: But he did not get the thirty pieces of silver.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I should have thought that tenderness for the political reputation and susceptibilities of one of his most illustrious colleagues would have suggested to the hon. Member that it would be just as well not to remind the House of that. But I do not find fault with hon. Members because under violent political excitement they took strong action. I do not think the worse of any man who holds strong opinions and who, when he considers those opinions are not fairly treated, expresses his views in strong words. My complaint is that because they were Englishmen they were permitted to do these acts of violence and grave political disorder without even rebuke from their own leaders or from the great and distinguished man who held the chair in the House. They escaped all blame whatever. The Speaker and that great Leader of the House (Mr. Gladstone) took what I believe was the right attitude, namely, they turned something of a deaf ear and a blind eye in that time of grave political excitement, instead of degrading the House as it never was degraded before, by the introduction of police within the walls of this Chamber.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires to blame my conduct he must do it by a substantive motion. The hon. Member is now attacking the Chair in the most unjustifiable manner.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: In obedience to your ruling, which in the interests of Ireland I think it always right to obey, I will not pursue that line of argument further; but I trust I may address the Leader of the House, and contrast him with the Leader of the House at the time to which I was referring. The

935
then Leader of the House, who was always in his place, and in that way was always able to keep order and good repute, let the incident pass, and the result was the violence and high feeling were forgotten in a few days. Therefore I have justified my statement which I made in the case of the noble Lord that his Amendment is for the purpose of imprisoning Members of this House because of their nationality, and not for any other purpose.
The Leader of the House made a speech in reply to the speech of the noble Lord. I do not wish to suggest to the First Lord of the Treasury the manner in which he should discharge his duties on an occasion like this, but to treat seriously this monstrous proposition, this gross outrage upon the dignity and honour of this House, as if it were a serious proposition; to discuss for twenty-five minutes a proposal that Members should be imprisoned because they are Irishmen; to treat a speech and an Amendment like that seriously, is a reflection upon the dignity and the honour of the House. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich makes his speeches in good taste as a rule, but to-night he has made an almost impudent motion. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has spoken of the cheap martyrdom of imprisonment, but I will tell the House what I think of this proposal. The noble Lord

AYES.—Nil.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Balfour, Rt. Hon.G. W. (Leeds

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Acland- Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Balfour, Maj.KR(Christchurch

Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Banbury, Frederick George

Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bartley, George C. T.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Aird, Sir John

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud)

Beach,Rt. Hn. SirM.H.(Bristol

Bull, William James

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Bullard, Sir Harry

Ambrose, Robert

Beckett, Ernest William

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bell, Richard

Burke, E. Haviland-

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Burns, John

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bigwood, James

Butcher, John George

Arrol, Sir William

Bill, Charles

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Black, Alexander William

Caine, William Sproston

Ashton, Thomas (lair

Blake, Edward

Caldwell, James

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert II.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Atherley, Jones L.

Boland, John

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bond, Edward

Carew, James Laurence

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Carlile, William Walter

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Boyles, James

Causton, Richard Knight

Baird, John George A.

Brand, Hon. Arthur (J.

Cautley, Henry Strother

balcarres, Lord

Brigg, John

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

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

Broadhurst, Henry

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

says that one of the reasons why the authority of the House is going down is because the power is passing from the House to the Cabinet, and that is one of the reasons why the authority of the House is going down. I quite acknowledge that the repute of this House is going down in the eyes of the country. It will go down further if it is to be the duty of the House simply to register the decrees of Ministers without debate—to neglect and forego the greatest of all its duties, namely, the careful scrutiny and criticism of the expenditure of the country and its various departments. The noble Lord says the power is passing into the hands of the Cabinet. That is a very serious statement considering the composition of the Cabinet. What does it mean? The Cabinet consists practically of members of one family, and everybody knows that every family in the history of the world is governed by the Benjamin of the family. And therefore, as the House will plainly see, what the noble Lord, this young Cromwell, really has in his mind is that the one true remedy for the salvation of the House, for the restoration of its repute, its honour, and its dignity, is to entrust the liberties of the Irish Members to the youngest son of the noble house of Cecil.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, nil; Noes, 426. (Division List No. 44.)

Cawley, Frederick

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

Labouchere, Henry

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Lambert, George

Chamberlain,Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

Couliding, Edward Alfred

Lambton,Hon.Frederick Wm.

Chamberlain,J.Austen(Worc'r

Graham, Henry Robert

Law, Andrew Bonar

Channing, Francis Allston

Grant, Corrie

Lawrence, William F.

Chapman, Edward

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Lawson, John Grant

Charrington, Spencer

Green, WalfordD.(Wed'sbury

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Greene,Sir EW(BrySEdm'nds

Lecky,Rt. Hn.William Edw. H

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Grenfell, William Henry

Lee,CaptA.H.(Hants.Fareh'm

Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

Gretton, John

Leese,Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Cogan, Denis J.

Grevilie, Hon. Ronald

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Griffith, Ellis J.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Groves, James Grimble

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Leng, Sir John

Colville, John

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Leveson-Gower, Fred. N.S.

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Lloyd-George, David

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hall, Edward Marshall

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Cook, Frederick Lucas

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Corbett, A Cameron(Glasgow)

Hambro, Charles Eric

Long,Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Craig, Robert Hunter

Hamilton, Rt Hn LordG (Mid'x

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

Cranborne, Viscount

Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Hammond, John

Lough, Thomas

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hardie,J Keir(MerthyrTydvil

Lowe, Francis William

Cust, Henry John C.

Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashf'd

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

Dalziel, James Henry

Harrington, Timothy

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsm'th)

Davies, Sir Horario D (Chatham

Harris, F.Leverton (Tynem'th

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Macartney, Rt Hn W.G. Ellison

Delany, William

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Macdona, John Cumming

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Dimsdale; Sir Joseph Cockfield

Hayden, John Patrick

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hayne. Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Maconochie, A. W.

Dixon-Hart land, Sir Fd. Dixon

Hayter, Rt Hn. Sir Arthur D.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverp'l)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

M'Arthur, William (Cornw'll)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

M'Calmont, Col. J.(Antrim, E.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Heaton, John Henniker

M'Crae, George

Duffy, William J.

Helder, Augustus

M'Dermott, Patrick

Duke, Henry Edward

Helme, Norval Watson

M'lver, Sir Lewis (Edinb., W.

Duncan, James H.

Henderson, Alexander

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Majendie, James A. H.

Edwards, Frank

Hoare, Edw. Brodie(Hampstd.

Malcolm, Ian

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Hobhouse,C. E. H.(Bristol,E.)

Manners, Lord Cecil

Elibank, Master of

Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset, E.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Elliot, Hon. A. RalphDouglas

Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Ellis, John Edward

Horniman, Frederick John

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W. F

Emmott, Alfred

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Mather, William

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Hoult, Joseph

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE (Wigt'n

Faber George Denison

Howard,Cpt. J. (Kent,Faversh.

Maxwell, W. J. H(Dumfreissh.

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Farrell, James Patrick

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Middlemore, John Throgm'rt'n.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Milton, Viscount

Ferguson, B. C. Munro(Leith)

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Milward, Colonel Victor

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Hutton,John (Yorks, N. R.)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Jackson,Rt.Hon. Wm. Lawies

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Fisher, William Hayes

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Mooney, John J.

Fison, Frederick William

Jessel, Captian Herbert Merton

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Johnston, William (Belfast)

More, Robert Jasper (Shropsh.)

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Morgan, David J. (Walthamst.

Flower, Ernest

Joicey, Sir James

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Flynn, James Christopher

Jones,David Brynmor(Sw'nsea

Morrell, George Herbert

Forster, Henry William

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Morrison, James Archibald

Foster,Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Jordan, Jeremiah

Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptf'd)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Joyce, Michael

Morton, Edw.J.C. (Devonport

Gartit, William

Kearley, Hudson E.

Moulton, John Fletcher

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond.

Kennedy, Patrick James

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Muntz, Philip A.

Gladstone. Rt. Hn HerbertJohn

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Murphy, J.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Kenyon-Slanev, Col. W. (Salop.

Murray, Rt Hn A.Graham(Bute

Godson,SirAugustusFrederick

Keswick, William

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn

Kimber, Henry

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Kitson, Sir James

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Gordon,Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlts

Knowles, Lees

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

938

939

Nicholson, William Graham

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Rentoul, James Alexander

Tennant, Harold John

Nolan, Col. John F.(Galway, N.

Renwick, George

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Rickett, J. Compton

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Ridley,Hn M. W.(Stalybridge)

Thomas,F.Freeman(Hastings

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson

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

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thornton, Percy M.

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipp'r'ry, Mid

Roche, John

Tollemache, Henry James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Tomkinson, James

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Ropner, Col. Robert

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Round, James

Trevelvan, Charles Philips

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S,)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Tufnell, Col. Edward

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Russell, T. W.

Valentia, Viscount

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan

O'Malley, William

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

O'Mara, James

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Webb, Col. William George

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Saunderson, Rt. Hon.Col. E. J.

Weir, James Galloway

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Welby,Lt.-Col.A.C.E.(T'nton

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

White, George (Norfolk)

Parker, Gilbert

Seton-Karr, Henry

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Partington, Oswald

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Paulton, James Meflor

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

Simeon, Sir Harrington

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Williams,Rt.HnJPowell-(Bir.

Percy, Earl

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Perks, Robert William

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Pilkington, Richard

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Pirie, Duncan V.

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

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

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand

Wilson,Henry J. (York, W.R.

Plummer, Walter R.

Soares, Ernest J.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (North'nts

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset

Woodhouse,SirJT(Huddersf'd

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edwara

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

Purvis, Robert

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Wrigntson, Sir, Thomas

Randles, John S.

Stock, James Henry

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Stroyan, John

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Reckitt, Harold James

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Reddy, M.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Yoxall, James Henry

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Sullivan, Donal

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Redmond, William (Clare)

Talbot, Lord E. (Colchester)

Sir William Walrond and

Reid, James (Greenock)

Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Uni.

Mr. Anstruther.

MR. LABOUCHERE: I really wonder that the right lion. Gentleman, with his intelligence, should have wasted so much of the time of the House. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman brought on this change in the Standing Order because certain of our hon. friends resented the action of the Government, and under circumstances of great irritation insisted on remaining in the House after you, Sir, had ordered them to divide. But has it not occurred to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that there is no earthly reason why Members should not sit here while a division is going forward? Does the First Lord of the Treasury think that the rule to oblige Members to clear out of the House into the lobby is of ancient order? It was only by a decision of Mr. Speaker Brand that it commenced; there is no
940
Standing Order to that effect, and all that Mr. Speaker Brand's decision has done has been to keep us from coming into the House. Sometimes we find ourselves in the House, and we have to decide whether we shall vote aye or no, and, for my part, on one occasion I had the privilege of voting with my right hon. friend, although I had the very strongest objection to going into the Conservative lobby.
My suggestion is that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury should now follow the example of his noble relative, and so far from anyone opposing such a proceeding, we shall all accept it with pleasure. If he were to do that, and bring in later a resolution that Members who happened to be in the House when a division is called may remain in the House, then that matter might be discussed. Why,

941
Sir, I remember an occasion in the time of Mr. Speaker Peel when the Colonial Secretary remained in the House. At the time of the division the Colonial Secretary had disappeared, nobody could find him, and he did not take part in the division; but directly after the division he appeared again. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman was in the precincts of the House when the doors were locked, and was in the same illegal position as certain hon. Members upon the benches behind me were on Tuesday night. He was behind your chair, and in the same way, on Tuesday, hon. Members would very likely have disappeared if they had known where to go. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should put an end to this difficulty, and put an end to the clearing of the House when a division is going on. If the right hon. Gentleman does not take that course we ought to look upon this matter as one in which the offence which was committed by the Irish Members has been committed by English Members over and over again. This is making a racial question of it. I do not for a moment wish to minimise their dereliction from the rules of the House, and I do not wish to excuse it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, no doubt, find themselves in a difficulty in this matter. We as Members here owe allegiance to the House, and as Members we are bound to obey you. Sir; but we owe allegiance also to our constituencies, and when one allegiance conflicts with the other we are in a difficult position. We must recollect that on Tuesday night those hon. Members who violated the rules of the House, at the same time considered they were unjustly treated and were not given the full opportunity, which they claimed and had a right to as representatives of large constituencies in Ireland, to discuss the Vote. I do not defend their action. What I do say is, that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury does not understand the true cause of this crisis. If you sit day after day upon the safety valve of a machine the machine will finally explode, and that is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has done here. Day by day he takes privilege after privilege. Only last week he took away a great privilege in connection with ways
942
and Means, so that after a few hours discussion on education all these Votes were passed without any discussion whatever. Had the right hon. Gentleman wished to consult our views he would have got up shortly after dinner and said that we had had an interesting discussion on education, but there were other Votes to be disposed of, and suggested that the discussion upon education should have been brought to an end. Had he done that, no doubt hon. Members would have assisted him, but the closure was moved upon this matter after all the time had been consumed by the Education Vote, and no discussion whatever had taken place on the many other matters included in the Estimate. I was shut out, as a matter of fact. I had gone home in the belief that the sitting would be adjourned; otherwise I should have remained here, for I had intended to move an Amendment that the Vote should be reduced by half.
I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to take my advice, and therefore I beg leave to move the Amendment to leave out the words, "during the remainder of the session," and insert in their place, "for two months." The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to quite realise what a session may be. A session may extend over a year, and it does seem a very hard thing that because an hon. Gentleman violates the rules of the House his constituents are to be disfranchised for over a year. It is a monstrous proposition. You have at the present time a punishment. If a Member of this House does not obey your riding he may be suspended for one week, or two weeks, or a month. I was suspended myself, curiously enough, on one occasion for a short period; but if I had been suspended for two years it would have been a very different thing. See how it would operate. Supposing the hon. Member for Westminster, one of whose constituents I happen to be, comes up and refuses to obey your ruling and gets suspended for two years, why should I, as his constituent, be disfranchised? because, after all, he may be a useful Member. I give that as an instance, and I suggest that the suspension should be for two months, which I think is far more reasonable than the proposal of the

