Sitting of 8 April 1902

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  NEW FOREST (SALE OF LANDS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES) BILL (STANDING ORDERS COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 21st day of March, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  New Forest (Sale of Lands for Public Purposes) Bill.

CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (CRUMLIN VIADUCT) BILL.
    MANCHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.
  FURNESS RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL.
    NOTTINGHAM AND RETFORD RAILWAY BILL.
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
    DARLEY DALE WATER BILL [LORDS].
    Read a second time, and committed.
  DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY BILL (BY ORDER).
    NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL (BY ORDER).
    Read a second time, and committed.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL (BY ORDER).
    Read a second time, and committed.
    CENTRAL ARGENTINE AND ROSARIO RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  PETITIONS.
    FRESHWATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Petitions in favour: From Uddingston and Lanark; to lie upon the Table.
    LICENSING BILL.
    Petitions in favour: From Eccles; Attleborough (two); Tenterden; Kennington Park; St. George's in the East; Trowbridge; Tunstall; Exning; Crook; York; Derby; Sunderland; Masham; Spennymoor; Colwyn Bay (two); and Gospel Oak; to lie upon the Table.
    PLUMBERS REGISTRATION BILL.
    Petition from Hull, in favour: to lie upon the Table.
    PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Petitions in favour: From Pollokshaws; Shotts; St. Andrew's; Carstairs; Greenock (two); and Camelon; to lie upon the Table.
    RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
    Petitions against: From Devonport; Benwell and Fenham; Swindon and Highworth; West Ham (two); Peterborough; York; Newcastle-on-Tyne; Durham; Dalton in Furness; East Ash-ford; Tipton; Warrington; Irlam; Sheffield; Kingston upon Hull; Brighton; West Bromwich; Blean; Fenton; Cannock; and Chorley; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
    Petition from Boston, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    VACCINATION BILL.
    Petition of the Sanitary Institute, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PRISONS (IRELAND).
  Paper [presented 7th April] to be printed. [No. 129.]
  CABLE COMMUNICATIONS.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Cable Communications [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BRITISH MUSEUM.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 14th February; Mr. John Morley]: to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 130.]
  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of Prices of Agricultural Products and Live Stock for the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CENSUS OF IRELAND, 1901.
  Copy presented, of Census of Ireland, 1901. Part I. Vol. II Province of Munster (County of Clare) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CENSUS OF IRELAND, 1901.
  Copy presented, of Census of Ireland, 1901. Part I. Vol. IV. Province of Connaught (County of Leitrim) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Twenty-fourth Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, being the Sixty-Third Annual Report on Prisons in Scotland, 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES.
  Copy presented, of Statements of Accounts, and of Life Assurance and Annuity Business and Abstracts of Actuarial Reports, deposited with the Board of Trade during the year ended 31st December 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 131.]
(3.30.) QUESTIONS.

  South African War—Peace Negotiations.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give to the House any information as to the progress of the negotiations which are going on in South Africa.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): No, Sir; we have no information on the subject at the present time.

  Sir Redvers Buller—Ladysmith Correspondence.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the dismissal of Sir Redvers Buller from the Aldershot command owing to his reference to the heliograms and telegraphic correspondence which passed between him and Sir George White during the siege of Ladysmith, and having regard to General Buller's repeated requests that such heliograms and telegraphic correspondence be published by the War Office, General Buller will, in his own vindication, be permitted to publish the copies of the correspondence which is now in his possession and has been withheld from publication by him by the order of the War Office.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): No, Sir. The Question of the hon. Member is not accurate in respect of the statements mentioned as if they were facts. I am not aware of any repeated requests by Sir R. Buller that his heliograms and telegraphic correspondence should be published by the War Office, nor has the hon. Member, so far as I am aware, any title to represent Sir R. Buller in the matter. No correspondence can be published except by His Majesty's Government.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has Sir Redvers Buller asked the War Office to permit him to tell the truth?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have already answered that question.

  Concentration Camps—Payment by Boers for Maintenance of their Families.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state on what basis a calculation has been made to determine the contributions to be paid by Boers who remained in the field after 15th September, 1901, in respect of the maintenance of their families in the concentration camps; whether they are being called upon to provide the

  1249
  whole, or what portion of the cost of the rations supplied to their families in the camps, or are also called upon to provide a proportionate amount of the whole expenditure of the camps; and whether any regularly drawn up accounts for these charges have been sent to these Boers; and, if so, in what form.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Calculations have been made on the basis of charging the head of the family with the cost of rations and a proportionate amount of the whole expenditure of the camps. No such accounts have been sent to Boers in the field.

  Sales of Boer Farms.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the sale of farms in the Orange River Colony or Transvaal to recover from the owners the cost of maintenance of their families in the concentration camps, when such owners remained on commando after 15th September, 1901, has been sanctioned by any legislation or regulation of equivalent force to legislation in those Colonies; or whether such sale will require an Act to be passed either in the Colonies or in the Imperial Parliament to give an indefeasible title to the purchasers.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The sale of farms has been sanctioned by Lord Milner's Proclamation No. 18 of 1901, which will have the effect of giving an indefeasible title to purchasers.

  Execution of Australian Officers.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the date of the sitting of the court-martial by which Lieutenant Handcock and Lieutenant Morant were tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for a series of murders, of which the victims were Boers; what were the dates of the promulgation of the sentence and of the execution of these officers, and when was the War Office apprised of these executions; and will he explain why the facts of the holding of this court-martial and the sentences and executions of there officers
  1250
  have been withheld for some months from the public.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state on what day in January last Lieutenants Handcock and Morant were found guilty by the court-martial.
  MR. BRODRICK: There were two general courts-martial, one on January 16th and one on February 5th, on these officers. The sentences of death were promulgated on February 26th, and they were executed on February 27th. The proceedings of the courts-martial have only recently reached the War Office.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What was the date of the courts-martial? Were they not held on January 19th?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have given the date already.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered whether the facts that these courts-martial were held and the sentences executed have been withheld from the public for some months.
  MR. BRODRICK: The facts have not been withheld "some months." It is not the habit to make a statement with regard to courts-martial, and these courts martial have not been made exceptions to the rule.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Were not these officers executed two months ago; and why has the knowledge of the execution been withheld from the public?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman has answered the Question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Yes, but most unsatisfactorily.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will direct the

  1251
  immediate publication of the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, and of all evidence produced before that Court, in reference to the series of murders of Boers, by officers holding commissions under the British Crown, and will likewise direct the immediate publication of the proceedings of the trial by court-martial of Lieutenants Handcock and Morant and of the evidence adduced before that court-martial in its entirety.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As at present advised. I do not see that any public advantage would be gained by the publication of these proceedings.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the recent execution of British officers in South Africa, whether any communications were addressed to the Foreign Office, or to Lord Kitchener, by the German Government with reference to the murder of Rev. Mr. Hesse.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): No such communication has been made to the Foreign Office, and I understand that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War has no information as to any communication on this subject having been made to Lord Kitchener on behalf of the German Government.

  Supply Contracts.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the total amounts paid to Julius Weil for supply contracts in South Africa, specifying; the totals for loss of trek oxen and waggons, and the amount paid for their hire separately.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The amounts paid to Mr. Julius Weil up to December, 1901, are as follows:—

  Hire of waggons and oxen

  £844,600

  Purchase of stock

  509,944

  Loss of trek oxen

  601,400

  Provisions

  82,567

  Forage

  67,433

  Stores, etc.

  80,639

  Total

  £2,166,583

  No subsequent accounts are to hand.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Can the noble Lord say how long Mr. Weil has been a naturalised British subject?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Glasgow Postal Volunteers for Active Service.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that applicants for situations in the Transvaal Post Office have been informed by the Glasgow postmaster that their applications cannot be entertained; and if so, will he state on what grounds the applications have been refused.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Postmaster General is fully aware of the circumstance. So many officers from the Glasgow office have gone to South Africa in different capacities, that the exigencies of the service render it impossible to allow more to go at present.

  Imperial Yeomanry—Officers' Chargers.
  COLONEL BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether officers of Imperial Yeomanry (for South Africa), now under orders for the seat of war, will be allowed to take out any horses of their own with them at the public expense; and, if this is not the case, whether he can state the reason.
  LORD STANLEY: Officers desirous of taking their own chargers will be granted conveyance at the public expense.

  New Pattern Rifle.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Small Arms Committee has reported in favour of a new pattern of rifle; and, if so, whether he is able to make any statement upon the subject.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this subject.

  Shot Drill in Military Prisons.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that the punishment of shot drill has been abolished in the Army since April, 1899, he has any, and, if so, what, explanation to give of the fact that shot drill has been inflicted on prisoners in the military cells at Lichfield up till the 17th February last.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have nothing to add to my previous answer on this subject.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But has this form of punishment in the Army been abolished?
  [No answer was returned.]

  India—Military Hospital Appointments.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether arrangements can be made for the military hospitals in India to be provided with surgical instruments of modern pattern, and will surgical instruments with wooden handles either be withdrawn or refitted with metal handles.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I am informed that all instruments sent to India in recent years have metal handles, but I will inquire more fully into the matter, and, if there is any reason to suppose that a large proportion of the surgical instruments now in use in India are not of the most approved pattern, the Government of India will, I have no doubt, be anxious to replace them with as little delay as possible.

  Hong Kong Fatality.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the number of persons killed in the autumn of last year through the collapse of a house in Cochrane Street, Hong Kong, the cause of the collapse, the name of the owner of the house, the names of the builder and architect; and whether any compensation has been paid to the widows, orphans, or dependents of the persons killed.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Forty-three persons lost their lives through the accident in question, which was largely due to defects of construction. The owner and the builder of the houses were Chinamen, and their names have not been reported. The architect of the recent structural alterations was a Mr. Hazeland. I am not aware whether or not any compensation has been given to the families or dependents of the deceased.

  Canada and Wireless Telegraphy.
  MR. RANDLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Agreement of the Canadian Government with the Marconi Companies will stand in the way of an international agreement; and, if so, will he consider the desirability of urging delay in confirming the Canadian Agreement.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information as to the terms of the Agreement between the Canadian Government and the Marconi Companies. I have already asked for information on the subject.

  Uganda Railway.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his official information enables him to state when the Uganda Railway will be completed; whether it will be completed for the sum of money already voted by Parliament; or whether he proposes to ask Parliament to vote a further sum; and, if so, what sum.
  LORD CRANBORNE: As the House is aware, the rails reached the lake on the 20th of December last. We hope that the permanent alignment will be completed by September next. As regards the expense, I am afraid that there will be a considerable excess in the final cost over the sum voted by Parliament, but I am not able to give the figures of the estimated excess until the return of the Managing Member of the Uganda Railway Committee, who is now engaged in inspecting the line, and may be expected to be home again in the course of next month.

  Porthill Lead Poisoning Case.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an inquest held by the Coroner for North-West Staffordshire, on the 18th inst., on a married woman residing at Port-hill, when the Coroner, in summing up, stated that it appeared that the deceased was a milliner, and had never been employed in the lead, and consequently could not have got this lead poisoning in the course of her trade; that it could not be difficult to find out where this load was obtained; and that if this had been done, and the person who supplied it knew for what purpose, he would find himself charged with manslaughter at least. And, in view of the fact that the jury returned a verdict to the effect that death was due to lead poisoning, brought about by deceased taking pills for a certain purpose, whether he will cause inquiries to be instituted as to the person who supplied the deceased with the lead pills.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): I understand that active inquiries have been made, but that no clue has been obtained to trace the person who supplied the pills.
  MR. COGHILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to ascertain if it was the practice of this woman to take these pills?
  MR. RITCHIEwas understood to reply that the inquiry had been directed solely to finding the person who supplied the pills.