943
right hon. Gentleman. We have in all these matters borne very patiently the alterations in, and Amendments to, Rule 27, The first step was taken some time ago. We are now asked to go a step further, but if we are to have such a resolution as that which the House is now discussing, let us have it by degrees. Let us have the two months suspension first. Why do you take the entire session? I cannot understand your doing so. Look at the position of the Irish Members here. Do you suppose if all the Irish Members refused tomorrow to go out of the House into the division lobbies anything would be gained by such a resolution as this? There could be nothing more dangerous or more serious or far reaching in its consequences than Ireland being practically unrepresented in this House—her Members suspended going over and agitating in Ireland, holding conventions, and saying "We cannot represent you in England for they suspend us and will not let us speak." Having regard to the peculiar relations existing between this country and Ireland, I urge the Government, I urge hon. Gentlemen opposite, to support me in this Amendment to reduce the suspension for two months instead of the rest of the session.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, as amended—
"In line 7, to leave out the words 'during the remainder of the session,' in order to add the words 'for two months.'"—(Mr. Labouchere).
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment, as amended."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the Amendment of the hon. Member has been supported by his arguments, and I cannot accept it.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the important point to look at in the subject under discussion was upon whom the punishment fell. In this case the punishment fell not upon the Member, but upon the constituents he represented in the House, because if a Member of the House disobeyed the order and was suspended his constituents would be without a representative in the House. Now a constituency had a right to a representative in this House, and to take away
944
that representative for an unlimited period by the suspension of the Member whom they had sent to Parliament, would be a very flagrant scandal. No doubt many Members on the Government side of the House were foolish enough to believe that it would be better to have no Irish constituency represented, but if this rule were carried he might point out that there would be this danger. If an hon. Member was suspended for such a period as the rest of the session it would be his duty not to allow his constituents to be unrepresented, and he would take such steps by applying for the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds so as to ensure that his constituency should be represented, if not by him by somebody else. He thought, under the circumstances, it would be very unwise for the right hon. Gentleman to press for the rule.
MR. PIRIEdid not desire at this late hour of the night to take up the time of the House, but at the same time thought that the subject under discussion was sufficient to justify all the attention that could be given to it. What hon. Members felt who supported the Amendment was that the proposal of the Government was too severe to deal with such offences as had given rise to its being brought forward. He would be the very last person to defend what had occurred on the previous Tuesday. The ruling of the Chair must be obeyed, but at the same time he could see that in that case there were many extenuating circumstances. One of the greatest dangers that the House had to face at the present moment was the constant misrepresentations which were made in the Press and, incidentally, the mischief it did in the country by engendering false ideas of what was done in the House. In order to point out how the proposals of the Government were too severe on this occasion he would deal with what he considered the extenuating circumstances, and show why the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton was quite sufficient to meet the justice of the case. He attributed the outbreak which took place on Tuesday night, not so much to what actually occurred on that evening to bring it about, as to a system which was calcu-

945
lated to bring about such a lamentable occurrence at any time. The opinion held by hon. Members sitting around him was that two months suspension would be quite sufficient to meet the necessities of the case. They looked with dismay on the possibility of a penalty which would disfranchise constituencies for a whole session. They considered that the policy which should be adopted in a case of this sort should be one more of conciliation than of severe treatment and punishment. If there was a revolt or a revolution against a system of Government, it was clear that injustice must have been originally at the bottom of it. He warmly supported the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Northampton, lie would not vote against the Amendment of the Government, but would abstain from voting on the main question, because ho did not wish it to be imagined that he impugned the authority of the Chair.
MR. CAINE: It appears to me that it would be wise for the Leader of the House to accept the Amendment, especially if he wants to impose an effective punishment. I am quite certain that under the Amendment proposed by the Leader of the House the punishment would be very small indeed. We all know quite well the hon. Members at whom it is aimed. They come from constituencies where there were not contested elections. What would be the result of this new Standing Order? We will suppose that some scene occurs similar to that which took place the other night, and that a dozen Members come under the rule. They are suspended for the remainder of the session. They would accept the Chiltern Hundreds, they would go back to their constituencies, and they would be immediately re-elected. What would be the position of the hon. Members when they came back? Would they be allowed to take their seats? I do not believe anyone would venture to contest their election. The punishment, therefore, would be extremely slight. I sincerely trust that we may now adjourn the debate in order to give reasonable time for the consideration of the rule. I cannot vote at all on this Amendment, and yet I would like to vote upon it. There is
946
nothing I dislike more than to leave the House without voting. I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Caine.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We have had very ample discussion of the motion. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist in his motion for the adjournment.
MR. CAINE: The reason why I moved the adjournment was that we may have time to consider the Amendment as amended.
MR. LOUGH: The right hon. Gentleman will admit that we on this side have addressed ourselves to the debate in a, very praiseworthy and industrious spirit. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that two hours have been wasted in a perfectly futile and meaningless Amendment moved on the other side of the House. It was a shocking proceeding; I might almost say, I have never seen it equalled in the House. The noble Lord who moved it had not the courage to vote for his own Amendment. ["Oh, oh!"] I am afraid I am introducing a little heat, and I do not want to do that. I wish to make a reasonable appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I think we might have another day to discuss the subject. There is no urgency about the matter at all. By accepting this proposal the right hon. Gentleman will, on the whole, lose no time, and he will do something to allay the bad temper which has been aroused.
MR. BROADHURST: May I join in the appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury? He dismissed the question as to whether the suspension should be for two or six months in the most airy manner. We have sat here now for something like eleven hours continuously, and that is more than any hon. Member ought to be called upon to do. I do say that it is most unseemly that at this hour of the morning [2.10] the House should be called upon to continue the consideration of a subject of this importance. We have certainly not had time to realise the importance of the Amendments that have been introduced. I support the motion for the adjournment of the debate, and I hope the First

947
Lord of the Treasury will see how reasonable it is both in the interest of himself and Members who are exhausted.
MR. DILLON: I agree with the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich that the matter which the House has been discussing to-night is of infinitely greater importance than hon. Members have any idea of. It occurs to me that the noble Lord, although not very successful with his Amendment, was the first Member who really placed this question in its true light before the House as regards its importance, because up to the time he spoke the subject had been treated in a light and airy fashion as if it were only a matter, if I may use the expression, of hammering the Irish Members. It is a very large question. I think this question affects the very essence of the power and prestige of this House, and it is of vastly greater importance than hon. Members appear to understand, because it is only a step on the road. You are only taking the first step to-night. Whatever other qualification I may have I can speak of this. I do not suppose there is a man in the House who has greater experience of this than I have, and I warn the First Lord of the Treasury and the Members of the House that this rule will do no good. It will be ineffective, and you will be called upon to take another step. The question has been discussed by us reasonably and with application to the point. The only time that has been wasted was that taken by the noble Lord in moving a bogus Amendment and by the First Lord in delivering a prolonged eulogium on the noble Lord's speech, whereas those of us who are defending our rights have addressed ourselves strictly to the matter under discussion throughout the evening. I myself have a further very important and eminently reasonable Amendment to propose later on, and it is not fair to ask us to go on with this discussion at two o'clock in the morning.
MR. O'MARA: As one who was concerned in and associated myself with the protest made the other night against the use of the closure, I wish to urge the House to vote for the adjournment. This matter has been altogether too hurried. Before the passions which were aroused on Tuesday night have been given an opportunity
948
to cool, this matter has been, brought before the House and is being forced through without adequate discussion. I am an entirely new Member, but I must say that the way the procedure of the House and the closure are used to force matters through has surprised me. I did not come here to do penance for the occurrences of Tuesday night, but in the heat of the moment—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must remind the hon. Member that the only question before the House is the motion for adjournment.
MR. O'MARA: I am merely explaining how this method of forcing business through the House strikes a new Member. We have a right to discuss these matters fully and entirely, and we are going to avail ourselves of that right, but I protest against having to discuss them at two o'clock in the morning. My past life has not fitted me to be here considering such questions at this hour. These coercive measures are the only measures we get from the Treasury Bench, and I rise merely to suggest that time should be given us to collect our thoughts and to allow the angry passions aroused by Tuesday night's proceedings to cool down.
MR. TULLY: I think one of the reasons why the adjournment should be granted is that so few Irish Members have spoken in the course of the debate. This is a measure aimed directly at the Irish representatives, and those whose rights are imperilled ought certainly to have an opportunity to discuss the matter thoroughly. We want to know how this rule would apply in the case of an hon. Member who, if he were expelled from the House for the remainder of the session, resigned his seat. That point ought to be considered by the right hon. Gentleman.
*MR. SPEAKER: That point does not arise on the adjournment.
MR. TULLY: I am only giving reasons for the adjournment.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member might claim to argue every Amendment and every line of the Amendment upon that ground.
MR. TULLY: Well, Sir, I think we on these benches have not been treated

949
fairly as so very few of us have spoken, and the First Lord ought to accept this motion.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It seems to me, personally, that this motion is a reasonable one under the circumstances. I shall vote for the Amendment of the Government when it is finally put, but I think the House ought to recollect that this Notice appeared on the Paper only this morning. It is a very important motion, affecting every Member of the House. We have considered it, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit, with good temper and without any attempt at obstruction or improper discussion, and the speeches have not, at all events, been confined to this side of the House. Seeing that we had not seen the rule in print until this morning, and that in the course of the debate certain Amendments have been accepted, so that it is now in a different form from that in which we have it on the Paper, I think a reasonable compromise, and one which I venture to suggest, would be that we should dispose of the Amendments to-night, and then have the motion reprinted for some future occasion. We should then be able to judge more properly whether the rule as amended required any further alteration, or whether it could be accepted as it then stood.
MR. DALZIEL: In consequence of this motion appearing on the Paper only this morning, we have been unable to put down any Amendments, and consequently we have had to move Amendments without notice, which have been very difficult to understand. This is a very important alteration in the rules governing the procedure of the House, and we ought certainly to see the resolution in print as it is proposed to be adopted before we give our final vote upon it. That surely is a very moderate demand to make. At the same time I would point out that by suspending the Twelve o'clock Rule the House did not necessarily commit itself to an all-night sitting. The interpretation of such a suspension has always been that about half-past one or two o'clock the House should review the situation according to the circumstances of the case. Suppose we agree to divide upon the Amendment which has been moved and then adjourn.
950
To-morrow the Army statement is the first Order. In the ordinary course of things that would be over before dinner. This motion could be put down as second Order, and we should then have an opportunity of calmly reviewing the whole question. Another course would be to dispose of the Amendment now before the House, and put the motion down as first Order to-morrow, with the understanding that it shall be disposed of before dinner. I imagine the former would be the better alternative for the right hon. Gentleman, and without delaying the House further, I hope he will see that there is at any rate a strong case for full consideration before this alteration is finally adopted.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I think the suggestion is a reasonable one, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should favourably consider it. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can seriously desire to force this rule through at one sitting by the use of the closure. When this rule was originally proposed in its modified form in the year 1880 it took severa days to pass. In the year 1882, when it was extended not nearly so much as it is now proposed, it took several days discussion. If the right hon. Gentleman desires that any real moral weight should attach to the decision of the House he would be wise, I think, to accede to the proposal which has been made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. What is that proposal? It is not that he should give us a complete Parliamentary day for the purpose of this discussion, but it is that after the Secretary of State for War has made his statement and unfolded his scheme to-morrow, and after the debate upon that subject is adjourned the remainder of the day should be voted to finishing the discussion on this matter. That is not a large claim to make, and as it affects the business of the House so little, I suggest that it would be a wise thing for him to accept that suggestion and agree now to the adjournment of the debate on the understanding that it can be taken up to-morrow after the Army debate has been adjourned.
SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I. hope the right hon. Gentleman will accede to this appeal which has been made to him, and I

951
think he ought to do so when he reflects I that the original piece of work which he put before the. House is now almost unrecognisable. I have some further criticisms to offer to the House on the Amendment as it stands now, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my criticisms will not be directed towards defeating the object of this Amendment, but will be in favour of making the new Standing Order a better piece of workmanship, and I would recommend the right hon. Gentleman in the interval to consult with his friendly opponents on this side of the House in order that we may come to some friendly understanding. I think I may promise the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition will be willing to take part in a friendly discussion, and if this course is adopted we may arrive at an improvement upon the Amendment as it now stands. I do desire that this Standing Order shall reflect the care and wise thought of this House, and that no Order shall be put upon our books in haste.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A large number of hon. Members have appealed to me to adjourn this debate, but I think that in one respect they have treated me rather ungratefully. I have accepted their Amendments, and now they are using that as a reason for adjourning the debate by saying that they wish to see the rule printed. It is perfectly true that Amendments have been accepted, but I think it is impossible to consider this rule in isolation from the general condition of business before the House. If I could consider it in isolation I should be glad to meet the wishes of hon. Members, whether they agree with me or not. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy threw out a suggestion that we should take it after the statement of the Secretary for War to-morrow. I suppose that my right hon. friend's statement will be opened early in the evening, and if the House can come to some arrangement by which we can be assured of a substantial amount of Supply to-morrow I shall be willing to make the sacrifice. I see that the hon. Member for Waterford smiles at that.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: My smile means that if the right hon. Gentleman
952
desires to facilitate the business of Supply the best way to do it would be to try and conciliate hon. Members by making a reasonable concession such as we ask.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am always desirous of being as conciliatory as possible, but Supply must be got through. I believe there are eighteen Votes to be got through, and unless I can get a satisfactory assurance that substantial progress will be made with the Estimates I am afraid we must proceed with the debate. I hope hon. Gentlemen will not think that I have approached this question in any tyrannical spirit, but the reason is that we have to absolutely get through the Estimates by a certain day.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Unfortunately the Civil Service Estimates, to which, the First Lord of the Treasury referred, are of considerable importance, and I should say that it is very difficult to enter into any sort of arrangement regarding them. They include such subjects as Uganda, Ashanti, business in South Africa, and other matters of very considerable importance, and I do not think it will be a good thing to enter into an arrangement to burke discussion on South Africa. It would be an exceedingly bad arrangement, and there has been really too much of that sort of thing. I think the First Lord of the Treasury should consider this on its merits. Here we are discussing an Amendment of our procedure of the most vital importance. We have only got to interpret it with what has happened this week in order to see its importance. If this rule had been in operation last Tuesday twelve constituencies would now have been disfranchised for the rest of the session, and such a proposal is to be rushed through after only twenty-four hours notice, before there is a full opportunity to discuss it. This is perfectly unprecedented. I should have thought that two sittings of the House would not have been too much for a matter of this kind, and I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter on its merits. We have still one Amendment not disposed of, and some other Amendments have to be moved.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It would be very difficult for anyone to

953
give a pledge as to what would take place to-morrow. I think we all recognise in the right hon. Gentleman's last observations a most reasonable spirit, and, before speaking of what may happen on other days, I would venture to press very strongly upon him that whatever we may say of this now Order I do not think anyone who is interested in, and who has the good feeling of the House at heart, can contemplate very pleasantly the hurrying through of this proposal in an all-night sitting. I do not think that any time has been wasted upon it except a certain waste of time for which those on this side of the House have not been responsible. I never knew a more unnecessary expenditure of time than that which was devoted to the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. I think the whole of that episode was so much lost time. Therefore, I think we have a strong claim upon the Government for a postponement of this debate. As to-morrow is a nondescript day, with nothing definitely announced for it after the statement by the Secretary of State for War, I should have thought that the remainder of the day might be taken up by resuming the debate upon this rule. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to come to an arrangement of that sort, and I can assure him that I shall use every influence I possess, if he agrees to this course, to keep the discussion of the various topics within reasonable limits, and I do not think I can do any more.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite admit that it is a disagreeable thing to have to do business in these hours of the morning, but business must be done even in these hours in order that the necessary financial business may be finished before 31st March. Of course if hon. Members will consent to make some arrangement of a definite character in regard to the business to-morrow I would be disposed to adjourn the debate.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: The only arrangement that can be made is that suggested by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy; and that is that after the Secretary for War makes his statement tomorrow the debate should be adjourned, and the rest of the sitting should be devoted to the discussion of this rule. It is absurd to imagine that half an
954
hour would suffice. If the Government do not agree to this suggestion, let them closure the whole discussion now and take upon themselves the discredit of passing a penal law of this kind without fair and proper discussion.
MR. POWER: A most reasonable proposal has been placed before the House by those who have moved the adjournment of the debate. We have been at this discussion for eleven hours, and if it concerns anybody in this House in particular, it concerns the Members from Ireland. The rule is directly aimed at their liberty, and at the liberty of their constituents; and we maintain that it is only just and right that those whom it most affects should have a proper opportunity of studying the rule and seeing its bearing in every aspect. It only appeared on the notice Paper this morning, and most of us have not had the opportunity of carefully studying the rule. If we had we possibly might be ready with some Amendments. I maintain that the House is at a disadvantage in not having these Amendments in print before us. For that reason alone I think the motion for adjournment is essentially a reasonable one. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that the time has been wasted on these benches; but I venture to say that very few of us have up to this time taken part in the discussions, although some of us are bound to express our views in regard to the new rule. If there has been any unreasonable consumption of time it has not been on these benches. The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for East Mayo was most germane to the subject, and that was even recognised by the action of the Government. The waste of time has taken place on the other side of the House in connection with the motion of the noble Lord who had not the courage to vote for it. It was a bogus motion, and the First Lord delivered a speech in reference to it which I think was unworthy of him in his position. I think I may say that the conduct of the business of this House does not depend upon rules, but on the tact and courtesy of those who lead it. And certainly we have reason to complain on all grounds of the manner in which the business has been conducted. The right hon.

955
Gentleman would meet the convenience of all the Irish Members if he would accede to the motion for adjournment, and give us an opportunity of considering carefully this punitive motion, and not pass it in a hurry or panic. This is a far-reaching rules and Amendments of far less moment have taken weeks of discussion before they were passed. Our desire is therefore most reasonable.
*MR. BLACK: I rise to support the motion for adjournment. There is too much hurry about this motion. What is all the hurry for? Has not this House existed for 800 or 900 years without this regulation? Why, then, should you hurry this rule after only eight or nine hours debate? The First Lord of the Treasury has made the urgency of Supply a reason for special expedition, but he has given no reason why this alteration in the Standing Orders should be carried before Supply is got through. I venture therefore to suggest that the debate on the rule should be adjourned until after Easter or Whit-Sunday, and then taken up with the coolness which the importance of the subject requires.
DR. AMBROSE: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has been the prime mover and cause of all this trouble. I read in The Times of this morning that this was deliberately planned to prejudice the Irish Members. I had not the honour of being named the other night, but I consider that when the First Lord of the Treasury came into the House and moved the closure—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question before the House is that of adjournment.
DR. AMBROSE: I was going to say that we have a good many Amendments to move yet. In fact, I have an Amendment to propose, namely, to suspend the Leader of the House for two months on the ground that the right hon. Gentleman has caused the whole of the trouble. It seems to me, from the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that they have made up their minds to rush the rule through to-night; but I appeal to them to give us an opportunity of impeaching their conduct to-morrow.
MR. FLYNN: I do not agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite. We can sit here till sunrise to-morrow while they pursue a policy which is of no good to the Ministry and is no credit to the House. I have had several years experience of this House, and my opinion is that no practical progress is made with public business at these hours unless the Ministry give way. Members get exasperated on both sides and enter into foolish competition to show most endurance, like the man who fasted for forty hours. The Parliament is comparatively young, and when there is a long life before us, the conduct of public business should not be permitted to get into this impasse. It is somewhat tyrannical on the part of the Government to force the pace at present. No doubt as the Parliamentary year rolls on and we get into the summer months, when the sun rises earlier than now, we shall be treated to this kind of thing at greater length. This is a most important motion. If it had been a Sessional Order a short debate might have done. But a few Irish Members have taken part in the debate yet. If the right hon. Gentleman had had more regard for the convenience of the House he would not have made an academic speech on an unsubstantial motion which had nothing behind it, as the division showed. The waste of time has come not from these benches, but from the Government benches, and that at an hour when we should have been at our rest. I speak on behalf of the officials of the House, and of the policemen, who have had a most trying experience during the last few days, particularly the members of the A Division. The Government will gain nothing by continuing to oppose the motion for the adjournment. Some consideration should be had for private Members who are interested in private Bills. I am myself very anxious to come down here early to-morrow to get a draft of a Bill, but if we are kept sitting so late I will not be able to give my mind to the work. If the discussion is prolonged it certainly will not conduce in the smallest degree to the despatch of business, and I trust the First Lord of the Treasury, who is not insensible to

957
reason, will recognise the plain and obvious facts of the situation.
MR. BOLAND: There is perhaps one argument which may appeal to right hon. Gentlemen, on the Treasury Bench, and especially to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. It is that there are a great number of junior Members in the House who are not accustomed to rules of procedure, and to whom it is extremely necessary that they should have an opportunity of seeing the healing of this new rule. I consider further, not only in the case of junior Members but also in the case of senior Members, that some period should lie allowed to elapse during which hon. Members might have an opportunity of considering carefully what would be the effect of this new rule. All Members from Ireland have special reason to demand that such a period should elapse before an important motion of this kind is carried, and therefore in our opinion the present is essentially an occasion on which the adjournment of the debate should be agreed to. A proposal has been made that as regards to-morrow the Army statement should he taken first and this motion, afterwards. I am perfectly convinced if that course is pursued the House will have no occasion to regret it. To-morrow we will he able to discuss the matter carefully and without undue haste, and in a manner which will redound to the credit of the House of Commons and make a favourable impression on the new Members of the House. Unless you treat new Members with consideration and allow them time to master carefully new proposals of this kind, I do not for my part see how you can expect us in the future to look upon measures that may he introduced with that care, and thought which are naturally expected from all Members of the House.
*MR. H. J. WILSON: The Leader of the House must know, as every hon. Member who has been in the House a few years known, that no good is done by going on with a discussion of this kind at three o'clock in the morning. It is perfectly useless to continue keeping us here m this way. If I wanted another argument for the adjournment it would be the appearance
958
of right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, many of whom appear to he physically in a state approaching collapse.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I desire to support the motion for the adjournment. If the House will consider the matter dispassionately I am sure hon. Members will see that the claim now put forward is reasonable and moderate, especially when they consider that the right hon. Gentleman's motion is directed against the Irish Members. As a new Member of the House, knowing nothing of its rules, but anxious to conform to them as far as an Irish Member can, I rise to ask English Members honestly to say to us Irish Members whether they are prepared to treat us justly, and not disregard or treat with contempt our appeals for fair play. If hon. Members will consider the seriousness of the question before the House—that it is proposed to introduce into the rules of this House an innovation which I cannot characterise as otherwise than unheard of, and that the First Lord of the Treasury is trying to repress freedom of speech and to deprive Irish Members by the closure and his huge majority of their only opportunity to express their views—then it will be seen that the appeal for the adjournment of the debate at this late hour is reasonable. I was present at the scene which occurred on Tuesday, but we Irish Members are not ashamed of our action on that occasion. We felt that it was our duty to our constituents—
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must speak on the adjournment of the debate.
MR. THOMAS O'DOXNELL: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I have departed from the rules of debate, but I would appeal that this new rule should be thoroughly discussed. If you persist in discussing this subject at this hour you will not be affording Irishmen a specimen of that broad-minded toleration expected from you, nor will you impress us with your sense of justice and fair play. We saw the time of the House wasted to-night by an Amendment which I cannot characterise, but when we went to a division on it the noble Lord who proposed it had not the courage to support it.
MR. NANNETTEsaid he rose to protest against the passing of the rule, which would inflict penalties not upon himself, but upon the constituency which ho represented. He joined in the appeal of the hon. Member who moved the adjournment of the debate, not because of the pains and penalties which might be inflicted on himself—for both he and his hon. friends around him, who on Tuesday night felt constrained to make the protest that they did, would do again what they had done before if occasion arose. When they found hon. Members endeavouring to force through a Vote without adequate discussion—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question before the House is the question of adjournment. The hon. Member must confine himself to that.
MR. NANNETTIsaid that his only desire was to treat the House with due decorum, and he bowed to the ruling of the Chair. He desired to enter his protest against the Government endeavouring to enforce at that hour of the morning a new rule which would have a very far-reaching effect. It was neither worthy of the House nor of the First Lord of the Treasury, and so far from having a good effect it would have quite the contrary. It was not calculated to allay the feeling raised upon the Irish benches, because if it was the intention of the Government to rule Ireland at all, they must rule it with conciliation and with tact. His reason for supporting the adjournment was that many hon. Members had been in attendance at the House since the previous noon, and it was not fair that they should be kept longer, but if the right hon. Gentleman would not give way and grant so reasonable a request, perhaps the vitality of those who advocated the adjournment might be as great as that of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and they might be able to keep up the discussion so long that in the endeavour to enforce their arguments the House might get more than it bargained for. He strongly protested against the debate being continued, but, nevertheless, if it were to be he would not be coerced or frightened out of doing his duty to his constituents, He would much rather be at home looking
960
after his own business, but so long as his country sent him to the House and the House would hear him, he would protest against being kept at the House to such a late hour when appeals had been made from all sides that the debate should be adjourned.
MR. JOYCE: With my usual modesty, I was prepared to give way to an old and valued Member of the House, but as I have been called upon I desire to add my voice to those which have been lifted up in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to adjourn the debate Speaking as a new Member, I know you will grant me the usual courtesy that you extend to new Members. I look upon you, Sir, as the grand pilot of this House, and I know that if I stray from the channels of debate there is no fear of my getting wrecked upon the shoals which are known as breaking the rules of procedure in this House, for I am sure, Sir, with your usual courtesy you will kindly put me right. I am glad that the First Lord of the Treasury has returned to his place to listen to the dulcet tones of my voice, and I am in great hopes that what he would not do for the Leader of the Opposition and the other gentlemen who have appealed to him he may be inclined to do for the Member for Limerick City. So far as I am concerned the length of this debate is absolutely immaterial to me. I am used to long spells of fatigue and to long hours on my feet, and it is only the personal consideration which I have for the hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches that induces mo to intervene and ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to meet the hon. Members of this House and comply with their request for an adjournment of the debate on such an important question. The importance of this question must commend itself to every hon. Gentleman in the House. There is no Member of this honourable House who has more respect for your ruling, Sir, or the history of your House than. I do not believe there is a Member of this House who for the short time that I have been a Member of it has given more time to listening with interest and, I may say, with pleasure to the debates that have arisen in this House, and I think