  Aylsham Smallpox Case.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the discharge of a prisoner from Cambridge Gaol, there being at the time cases of smallpox within the gaol, although the prisoner had complained of illness the day before his discharge, and is now suffering from smallpox at Alysham, in Norfolk; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be held into the circumstances.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have made inquiry, and find that the prisoner was discharged at the expiration of his sentence, and that he was visited, on the day before his discharge, by the medical officer, who observed no symptoms to lead him to suppose that he was suffering from incipient smallpox.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries?
  MR. RITCHIE: I can make no further inquiries, except of the medical officer who examined the man.

  London Smallpox Epidemic Expenditure.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state approximately the cost which the present epidemic of smallpox has involved in the London area up to the 31st March last.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I understand that the epidemic has involved an expenditure of about £280,000 on the part of the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District during the half year to the end of March last. This amount includes a sum of £225,000 in respect of special expenditure in connection with smallpox accommodation and transport. I have no information at present as to the amounts expended by Boards of Guardians and other local authorities in London in connection with the epidemic. I think, however, that the amount should be obtained, and if further information is pressed for, willingness might later on be expressed to give a Return, if asked for, showing the expenditure incurred by local authorities in London in relation to the epidemic, when the accounts up to the end of March have been made up.

  Hospital Ship "Atlas."
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has observed in the weekly Returns of the Registrar General that an infant, born on the hospital ship "Atlas" on 1st March, was vaccinated on that day and died of smallpox on the 12th, and that many other similar cases occur in

  1257
  the Returns; whether, in view of these results, he will consider whether the vaccination of such children after infection should be abandoned; and, as in several cases of death from smallpox after vaccination the dates of vaccination are omitted, and the words "Vaccinated during the incubation period" or "Vaccinated only after infection" are employed, whether he will direct the hospital authorities to supply exact particulars to the Registrar General, so as to obtain uniformity in these statistics.
  MR. WALTER LONG: As regards the first paragraph, the answer is in the affirmative. With respect to the second, I could not undertake to recommend the course suggested. As to the third paragraph, I have communicated with the Registrar General, who states that it is impossible to obtain uniformity in all cases, and that under the circumstances he considers that the terms employed are the best that can be devised.

  Vaccine Lymph from Monkeys.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the lymph obtained by Dr. Copeman from the inoculation of smallpox on monkeys has been used in general practice for vaccination; and, if so, to what extent; and have the parents and the medical men been aware of its origin.
  MR. WALTER LONG: All the lymph obtained in the manner referred to in the Question was passed through calves and properly glycerinated before it was used for the vaccination of human beings. I understand that the medical men using the lymph thus derived were made aware of the circumstances connected with it, but I cannot say whether the parents knew them. I am informed, however, that the amount manufactured was but small, and that whatever remained in stock was destroyed nearly two years ago.

  Government Supplies of Lymph.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state what progress has been made in the supply of Government lymph; whether the Local Government Board has been able to overtake the
  1258
  demand for it; and whether any arrangements have yet been made to supply private practitioners as well as the public vaccinators with Government lymph for primary and secondary vaccinations at about cost price.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am glad to say that since the early part of last I month I have been able to meet all the demands made by public vaccinators for lymph, not only for primary vaccinations but also for re-vaccinations. As regards the last part of the Question, I have carefully considered the matter, but I regret that I have not seen my way to comply with the suggestion of my hon. friend.

  Coronation Celebrations—Parish Councils Expenditure.
  MR. DAVID MORGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the power to use funds out of the rates in connection with the Coronation celebrations will be extended to Parish Councils; and, if not, may District Councils allocate certain sums to the various parishes.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The matter referred to has been under my consideration, and I propose to include Parish Councils in the Order which I am about to issue, sanctioning reasonable expenditure out of the rates in respect of the celebration of the Coronation.

  Foreign Trawlers in Moray Firth.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether any action has yet been taken by the British Government relative to the resolution in regard to the presence of foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth, which was unanimously adopted at the Hydrographical Conference held at Christiania in May last; and will he state when a Report of the Proceedings of the Conference will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of the matter, which will receive the attention of the British Delegates to the International Council which is to meet at Copenhagen. It is

  1259
  not proposed at the present time to publish the Report of the Proceedings at the last Conference.

  Ross Piers.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that at a meeting of the Ross and Cromarty County Council, held at Dingwall in October last, the County Councillor for the Portmahomack Division called attention to the unsatisfactory condition of several of the piers in the county; and that the chairman of the County Council, in supporting this view, expressed the opinion that there should be improved harbour accommodation for Portmahomack; and will he say whether the Government propose to take any action in the matter.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him to the Question he put to me in July, 1899, to which I have nothing to add, as the conditions have not changed since then.

  Small Dwellings Acquisition Act-Hammersmith Application.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Mr. Charles Gee, of 12, Furber Street, Hammersmith, applied to the Hammersmith Borough Council for an advance of £240 under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act; that that Council was prepared to make the advance, but that, on applying to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for a loan, was informed by them that, taking into consideration the amount of money placed at their disposal by Parliament, they were unable to entertain applications for loans from Metropolitan Borough Councils; and whether he will take steps to remedy this inequality.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Borough Council has not applied to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for a loan for this purpose. Although the Commissioners are not at present in a position to make loans to Metropolitan Borough Councils for general purposes, they would, in view of the provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, be prepared to entertain applications for loans under that Act.

  Maiden Quarter Sessions at Limerick.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that, at the Quarter Sessions held recently in Limerick, the learned Judge was presented with white gloves by both the City and County High Sheriffs, such presentation denoting a crimeless calendar; also, whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of the learned Judge, where he stated that for the eight years he has presided as Judge of Quarter Sessions for Limerick City and County he has found them almost crimeless; and, whether, taking these circumstances into account, he will recommend the reduction of the police force in the said city and county.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Yes, sir; I am acquainted with the facts. It is not proposed to reduce the police force.
  MR. JOYCE: Will you export a few of the police to Germany, then?

  Administration of Irish Railways.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the State railways of Prussia, with a capital of 375 millions sterling, have paid 7½ per cent. notwithstanding a diminished revenue last year; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of appointing a Commission to inquire into, and report upon, the working of railways in Ireland, with a view to enable amalgamation and economy, with lower rates and increased accommodation.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I can only refer the hon. Member to a reply which I made on 7th May last year.† Whilst far from saying that such an inquiry would not be useful, I am not at present prepared to recommend it.
  MR. FIELD: But why not hold an inquiry?
  † See (4) Debates, xciii, 965.
  MR. WYNDHAM: We have so much legislative work on our hands just now that there is no time to spare.
  MR. FIELD: But this is not legislation. I am simply asking for an inquiry.

  Irish Land Bill.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will, before the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill, lay upon the Table of the House a comparative statement in figures showing, in a given case, the actual yearly amounts of the purchase annuities payable by tenant purchasers in Ireland, and the number of years over which the payment of such annuities would extend under the existing Land Purchase Acts and under the proposals of the Bill now before the House.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; this will be done.
  MR. CLANCY: Will it be done before the end of the session?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Before the Second Reading.
  MR. CLANCY: And when will the Second Reading be taken?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Next session.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Before the Coronation?
  [No answer was returned.]
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: asked if the statement would include a table illustrating the working of the 19th clause.
  MR. WYNDHAMreplied in the affirmative.

  Seizures for Illegal Trawling.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether it can be arranged that in cases in which nautical points regarding distances and limits upon which seizures of nets are
  1262
  made from trawlers, a nautical assessor can be appointed to assist the magistrate who tries the case originally, or the judge who hears the appeal, as is done in ordinary nautical cases.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The change that the hon. Member suggests cannot be made without legislation.

  Clara and Banagher Railway.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what are the conditions under which the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland were handed over the Clara and Banagher Railway in 1895, in view of the fact that the Treasury forewent a loan of £30,000 advanced by them, and that a sum of £28,346 was raised by a guarantee on the barony of Garrycastle for the construction of the railway; and will he state whether any guarantee was exacted from the Great Southern and Western Railway Company regarding the train service in the district.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Section 15 of the Great Southern and Western Railway Act, 1895, provided for the transfer of the railway to the Great Southern and Western Company "subject to all the conditions, obligations and liabilities imposed on or of the Clara and Banagher Company with respect to the maintenance, repair, management, regulation, user, and working of the undertaking," but the obligations referred to do not include any provisions for a specific number of trains, and no special guarantee was required by Parliament from the company on this point.
  MR. FIELD: Has Parliament no power of control so as to compel a railway company to provide proper facilities for communication?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There are no special powers reserved in the company's Act, and the case therefore comes under the general provisions of the law.

  Irish Lights Board.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has

  1263
  received any representations expressing dissatisfaction regarding the constitution of the Irish Lights Board; and whether the Government intend to introduce a measure to amend the constitution and working of the Board.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Yes, Sir, such representations have been received; the answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.
  MR. FIELD: What steps can we take to bring this Board more into line with public requirements?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Provincial Mayors and the Coronation.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state what arrangements have been made for provincial mayors being present at the forthcoming Coronation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The subject-matter of the Question of the hon. Gentleman, and other analogous Questions, are being dealt with by a Committee for which the Government are not responsible, although I shall always be happy to answer any Question if I can obtain the necessary information. The Committee has not yet come to any decision on the particular subject to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

  Valuation Bill.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give any date for the introduction of the Valuation Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I cannot mention any date.

Business of the House.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the Leader of the House state the business for that week when the Budget will be taken, and what Supply will be put down for Friday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the
1264
Exchequer will be able to bring in his Budget on Thursday, and in that case Thursday will be devoted to that topic, I think we shall require Friday also for the Budget.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: How about Monday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Without giving any pledge as to Monday, I conceive that in all probability we shall go on with the Rules.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Edward Allen Brotherton, Esq., for the Borough of Wakefield.
NEW PROCEDURE RULES.
[SEVENTH DAY's DEBATE.]
NEW PROCEDURE RULES.

  STANDING ORDER No. 1 (SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE).
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [18th February] to Amendment proposed to Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House):—
  And which Amendment was, after the last Amendment—
  "To insert the words 'Wednesday and Thursday at two of the clock for an afternoon sitting, and at nine of the clock for an evening sitting. If the business appointed for an afternoon sitting is not disposed of at eight of the clock, the sitting shall be suspended till nine of the clock. At one of the clock at the evening sitting."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. SPEAKERruled out of order the first Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Lynn Regis—
  "To insert after the words, 'at nine of the clock for an evening sitting,' the words, 'and every Friday at the same hour for similar sittings.'"
  MR. CHANNINGsaid he wished to move as an Amendment that half-past twelve be substituted for one o'clock as the automatic time for closing the evening sitting. Although his Amendment was one which he would not care to