961
on such an important question as this—and I could have wished that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had remained in his place while I gave ray reasons—I think on such an important question as this hon. Members opposite would do much better to listen to me with patience, because if they do not the chances are that I shall occupy their attention a little more than I otherwise should, because where-ever I have gone and stood up to speak I have always insisted on being heard, though I never have made what I call a speech, having always been too pleased to listen to good speeches made by others. But, Sir, on this occasion, when there is such, an important question before the House, I think it is right that every hon. Member representing an Irish constituency should voice his awn feelings and the feelings of his constituency in this House. I hope I am not delaying unnecessarily the time of this honourable House, but I certainly think after the reasons—fair and just reasons—put forward by hon. Members from all parts of the House for an adjournment, the First Lord of the Treasury would be doing a wise and a gracious thing if he met those hon. Members in the same conciliatory spirit as they have endeavoured to meet him.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: I rise to support, those who have already spoken, and to ask that the further consideration of this most important subject may be adjourned to another sitting. May I point out that what we are now discussing is a question affecting the future conduct of the Members of the House. Not only that, but the Amendment under discussion provides an automatic punishment that is to be applied without further consideration in the event of certain offences being committed. I respectfully submit that that is not the kind of Amendment that should be rushed through the House now. If there was an Amendment proposed on the criminal law of the country affecting the foulest outcasts of the nation, the House would insist upon proper time being given to the consideration of it; and surely the House ought to claim for itself, in spite of anything the Government might say or desire, as much respect as regards its own laws
962
as it would insist upon in cases without its jurisdiction. There is one illustration which must be present to the minds of most members of the House of the danger of accepting Amendments the full bearings of which have not been considered. It stands to the credit of this Government that it attempted to pass an excellent Workmen's Compensation Bill. [Cries of "Order."] I hope that hon. Gentlemen will restrain their hilarity until I am finished. I was about to observe that we had in that Bill an illustration of the mischief that conies from hurriedly accepting Amendments the full bearing of which has not been considered. The intention of the Government in introducing the Bill was excellent.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot discuss another Bill by way of illustration.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: I will not, Sir, and I did not intend to, attempt to discuss the Bill, but I hope it is within the scope of a speaker to draw an illustration, without discussing the merits of the Bill, from something that has already been done in the House. My point is this, that the Bill as introduced was excellent.
*MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that that Bill could not be discussed.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: I ask the House to agree to the adjournment. If these Amendments which have been accepted or are still to be accepted have the same effect as the Amendments accepted in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Bill, the Government will live to regret not having acceded to the request for further time for the consideration of the subject. We have no right at this hour of the morning [3.20], when Members are not in a fit state to discuss serious business, to make a pretence of legislating in the direction of amending the Standing Orders which govern this House. The Amendment marks a new departure in the procedure of this House. It subjects Members of the House to a possible indignity from which hitherto Members of Parliament have been supposed to be exempt, and because of the importance of the Amendment, and its far-reaching consequences upon the

963
future conduct of this House, I join in the appeal of those who have spoken that the further consideration of this matter may be adjourned until tomorrow, until the Amendments on the Paper have boon considered, and until those which have been accepted may be seen in their true and full bearing. It may suit hon. Gentlemen opposite to rush this thing through, but I would remind them that the root-cause of all the trouble, the reason why we are having a discussion now, is because of the foolish attempt to rush through another question without adequate discussion. Surely one lesson of that kind ought to be enough for one session. I trust, therefore, that the House will agree to the motion for the adjournment, and will allow this most important matter to be considered in a manner worthy of its importance.
MR. DUFFY: I associate myself with my hon. friends on this side of the House in appealing to the Government to adjourn the discussion of this matter until to-morrow. We have been told, Mr. Speaker, in Ireland—I have learned it from my infancy—that in coming to this House and appealing to its Members for justice, it never would be denied to us. Yet what is the state of things that presents itself to us here to-night? You have, nine-tenths of the representatives of Ireland making a request to the House of Commons in a unanimous and practical spirit, and you have another portion of the House refusing that request. It simply brings home to our minds the lesson that there is no possibility whatsoever of turning our eyes towards Westminster for justice, that if any good is to be done the people of Ireland must turn their attention in some other direction, that they must resort to other means and to other methods besides those—
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can only speak to the question of the adjournment.
MR. DUFFY: I am emphasising some of the reasons which, in my opinion, should weight with the House to defer this most important matter until tomorrow. Some short time ago the question was asked by an hon. Member above the gangway as to what was the
964
intention of the Government in regard to those Irish Members who have been ejected from the House. It was asked if they might go back to their constituents and seek re-election.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not confining himself to the question of the adjournment.
MR. DUFFY: I am sorry that I should come in conflict with the Chair. It certainly was not my intention when I stood up. I will always endeavour as far as I possibly can while a Member of the House to conform to your ruling. But I consider this a very serious and vital matter. There is no man in this House to-night who can deny for an instant that this question is aimed, and aimed exclusively, at the suppression of speech and of liberty as far as the Irish Members are concerned. It is not aimed or directed against any party in this House outside the Irish Members, and as an exponent of Irish thought and feeling I enter an emphatic protest against the action sought to be forced on those Members. [Cries of "Order."] Gentlemen on the other side may shout "Order" and cry me down. I have had experience of this kind of thing in Ireland before, and I am not going to be put down.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The only question before the House is whether it should now adjourn.
MR. DUFFY: In my opinion, Sir, the heat that has been introduced into this debate to-night would in itself be sufficient justification for hon. Members calling upon the Government to adjourn the matter until to-morrow. By doing so, I believe the House would bring to the consideration of the matter an impartiality and freedom from passion they are not able to bring to-night. We will be able amongst ourselves to discuss the matter, and the House will be able to arrive at a better and more reasonable conclusion.
MR. MURPHY: As a young Member of the House I desire also to join in the protest made from these benches in reference to this rule which has been introduced by the First Lord of the Treasury. It is a matter of diffi-

965
culty for us to try to understand the proceedings of the House, and to try to act in accordance with its rules, when we are kept here to such an early hour in the morning for the purpose of discussing a question which is new to us, and which we are not in a position to understand, by reason of our inexperience, but on which we desire to bring our best judgment to bear Hon. Members need have no fear that we are making this request because we are unable to stand the strain. We are quite able and prepared to carry the debate on until to-morrow morning and the morning alter that if necessary. But we want to have this matter considered in a dispassionate manner. Passionate feelings have been aroused, and while Members are possessed with those feelings we are asked to pass a rule which may have the effect of disfranchising several Irish constituencies for a lengthy period. I therefore support tins just and reasonable motion for adjournment.
The hon. Member was proceeding to discuss the proceedings of Tuesday night, when
*MR. SPEAKERreminded him that the only question before the House was that of the adjournment.
MR. MURPHY: I strongly approve of the motion for adjournment, because it will enable us to consider the matter in a calmer and more dignified manner than is possible this evening.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: It is almost a monstrous thing that in the second or third week of the session we should be called upon to sit here all night to carry new rules of this kind. If we were at the close of a long session, and it was necessary that Members should be able to get away to attend to their businesses, it would be a different matter, but there is no urgency whatever in the matter now under discussion. There are half-a-dozen ways in which the difficulty might have been met without resorting to the barbarous and miserable method of sitting to this hour of the morning. Here we have the First Lord determinedly refusing this motion for adjournment and at once leaving the House, and you will probably find him at this moment fast asleep in one of the lobbies. I do not grudge him his nap, but I do say that the
966
spectacle of the House sitting till this hour in order to carry such a rule as the one before us is not creditable, nor will it be admired by the general public. If, however, there is a determination among new Members on the other side of the House to have an all-night sitting, I can assure them that whatever inferiority the Irish Members may exhibit on any other question they at any rate can hold their own in regard to a matter of that kind.
MR. JORDAN: I approach the discussion of this question under rather peculiar conditions. I should like to give my own reasons for what I have done, and with patience I should be able generally to state them. The first reason why the First Lord of the Treasury should consent to an adjournment of this debate is the hour of the clock. It is now on the point of four o'clock, and many hon. Members have been in this House since twelve o'clock, or at any rate since between two o'clock and three o clock.
An Hon. MEMBER: When did you get in?
MR. JORDAN: I had the honour to get in myself at about six o'clock. These long sittings lead to extreme weariness of mind and body, especially when we are compelled to remain in this House discussing such a question as this at four o'clock in the morning. Another reason for the adjournment is that the public do not know at this hour of the morning what is being done in the House. Everybody knows there is no reporting going on now, especially at this hour of the morning, for the English papers will not report anything, and I suppose all the morning papers have gone to press. Therefore the public do not know what is being done in the House of Commons. Then there is another reason—somebody said that the First Lord of the Treasury had gone out to have a nap. I am sure no one begrudges him a nap. I do think, however, that it is cruel on the part of the First Lord of the Treasury to keep this House open up to this hour of the morning. It is cruel to keep the attendants here to this hour, because all the servants of the House, both female and male, will be required hero to-morrow again at twelve o'clock to attend to their duties. I have nothing to say against

967
the policemen of the place; from what I have heard, I believe that the policemen in the discharge of their duty the other night did it in as tender a manner as they possibly could. Therefore I think, out of consideration for the policemen of the place, this House ought to adjourn. Then there are the higher officials. There are the gentlemen at the Table, and I should not wonder if their minds are becoming a little clouded, and I should not be surprised if they made mistakes like other fallible and sleepy creatures. Then, I have often wondered since I came into this House at the endurance of Mr. Speaker in the Chair. I have said over and over again about the present occupant of that position, as I said about the late occupant, how they can endure to sit in that Chair from three o'clock in the afternoon to twelve at night I cannot understand. Hero you are, Mr. Speaker, sitting in that Chair at four o'clock this morning, and the First Lord of the Treasury has no sympathy with you, and no compassion for the position in which you are placed. I will not use any harsh phrase about the right hon. Gentleman, but if he takes all these things into consideration I think he ought to adjourn this debate in order to allow the officials of the House and the hon. Members of this House to go home and try to get a few hours sleep before they come back here again in the morning. I would make a further appeal to him on these grounds. There are several old men in this House, and we old men are expected to remain here to discharge our duties as long as the House sits. I do not think it is fair for men of my age to have to do this, and I do appeal to him to adjourn the consideration of this question for the sake of the old men in this House who are trying to discharge their duty to the country. I press these considerations upon him, and I cannot understand how it is that he remains so obdurate. The right hon. Gentleman is not going to make much out of the course he is taking, for it will tend to irritate and not conciliate us, and it will act in such a way that we shall take every opportunity to retard business if we are not dealt with in a spirit of compromise and conciliation instead of in a spirit of irritation. I have always entertained a high opinion of the First Lord of the Treasury for his kindly
968
sympathy, but I am amazed that his usually gentlemanly bearing and sympathy seem to have been suppressed to night, and he is probably showing his rougher human nature in compelling the Members and the officers of this House to remain here simply to gratify his determination to have his will and his way. He sets up his will and way against the wishes of a large section of this House of Commons. He says, in fact, "You must give way to me, and I must have my way."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEKMAN: I think this is one of the most protracted discussions on a mere question of adjournment of the debate that I have ever listened to, and the reason it has been so protracted has been that we are anxious to give the Government time to make up their mind what they will do. A number of Irish Members have already shown a great faculty of addressing the House at length upon subjects very limited in their scope, and I have been delighted to listen to my hon. friend who has just sat down, and who has been almost the hero of the recent episode in this House. ["Oh."] All I can say is, that if the hon. Gentleman who thinks it right to say "Oh!" and who knows nothing about the hon. Member of whom I am speaking—if he who says "Oh!" in that manner—if by the tune he has been as long in the House as my hon. friend, and has attracted to himself something like the degree of respect which my hon. friend has, then he will be entitled to congratulation. We have been watching with interest, which is very unusual, the process which has kept us to-night. It is like that sort of peep-shows where you can see through a glass a colony of ants or bees engaged in their work. We have seen an endeavour being made to come to some sort of arrangement of business which will enable us not only to get home, but to escape anything like hurry or pressure in passing this most important motion, and also of providing adequately for the fulfilment of our duties on another day. I hope the right hon. Gentlemen have been able to arrive at some sort of conclusion. There has been a considerable disposition on this side of the House to meet the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMEBER: Oh!] Again, the hon. Gentlemen who say

969
"Oh!" do not know what has been done. I certainly hope that it has not been without effect, but if it has not, I think the best course to pursue would be for the House to take a division on the motion for adjournment, and then let us go on with the debate on the main question.
*MR. LAMBTOX: We used the word "Oh!" over here; and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know why I said "Oh!" I will tell him. It was because the right hon. Gentleman seemed to uphold the hon. Members who the other night disobeyed the Chair and created the scene.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I never said anything of the sort.
*MR. LAMBTON: The right hon. Gentleman said that the last speaker was a hero. By that he meant to infer that the other Gentlemen with whom the hon. Member acted were also heroes.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I said he was the hero of an episode. He was the Member who was wrongfully punished by the House, and to whom the House had to apologise.
*MR. LAMBTON: If the right hon. Gentleman regards the episode as in any way heroic I am sorry for his idea of heroism. I appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to put an end to this unseemly debate; he has the power, and for the honour of the House, I hope he will use it.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I would not have intervened in this debate were it not that I realise so fully how important it is. I feel that the most careful consideration should be given to the Amendment now before the House. It seems to me that there is no necessity for the rush with which

AYES

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Balearres, Lord

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Balfour, RtHnGeraldW(Leeds

Bull, William James

Alllusen, Augustus Henry E.

Balfour, Maj. KR(Christchurch

Bullard, Sir Harry

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bartley, George C. T.

Carlile, William Walter

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Beach, Rt. Hn. SirM.H.(Bristol)

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Arrol, Sir William

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Cavendish, V.C W(Derbyshire)

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Beckett, Ernest William

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Bagot, Capt. JoscelineFitzRoy

Bigwood, James

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Bill, Charles

Chamberlain, J Austen(Worc'r

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Chapman, Edward

Baird, John George Alex.

Bond, Edward

Charrington, Spencer

the right hon. Gentleman seems desirous of planting this new rule on the House. It is very easy in times of excitement, when Members' minds are impressionable, and in times of panic, to propose legislation because hon. Members fear that if that is not accepted other consequences will ensue. But the time may come when hon. Gentlemen may find themselves in the position in which we on this side of the House are at present. I think it is not in any sense of the word an unreasonable thing that more time should be given for the consideration of this great constitutional change, and that the House should be allowed to adjourn. For my part, I confess I cannot take any lengthy part in the debate. I was travelling all night, and I have not been in bed since the night before last. But I think I should avail myself of the ordinary privilege of the man in the street and get to bed in good time. I was not present at the incident the other night, and consequently I am all the more free to express my opinion as to the course which should be adopted in regard to that important event. I cannot but feel that the right hon. Gentleman has been badly advised in pressing on this rule at this very early hour of a new day. It is an attempt to gag us in this House under the thin guise of a new rule.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is travelling from the subject before the House.
MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 233; Noes, 117. (Division List No. 45.)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Peace, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pemberton, John S. G.

Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Percy, Earl

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Pilkington, Richard

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Plummer, Walter R.

Cranborne, Viscount

Johnston, (William (Belfast)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cust, Henry John C.

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh

Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W (Salop.

Purvis, Robert

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Keswick, William

Randies, John S.

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Knowles, Lees

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Law, Andrew Bonar

Rentoul, James Alexander

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lawrence, William F.

Renwick, George

Doxford, Sir William T.

Lawson, John Grant

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Duke, Henry Edward

Lee, CaptAH.(Hants, Fareham

Ritchie,Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Faber, George Denison

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Russell, T. W.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Finch, George H.

Long, RtHnWalter(Bristol, S.)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Fisher, William Hayes

Lowe, Francis William

Saunderson, RtHn. Col. Edw. J.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Seely, Charles Hilton(Lincoln)

Forster, Henry William

Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

Sharpe, William Edward E.

Garfit, William

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(City of Lon.

Macartney, RtHnW. G. Ellison

Simeon, Sir Harrington

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St.Albans)

Maedona, John Cumming

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Smith, Rt. Hn. W. F. D(Strand)

Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin&Nairn

Maconochie, A. W.

Stanley,Hn.Arthur(Ormskirk

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'ml'ts

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

M'Iver, SirL. (Edinburgh,W.)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Goschen, Hon. George J.

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Stock, James Henry

Graham, Henry Robert

Majendie, James A. H.

Stroyan, John

Green, WalfordD(Wedneshury

Malcolm, Ian

Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier

Greene, SirEW(B'rySEdm'nd's

Manners, Lord Cecil

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Grenfell, William Henry

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

Thornton, Percy M.

Gretton, John

Maxwell, RtHnSirHE(Wigton

Tollemache, Henry James

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Groves, James Grimble

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

MilnerRt.Hn.Sir Frederick G.

Valentia, Viscount

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Milton, Viscount

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Milward, Col. Victor

Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Webb, Col. William George

Hambro, Charles Eric

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Welby, Lt-Col A. C. E. (Taunt'n

Hamilton, Rt. Hn LordG(Mid'x

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Welby, Sir Chas.G.E.(Notts.)

Hamilton, Marq. of(Lond'deny

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Hardy, Laureuce(Kent, Ashf'rd

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Williams, RtHnJ. Powell-(Bir.

Harris, FLeverton(Tynemouth

Morrell, George Herbert

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Morrison, James Archibald

Wills, Sir Frederick

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Morton, ArthurH.A.(Deptford

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

Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Heaton, George Henniker

Muntz, Philip A.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcester. N.)

Helder, Augustus

Murray, RtHnA.Graham(Bute

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

Henderson, Alexander

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

Hope, J. F(Sheffield, Brightside

Nicholson, William Graham

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Nichol, Donald Ninian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Hoult, Joseph

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Howard, Capt. J (Kent, Faversh

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Boyle, James

Caine, William Sproston

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

Brigg, John

Caldwell, James

Ambrose, Robert

Broadhurst, Henry

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Bell, Richard

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Carew, James Laurence

Black, Alexander William

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Carvill, PatrickGeo. Hamilton

Blake, Edward

Burns, John

Causton, Richard Knight

Boland, John

Buxton, Syndey Charles

Channing, Francis Allston

972

973

Cogan, Denis J.

Jordan, Jeremiah

Partington, Oswald

Colville, John

Joyce, Michael

Paulton, James Mellor

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Kennedy, Patrick James

Pirie, Duncan V.

Dalziel, James Henry

Kitson, Sir James

Power, Patrick Joseph

Delany, William

Labouchere, Henry

Reckitt, Harold James

Dillon, John

Lambert, George

Reddy, M.

Duffy, William, J.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Duncan, James H.

Leese, SirJoseghF.(Accrington

Redmond, William (Clare)

Edwards, Frank

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Rickett, J. Compton

Elibank, Master of

Lloyd-George, David

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Ellis, John Edward

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Roche, John

Emmott, Alfred

M'Arthur, William(Cornwall)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Evan, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

M'Crae, George

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Dermott, Patrick

Sinclair, Capt John(Forfarshire

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Spencer,RtHn.C.R(Northants

Fuller, J. M. F.

Mansfield, Horace Kendall

Sullivan, Donal

Gladstone,Rt.HnHerbert John

Mooney, John J.

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morton, Edw. J. C.(Devonport)

Tennant, Harold John

Grant, Corrie

Murphy, J.

Thomas,Alfred (Glamorgan,E.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thomas, F.Freeman-(Hastings

Hammond, John

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

Hardie, J. Keir(MerthvrTydvil

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Tomkinson, James

Harrington, Timothy

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

Tully, Jasper

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W

Weir, James Galloway

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

White, George (Norfolk)

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Hobhouse, C. E. H.(Bristol, E.)

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Williams, Osmond(Merioneth)

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

O' Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

Woodhouse, SirJT(Huddersf'd

Joicey, Sir James

O'Malley, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Haviland Burke.

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

O'Mara, James

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Question put accordingly, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

AYES.

Abraham, Wm. (Rhondda)

Edwards, Frank

Lloyd-George, David

Allen. C. P. (Gloue, Stroud)

Elibank, Master of

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Ambrose, Robert

Ellis, John Edward

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Emmott, Alfred

M'Crae, George

Beaumont, Wenworth C. B.

Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

M'Dermott, Patrick

Bell, Richard

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Black, Alexander William

Flynn, James Christopher

Mansfield, Horace Kendall

Blake. Edward

Fuller, J. M. F.

Mooney, John J.

Boland, John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Boyle, James

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Brigg, John

Grant, Corrie

Murphy, J.

Broadhurst, Henry

Griffith, Ellis, J.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

Hammond, John

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hardie, J.Keir Merthyr Tydvil

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Harrington, Timothy

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Burns, John

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Caldwell, James

Hobhouse, C. E. H.(Bristol, E.)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo. S.)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Carew, James Laurence

Joicey, Sir James

O'Kelly, Jas.(Roscommon, N.)

Carvill, Patrick George H.

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

O'Malley, William

Causton, Richard Knight

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

O'Mara, James

Channing, Francis Allston

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Cogan, Denis J.

Joyce, Michael

Partington, Oswald

Colville, John

Kennedy, Patrick James

Paulton, James Mellor

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Kitson, Sir James

Pirie, Duncan V.

Dalziel, James Henry

Labouchere, Henry

Power, Patrick Joseph

Delany, William

Lambert, George

Reckitt, Harold James

Dillon, John

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Reddy, M.

Duffy, William J.

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Duncan, James H.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Redmond, William (Clare)

The House divided:—Ayes, 119; Noes, 231. (Division List No. 46.)

Rickett, J. Compton

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Woodhouse, Sir JT(Hudd'rsfi'd

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Tennant, Harold John

Weir, James Galloway

Roche, John

Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

White, George (Norfolk)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan,Gower

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

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

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Tomkinson, James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Speneer,RtHnC.R.(Northants

Tully, Jasper

Mr. Caine and Mr. Henry Wilson.

Sullivan, Donal

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Faber, George Denison

Lawrence, William F.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fellowes,Hon.Ailwyn Edward

Lawson, John Grant

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lee, Capt. A H(Hants. Fareham

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Finch, George H.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Fisher, William Hayes

Leveson-Gower, FrederickN. S.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Arrol, Sir William

Forster, Henry William

Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Garfit, William

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gibbs, HnA. G. H.(CityofLond.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Bagot, Capt. JoscelineFitzRoy

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Lowe, Francis William

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin&Nairn

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Baird, John George Alexander

Gordon,J(Londonderry, South

Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

Balcarres, Lord

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlts

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

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

Core, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

Balfour,RtHnGeraldW(Leeds

Goschen,Hon.GeorgeJoachim

Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. E.

Balfour,Mjr. KR(Christchurch

Graham, Henry Robert

Macdona, John Cumming

Bartley, George C. T.

Green, Walford D. (Wdnsbry.)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Greene,SirEW(B'rySEdm'nds

Maconochie, A. W.

Beach, Rt. Hn. SirM. H. (Bristol

Grenfell, William Henry

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Beckett, Ernest William

Gretton, John

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb., W.)

Bigwood, James

Groves, James Grimble

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Bill, Charles

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Majendie, James A. H.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Malcolm, Ian

Bond, Edward

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Manners, Lord Cecil

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Brown, AlexanderH.(Shropsh.

Hambro, Charles Eric

Maxwell, Rt HnSirH E(Wigt'n

Bull, William James

Hamilton, RtHnLordG.(Mid'x

Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire

Billiard, Sir Harry

Hamilton, Marq.of(L'donderry

Middlemore, John Throgm'rt'n

Carlile, William Walter

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf d)

Milner, Rt. Hn. SirFrederickG.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Milton, Viscount

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'uth

Milward, Colonel Victor

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

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)

Heaton, John Henniker

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc.

Helder, Augustus

Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamst.)

Chapman, Edward

Henderson, Alexander

Morrell, George Herbert

Charrington, Spencer

Hermon Hodge, Robert T.

Morrison, James Archibald

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hope,J. F. (Shef'ld, Brightside

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Houldsworth, Sir William H.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

Hoult, Joseph

Muntz, Philip A.

Collings, Rt. Hn. Jesse

Howard, Capt J (Kent,Faversh.

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Colomb,SirJohnCharlesReady

Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Cranborne, Viscount

Hughes. Colonel Edwin

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hutton; John (Yorks, N.R.)

Nicholson, William Graham

Cust, Henry John C.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Dalkeith, Earl of

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Davies,SirHoratioD.(Chath'm

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Pease, HerbertPike(Darlingt'n

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh

Pemberton, John S. G.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Percy, Earl

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Keswick, William

Pilkington, Richard

Duke, Henry Edward

Knowles, Lees

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edw.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

Plummer, Walter R.

Dyke,Rt.Hn.SirWilliam Hart

Law, Andrew Bonar

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

976

977

Pretyman, Ernest George

Shaw-Stewart,M.H.(Renfrew)

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

Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward

Simeon, Sir Harrington

Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

Purvis, Robert

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Randles, John S.

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Stanley,HonArthur(Ormskirk

Williams,Rt.HnJPowell(Birm

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Stanley, Edward J.(Somerset)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Reid, James (Greenock)

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Rentoul, James Alexander

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

Renwick, Georee

Stock, James Henry

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Stroyan, John

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

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

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Russell, T. W.