  1265
  press against the general sense of the House, yet he thought it would prove very useful. Long practical experience of what occurred after midnight showed that the House usually sat for from five to fifteen minutes only, unless the Standing Order was suspended, when the House deliberately contemplated carrying on business for a considerable period beyond twelve o'clock. Therefore in ordinary circumstances, half-past twelve would be more convenient than one o'clock to close business. This matter was of some importance, because it was affected by the subject of the Questions, and if it were intended to have a long string of Questions put after twelve o'clock it might be necessary to interpose a longer period between midnight and the automatic cessation of the sitting. Of course he would be out of order in discussing that question now, but he moved this Amendment, believing it to embody an extremely rational and practicable proposal, and in the hope also that the First Lord might deem it convenient to state the views of the Government with regard to the subject of Questions.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  To leave out lines 3 and 4.—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Amendment divides itself into two parts—the negative part in which the hon. Member proposes to leave out certain words—and the positive part by which he desires to insert other words. With regard to the former, I am in favour of the omission of the words, because this is a necessary preliminary to any Amendment of our proposals with regard to Questions. It will be observed that the two lines proposed to be omitted were originally put in in order to meet the case of Questions which were to be taken at 7.15 on the understanding that the House should not proceed with them after eight p.m. Of course if the Questions are to be put at another hour the words become
  1266
  unnecessary. It is because one or two other Amendments will have to be made in view of the fundamental alteration of our proposal with regard to Questions that I am obliged to take this opportunity of making a statement on that subject. I am well aware, as every one who has watched the movement or feeling in the House in this matter must be, that no portion of the proposed new Rules has received less favour than the proposal that there should be questions during the interval between the two sittings. The main object of the Government has been to limit the time to be taken up by Questions in any one day and to secure with certainty a solid block of time in the afternoons for the consideration of the main business. These two objects I think we must preserve inviolate in any change to be introduced in deference to the wishes of the House. The feeling against deferring Questions till 7.15 was, as I understand, based on a large number of different considerations. Certain objections came from business men who, already experiencing some difficulty in getting down by 3.30, would find that difficulty very considerably increased if they were called upon to come down to the House for the discussion of public business so early as 2.15. Other critics were shocked at the possibility of important information being given by Ministers in another House before it is given to the House of Commons. They pointed out that important information might be given at the other House at 4.15, whereas it could not be communicated at the House of Commons till after 7.15. I do not myself see anything very shocking in this, but I am aware of the feeling, and, however little I sympathise with it, I am ready to take it into account. A more serious objection was the inconvenience to the business of Committees if Members serving on them were at the same time interested in important business before the House. It is quite true that that would give rise to some awkwardness, because if Members sitting on Committees were interested in important business in the House, the time available for Committee work would be unduly curtailed. Other Members have suggested that it would be rather absurd to move the adjournment of the House at two o'clock when four or

  1267
  five hours must elapse before they could ask for information on the subject in regard to which the adjournment Motion was raised. And finally there is also the subject of the restriction of the opportunities of putting supplementary Questions. In suggesting those restrictions, I can assure the House that there has not been the least idea of protecting Ministers of the Crown.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Oh, oh!
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That statement appears incredible to the hon. Member for South Donegal, but I think he overrates the embarrassment which his supplementary Questions cause in the Ministerial breast. As far as I am concerned—and in this I feel sure I may speak also for my colleagues—we have not the smallest objection to the supplementaries he has asked. The reason we have put in the restrictions is to shorten the time taken up by Questions, and for that reason alone have we restricted the number of those additional interrogations which it is the habit of hon. Gentlemen to make. An important objection to the alteration of the proposal is based not on the convenience of Members, or even of Ministers, but of the public Departments. I speak in this matter not from any personal point of view—for I am not responsible for any of the very heavily-worked Departments—but I am sure the House will realise that the extraordinary pressure thrown upon some of those already heavily-worked Departments by the modern increase of Questions is so great that some precaution must be taken with a view to mitigating the burden which would be placed upon them if Questions were asked four hours earlier than was originally designed. These being the main arguments on the two sides, I will now venture to sketch out to the House the plan by which we propose to deal with this subject. We suggest that Questions shall begin at a quarter past two o'clock, and only those Questions will be answered orally which are marked with an asterisk; while under no circumstances will any Question on the Paper be answered after five minutes to three o'clock. At five minutes to three Questions of an urgent character put without public notice and Questions relating to the business can be put, and the answers to such
  1268
  Questions usually occupy a very few minutes. I think the Government may count on public business beginning at three o'clock. If the Questions are few in number, business will begin earlier: under no circumstances should it begin later; and words of a very stringent character should limit the class of Questions which may be put between five minutes to three and three o'clock, the intention being to I make this a sort of safety valve in relation to important topics or subjects upon which there is public anxiety. After that, and before public business, leave may be granted or withheld for moving the adjournment, and leave, if granted, will bear its natural fruition at the evening sitting. It will be admitted that forty minutes will afford ample time for the starred Questions. There may be occasions on which the number of Questions may be extended, but I cannot believe that the number of Questions it is possible to put in forty minutes is not sufficient to keep in order any Ministry, however flagitious. It is a modest estimate to say that in that time sixty or seventy Questions can be answered, and I cannot believe that the opportunity would be insufficient to satisfy the most curious Members. But supposing the number exceeds sixty or seventy, it may be asked what security will there be that the most important Questions will not be shut out by reason of their not being reached before 2.55? I think there may be more than one plan for avoiding this. The hon. Member for Central Bradford has, I believe, on the Paper a Motion embodying the method he proposes, and other hon. Members have made suggestions as well; but I think that if directions were inserted in the Standing Order that care shall be taken to arrange the Questions so as to secure that in the first sixty those of the most interest shall be included, the order might be left to the clerks at the Table. [Cries of "No, no!"] That is my opinion; but so far as the Government are concerned, there would not be the smallest objection to the appointment of a small Standing Committee by the Committee of Selection, upon which there would be no objection to members of the Opposition being in the majority. It would be an extremely easy task, and would throw no undue burden of responsibility on either a Committee or the clerks. The

  1269
  House will observe that I have been doing my best to form some scheme which will meet the general view on either side of the House, and I hope the House will be content to limit the starred Questions to those which appeared on the Notice Paper the day before. To require answers at two o'clock to Questions only given notice of on the previous night, and which the Department could have had no opportunity of dealing with till the same morning, would be to unduly burden the Department. I know it is possible at present for a Minister to write a note asking the hon. Member to postpone his Question, but that is a very cumbersome method of dealing with the subject, and one which Ministers are very reluctant to adopt. I therefore hope that the House will consent to our proposal to limit Questions which may be starred to those which appeared on the Notice Paper the morning before.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But there might be Questions of extreme urgency arising out of incidents that only came under notice the night before.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I have not made myself quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman. That is, I suggest, the class of Questions for which what I have called a "safety valve" will be provided at five minutes to three o'clock. There cannot be many such Questions. This class of Questions must be rigidly restricted, or the whole arrangement will be spoiled and the time of the House will be eaten away at three o'clock. Only Questions of the most urgent public importance should be asked between 2.55 and three o'clock. I hope the House will support the Government in making the limitation as strong as possible, and the class of Questions to be asked in the interval as narrow as possible. Without this the scheme will do more harm than good, and I cannot promise Government support to any serious change in this respect.
  MR. DISRAELI: Who is to be the judge of the urgency?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Speaker will of course decide, and will exercise his discretion in the general interest of the House. But the language of the Rule should be made as clear as possible. I frankly admit that no scheme which the wit of man could devise could be without objection; but I have endeavoured to make an arrangement which will be attended with the least inconvenience. It is not a perfect or flawless picture I present; but, so far as I can judge, it meets the general view of Members, and does not interfere with the fundamental element of the change in the Rules proposed, which lays down within the narrowest limits a fixed time when public business shall begin. There is only one more observation I wish to make. It is possible—but it will be very rare—that a certain number of starred Questions will not be put before 2.55, but in that case they will be of an unimportant character under our Rule. It is inconceivable that sixty-five first-class Questions should be asked in any one day, but, at any rate, under the arrangement I propose, any Questions not reached at five minutes to three o'clock will receive a written answer from the Minister concerned.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will business go on until eight o'clock?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Business will proceed until half-past seven, after which no further business can be taken, though a division may be. The business under discussion will be interrupted at half-past seven, and no fresh business can be undertaken until the evening sitting. It will be seen that in this way the Government give up a quarter of an hour each day, beginning at three o'clock and breaking off at half-past seven. We make this concession because we are anxious to meet the general views of the House, and I think our plan succeeds in that.
  MR. BROADHURSTthought that before proceeding further, and in order that Members might clearly understand the proposal, the New Rule should be printed. The right hon. Gentleman's statement was somewhat complicated, and

  1271
  his proposed alterations might considerably affect the course of the debate. He therefore moved the adjournment of the debate until hon. Members had had an opportunity of seeing the new Government proposals in print.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say that the hon. Gentleman has received in a very grateful spirit what I conceive to be a real concession. Considering that the Rule as to Questions is not now on, and that no substantial or important change is involved in the present Rule by anything I have said, I hope he will not press his Motion. I will, of course, put upon the Order Paper of the House, before we next discuss the Rule, the scheme which I have foreshadowed to the House. The hon. Gentleman has described it as very obscure and complicated, but I venture to say it is quite simple. At all events, I do not think we ought to waste any more of our time over the discussion of this general question, and I would ask the House to proceed to the consideration of the Rule now before us.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he desired to ask a question or two arising out of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He understood that it was now proposed to leave out the lines—
  "If the business appointed for an afternoon sitting is not disposed of at eight of the clock, the sitting shall be suspended till nine of the clock."
  Would there be an opportunity of discussing whether half-past seven should be substituted for eight o'clock?
  MR. A J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, that is sure to be discussed. We will have to introduce an Amendment carrying out our view, and when that is put from the Chair it can be discussed.
  DR. MACNAMARAasked further if it would be within the right of a Member to star his own Question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.
  DR. MACNAMARAasked who was to decide the urgency of the Questions to be put in the five minutes mentioned.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Speaker.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he understood the Rule would be set up and could then be discussed.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Everyone must admit the perfect frankness and fairness with which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with this difficult question. What he said was no more than the truth when he referred to the immense interest taken in this particular part of the subject, viz., the Rule of Procedure affecting the putting of Questions. The right hon. Gentleman has proposed a scheme which, in many particulars, is a great improvement on the original proposal of the Government. At the same time, I have a great deal of sympathy with those who are afraid of going on with this particular Rule, which lays down the particular hour and moment at which certain changes will take place. These are part of the plan, and may be considered to be an acceptance by the House of its main principle. Therefore, I think it is not quite fair to ask the House to go on with this particular Rule at this moment until we have had time to see the whole proposal with regard to Questions in print, and until we can appreciate more fully than we can at present how it will work. I do not wish to appear to be picking holes in the proposal until I have seen it, but I think that the House should not now be asked to lay down a Rule as to the particular moment at which we are to begin and leave off work, that being part of the concession which the right hon. Gentleman has made.
  MR. BLAKEsaid that the House was now asked at once to destroy the formulated plan for Questions. They were asked, to use a homely proverb, to throw away the dirty water before they got in the clean. They had only the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to go on; although he agreed that, at the first glance, the water they were asked to take in, if not clean, was cleaner than that which had hitherto been offered to the

  1273
  House. One most important point in the proposal, to which, however, the right hon. Gentleman only devoted a word or two, was that the surplus of Questions which had been starred, if not reached in the number of minutes which the right hon. Gentleman, for once exercising the functions of a prophet, considered adequate, would not then be susceptible of receiving answers at all, and if the Amendment were adopted the answers would appear only on the Paper. He was not pronouncing a dogmatic opinion as to the propriety of that, but he was jealous in regard to Questions which the interrogators thought were important, and should be answered in a way which would afford the opportunity of asking supplementary Questions, and therefore he was jealous of such Questions being shut out, because the previous Questions had taken all the allotted time. He thought the House ought to have the scheme before it, before it finally determined or adopted it. If hon. Members passed the Motion now, they would be practically agreeing to the right hon. Gentleman's scheme that the residuum of Questions, practically selected by an authority not yet defined, should only be answered on the Paper, and not in the House, and that as to these no supplementary Questions should be possible. It seemed to him that those considerations lent themselves to the view that the Rule under discussion should be adjourned until the House had had an opportunity of seeing and considering the altered proposal. He saw no reason why that should not be done. This change had been resolved on for some time. It had been common gossip that a change was about to be proposed with reference to Questions, and the right hon. Gentleman might at least have put his proposal on the Paper yesterday, thereby giving hon. Members twenty-four hours to consider it. They had, it was true, an admirable explanation from the right hon. Gentleman; but it was a complicated question, which was made more complicated by the fact that they were dealing with a Rule which did not deal ostensibly with Questions at all, but their action on, which would, nevertheless, limit their action in reference to Questions. He strongly supported the Motion.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had certainly made a very considerable advance in his method of dealing with Questions. One of the strongest points made by the right hon. Gentleman was that his proposal would enable due notice of Questions to be given; and he appealed to him to give the House due notice of what it was now asked to discuss. They could not at that moment deal with the concrete and new proposal placed before them. As he understood it, Questions were to be divided into four categories. There were to be the urgent Questions, for which the sacred five minutes or more were to be reserved. There were to be the interesting Questions, to be decided to be such by the Gentlemen at the Table. There were to be the uninteresting Questions; and finally there were to be the outcast Questions, which were not to be answered at all, except by letter. The difficulty, to his mind, would lie in the method of selecting the Questions, and until they had that method before them, it was impossible to decide whether the proposed mode of dealing with Questions was satisfactory or not. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that every hon. Member, in the eyes of the law of the House, was equal—not in his own eyes, perhaps—and that his Questions were equal. It would be a very difficult thing to set up an authority which would satisfy everyone, and which would have to say that one hon. Member's Question was interesting and that another hon. Member's Question was uninteresting. That was a fair subject for discussion, but he wished to point out the great difficulty in which they were placed by the way the Rules were dealt with. There were three separate additions to the Rules, all undecided. Three of the proposed new Rules were half discussed and left half decided, and they were wholly unfitted to add a fourth. Moreover, before the Motion for the adjournment they were not discussing Questions at all, but lines 3 and 4, which proposed that—
  "If the business appointed for an afternoon sitting is not disposed of at eight of the clock, the sitting shall be suspended until nine of the clock."

  1275
  The right hon. Gentleman did not state whether he meant to excise those words, or, if so, whether they were to be replaced by other words.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They are not to be replaced by anything.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he would respectfully suggest that it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman put down on the Paper exactly what he proposed to do with reference to Questions, and also the proposal he meant to make with regard to the selection of Questions. It was not reasonable to ask hon. Members to debate a thing which was thrown at them as if it were only invented that morning. Of course, it was not invented that morning. It was the deliberate work of the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers after due consideration. That being so, the House also ought to be given some time for consideration, and this particular Standing Order ought, therefore, to be postponed.
  MR. CHAPLINthought that, under all the circumstances, this particular part of the subject might be adjourned. His right hon. friend had made a very great concession to the wishes of the House; in some respects he had, perhaps, gone too far. He had never been one of those who attached great importance to the large majority of Questions and to having an opportunity of putting them at the opening of business. He thought in many cases it would be more convenient to postpone them to a later period of the sitting. His view generally was that forty minutes was a good deal too long a time for what was described as the asking of Questions. He thought, however, that for Questions of extreme importance more than five minutes might be allowed; but for a right and clear understanding of their position it was desirable that the House should see the whole of this considerable change in print.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he was lost in amazement at the action of the Leader of the House on this question. The right hon. Gentleman was interested in the speedy passage of these Rules, and
  1276
  yet his action again and again had been of such a character as necessarily to delay their progress. The right hon. Gentleman had been pressed again and again to make a statement on the subject of Questions, because Questions dominated the consideration of a number of other provisions in the Rules. Though the right hon. Gentleman must have been considering his new proposal in respect of Questions, he had hitherto offered no light or guidance to the House on the subject. When the right hon. Gentleman had at last made up his mind to make a new departure, he did not make a statement to the House or allow the change to appear in print, so that the House might be able to consider it before the discussion; but this day he explained what the new scheme was, and asked the House to enter upon its consideration at once, with the result that further time was being wasted in discussing a Motion for the adjournment of the debate on this Rule. Was that the action of a Minister who was anxious to have the Rules brought speedily into force? He invited the light hon. Gentleman to try to be more businesslike in the management of the Rules, and to take the reasonable and practical course of adjourning the consideration of this particular Rule until the House saw it in print.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the criticisms and charges which had been levelled at the Government were extremely unreasonable. Complaint was made that the House was in the midst of a discussion of three separate Rules, but the reason of this was that the Government had been anxious to meet the wishes of the House. Again, why were there three additions to them? Because he had been anxious to meet the wishes of the House by introducing certain alterations in the Rules, and by having them reprinted. It was also said that the Government ought to have given notice of the changes. There must be a period at which the House was made acquainted for the first time with a proposal of this kind, and he had selected the time which was most convenient to the House to state orally the general grounds for arriving at the conclusion that a change was desirable and for not putting it on

  1277
  the Notice Paper without comment. That course of action was made a charge against the Government.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: You should have made the statement yesterday, and placed the change on the Paper today.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought that would have been most inconvenient. The debate was being carried on on the hypothesis that he was asking the House now to discuss a plan which had been heard for the first time. If that had been the case, he should agree with all the epithets launched at him, but nothing so unreasonable had been done by him. He did not wish, however, to enter upon a contest with the House on the subject, and he would not press the matter farther. He suggested that the House should proceed with the discussion of the Rules relating to Friday sittings, priority of business, and business in Supply.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANagreed that it was desirable to postpone this particular Rule and to go on with a discussion of the others as they stood on the Paper.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was content for the present to assent to the postponement of this subject.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked leave to withdraw the Motion for adjournment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn, and debate adjourned till Thursday.

  FRIDAY SITTINGS.
  Standing Order No. 2 read as followeth—
  "That the House do meet every Wednesday, at twelve o'clock at noon, for private business, petitions, Orders of the day, and notices of Motions, and do continue to sit until six o'clock, unless previously adjourned."
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 1, to leave out the word 'Wednesday, and insert the word 'Friday.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Wednesday' stand part of the Standing Order."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESpresumed he would be in order in raising the whole question of the merits of Friday as a day for sitting, and as to whether it should be a long or a short sitting.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the Standing Order provided for a short sitting on a certain day, and that certain business should be taken at that sitting. The question was whether Friday should be substituted for Wednesday. The hon. Member would be at liberty to propose either Saturday or Sunday instead, but that seemed to be all he could do.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the House had not decided definitely as to the previous days.
  MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that the House had decided that on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday there should be long day sittings. The Standing Order under discussion provided for a day in the week on which the House should meet at twelve o'clock and certain business have precedence. The only Amendment the Government proposed was that Friday should be substituted for Wednesday, and the only question was whether the day on which the House should meet at noon should be Wednesday or Friday.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESwas afraid the question was even more restricted since the House had already decided that Wednesday should be a long day.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that was the reason he had suggested the only course open to the hon. Member was to move the substitution of Saturday or Sunday.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESdid not propose to suggest either Saturday or Sunday; he simply desired to show that Friday was a bad day on which to meet at twelve o'clock for private business.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid in that case the hon. Member's observations would come in better on the Question "That 'Friday' be there inserted."
  Question put and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Friday' be there inserted."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLEScontended that Friday was a bad day for a morning sitting day, and that it ought to be kept either as at present, or as an afternoon and evening sitting day. The Government had taken from him Wednesday as a day of rest in the middle of a laborious week—a day on which he could recover from Monday and Tuesday, and prepare for Thursday and Friday. [A laugh.] Hon. Members who smiled probably did not know what it was to fight a Finance Bill day after day, and week after week. To those who did the work entailed by such a task, the Wednesday holiday was very important. That rest, however, had been taken from him, and it was proposed to satisfy him with this mess of pottage—this Friday as a morning sitting. But he did not want Friday as a half holiday; it was of absolutely no use. In fact, he preferred that Friday should be a full Parliamentary day, since it was followed by Saturday and Sunday, on which he could rest. The House had lived through many generations of full Fridays. To those who attended to the business of Supply—of whom he was one—Friday was often a very long and fatiguing day, and, consequently, a very fruitful day. It was on a Friday attention was called to the question of remounts, and on the Saturday the War Office acted on the debate by dismissing, or making an attempt to dismiss the officer responsible, or, at any rate, an inquiry was ordered. Friday was an extremely good and useful day. It probably would not be in order to refer to the proposed transfer of Supply from Friday to Thursday, but even if that change were made, the value of Friday as a long day would remain, because the business then to be dealt with would be private Members' Bills. He, therefore, claimed the support of every private Member in insisting that Friday should not be a short day. The
  1280
  Government also ought to join him in keeping Friday as a long day, because they would then be answering the continual complaints of private Members at their time being taken. The Government would probably suffer more than anybody else by Wednesdays being taken, because they would be deprived of the opportunity for compromise and arrangement which Wednesdays always offered, and they would gain nothing. Wednesday having been taken, it was no compensation to offer him Friday. Wednesday was bread, but Friday was a stone; and he should certainly divide against the proposal.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLfully sympathised with the views of the hon. Member for King's Lynn as to the serious injury done to Members by the alteration of the Wednesday half-holiday, and the desirability of Friday being a full day. He had always regarded it as a public scandal that even Saturday should be a holiday. The making of Friday into a short day was simply an enlargement of the "week-end" policy. The Irish Members came to discharge the business of their country, and every day in England was a day away from their homes. It was not right that the time they spent in London should be frittered away for the mere personal convenience of certain hon. Gentlemen. Members should attend and discharge their public trust, and not be society loiterers or "week-end" trippers. This proposal was another evidence of the utter heartlessness and contempt shown by the Government towards everything relating to Ireland, and Irish representatives were simply discarded in the House of Commons. This alteration was not for the convenience of the ordinary Members of the House, but for the convenience of Society men. If they allowed the Government to fritter away the time of the House in this manner, they would be little less than fraudulent trustees. He hoped the hon. Member for King's Lynn would press the matter to a division.
  (5.17.) The House divided:—Ayes, 192; Noes, 112. (Division List No. 88.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Flower, Ernest

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Garfit, William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (D'rlington

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Pemberton, John S. G.

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

  Penn, John

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Percy, Earl

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(S'lop

  Pilkington, Lieut-Col. Richard

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Purvis, Robert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Randles, John S.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Greene, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bigwood, James

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Bond, Edward

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Round, James

  Brigg, John

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, John

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Helder, Augustus

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Henderson, Alexander

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Butcher, John George

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Spear, John Ward

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Chaplain, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Chapman, Edward

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Knowles, Lees

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

  Lawson, John Grant

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Toiler, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

  Thomas, JA (Glam'rgan, Gower

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Valentia, Viscount

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Wason, John Cathcart (O'kney)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F'ed Dixon

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

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

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Morgan, David J. (W'lthamstow

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R (Bath)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Younger, William

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

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Finch, George H.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  1282

  1283

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Harwood, George

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Price, Robert John

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Bell, Richard

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rea, Russell

  Black, Alexander William

  Holland, William Henry

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Blake, Edward

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Reddy, M.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Joicey, Sir James

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Burns, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Caine, William Sproston

  Joyce, Michael

  Russell, T. W.

  Caldwell, James

  Lambert, George

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lundon, W.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Causton, Richard Knight

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Clancy, John Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cogan, Denis J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sullivan, Donal

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  M'Crae, George

  Tennant, Harold John

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cremer, William Randal

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Wallace, Robert

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Mather, William

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Delany, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Weir, James Galloway

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Murphy, John

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R,)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Norman, Henry

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Edwards, Frank

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

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk. Mid.

  Elibank, Master of

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Ellis, John Edward

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Gibson Bowles and Mr. M'Kenna.

  Field, William

  O'Dowd, John

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Malley, William

  NEW STANDING ORDER.
  Standing Order No. 2 (Friday Sittings), as finally amended, is as follows:—
  That the House do meet every Friday, at Twelve of the dock at noon, for Private Business, Petitions, Orders of the Bay, and Notices of Motion, and do continue to sit until Six o'clock, unless previously adjourned.