Thornton, Percy M.

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Tollemache, Henry James

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Valentia, Viscount

Sir William Walrond and

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

Mr. Anstruther.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Webb, Col. William George

Amendment again proposed—
"In line 7, to leave out the words 'during the remainder of the Session,' and add the words 'for two months.'"
Question again proposed, "That the words 'during the remainder of the Session' stand part of the proposed Amendment, as amended."
MR. J. P. FAERELLsaid that it was absolutely necessary that the scope of the resolution should be limited if there was in the future to be any chance whatever that private Members would get an opportunity of expressing their views; therefore he had much pleasure in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton. He regretted exceedingly that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had shown no desire to accept any of the various Amendments or suggestions that had been made with the object of rendering this resolution not so hard and fast in character. The hon. Member for East Mayo and other hon. Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies had endeavoured to get the right hon. Gentleman to agree to more elastic proposals, but he had refused to allow any Amendment of the drastic resolution which was before the House. In the first place it was particularly unfortunate that the right
978
hon. Gentleman should have proposed such a resolution, and in the second to wish to carry this struggle on in order to force it upon the House. It was not a good thing to legislate in a, time of panic, but that was practically what the proposal of the Government amounted to. They had become alarmed at this ebullition of feeling, and in their panic they had come down with this drastic resolution and insisted that it should be carried right away. When an English Member of Parliament of the eminence of the hon. Member for Northampton came forward with a moderate proposal limiting the scope of this drastic, change it ought to receive very careful consideration before it was rejected. The operation of this new rule was intended solely for the Irish Members, and as an Irish Member he protested against it being passed. Irish Members came to that House to do their duty, clothed with as much authority as any Members of the House, and they would not be prevented from doing so. He appealed to the Members of the House to consider what they were doing before they gave the unlimited power conferred by the resolution. He urged them to re-fleet upon what it would mean to disfranchise a constituency for six months of the session. If the Irish Members were suspended and removed from the House by main force, unless some further rule was made to prevent them from applying for the Chiltern Hundreds, they would

979
apply and resign their positions in the House and go back to their constituencies, with the absolute certain knowledge that, in spite of the resolution by which they were suspended, they would be sent back again. The result would be that the resolution would become practically inoperative. Under the Standing Orders a Member now could be suspended for a week, a fortnight, or a month. The hon. Member for Northampton made a moderate proposal that the long limit of one month should be extended to two; surely that was drastic enough. There had not been a case for many years where the suspension had been for a month; even in 1881 and 1893 the longest suspensions were one week. He suggested that the rule should be left as it stood, with the extreme limit for suspensions one month, but granting that special cases required special treatment, and that it might be necessary to provide against similar outbreaks to that which occurred on the previous Tuesday, it was not fair to the public who elect the Member to say, on a motion from the Chair, that that man should be suspended for the rest of the session. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton was a moderate one, and should commend itself to the earnest attention of the House. It seemed to him that a good deal of the freedom which they had been trying to confer upon other peoples of the world they were willing to take from the Members of their own House. He most strongly and earnestly supported the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton. He assured the Government that he felt that in this matter a very vital principle, and, in fact, the cardinal principle, of liberty was at stake. Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House saw his way to accede to the Amendment the Irish Members would take every opportunity open to them within the rides of debate to press on the attention of this unwilling Parliament the claims of the country which they come hero to represent. Whether as the result of new rules or old rules they endeavour to stifle the Nationalist representatives of Ireland, they would find each and every one of them perfectly willing to undergo any punishment.
MR. TULLY: I think the question of the penalty is one to which the House should give a good deal more attention than can be given at this hour of the morning [4.50]. We have to choose between two courses—whether the penalties are to be the heavy ones proposed by the Government, or the much milder penalties proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton. It was one of the monarchs of England, the unfortunate Charles I., who first used the expression that the punishment could be greater than the offence. I say that under this new rule it is quite possible that the punishment can be greater than the offence. A Member on these benches might in the excitement of the moment be drawn into the whirlpool of passion, as was the case the other night, by the action taken by the Government of the day, and that Member, who in other respects and at other times may be an observer of law and order, giving his best attention to the promotion of the business of the House, might be subjected to the same punishment as a Member who had plotted an organised resistance. I say that in a case like that there should be some differentiation between the Members. The Member who is drawn into the affair as the result of a mere outburst of passion should not be treated with the same severity as a Member who entered it as a matter of calculation.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the Amendment. There is no question of differential treatment before the House.
MR. TULLY: I was trying to explain the reason why I thought two months would be a more equitable punishment for any offence that might be committed than the vague punishment put down here of suspension for the entire session. Another point that is not covered by the new rule is the question whether, in the event of a Member being suspended for the entire

981
session, he can go home to his constituency and resign his seat. There is nothing in the Standing Orders on that question, and I do not see that the punishment provided by the new rule proposed by the First Lord of the Treasury would prevent the resignation of Members. I think the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton would get rid of any difficulty, and would not be so likely to provoke the resignation of Members. If the severer punishment should be adopted you will force Members to apply for the Chiltern Hundreds. How are you to prevent that except by some illegal action directed towards the Chancellor of the, Exchequer? Are we to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer muzzled by the First Lord of the Treasury, just as the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs is muzzled in the matter of supplementary questions? If the new rule is carried the First Lord of the Treasury will have to arrange by some illicit means to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from accepting the resignation of particular Members. I think that will not contribute to the dignity of the House, and to the winning of public respect for the acts of the House. We have in this case to decide whether a heavy or a moderate penalty is the more effective weapon. In my opinion, if you have a heavy penalty it will inevitably defeat itself. If you suspend a Member in the first week of the session for the entire session you will by that means arouse, not only among his own constituency, but among the larger public of Ireland, sympathy for that Member. We have heard the First Lord of the Treasury denouncing cheap martyrdom. Is he not providing cheap martyrdom by this rule, which has no elasticity about it, and which in the case of suspending a Member at the opening of the session is bound by the very violence of the rule to excite sympathy for the Member? I think in a case like that the right hon. Gentleman is not proceeding on the lines of prudence or wisdom. I think that a moderate penalty is always more effective than a drastic measure. A penalty of two months is one that would not excite very great sympathy for the Member who would commit himself in the manner that these new rules profess to deal with. In the speeches delivered
982
here to-night by hon. Members on the other side we have heard drastic remedies called for. One hon. Member seemed to be thirsting for the scalps and for the blood of the Irish Members. Some of them seemed to wish for our perpetual imprisonment or imprisonment during the session. Certainly some of us have been in prison before, and would not bother about any further imprisonment inflicted upon us. I suppose the next drastic remedy called for will be one of burning our houses. That will be the next remedy applied to Irish Members who do not submit with sufficient dignity to whatever motions the Government of the day seek to bring into operation. I think this rule will have a much wider application than is intended now—to the Irish Members. In the Parliament of 1892 hon. Members who are now on the Government benches were guilty of conduct which merited very much more drastic remedies than the First Lord of the Treasury is proposing now. I think hon. Members on the other side of the House would be well advised if they would look a little ahead. They are not likely to be always in a majority and to sit on the Government side of the House. The time may come when they will sit on this Opposition side of the House, when probably they will try to resist the measures of popular reform, and when probably the very weapon they are forging to-night will be used against themselves. We have heard an hon. Gentleman, who spoke in his South African manner, calling for our heads. Probably when the hon. Members on the Government benches are over on this side of the House, some gentleman, speaking with the same spirit as that hon. Member, will be calling for the heads of the Tories just as that are calling now for the heads of the Irish Members. Hon. Gentlemen will probably regret that they ever forged this instrument, which will be used against themselves later on. Liberal and Radical Members have to complain a great deal of the obstruction of the Tory party when Liberals and Radicals are in power.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the Amendment before the House.
MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

AYES.

Acland-Hood,Capt.SirAlex.F.

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

Maxwell,RtHnSirHE(Wigton

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte F.

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriessh.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Graham, Henry Robert

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fred. G.

Arohdale, Edward Mervyn

Green, WalfordD(Wednesbury

Milward, Col. Victor

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Greene,SirEW(B'rySEdm'nds

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Arrol, Sir William

Grenfell, William Henry

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Gretton, John

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Groves, James Grimble

More, Robt.Jasper(Shropshire

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morrell, George Herbert

Bam,Colonel James Robert

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Morrison, James Archibald

Baird,John George Alexander

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Balcarres, Lord

Hambro, Charles Eric

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

Hamilton, Rt Hn LordG(Midl'x

Muntz, Philip A.

Balfour,RtHnGerald W(Leeds

Hamilton,Marq.of (L'd'nderry

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute

Balfour, MajK.R.(Christchch.

Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashf'd

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Hartley, George C. T.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Newdigate,Francis Alexander

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Nicholson, William Graham

Beach,Rt.Hn.Sir M.H.(Bristol

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Beckett, Ernest William

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Neill, Hon. Robt. Torrens

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Bigwood, James

Heaton, John Henniker

Paulton, James Mellor

Bill, Charles

Helder, Augustus

Pease, Herb. Pike(Darlington)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Pemberton, John S. G.

Bond, Edward

Hope, J. F.(Shef'ld,Brightside

Percy, Earl

Boseawen, Arthur Griffith-

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Pilkington, Richard

Brown, AlexanderH.(Shropsh.

Hoult, Joseph

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bull, William James

Howard,Capt J(Kent,Faversh.

Plummer, Walter R.

Ballard, Sir Harry

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Carlile, William Walter

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

Purvis, Robert

Cavendish,V.C.W((Derbyshire

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Randies, John S.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Katcliffe, R. F.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Chamberlain,Rt.Hon.J.(Birm.

Kenyon,Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)

Kenyon-Slaney,Col.W.(Salop.

Renwick, George

Chapman, Edward

Keswick, William

Ridley,Hn.M. W. (Stalybridge

Charrington, Spencer

Knowles, Lees

Ritchie,Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Lambton, Hon.Frederick Wm.

Ropner, Colonel Robert

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

Law, Andrew Bonar

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lawrence, William F.

Russell, T. W.

Colomb,SirJohnCharles Ready

Lawson, John Grant

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Lee,CaptAH (Hants,Fareham

Sadler,Col. Samuel Alexander

Cranborne, Viscount

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sandys,Lieut.-Col.Thos Myles

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Dalkeith, Earl of

Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

Saunderson,Rt. Hn.Col.Edw. J

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Davies,SirHoratioD(Chatham

Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham

Seely, CharlesHilton(Lincoln)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Long, Rt, Hon. W. (Bristol, S.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Doxford,Sir William Theodore

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lowe, Francis William

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Faber, George Denison

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Smith, JamesParker(Lanarks.

Fellowes, Hon.AilwynEdward

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Smith, Hon.AV. F. D. (Strand)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lucas, Col.Francis(Lowestoft)

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Finch, George H.

Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Fortsm'uth

Stanley, Edward J.(Somerset)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Macdona, John dimming

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Fisher, William Hayes

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

Fitzroy, Hon Edward AIgernon

Maconochie, A. W.

Stock, James Henry

Fletcher, Sir Henry

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Stroyan, John

Forster, Henry William

M'Calmont,Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Garfit, William

M'lver, SirL. (Edinburgh, W.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Gibbs,HnA.G.H.(CityofLond.

M'Killop,James(Stirlingshire)

Thornton, Percy M.

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St.Albans)

Majendie, James A. H.

Tollemache, Henry James

Godson,SirAugustus Frederick

Malcolm, Ian

Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

Gordon,Hn.J.E.(Elgin&Nairn

Manners, Lord Cecil

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Gordon,J.(Londonderry,South

Massey-Mainwaring, HnW.F.

Valentia, Viscount

Question pout, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 219; Noes, 105.(Division List No.47.)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

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

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Williams,RtHn.JPowell-(Bir.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Webb, Col. William George

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Welby,Lt.-Col.A.CE(Taunton

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Sir William Walrond and

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Wilson,J.W.(Worcestersh.N.)

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Grant, Corrie

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Allen,CharlesP.(Glouc.,Stroud

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Ambrose, Robert

Hammond, John

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hardie, J. K. (MerthyrTydvil)

O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Harrington, Timothy

O'Malley, William

Black, Alexander William

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Mara, James

Blake, Edward

Hayne, Rt.Hon.Charles Seale-

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Boland, John

Helme, Nerval Watson

Partington, Oswald

Boyle, James

Hobhouse, C. E.H.(Bristol, E.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Brigg, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Broadhurst, Henry

Hulton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Reckitt, Harold James

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Joicey, Sir James

Reddy, M.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Jones,DavidBrynmor(Swans'a

Redmond,John E. (Waterford)

Caldwell, James

Jones, William (Caruarvonsh.)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Jordan, Jeremiah

Pickett, J. Compton

Carew, James Laurence

Joyce, Michael

Roche, John

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Kenndy, Patrick James

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Channing, Francis Allston

Lambert, George

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Cogan, Denis J.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Sinclair,CaptJotm(Forfarshire

Colville, John

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Spencer,Rt.Hn.CR(Northants

Condon, Thomas Joseph

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Sullivan, Donal

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Delany, William

M'Crae, George

Tennant, Harold John

Dillon, John

M'Dermott, Patrick

Thomas,Alfred (Glamorgan,E.