  PRIORITY OF BUSINESS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "Unless the House otherwise direct—(a) Government business shall have precedence at every sitting except the evening sittings on Tuesday and Wednesday, and the sitting on Friday (b) On the evening sittings of Tuesday and Wednesday notices of. Motion shall have precedence of Orders of the day. (c) After Easter Government business, shall have precedence at the evening sittings of Tuesday. (d) After Whitsuntide Government business shall have precedence at all evening sittings, and
  1284
  at all Friday sittings except the sittings on the third and fourth Fridays after Whit Sunday."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. GALLOWAY(5.32.) MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S.W.) moved to insert after "except" the words "the afternoon sitting on Thursday and." He said he understood that while they had already decided that the short sitting should be on Friday instead of Wednesday as at present, they had not yet decided what business should be taken at the short sitting on Friday. His Amendment, if carried, would compel private Members' Bills to be taken at the Thursday afternoon sitting between three and half-past seven, instead of at the morning sitting of Friday, which would become Government time. In point of time he did not think the Government would lose anything by having private Members' Bills on Thursday afternoon. On the contrary, there would be a slight

  1285
  gain in time to the Government. Therefore it was merely a question of convenience whether private Members' Bills should be discussed on Thursday or Friday. He frankly admitted that he was afraid, along with a great many of his hon. friends, that under the new Rule they would have the faddists running riot on Friday, and legislation would be passed which it would be very difficult to stop. The first practical objection to his Amendment would be that if the faddists did get the Second Reading of Bills passed on Friday afternoon, there would only be two Fridays left after Whitsuntide when they would be able to further what he thought were their atrocities. That was an argument which had practical force, and he was quite sure that whether the Bills were discussed on Friday or Wednesday, his hon. friend the Member for Peckham would take the intelligent interest he always did in these Bills, and endeavour that no more of them should be put on the Statute-book than could possibly be avoided, He submitted to the Leader of the House that the fact of a Bill being read a second time had some effect on the people of the country, who did not realise what value should be attached to a Wednesday afternoon division. Still less would they appreciate the difference between a Wednesday and a Friday afternoon division. They ought not to do anything to render more easy the passing of ill-considered and immature bills, although the passing of the Second Reading of private Members' Bills might have little meaning to Members of the House, it conveyed considerable meaning to those who had never been Members. If he believed that the attendance on Friday could be sufficiently small to prevent a House being made at all, then he should certainly be in favour of the alteration, but he thought that was hardly likely. On the contrary, he thought there were likely to be a great many hon. Members concerned in business in the country who would make Friday their business day in the country. Then these hon. Members would find it very difficult, however much they might be interested in a private Member's Bill, to remain in order to vote for or against the Bill. Under this new arrangement these Bills would be much more frequently
  1286
  passed than hitherto. The right hon. Gentleman might say that if this was the position of private Members on Friday, what was to become of the Government business? He did not think the right hon. Gentleman need have any fear so far as the Government were concerned. In Committee of Supply in most cases—he did not say in all cases—they found the two Front Benches supporting one another, and except on important questions it was the few private Members who took an interest in a subject who were found dividing against the Government. When important questions turned up the Government would be able to keep a majority to support them on a Friday as much as on any other day. He had suggested Thursday for private Members' Bills, but he did not mind what day it was so long as it was not Friday.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 2, after the word 'except,' to insert the words 'the Afternoon Sitting on Thursday and'"—(Mr. Galloway.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the hon. Gentleman had moved his Amendment entirely from the point of view of those who were opposed to private Members legislation. He thought that, from a different point of view, those who were in favour of private Members' legislation would support the Amendment. He admitted that to some extent they were re-arguing a question which had already been argued, but they could not avoid doing so. The fact was that many hon. Members had the strongest opinion against allowing an additional day of the week to become a slack Parliamentary day, when the House of Commons was no longer the House of Commons, and when the House was merely in the hands of a very small and wholly unrepresentative body of Members. Those who desired private Members' legislation might take precisely the same view on this subject as those who were opposed to them. They did not want the opinion of sixty or seventy Members not representing the House as a whole. They wanted to get the real opinion of

  1287
  the House on the subject of any Bill brought forward. He believed the House and the Government themselves would be oppressed by the debating of great Bills on four days running, and they would find the strain more than any one could stand. He would cordially vote for the Amendment.
  MR. BANBURYsaid a great deal was to be said from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean. He did not say whether he was in favour of or opposed to private Members' legislation, but in either case the legislation should be considered by a full House and by people competent to give an opinion on the question. To allow private Members' Bills to come on when there were sixty or seventy Members in the House was to give an erroneous opinion to the country. It had been asked—Why should not Members come down on Friday? The reason was that they would go away on Thursday. But if Friday was a Government day they would desire to come down, and the Whips would see that they did come down. If they did not come down the Government would take means to secure their attendance. He did not care whether private Members' Bills were taken on Thursday or any other day except Friday, but the object of the Amendment was really to secure a full attendance when these Bills were before the House.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid this Amendment raised the question of the bona fides of some of the new rules. Were they to continue to make this House a business House, or were they to arrange to give Members a long week-end? If Friday was to be the off-day, he was afraid they would have repeated what happened last Wednesday week, when a Bill affecting Friendly Societies was settled by half-past one, and everybody went off for the holidays. The same thing would happen practically every Friday. Under this rule Friday would become a dies non altogether. If Thursday was to be kept for Supply, it would become a slack day also. Members would not come back till late on Monday, and the real business of the House would be done on
  1288
  Tuesday and Wednesday. Looking to the requirements of the country, and to the interests of the ever-growing Empire, it seemed to him strange that they should strive to make the Rules such as to give a minimum of time to the work of the House.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid he had a similar Amendment on the Paper, his proposal being that private Members' Bills should be taken on Wednesday. He believed in the utility of private Members' Bills, and he desired to see those Bills discussed at a sitting when they would be properly considered by a full House, and not at the end of the week when Members would not be in attendance. If the Government took the Friday morning sitting, a comparatively full House could be secured by their Whips for Government business, and in exchange they could give on another day earlier in the week a morning sitting to private Members. He pointed out that if either Amendment were adopted, private Members would have to sacrifice an hour of the time which they would have under the proposal of the Government. Therefore, by accepting the Amendment, the Government would actually gain time for their own business. He hoped the Leader of the House would take this into consideration.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Peckham, who had put the whole thing before the House with perfect clearness and force. The business time of the House would be whittled down to two days a week. The great difference between the private Member's day and the Government day was that there was pressure on the Government time but none on the other; and therefore on the private Members' day a great number of Members of the House would make it a holiday, whereas if Government business was put down for the day the Government would see that there was a proper attendance and the darling week end, which was the great object of the new Rules, would be equally secured, as the House would rise at six and hon. Members could go away to

  1289
  their enjoyment. That would at least keep up the work of the House through the week with something like regularity, whereas if private Members' business was to be relegated to Friday that would be simply a dies non. He hoped the Government would appoint some other day for private Members' business and take Friday for themselves.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid they were not now discussing whether the Parliamentary week-end was a good or a bad change. The only question before the House was whether private Members' business should be taken at a twelve o'clock sitting or not. It was perfectly immaterial whether the afternoon sitting should be taken on a Friday, or Thursday, or any other day. He admitted that under the existing Wednesday Rules, private Members had been able to pass into law certain measures which were sober, useful, and harmless. It had been contended by the supporters of the Amendment that a House could not be got to sit on a Friday, and that therefore it would be better to devote some other day of the week to the work of the consideration of private Members' Bills. He denied that the House would decline to sit on Friday, but if it did decline to sit on that day it would be much better to decline to sit on private Members' Bills than on Government Bills or on Supply put down for such a day. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that that was a matter which could be determined by the issue of a Government Whip. But the House of Commons represented the country, and the Government could not control the Opposition, and he did not know that they had any great desire to do so. He supposed that the idea of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was that on Friday the Government would take Supply. He was constantly being told that private business was more important than Supply; but his content on was that it would be easier to get a big House on Friday to discuss a private Member's Bill than a big House to discuss Estimates which did not excite any wide interest. There was also this great difference between private Members' and Government business, that it could be foreseen for the whole session what
  1290
  private Members' Bills were to be brought on on a particular day, whereas it was impossible for the Government to say a long time beforehand, what was the business they would take on a particular day. His hon. friend the mover of the Amendment spoke for men of business whose private avocations called them out of London, and he said that there would be a temptation for them to go out of town on the Thursday night or the Friday morning, if Friday were made the private Members' day. But if his hon. friend and those Members who were in his position were going to make engagements for Fridays throughout the session it was obvious that they could not be in the House on Fridays to either oppose or support the Government business, and that they would not be able to make any arrangements for a long time beforehand, in view of some important Government proposal—such as a vote of censure or a big Bill. But with private Members' business the case was entirely different. His hon. friend, and others with him, would say that on such and such a Friday, such and such a faddist was going to introduce a revolutionary measure, and they would make arrangements by which, he had no doubt, they would defeat it. Was it not much better, by appointing Friday as private Members' day, that the business of the final day of the Parliamentary week should be capable of being foreseen a long way ahead, and that every preparation should be accordingly made for the properly handling and discussing—and if need be throwing out by an exemplary majority—of any faddist proposals? He did not know that he need labour the point much more, but he did not think that the House would willingly entertain a change of a system which went far beyond the Parliamentary recollection of any of them, and which gave to the twelve o'clock sitting the discussion of private Members' business. He did not dwell on the fact that the continuity of Government business would be interfered with; but he did think that, not only for the reasons he had stated, but in accordance with the wishes of the great mass of the Members of the House, they had better, on the whole, adhere to ancient tradition in

  1291
  this matter and devote that day on which they met at twelve o'clock to private Members' business.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid that the First Lord of the Treasury had told the House that the selection of the private Members' business was not satisfactory at the present moment. That was quite true, but under the proposed new Rules, not only would the selection be unsatisfactory, but the discussion thereupon would be also unsatisfactory. They would now have four long sittings together up to twelve or one o'clock each night, and after that it was absurd to expect hon. Members to come down to the House to discuss private Members' legislation. If this proposed change took place the right of private Members to initiate legislation would be lost entirely, and Friday would be a wasted day. This arrangement was not fair to those who lived a long way from London, and why should this change be made simply to enable those who lived near London to enjoy themselves? The right hon. Gentleman said that they should not change an immemorial custom.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not say that. I said that I thought that the House would object to it.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid that it was now proposed to change an immemorial custom. Private Members often initiated most important legislation, and they had done so even during the present session. Under the changed condition of affairs private Members would come down on Fridays to a skeleton House to discuss matters of interest with about forty or sixty hon. Members present, and the remainder of the hon. Members of the House would be away enjoying themselves.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that it was proposed to relegate private Members' day to Friday; he should support the Amendment, although he should be perfectly willing to meet the right hon. Gentleman if he suggested any other day but Friday. The First Lord of the Treasury said that it would be much
  1292
  easier to keep a House for a private Members' Bill than for Government business on Friday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said that, or anything that could be so interpreted. I think the right hon. Gentleman must be referring to the statement which I made that we could easily foresee private Members' business, but we could not foresee for a long period what business the Government would take. Therefore private Members could easily make their arrangements earlier.
  MR. CHAPLINdid not think that it was at all desirable that private Members' business should be relegated to Fridays. His right hon. friend had given a very amusing description of the Bills of private Members, but with all due respect to the First Lord of the Treasury he would say that he had known a good many very useful and well drawn measures introduced by private Members, some of which had actually been taken up by the Government of the day. A great many useful little Bills could often be introduced by private Members, such as the Sparks Bill, and if this change were carried it would be difficult for private Members to secure a House for Bills of that particular kind. He hoped his right hon. friend would reconsider his decision upon this point. This was not a Party question, and there was no doubt that the rights and privileges of private Members would be very seriously injured by the Rules which were now being submitted. If the First Lord of the Treasury would not make a concession upon this point, he hoped the private Members of the House of Commons would take courage and assert their own rights and privileges and carry this Amendment by a large majority.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid that most of the speeches of hon. Members opposite had been in favour of the Amendment of hon. Member for Manchester, and that showed how they regarded as a whole these new Procedure Rules. He supported this Amendment, however, upon very different grounds. The idea of these alterations was the long week-end,

  1293
  and that was the great goal which the right hon. Gentleman sought to secure. It seemed to him that if this Amendment were carried the right hon. Gentleman would have to drop the whole of his new Rules because, without the long week-end, the now Rules would be entirely worthless. The supporters of this change seemed to be divided into three classes, the golfers, the Whips and the week-enders, and it was to meet the wishes of these three separate classes that these alterations had been proposed. The change would at once create slack Fridays, when there would be a poor attendance and the measures would be inadequately discussed in a very thin House. The right hon. Gentleman's argument upon this point was worthless because Supply was Government business, and could the First Lord of the Treasury argue that the attendance during the discussion of Supply had been in-adequate and insufficient? The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that they always had full Houses on Fridays, and the attendance was more than adequate to discuss Supply. He had no hesitation in saying that the Whips would guarantee the right hon. Gentleman a House on Fridays if he accepted this Amendment. Some of the most useful legislation which had been passed by the House had been initiated in consequence of the efforts of private Members upon Wednesdays. They would by this change also place the various Committees in a very difficult position, because those Committees would be called upon to discuss a Bill perhaps passed by a very small House and which might not receive the support of the majority of the House. He urged the Government not to throw away Friday. He agreed with the statement which had just been made, that while they were in London they ought to put in as much work as they could. This would probably be the longest session on record, and yet they were now being asked to sacrifice six hours of their Parliamentary time every week in order to allow certain hon. Members to go into the country.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYdid not think the Leader of the House had even yet grasped what was involved in this
  1294
  proposal. It was well known that he (Mr. Stuart Wortley) was one of those who had objected to this change from Wednesday to Friday in the first instance. But the Government had got their way, and having got their way, they were under an obligation to go as far as they could towards securing the efficiency of the Friday sitting. When the right hon. Gentleman said there was no difference between a private Members' day and a Government day he denied that which was patent to all. It was perfectly well known that some of the largest attendances had been on Fridays. The Government, by putting down the Foreign Office Vote or the Colonial Office Vote, practically challenged the Opposition to use their opportunity or forego it for the rest of the session, and on such Friday evenings they had secured an exceptionally large attendance. Another thing which the right hon. Gentleman ignored was that if they had private Members' Bills on Fridays, and had a thin attendance in the House, it tended to reduce the whole proceedings to the level of irresponsibility, and afforded the Government a loophole which they ought not to have of disclaiming responsibility for giving the House a lead by expressing their opinions on Bills. From the Government the infection would spread right through the House, and the result would be that everybody present would salve his conscience by the feeling that the decision given was so irresponsible, that at its future stages such a Bill might, without discredit, be passively obstructed or conveniently shelved. That was not a situation in which the House should be placed. He would support the Amendment.
  MR. JOHN ELLISsaid he should support the Amendment without the slightest hesitation, not only in the interests of unofficial Members, but in the interest of the dignity and efficiency of the House. They had come to a sort of crisis in regard to the attempt at legislation on the part of unofficial Members. The right hon. Member for Aberdeen, when the Rules of Procedure were being discussed in 1888, gave a long list

  1295
  of very useful measures that had been passed through the House by unofficial Members, and last night the Home Secresary had told them that in 1882, when he was an unofficial Member in Opposition, he carried an important measure of licensing reform through the House. That could not be done nowadays. The utmost misconception prevailed on the part of the public with regard to Bills introduced in that House. At the beginning of the session hundreds of hon. Members balloted for the chance of introducing Bills, but not 4 per cent. of the Bills introduced ever received satisfactory discussion; not 2 per cent. ever got into Committee: and not 1 per cent. he thought, taking an averarge of ten years, found its way on to the Statute-book. There was now absolutely no chance of an unofficial Member carrying a Bill that effected any reform of moment. By the change that had been effected, Friday had gone as a Parliamentary day, and he regretted that more than he could say. He believed that every session many of the Bills introduced by private Members, if they could find their way on to the Statute-book would greatly promote the welfare of the country. These Rules of Procedure were a blow to the efficiency and reputation of the House. The House was not raising itself in the estimation of the nation, and his complaint against the Leader of the House was that the right hon. Gentleman did not always endeavour to maintain the dignity and efficiency of the House. He urged the Leader of the House to give another day than Friday to the consideration of the Bills of unofficial Members.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid he hoped hon. Members would approach this question from the point of view of the efficiency and dignity of the House, rather than any other point of view, although they might differ as to the way in which that dignity and efficiency were to be maintained. There were two points involved, the efficiency of public business and of private Members' legislation, the first of which was of the greatest importance. If the House was losing its grip on the country, it was because it had not sufficient grasp of the great Imperial questions with which it had to deal. As
  1296
  a general rule, the business must be done by those who had control of the House for the time being—that was to say, the Government of the day. The real duty of private Members, it must be remembered, was to take part in the great national public business of the country, and therefore the first consideration with regard to the Amendment was how it affected the consideration of public business. His first objection was that it was a serious interference to take away any of the afternoons which were to be devoted to public business for the purpose of devoting them to the consideration of matters of secondary importance, and he would much rather see Friday given up to public business, than see any of the days now devoted to it taken away. Could the House afford to give up one of the best periods for the transaction of public business, when every day the reproach was being brought against them that they could not deal with matters of Imperial concern—matters which, in his opinion, ought not to be devolved upon any other body? Another question which had been raised was that of the right of private-Members with regard to private Bills. He did not think the present proposals interfered in any way with the interests and rights of private Members. The more the proceedings of the House were so regulated as to take away undue licence of debate, the more freedom would be given to private Members to take part in the real business of legislation. The great advantage of the proposed new Rules was they allowed private Members to take an interest in the business of the country, and gave them a greater opportunity of so doing than they at present had in the curtailed time at their disposal. With regard to private Members' Bills, two views had been put forward—one emphasising their importance, and the other feeling that they ought to be got rid of somehow. But, fearing that on Friday evenings they would be more likely to get a Second Reading than under present circumstances, he took a mid course between the two. He did not think the matter depended in the least on the question between Wednesday and Friday. The reason of the failure of private Members to give legislative effect to their Bills was that the temper, tone,

  1297
  and business of the House had undoubtedly altered with in recent years. There was not now time to carry the Bills. Moreover, there had been a great development of the feeling that if effective legislation—that was, coercive legislation, which interfered in some way with the ordinary liberty of the subject—was to be passed, it should, in the main, be brought forward on the responsibility of a Government, not of any private Member, whether faddist or otherwise. As to the question of Fridays, some Members objected to the change because they believed in the rights of private Members and liked to back up their Bills. But surely such Members could attend on a Friday just as they now attended on a Wednesday? A large number of Members, however, cared very little about private Members' Bills, but those who were complaining about Fridays being given to private Members' Bills ought surely to be the very Members to "make a House," and carry on the discussions which they declared were so desirable on such measures.
  MR. GALLOWAY: So they will.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid that that, then, was just what was wanted. What was required was a discussion by parties on the two sides who were interested in the subject-matter and cognisant of the facts with which the Bill dealt.
  MR. GALLOWAYexplained that the hon. and learned Member had misunderstood his interruption. What he meant was that the Gentlemen in favour of the Bill would attend, but the opponents would not.
  MR. CRIPPSthought they would get both sides. But the strongest argument in favour of the proposal of the Government was that of the efficiency of the House in the conduct of its public business, which really meant the national and imperial responsibility of Members, and from that point of view he should oppose the Amendment.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that all who had listened to the debate must have been struck by the extraordinary unanimity with which the proposal of the Government had
  1298
  been condemned. The hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division entered the House in 1895; if he had entered it fifteen years earlier he would have spoken very differently about private Members' Bills. He himself could remember when a great deal of the most useful legislation carried through the House was done on the initiative of private Members. The discussions on such Bills were useful not only because the opponents and supporters of the Bills were present, but because on such occasions, as a rule, political controversy did not come in, and neither the Government nor the Opposition Whips acted, It was not the presence merely of Members who either strongly supported or strongly opposed a Bill that was required on such occasions: they wanted a good attendance of the House generally. They wanted the moderate and thoughtful men who would listen to and be enlightened by debates on subjects which perhaps they had not previously understood, and who would then give an intelligent vote on the measure under discussion. He had been present at Wednesday sittings when Bills had been so discussed on both sides in relevant and intelligent speeches that the House had been able, at the end of a four or five hours debate, to come to a decision which they could not have come to before hearing the discussion. They were the rare occasions in the House upon which speeches really affected votes. The proposals of the Government were almost certain to lead to a scanty attendance, confined to strong advocates and strong opponents of the measure to be discussed. Members who were not particularly interested would not come, because there was such a thing as temptation, and it was human nature to yield to it. If these debates were to come on on days when Members were exposed to the temptation to go into the country, they knew how many would yield to that temptation, and private Members' Bills would not get the chance they ought to have. Whether a Bill was a good or a bad one, it ought to have a proper House to deal with it. As to the general question, private Members' legislation had experienced two stages. The first was the changes

  1299
  of 1887, which had made it practically impossible for a private Member to pass a Bill which excited any strong opposition unless he secured the first, second, or third chance in the ballot. The second stage was that now contemplated, by which even the debates on private Members' Bills would lose their value. Latterly, they had, at any rate, afforded an opportunity of bringing forward questions which had not sufficient political momentum behind them to make it worth the while of the Government to take them up, and in that way a good deal of satisfaction was given to the country. Since the right hon. Gentleman ceased to be Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, he had not very frequently been present at the debates on private Members' Bills on Wednesday afternoons, and, therefore, he perhaps did not realise how many valuable debates there had been. Under the present proposals the value of those discussions would really be lost. The paucity of the attendance and the farcical character of the whole proceedings would be such that they would excite no interest in the country, and with the loss of the value of private Members' legislation, there would also come a certain diminution in the respect felt for the House as a serious legislative body. When the country perceived that important questions brought forward by private Members were discussed in a very thin House, and that the Government took advantage of that thinness to excuse itself from delivering an opinion on those questions, the respect felt for the House as a legislative body, which already, to judge from the debate, was felt to be impaired, would be still further diminished.
  COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid the Amendment which had been brought forward would do much to repair the damage caused by the original proposal. That damage was of two kinds. In the first place, it would probably cause the week to end about 11.30 on Thursday night. Members would catch the night train on Thursday, with the result that Thursday night would be a slack time, and Fridays very slack indeed. The Amendment would
  1300
  tighten up the whole thing. Members of the House of Commons ought to take a full interest in what went on in the House. There were more important commercial and social measures discussed on Wednesday afternoons than at any other time, and it was the duty of the Government to come down upon such occasions, and state their views on those important measures. If they were bad measures, then the country should be made aware of the danger of them; and if they were good, the Government could support them. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, even at the eleventh hour, would listen to their remonstrances. He asked the Government to allow them to have Wednesday as it was, and continue the legislative machine up to six o'clock on Friday by making it a Government day. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make some concession to those hon. Members who felt that a very great injury would be done to the commercial, manufacturing, and social measures brought forward by private Members, and which ought to be fully discussed.
  MR. BLAKEsaid it was perfectly plain what the result of the Amendment must be. What were the difficulties? The great difficulty put forward necessitating these proposals was want of time to discharge the business incumbent upon the House. That was the excuse put forward for this curtailment of the rights and privileges of the Members of this House. Difficulties in maintaining an effective House on Friday had been hinted at even when devoted to Government business. Those difficulties had, no doubt, been specially felt by this Government, because an enormous and unwieldy majority had its difficulties as well as its advantages. He could understand the Government Whips feeling a difficulty in maintaining an adequate attendance on Fridays for Government business, but did anyone suggest that under those circumstances there was any chance on nine Fridays out of every ten of maintaining a decent House for private Members? Under the present dispensation they knew what had been done on Fridays,