Duffy, William J.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Thomas,F.Freeman-(Hastings

Duncan, James H.

Mansfield, Horace Kendall

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

Edwards, Frank

Mooney, John J.

Tomkinson, James

Elibank, Master of

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Tully, Jasper

Ellis, John Edward

Murphy, J.

Weir, James Galloway

Emmott, Alfred

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, George (Norfolk)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Farrell, James Patrick

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Williams,Osmond(Merioneth)

Flvnn, james Christopher

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Wilson, Henry J.(York,W.R.)

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Labouchero and Mr. E J. C. Morton.

Gladstone,Rt.Hn. Herbert J.

O'Connor,James(Wicklow,W.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Connor, T.P.(Liverpool)

Question put accordingly, "That the words 'during the remainder of the Session,' stand part of the proposed Amendment, as amended."

AYES.

Acland-Hood,Capt.SirAlex.F.

Bigwood, James

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bill, Charles

Dalkeith, Earl of

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Bond, Edward

Davies, Sir HoratiD(Chatham

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Douglas, Rt, Hon.A. Akers-

Arrol, Sir William

Bull, William James

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Carlile, William Walter

Durning, Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cautley, Henry Strother

Bagot, Capt.JoscelineFitzRoy

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

Faber, George Denison

Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fielden, EdwardBrocklehurst

Baird, John George Alexandei

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Finch, George H.

Balcarres, Lord

Chamberlain,Rt.Hon J.(Birm

Finlay, Sir Robert Baunatyne

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

Chamberlain,J.Austen(Worc'r

Fisher, William Hayes

Balfour,RtHnGerald W.(Leeds

Chapman, Edward

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christch.

Charrington, Spencer

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Bartley, George C. T.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Forster, Henry William

Bathurst,Hon.AllenBenjamin

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

Fuller, J. M. F.

Beach,Rt.Hn. SirM H.(Bristol

Ceilings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Garfit, William

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Colomb,Sir John Charles Ready

Gibbs,Hn A.G.H(CityofLond.

Beckett, Ernest William

Corbett,A.Cameron(Glasgow)

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cranborne, Viscount

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

The House divided:—Ayes, 224; Noes, 97. (Division List No. 48.)

Gordon,Hn.J.E(Elgin&Nairn

Lowe, Francis William

Rentoul, James Alexander

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Renwick, George

Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Haml'ts)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Ridley,Hn.M.W.(Stalybridge)

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

Lucas,Col.Francis(Lowestoft)

Ritchie,Rt.Hon.ChasThomson

Goschen,Hon.George Joachim

Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Graham, Henry Robert

Macdona, John Cumming

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Green, WalfordD(Wednesbury

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Russell, T. W.

Greene,SirEW(B'rySEdm'nds

Maconochie, A. W.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Grenfell, William Henry

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Sadler, Col. SamuelAlexander

Gretton, John

M'Calmont,Col.J.(Antrim, E.)

Sandys,Lieut.-Col. ThosMyles

Groves, James Grimble

M'Iver, SirLewis(EdinburghW

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M'Killop,James(Stirlingshire

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E.J.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Majendie, James A. H.

Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.)

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Malcolm, Ian

Seely,CharlesHilton(Lincoln)

Hambro, Charles Eric

Manners, Lord Cecil

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hamilton,Rt.Hn.LdG(Midd'x

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn.W.F

Shaw-Stewart,M. H.(Renfrew

Hamilton,Marq.of(L'nd'nd'rry

Maxwell,RtHnSirH E(Wigt'n

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd.

Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire

Smith,JamesParker(Lanarks.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Harris,FLeverton(Tvnemouth

Milner, Rt. Hon. SirFrederickG

Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Milward, Colonel Victor

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Molesworrth, Sir Lewis

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Heaton, John Henniker

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Stock, James Henry

Helder, Augustus

More,Robt.Jasper (Shropshire

Stroyan, John

Hermon Hodge, Robert T.

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

HopeJ.F.(SheffieldBrightside

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Houldsworth, Sir William H.

Morrell, George Herbert

Tennant, Harold John

Hoult, Joseph

Morrison, James Archibald

Thomas,F.Freeman-(Hastings

Howard,CaptJ.(Kent,Faversh

Morton, ArthurH.A.(Deptford

Thornton, Percy M.

Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Tollemache, Henry James

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Muntz, Philip A.

Tomlinson, Wm. EdW. Murray

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Murray,Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Valentia, Viscount

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Newdigate, FrancisAlexander

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Nicholson, William Graham

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Webb,Colonel WilliamGeorge

Kenyon,Hon.Geo.T.(Denbigh

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Welby,Lt.-ColACE(Taunton)

Kenyon-Slaney,Col. W. (Salop)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Welby, SirCharlesG.E.(Notts.

Keswick, William

Paulton, James Mellor

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Knowles, Lees

Pease, Herbert Pike Darlingt'n

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Lambton,Hon.Frederick Wm.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Williams,RtHnJPowell-Birm

Law, Andrew Bonar

Percy, Earl

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Lawrence, William F.

Pilkington, Richard

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

Lawson, John Grant

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Lee,Capt.AH (Hants,Fareham

Plummer, Walter R.

Wilson,J.W.(Worcestersh, N.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Leveson-Gower, FrederiekN. S.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Young, Commander(Berks,E.)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Purvis, Robert

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Randies, John S.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Sir William Walrond and

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Reid, James (Greenock)

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Dillon, John

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol,E

Allen,CharlesP(Glouc.,Stroud

Duffy, William J.

Horniman, Frederick J.

Ambrose, Robert

Duncan, James H.

Hutton, Alfred E. (Motley)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Edwards, Frank

Joicey, Sir James

Bell, Richard

Elibank, Master of

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Black, Alexander William

Ellis, John Edward

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Blake, Edward

Emmott, Alfred

Jordan, Jeremiah

Boland, John

Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

Joyce, Michael

Boyle, James

Kennedy, Patrick James

Brigg, John

Farrell James Patrick

Lambert, George

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Flynn, James Christopher

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Burke, E. Haviland-

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Caldwell, James

Grant, Corrie

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Crae, George

Carew, James Laurence

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M'Dermott, Patrick

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Hammond, John

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Channing, Francis Allston

Hardie,JKeir(MerthyrTydvil)

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Cogan, Denis J.

Harrington, Timothy

Mooney, John J.

Colville, John

Hayden, John Patrick

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Murphy, J.

Delany, William

Helme, Norval Watson

Nannetti,Joseph P.

988

989

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Pantington, Oswald

Thomas,Alfred(Glamorgan,E.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Pirie, Duncan V.

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

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipper'ry Mid

Power. Patrick Joseph

Tomkinson, James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Reckitt, Harold James

Tully, Jasper

O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W.

Reddy, M.

Weir, James Galloway

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Redmond, John K. (Waterford

White, George (Norfolk)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Redmond, William (Clare)

While, Luke (York, E.R.)

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Rickett, J. Compton

Williams,Osmond(Merioneth)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Roche, John

Wilson, HenryJ.(Yorks,W.R.

O'Kelly, Jas (Roscommon, N.)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

O'Malley, William

Shaw. Thomas (Hawick B.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

O'Mara, James

Sullivan, Donal

Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Broadhurst.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

MR. A. J. BALFOURclaimed, "That the main Question be now put."
Main Question put accordingly, "That

AYES.

Acland-Hood,Capt.SirAlex.F.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hayne,Rt.Hon.Charles Seale.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Heath,ArthurHoward(Hanley

Agnev, Sir Andrew Noel

Dalziel, James Henry

Heaton, John Henniker

Allen, Chas. P.(Glone.,Strond)

Davies,SirHoratioD(Chatham

Helder, Augustus

Althnsen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Helme, Norval Watson

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hermon-Hodge,RobertTrotter

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Hobhouse,C.'E. H.(Bristol,E.)

Arrol, Sir William

Duncan, James H.

Hope,J.F.(Sheff'ld, Brightside

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Durning-Lawrenee, Sir Edwin

Horniman, Frederick John

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Edwards, Frank

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Baget, Capt. Joceline FitzRoy

Elibank, Master of

Hoult, Joseph

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Howard,CaptJ(Kent,Faversh.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Faber, George Denison

Hozier,Hon.JamesHenryCecil

Baird, John George Alexander

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Balcarres, Lord

Fielden, Edw. Brocklehurst

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

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

Pinch, George H.

Mutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W.(Leeds)

Finlay, Sir Rbt. Bannatyne

Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

Balfour,Maj.K.R.(Christch'ch

Fisher, William Hayes

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Hartley, George C. T.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Bathurst,Hon.AllenBenjamin

Fletcher,Sir Henry

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Beach,RtHn.SirM.H.(Bristol

Forster, Henry William

Joicy, Sir James

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Fuller, J. M. F.

Jones,DavidBrynmor(Swans'a

Beckett, Ernest William

Garlil, William

Kenyon,Hon.Geo.T.(Denbigh

Bell, Richard

Gibbs, Hn. A. GH.(CityofLond.

Kenyon-Slaney,Col.W.(Salop

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St.Albans

Keswick, William

Bigwood, James

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

knowles, Lees

Bill, Charles

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lambton,Hon.Frederick Wm.

Bhundell, Colonel Henry

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Law, Andrew Bonar

Bond, Edward

Gordon,Hn.J.E.(Elgin&Nairn

Lawrence, William p.

Boseawen, Arthur Grillith-

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, Si

Lawson, John Grant

Brigg, John

Gordon,Maj Evans-(Trll'ml'ts

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Brown, Alex) H.(Shropsh.)

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

Lee, CaptAH(Hants.Fareham

Bull, William James

Goschen,Hn.George Joachin-

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Bullard, Sir Harry

Graham, Henry Robert

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Caldwell, James

Grant, Corrie

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Carlile, William Walter

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S

Cautley, Henry Strother

Greene,SirEW(BryS.Edm'nds

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

Greniell, William Henry

Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derhysh.

Gretton, John

Long, Rt. Hn.Walter(Bristol,S

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Grillith, Ellis J.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Groves, James Grimble

Lowe, Francis William

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

Chamberlain, J. A. (Wore'r

Gurdon,Sir W. Brampton

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Chapman, Edward

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft

Charrington Spencer

Halsey Thomas Frederick

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Churehill, Winston Spencer

Hambro, Charles Eric

Maedona, John Cumming

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

Hamilton,RtHnLordG.(Mid'x

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Collings, Rt. Hon Jesse

Hamilton,Marq.of(L'donderry

Maconochie, A. W.

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashf'd

M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

Colville, John

Hare, Thomas Leigh

M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

Corbett,A.Cameron(Glasgow)

Harris, F. Leverton(Tynemoth

M'Calmont, Col. J.(Antrim, E.

Crauborne, Viscount

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

M'Crae,George

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hay, Hon. Claude George

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W)

the Amendment, as amended, be there inserted in Standing Order No, 21."
The House divided;—Noes, 51.(Division List No.49.)

M'Killop,James (Stirlingshire

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Majendie, James A. H.

Plummer, Walter R.

Stock, James Henry

Malcolm, Ian

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stroyan, John

Manners, Lord Cecil

Pretyman, Ernest George

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn.W.F,

Purvis, Robert

Tennant, Harold John

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE.(Wigt'n

Randies, John S.

Thomas,F.Freeman-(Hastings

Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Thomas, J. A. (Glam.,Cower)

Middlemore,JohnThrogmort'n

Rickitt, Harold James

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

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fred k. G.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Thornton, Percy M.

Milward, Colonel Victor

Rentoul, James Alexander

Tollemache, Henry James

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Berwick, George

Tomkiuson, James

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Rickett, J. Compton

Tomlinson, Wm.Edw. Murray

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Ridley,Hn.M.W.(Stalybridge

Tufnell, Col. Edward

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Valentia, Viscount

Morgan, Dav. J.(Walthamstow

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Wanklyn, james Leslie

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney

Morrell, George Herbert

Russell, T. W.

Webb, Col. William George

Morrison, James Archibald

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Weir, James Galloway

Morton, Arthur HA(Deptford)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Welby,Lt.-Col.ACE(Taunton)

Morton,Edw.J. C.(Devonport)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Welby, Sir Chas. E. (Notts.)

Mowbray, Sir Robert (Gray C.

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Muntz, Philip A.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Whitmore, Chas. Algernon

Murray,Rt Hn AGraham (Bute

Saunderson,Rt. Hn Col. Edw. J.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

Scott,Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Williams,Rt. Hn J Powell-(Bir.

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Seely,Charles Hilton(Lincoln)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Nicholson, William Graham

Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Shaw-Stewart,M. H. (Renfrew)

Wilson, JW.(Worcestersh.N)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Simeon, Sir Harrington

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

Partington, Oswald

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Paulton, James Mellor

Smith, Hon. W.F. D.(Strand)

Young, Commander (Berks,E.

Pease,Herb. Pike (Darlington

Stanley. Rt Hn. CR. (Northants

Pemberton, John S. G.

Stanley,Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Percy, Farl

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Sir William Walrond and

Pilkington, Richard

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Hardie, J Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Ambrose, Robert

Harrington, Timothy

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

Blake, Edward

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Malley, William

Boland, John

Joyce, Michael

O'Mara, James

Boyle, James

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Broadhurst, Henry

Labouchere, Henry

Power, Patrick Joseph

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Roddy, M.