  1301
  and if there were no other change proposed than the substitution of private for Government business, the result would be most serious. There was, however, another change, which would give four continuous hard-working days before the Friday came. Therefore the difficulty would now be much greater than it was before. What must the right hon. Gentleman's real conviction be of what the House would be on Fridays when that day was set apart for private Members' business only? By the proposal which was now before them, it was practically proposed to remove one day of the week from the effective Parliamentary day, and this change counterbalanced all the advantages of such of the new Rules as could be regarded as being of any advantage at all. It made Friday a dies non. The right hon. Gentleman argued that hon. Members could make their arrangements for Fridays long beforehand, and that the new machinery was to make it easier for hon. Members to know when they should be here. He contended that these new Rules were intended to let hon. Members know how long they could stay away. At a time in their Parliamentary history when they were confessedly overloaded with business in the ordinary period of a session, the Government were deliberately proposing to throw away one Parliamentary day out of the week. It had been said that Wednesday at the present time was wasted, and it would be more convenient to give hon. Members a real holiday by enabling them to take that wasted day on Friday and go away. He could not believe that this Parliament could very long continue in the condition which would render the unofficial Members so helpless in regard to their share in public business. He did not agree with the observations which had been made as to the absolute inefficacy of the efforts of the unofficial Members. The Government constantly objected to take up Bills which did not excite violent opposition. When the Government declined to take charge of such measures, the force and impulse necessary to compel the Government to give facilities for such measures was a force obtainable only by the decision of a great majority in a very large House. At the present time they might bring a House of
  1302
  400 or 500 together when a measure was really ripe or over-ripe for a decision, but that chance was going to be taken away from them now. That was a practical, effective, and useful result which under the present system a private Member might attain if he was fortunate in the ballot and used his choice of a measure wisely and well, but if by this proposed change they deprived the private Member of the opportunity of obtaining a full House, they deprived him of this chance altogether. The Government were really depriving unofficial Members of the last and only chance they had of promoting effective legislation by this change. What they really wanted was more effective Parliamentary time, and to deliberately throw away one day out of the week was a course which would not raise the credit, because it was sure to diminish the efficiency of the proceedings in this House.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid that when they discussed this question previously, the Leader of the House distinctly divided the subject into two matters. On the question of the short sitting on Friday, he was as-adamant, but certainly his words did not lead them to imagine that so far as the allocation of business was concerned his mind was in any way so definitely made up. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he could not still retain the opinion on the second matter which he held at that particular time. By introducing private Members' business at the middle of the week, some relief was given from the Government business, which was conducted at full pressure during the two preceding days. He did not agree with his hon. friend that private Members' business should only be discussed by those who had formed an opinion beforehand—those who were very favourable to the Bill, or those who were extremely adverse. He thought it was better that they should have the independent opinion of the House, which under this new Rule would be sadly taken away. There was another alteration in the Standing Orders which also rather confirmed the light treatment

  1303
  of private Members' Bilk They were asked to lay down definitely and for ever that only two sittings were ever to be given to the further stages of private Members' Bills after the Second Reading. The attitude taken up by Members regarding these Bills would be that they could only pass the Second Beading, that the discussion would be small and academic. He hoped if unofficial Members assumed that attitude, it would not be taken by the members of the Government. They would expect the Government as a whole, and not a few individuals, to come and make a House on Friday under the new circumstances. At all events, it would be the duty of the Government to give this change a fair chance. He hoped the Government would leave the House free to decide on which day private Members' business should be taken. He should have thought that an earlier day than Thursday would be better. He would feel bound to support the Amendment.
  MR. WALLACEsaid that of all the speakers on both sides who had taken part in the debate, his hon. and learned friend was the only private Member who had spoken in opposition to the Amendment. He ventured to ask what would be the fate of the Amendment if the door were locked at this moment and only those permitted to take part in the division who had heard the debate. He was sure the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Manchester, would be carried by a large majority. The Leader of the House stated that he objected to any break in the continuity of public business. It was because the Amendment would give such a break that he cordially supported it. He agreed with the hon. Member opposite who said that the strain of four nights discussion of public business was too much to expect in this House.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid he voted against the Government when the question of Friday or Wednesday for the short sitting was discussed. The question now was different. It was the question
  of what was the proper arrangement of the business of the House. Although he was formerly against the Government, he was entirely in their favour on the question now before the House. He had no sympathy with those Members who spoke as if private Members' business was the most important business of the House. The most important business private Members had to perform in the House was to look after the business which the Government brought before the House. He thought as they had made the change from Wednesday to Friday it was infinitely more for the convenience of Members on both sides of the House that private Members' Bills and not Government measures should be taken on Friday afternoon.
  MR. POWERsaid that what was now proposed would have a far-reaching effect. The new Rules largely invaded the rights of private Members. The First Lord of the Treasury, in introducing the Rules, endeavoured to induce the House to believe that he introduced them in the interest of private Members. What would be the result of not acceding to the proposition of the hon. Member for Manchester? The hon. Member for North Islington had called attention to what occurred last Wednesday week. What occurred then would occur continually if the Amendment was not adopted. Last Wednesday week a Bill, bristling with contention and affecting a large number of friendly societies, was read a second time after a debate which lasted an hour and a quarter. The result was that the discussion of the measure was scamped. The House should bear in mind that under the altered Rules there would be four long working days, and that the strain would be such that Members would be more anxious to get away for the week-end than they had been hitherto.
  Question put.
  (7.15.) The House divided:—Ayes, 145; Noes, 174. (Division List No. 89.)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hammond, John

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Harwood, George

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Brigg, John

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Price, Robert John

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Priestley, Arthur

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Rea, Russell

  Caine, William Sproston

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Caldwell, James

  Holland, William Henry

  Reddy, M.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Channing, Francis Allsten

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Runciman, Walter

  Crean, Eugene

  Lambert, George

  Russell, T. W.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Levy, Maurice

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Delany, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lundon, W.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Donelan, Captain A.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Kean, John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Elibank, Master of

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tomkinson, James

  Ellis, John Edward

  Mooney, John J.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Emmott, Alfred

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Murphy, John

  Wallace, Robert

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nolan, Joseph Louth, South)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Field, William

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, Luke (York, E. R,)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary. N.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O' Kelly, James (Roscommon. N.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  O'Malley, William

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Mara, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Galloway and Mr. Banbury

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Aird, Sir John

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bull, William James

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Butcher, John George

  Doughty, George

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Baldwin, Alfred

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

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

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G'rald W (Leeds

  Chapman, Edward

  Finch, George H.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Bignold, Arthur

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Bigwood, James

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Garfit, William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Bond, Edward

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  1306

  1307

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Shaw-Stewart. M. H. (Renfrew)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbnry

  Milvain, Thomas

  Smith, H C (North'mb, Tyneside

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Spear, John Ward

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Morton, Arthtur H. A. (Deptford)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Helder, Augustus

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Henderson, Alexander

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Valentia, Viscount

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

  Pemberton, John S. G

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Percy, Earl

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Whiteley, H. Ashton-und.-Lyne

  Hoult, Joseph

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Randles, John S.

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Knowles, Lees

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Younger, William

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristols.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Round, James

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rutherford, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Aunstrther.

  Lucas, Reginald, (Portsmouth)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  MR. CHANNINGsaid he did not intend to argue the question raised by his Amendment at length, because it would raise a discussion of a somewhat similar nature to that in which the House had just taken part. His Amendment would involve taking the whole of the Tuesday sitting for private Members' business, and would necessarily compel the Government to take Government business on Friday. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed,
  "In line 3 to leave out the words 'evening sittings,' and insert the word 'sitting.' "—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed "That the words 'evening sittings' stand part of the Question."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would not accept this Amendment.
  MR. NUSSEYasked why the First Lord should not accept this Amendment. Surely the Government
  1308
  should be quite honest in their dealings with private Members; or did they want to insist that private Members had no rights at all? They must know that it would be utterly impossible to have any private Member's Bill discussed properly on a Friday afternoon. When a Government with a small majority was asked to give extra facilities for the discussion of a particular subject, such as the eight hours day, they were granted; but were it not for the large attendance on Wednesday afternoons, he was quite sure that no Government would have yielded in such cases. It was a great pity that the Government would not accept the Amendment. It would be a great advantage not only to the Government themselves, but also to the officials and servants of the House, not to have four days running at full pressure, and he would therefore support the Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is quite clear that this Amendment only differs from the last Amendment to the extent of giving to private Members, in addition to the afternoon sitting, the evening sitting as well. All the arguments which have been used, as I thought conclusively,

  1309
  against the last Amendment apply equally to this Amendment. I think we have discussed this question sufficiently, and that we ought not to be asked to re-open it.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the Amendment as it stood was perhaps more than private Members might be justified in asking for, but it pointed to the fact that the little bits of evenings which it was proposed to give for the discussion of Resolutions would be altogether unsatisfactory. That was found to be the case under the Rules as they stood at present, and the additional point alluded to was one which would make things worse.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid that the one argument which the right hon. Gentleman should take into consideration was that hon. Members might be debarred from bringing forward a Resolution at all by a Motion for the adjournment. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had used conclusive arguments against the Amendment; but considering that the Government majority fell to twenty-nine, he thought it conclusive that if the Government had only a reasonable majority the right hon. Gentleman would not have been able to carry his proposal. He would support his hon. friend's Amendment, because it seemed to him to be a proposal which would give private Members something.
  MR. FIELDsaid he agreed with the Leader of the House that there was no use in discussing the Amendment at any great length, but at the same time they ought to know exactly where they were. As he understood the Amendment, it proposed that a whole day should be devoted to private Members' discussions, but he desired to point out that the Government would have no scruple whatever in appropriating a private Members' day, even if the Amendment were carried. There was no security whatever that an unofficial Member would obtain a whole day for a discussion in which he was interested. He felt very strongly on that, because there were a number of hon. Members in the House for the purpose of championing certain measures, and who were recognised as
  1310
  the mouthpieces of certain grievances. They were arriving at a state of things under which the private Member was becoming a nonentity. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, especially as many of his own supporters had expressed similar opinions, to have regard for the rights of unofficial Members. If the Government were to be the only legislators in the British House of Commons, it would mean that all reform would be stopped, and that all questions which the Government did not take up would be absolutely silenced, as there would be no opportunity whatever of ventilating them in the House of Commons. The result would be that if a Government with cast-iron notions—and there were such Governments—came in, no one would have a chance, except Ministers, of bringing in any measure, however much the community might be interested in it. He thought that the House was arriving at a very dangerous state of things, and that hon. Members did not quite realise their position. Parliamentary legislation was on its trial, and unless economic and commercial problems, which were considered by other countries, but which were never touched upon by the Government, and which under the Rule before the House would be absolutely shut out, were given consideration, the result would be that the House of Commons would be turned into a mere machine for voting money to carry on the Government. What was called the public mind would be absolutely silenced under the new Rules. As a Member of the House who had endeavoured to fulfil his duty to the best of his ability, he considered the Rule before the House one of the most dangerous that could be introduced. It would stop progress, hinder development, silence the unofficial Member, and put on the Government, the burden of all legislation. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the many weighty reasons against this proposal. He quite agreed that it was a non-political matter. It affected hon. Members opposite just as much as his hon. friends. The pendulum of politics would swing from one side to the other, and Tories or Liberals might be in office, but the vast majority of the people outside ought to be protected by the voice of the