Carew, James Laurence

M'Dermott, Patrick

Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

Carvill,Patrick Geo. Hamilton

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Channing, Francis Allston

Mooney, John J.

Roche, John

Cogan, Denis J.

Murphy, J.

Sullivan, Donal

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Tully, Jasper

Delany, William

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

White, George (Norfolk)

Dillon, John

O'Brien, Kendal(Tippcr'ryMid

Wilson,Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Duffy, William J.

O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Farrell, James Patrick

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Mr. Patrick O'Brien and

Hammond, John

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Mr. Haviland-Burke.

Ordered, That if any Member, or Members acting jointly, who have been suspended under this Order from the service of the House, shall refuse to obey the direction of the Speaker, when severally summoned under the Speaker's orders by the Serjeant-at-Arms to obey such direction, the Speaker shall call the attention of the House to the fact that recourse to force is necessary in order to compel obedience to his direction, and the Member or Members named by him as having refused to obey his direction shall thereupon, and without
992
further Question put, be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of the Session.

COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO CROPS, ETC., BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday, 19th June.
Adjourned at twenty minutes before Six of the clock, a.m.

The Lord Forbes took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Freshwater, Yarmouth, and Newport Railway [H.L.].

Alfreton Gas [H.L.].

Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway (No. 1) [H.L.].

Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway (No. 2) [H.L.].

Easton and Church Hope Railway [H.L.].

Lynton and Barnstaple Railway [H.L.].

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

BETHLEM HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.]
  BRIDEWELL HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.]

    CHRIST'S HOSPITAL (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
    ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.].
    Reports of His Majesty's Attorney General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.

    STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
    Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the following Bills ought to be dispensed with, and the Bills allowed to proceed:

    Cowes Ferry [H.L.].

    Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Canada Dock Works, etc.) [H.L.].

    Sutton-in-Ashfield Urban District (Water) [H.L.].

    Dover Gas [H.L.].

    That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
    Birmingham City Tramways Rill [H.L]
    ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that the
    766
    powers to construct Tramways Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 be struck out of the Bill unless the consent of the local and road authorities shall be proved before the Committee on the Bill.
    That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
    Harrogate Corporation Bill [H.L.]
    ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Clause 7 be struck out of the Bill.
    That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
    Brompton and Piccadilly Circus Railway (Extensions) Bill [H.L.]
    ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Railways Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 be struck out of the Bill.
    That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
    Chester Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]
    ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Tramways Nos. 1, 2, and so much of Tramway No. 6 as lies beyond the city boundary, be struck out of the Bill.
    That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
    South Western and Isle of Junction Railway Bill [H.L.]
    ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Clauses 6, 11, 56, 57, 58, and 59 be struck out of the Bill.
    That the standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
    Wigan Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]
    ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Tramway No. 2 be struck out of the Bill.
    That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
    Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [H.L.]
    ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Tramway No. 3 be struck out of the Bill.
    That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
    South Lancashire Tramways Bill [H.L.]
    ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Tramways Nos. 7 and 8 be struck out of the Bill.
    Road, and agreed to.

BRISTOL, CLIFTON, AND WEST OF ENGLAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY BILL [H.L.]
  WESTON-SUPER-MARE GAS BILL [H.L.]

    WISBECH WATER BILL [H.L.],
    OMACH CAS BILL [H.L.].
    ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE BILL [H.L.].
    FAVERSHAM WATER BILL [H.L.].
    SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    NITRATE RAILWAYS COMPANY BILL [H.L.].
    Read 1*.

    LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS.
    Message from the Commons that they concur in the Resolution of this House, ordered to be communicated to thorn on Monday last on the subject of London Underground Railways, as desired by this House.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CHINA, No. 2 (1901).
  Despatch from His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg respecting the Russo-Chinese Agreement as to Manchuria.

  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
  Annual Report and Accounts of the Governors for year ended 31st December, 1900.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (PAR- TICULARS OF PIECE-WORK WAGES: PEN-MAKING).
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, dated 12th July, 1900, applying, with modifications,
  768
  the provisions of Section 40 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1895, to factories and workshops in which is carried on the making of pens. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Acts relating to public libraries, museums, and gymnasiums, and to regulate the liability of managers of libraries to proceedings for libel —was presented by the Lord Windsor; read 1ª; and to be printed. (No. 16.)

CREMATION BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Beading road.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to provide for the regulation of the burning of human remains, and to enable burial authorities to establish crematoria. This power is at present exercised in many large towns under the various provisions of different private Acts of Parliament. As the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack stated last year* it is much better, both in order to save expense and also for the sake of uniformity, that the practice of cremation, which is a rapidly growing practice, should be conducted under some general Act of Parliament. It is proposed by this Bill that cremation should be partly under the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board and partly under that of the Home Office. The Bill provides that the plans of crematoria and the fees to be charged shall be approved by the Local Government Board, and that the Home Office shall regulate the conditions under which burning shall be permitted to take place. Clause 5 imposes penalties for any breach of these regulations; in Clause 7 it is provided that nothing in the Act shall authorise the burial authority to create or permit a nuisance: and by Clause 8 all private Act regulations are superseded by the regulations of the
* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], vol. lxxxiv., pages 264 and 1269. (For an analysis of the discussions, see heading "Cremation Bill" in the Index to that volume,)

769
Home Office. Last year the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland asked me to exclude Scotland from the Bill, but I have received a pressing letter from the Cremation Society of Scotland begging that Scotland may be included. On that point, however, I should be quite willing to do whatever the Secretary for Scotland may desire.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read; 2ª."—(Lord Monkswell.)
LORD BELPER: My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for me to say much with regard to this Bill, as it is framed on the same lines as the Bill which left your Lordships' House last year. It may be within the recollection of the House that, to the Bill, I moved a good many Amendments on behalf of the Home Office, the object of the, main portion of them being to make the Bill refer, not only to local authorities which in future might wish to start crematoria, but also to those local authorities which already had powers under private Acts. It was thought desirable that in regard to this matter local authorities should be subjected to general regulations made by the Secretary of State, and that crematoria established and kept up by private individuals should also be subjected to such regulations. In giving the assent of the Home Secretary to this Bill I have only to say that the right hon. Gentleman reserves the power to consider any points which may arise when the Bill reaches the other House.
On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

CREMATION BILL [H.L.]

  THE BRITISH POST OFFICE AT SALONIKA.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to obtain from the Porte the recognition of the British post office established last year at Salonika; and whether he will undertake that the expenditure sane-tioned for one year in connection with this post office shall be renewed in the event of the Porte still refusing recognition at the expiration of that period. This some what trivial question occupied the atten-
  770
  tion of the late Government for a considerable time, and has formed the subject of much correspondence and many inquiries both here and in another place. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, owing to the complete incapacity of the Turkish Government to provide a proper postal system, civilised Powers are in the habit of maintaining post offices there for the benefit of their own subjects. These post offices are not established for the purpose of earning a revenue, but in order to administer to the commercial necessities of these foreign communities.
  In the town of Salonika British trade interests are still greater than the interests of any other Power. The British commercial community were under a considerable disadvantage for a long time through the absence of postal facilities, but after much trouble, and owing largely to representations from the Embassy at Constantinople and from the various British Chambers of Commerce, in Turkey, the Post Office and the Foreign Office agreed, about a year ago, to the establishment of a British post office at Salonika, which has proved a complete success, and has conferred a great benefit on the British community. Following its usual practice, the Turkish Government refused its recognition of the office. In most cases, whether the Turkish Government grants its recognition or not to a foreign post office is a matter of very small importance, because the majority of these post offices are situated in seaport towns, and all that is necessary is to take the mails on board the vessel. But the case of Salonika is different. The mails are taken by train, and by the simple expedient of refusing to allow the British mails to be carried in the mail bags the Turkish Government have succeeded in making this post office a considerable I expense to the British Government, whereas it would, if we were able to obtain our rights, prove a paying and remunerative concern.
  I understand that the cost of the post office is £700 a year, and that the Treasury are disposed to discontinue providing this money. The expenditure is incurred in sending messengers daily to and from the Servian frontier. I do not think it is surprising, under the circumstances, that the Treasury

  771
  should object to finding the £60 a month which this costs; but before any action is taken on this point I should like to make as strong an appeal as I can to the Foreign Secretary and the Postmaster-General to use their power in order that we may not perform what I can only describe as a somewhat humiliating surrender. I venture to think it is a very unwise procedure to sanction this expenditure for only one year, for that is obviously a, temptation to the Turkish Government to obstruct the working of the office, in the hope that His Majesty's Government will get tired of providing the money. We are not asking from the Turkish Government any particular privilege for ourselves, but only to lie allowed to enjoy the right which is enjoyed by other nations. The French Government and the Austrian Government have for some time maintained post offices in this town for the benefit of their respective communities, but they had at first the same obstruction and difficulties to surmount. What they were able to overcome we ought to be able to overcome.
  A promise was actually obtained from the Turkish Foreign Office, in September last, that our request should be complied with. I am not one of those persons who are in favour of what I venture to call the continual bullying of the Turkish Government on all sorts of questions; I go so far as to say that we have damaged our influence, in Turkey by taking up causes with which we, had no immediate concern but I think we ought to use all the pressure we can command to secure their recognition of this post office. We are represented by an Ambassador whose relations with the Porte are, happily, better than those of his predecessor, and I do not see why there should be any difficulty in getting our way on this question. We are not asking for money. There is nothing more difficult than to extract money from the Turkish Government. Neither are we asking for reform, which is equally difficult to secure. We are simply asking for something which we are entitled to, and which other nations enjoy. It is merely a case of insisting upon the fulfilment of a promise which has been made to us, and the granting of a right which has been extended to other nations. This
  772
  may be described as a trumpery question, but there is an important principle involved. We ought not to submit to what I can only term the, senseless obstruction of the Turkish Government. If the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will only go so far as to accede to the request contained in my question, I am confident that the result will immediately be seen in the disappearance of this obstruction.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): The subject which the noble Lord has brought before your Lordships has engaged the attention of the Foreign Office for some time past, and I do not know that our view of it differs very greatly from that which he has expressed. We came to the conclusion that it was desirable in the interests of our considerable commercial community in Salonika that there should be a, British post office there, and it seemed to us only reasonable that privileges which had already been conceded in that, port to other Powers—France and Austria —should not be denied to us. We thought our case was strengthened owing to the fact that lately another foreign Power—Germany—has been allowed to establish post offices at Beirut, Jerusalem, and Smyrna. The Porte objected to our proposal, and we did not think, under the circumstances, that the objection was founded upon sufficient grounds. But in view of that objection, as a provisional measure we opened a post office in the buildings of the Consular Office at Salonika, and that post office has been open since May of last year. That arrangement, as the noble Lord truly said, was not only an inconvenient but a very expensive one, owing to the fact that the mails have to be carried by messengers from Salonika to the frontier. The expense is about £700 a year.
  The noble Lord asked us what steps we have taken in order to deal with this difficulty. I find that in October last a representation was made to the Turkish Ambassador at His Majesty's Court here. That representation was repeated in January of the present year, and at the same time representations were made at Constantinople through the British Am-

  773
  bassador at that place. I heard a few days ago, in officially, it is true, but from a reliable source, that we might expect a reply to these representations in a few days. That reply has not yet reached us; but since the noble Lord's notice appeared on the Paper I have again mentioned the subject to the Turkish Ambassador and pressed upon him the necessity of putting an end to the procrastination that has already taken place with regard to this subject. That is all the information I can give my noble friend at present.
  He also asks us whether we, will undertake that the expenditure sanctioned for one year in connection with this post office shall be renewed in the, event of the Porte declining to comply with our representations, will ask my noble friend to excuse me from discussing the financial arrangements we might make in the hypothetical case of the Porte's continuing to turn a deaf ear to our representations. Those representations will still be urged, and until we learn, which I hope we shall not, that they have been addressed to the Porte in vain, I think it is better not to enter into the question of the financial arrangements that might be, made in case the negotiations should fail.
  LORD NEWTON: May I say that in my opinion the noble, Marquess's representations would be very much, strengthened if be would comply with my request, and intimate that he is prepared to continue this payment in the went of the Porte still refusing its recognition of the British post office?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords. I endorse, all that has fallen from my noble friend the Foreign Secretary, and would remind the noble Lord who has raised this question that when the post office, at Salonika was established it was on the distinct understanding that it should be for one year only. That stipulation was made in consequence of the opposition it met with at the hands of the Turkish Government. It is of course quite impossible at the present moment to make any definite statement as to what will be done in the future. This is a question in which the Foreign
  774
  Office is concerned to a greater extent than the Department over which I preside, as the chief expense—the conveyance of the mails from Salonika to the frontier by messengers—is charged on the Foreign Office Votes. I therefore think my noble friend should leave the matter in the hands of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and His Majesty's representative at Constantinople, who is doing all in his power to secure the approval of the Sublime Porte to the maintenance of a post office at Salonika. I trust, in the interests of the British in habitants, that he may be successful. If the noble Marquess the Secretary of State sees his way to again approach the Treasury on this matter, I shall, so far as lies in my power, endorse and support any arguments he may put forward in support of the continuance of this post office.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Five of the clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.