  1311
  unofficial Member. He would seriously ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the position in which the House would be placed if unofficial Members were to be altogether silenced. The result would be that many hon. Members would remain away, as they would not have the smallest opportunity of voicing the opinions of their constituents, although their constituents might think that was due to neglect on their part. He could not give a silent vote in favour of the Amendment, because he had pledged himself to certain measures which he had promised, not only his constituents, but a large number of voters generally, to bring before the House; but he had had no opportunity whatever of doing so. Indeed, private Members might as well be in Timbuctoo for all the chance they had. They were sent to the House with certain missions, which they were unable to fulfil by reason of the peculiar Rules by which they were governed. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the reasons which he, as a practical man, put before him; and that private Members would be given an opportunity of expressing the opinions which they had pledged their constituents to bring forward.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid as far as he was able to understand, the position at which they had arrived, although it was, rather difficult, was that all that had been decided up to the present was, that unless the House otherwise ordered, it was to meet every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday at two o'clock in the afternoon. The Amendment, as he understood it, would, if carried, alter the Rule to read that, unless the House otherwise ordered, Government business should have precedence at every sitting except on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid that, with consequential Amendments, his Amendment would give all Tuesday to private Members, leaving Wednesday to the Government, and in that way there would be a continuous sitting for one purpose.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he assumed that if the Amendment were carried, the
  1312
  Rule would read that Government business should have precedence at every sitting except the sittings on. Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday. The effect of the Amendment would be to restore to private Members the precise-position they now occupied under which Tuesday was for private Members Motions, and Wednesday for private Members' Bills.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the proposal of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment simply came to this, that instead of two evening sittings given for private business, there should be one whole sitting, and the point the House had to decide was whether it was in the interest of public business that private business should occupy one whole sitting, instead of two evening sittings. So far as the Government were concerned, if this Amendment was carried, their position would be very much the same as if it were rejected. The Amendment was in entire accord with the inner and secret meaning of the new Rules. The First Lord of the Treasury had been living in a political lotus land, and his great desire in proposing these Rules was to have as little business done as possible, and have as much leisure as possible. Having been in the penal servitude of this House for twenty years, the old Adam in him rose and cried out to him to support the right hon. Gentleman in these proposals, but he would not listen to that cry. He was violently and ferociously opposed to-these proposed Rules, and he would support the Amendment of his hon. friend. What would happen under the Rules? At nine o'clock on Tuesday and Wednesday the House was called upon to discuss private business; no count out could be moved until ten o'clock, but in a large number of cases, at one-minute past ten on those days, a count would be moved by some Member on the pounce, and the sitting would be gone. If the object of the right hon. Gentleman was to reduce private business in the House to a nullity and an absurdity, he could not have done worse. Every hon. Member had some experience of evening sittings, as they took place at certain times of the year,

  1313
  and he asked whether, in the experience of the House, they were ever effective. By the Amendment the Government lost nothing; they lost a morning sitting on Tuesday, and got an evening sitting for it on Wednesday. But the right hon. Gentleman did not think the evening sitting on Wednesday was sufficient compensation for a morning sitting on Tuesday, because he thought the evening sitting was too small a thing to be taken in exchange. Either the evening sitting was no good at all, or it was an effective sitting; if it was no good, it was of no use to private Members; if it was an effective sitting, then the exchange offered was a fair one. No greater heresy was ever preached than that this House was merely for the purpose of discussing the proposals of legislation by the Government. During the last two years, by excluding private initiative in the House, it had been impossible to discuss across the floor of the House the policy with regard to the subject that was nearest the heart of the nation. In the face of such a state of things as that, the right hon. Gentleman came to the House with a suggestion which reduced private initiative to a mockery and a delusion. This assembly exercised a far more important function as the grand inquest of the nation than as a legislative machine. What chance would there be for a private Member to raise a question in which he was interested under the new Rules? He would, no doubt, get other Members also interested to support him, and then, at eleven o'clock, other Members would turn up, not having heard a word of the arguments, for the express purpose of voting against him. Under such a Rule as the right hon. Gentleman proposed, the House would discuss questions on which the mind of the country was fixed under conditions which reduced the debate to a nullity and absurdity. He seriously believed that if the House ceased to be the faithful and ever-ready echo of the grievances, wrongs, needs, and even the passions of the country, it would cease to fulfil one of its greatest and most important functions. It was because he believed the Rules, without such changes as that proposed, would
  1314
  derogate from that great function of the House, that he should support his hon. friend.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid that if the Amendment were carried it would take the House back to exactly the same position as they were in a few years ago; it would give Members the whole of Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. ["No ".] He did not say that that was wrong, but merely that after weeks of discussion, by a turn of the wrist they were brought back to that position. The longer these resolutions were discussed, the more it appeared that the House was to be brought down to a very dull level and a most dreary routine. One of the principal charms of the House of Commons had been its variegated atmosphere, but now they were to have four days on end of dull routine work, and he greatly regretted that such a change should be made.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that many Members on that side of the House had been supporting the Government in regard to some of their proposals, and in return they were entitled to receive some consideration. He had supported the Government in the last division in the fond and delusive hope that Fridays might be taken for Supply and one day in the week given to private Members. The only time left under the new Rule for the discussion of Motions would be at a late hour, when very few Members were present and all effective debate was really out of the question. It would be almost impossible for a private Member to keep a House after ten o'clock. Reference had been made as to the necessity of there being opportunities for the discussion of social questions. The Motion on the Paper, in the name of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, was of first-class importance. For a Motion of equal importance, affecting the Army or the Navy, a day would be immediately granted. The question affected the life savings of nearly a million people, and although those savings, involving the future welfare of the people and their provision for old age

  1315
  and so on, were in danger of destruction, the Government would not accord an opportunity for the discussion of the matter, and if this Rule was passed there never would be an opportunity. The First Lord ought really to make some concession to the necessities of the people, either by accepting the Amendment or by reversing the decision just arrived at, and giving private Members one day in the week in exchange for Friday.
  MR. BLAKEpointed out that the House had already decided to give private Members the fag-end of the week for their Bills, and the present proposal was to give them the fag-ends of two intermediate days for the discussion of their notices of Motion and Resolutions. In addition to the disadvantage to private Members, there was a Parliamentary disadvantage, of a very serious character, involved. This parcelling out of days into two sittings was not conducive to the efficient conduct of public business. The opportunity of taking more than one of the two daily sittings for continuous debate was of great importance. If the time was not wanted, it need not be used—the closure would end the debate; but the opportunity ought certainly to subsist in the interests of the efficient working of the House.
  MR. O'MARAsaid the time given to private Members was not really so great as appeared at first sight. At the two evening sittings it was possible there might be two Motions for adjournment. If, however, the present Amendment were accepted, so

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor).

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bigwood, James

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bond, Edward

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Chapman, Edward

  Austin, Sir John

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Charrington, Spencer

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Bull, William James

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. T. (Manch'r

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Corbett, A. Cameron, Glasgow)

  Balfour Rt Hon Gerald W (Leeds

  Butcher, John George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Balfour, Kenneth R (Christch

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Bartley, George C. T.

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

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  that private Members had one whole day, private bills would, at any rate, have an opportunity of being adequately discussed after one Motion for adjournment had been moved. He regretted the mover of the Amendment had not explained its meaning more clearly, so as to have prevented certain misconceptions on the other side of the House. There was no wish to secure more than the whole of Tuesday for private Members, as a consequential Amendment would be moved to leave out Wednesday. Certainly one whole day would be of much more use to private Members than two evening sittings. After sittings of five and a half hours on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, Members would approach the consideration of private Members' Bills tired and fagged out; many Members would not come down at all, the opportunities for busy-bodies to move "counts" would be largely increased, and Bills which did not excite great general interest would be deprived of all chance of discussion by the House being counted out. If the Rule were passed, not more than three hours at most could be devoted to a private Member's Bill; consequently, such measures as the Eight Hours Bill, the Pure Beer Bill, and the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, would never be able to receive that discussion which some Members considered adequate. He should certainly support the Amendment.
  (8.16.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 149; Noes, 97. (Division List No. 90.) (8.30.)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Randles, John S.

  Doughty, George

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Knowles, Lees

  Ritchie, Rt Hon Chas. Thomson

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lawson, John Grant

  Round, James

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rutherford, John

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

  Lowe, Francis William

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

  Finch, George H.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Smith, H. C (North'mb, Tyneside

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Spear, John Ward

  Galloway, William Johnstone

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Garfit, William

  M'Calmont, Col. HLB (Cambs.

  Stewart Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

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

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Tuke, Sir John Batty.

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Moore, William (Antrim, N).

  Walker, Col William Hall

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morton, Arthur H A (Deptford)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Whiteley, H. (Aston und. Lyne

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd.

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell-(Birm

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfo'd

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wortley, Rt Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Orr-Ewing. Charles Lindsay

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Helder, Augustus

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Henderson, Alexander

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Hobhouse, Henry, (Somerset, E.

  Percy, Earl

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

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Hoult, Joseph

  Purvis, Robert

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Hammond, John

  O'Malley, William

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Mara, James

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Holland, William Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bell, Richard

  Hope, John Deans (File, West)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Black, Alexander William

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Reddy, M.

  Blake, Edward

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brigg, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Levy, Maurice

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Caldwell, James

  Lundon, W.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Campbell-Bannermann, Sir H.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Clancy, John Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

  Cogan, Denis J.

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Kean, John

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tomkinson, James

  Delany, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Wallace, Robert

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Murphy, John

  Weir, James Galloway

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth South).

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Fenwick, Charles

  Norman, Henry

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nussy, Thomas Willans

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Field, William

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

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Grant, Coorie

  O'Dowd, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr. Channing and Mr. Lough.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  MR. CALDWELL(9.0.) MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid) moved after the word "morning," in line 6, to insert the words "Government Bills." He said that, as matters stood, Tuesday was the property of the private Members, though the Government had the right to put down Government Bills, in advance, in competition with private Members. Under the new Rules it was proposed to give two evenings to private Members in place of Tuesday, but upon looking into the Rules it was found that notices of Motions were, on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, to have precedence of Orders of the day, after which Government Bills would have precedence; so that if the Government wished to cut out a private Member's Bill they had only to put down a Government Bill in advance, which would take precedence after the notices of Motion. If the private Members were going to give up the whole of Tuesday for two evenings, those two evenings should be allotted entirely to private Members, and there should be no risk of the Government taking precedence. All his Amendment suggested was that notices of Motions and public Bills other than Government measures should have precedence of the Orders of the day. He thought the Amendment must commend itself to the House, and he could see no reason why so reasonable an Amendment could be refused, although no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would come into the House later, and, without having considered the matter at all, would reject it and put the Government tellers on for the division, in which he would vote against it.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 6, after the word 'Motion,' to insert the words 'and public Bills other than Government Bills.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,)said the hon. Member opposite appeared very suspicious of Governments generally, and his Amendment was based on the idea that the present Government desired to act in a malevolent way towards all private Members. He thought his right hon.
  1320
  friend would be quite prepared to accept the Amendment, and in his absence he should raise no objection to it. He therefore accepted this and the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Amendment made, in line 6, by leaving out the words "Orders of the Day," and inserting the words "Government Business."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid that many of these Rules and Orders which were required by certain statutes to be laid on the Table of the House were in substance legislative proposals, and affected private rights, but at present they could only be discussed after twelve o'clock on a Motion for an Address to the Crown, which was a very inconvenient practice. He did not say that the method he proposed was the very best for dealing with questions of that kind, but he did say that in some form or other they ought to give a little more attention to such important matters. Private Members' evenings were already liable to be broken in upon by matters of great importance on Motions for the adjournment of the House, and it was only fair that those who desired to call attention to grievances from which they might suffer, by reason of the Rules and Orders, should have a better opportunity than they now had of bringing them to the attention of the House.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 6, at the end, to insert the words, 'But when a Member has given notice to move an Address to the Crown that a statute, scheme, Rule, or Order which by law is required to be laid upon the Table of the House may be rescinded, varied, or otherwise dealt with, and has set the same down for an evening sitting on which notices of Motions have precedence of Orders of the day, he shall be entitled to precedence over other notices of Motions.' "—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES DILKEthought that the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman for the acceptance of the Amendment were almost conclusive arguments for its rejection. The further cut into private Members' time would be

  1321
  another step towards the destruction of the remnant of time which they got, and he protested against further opportunities being given to rob private Members of their time.
  MR. CHAPLINconsidered the matter one of great importance, having regard to the manner in which the time of private Members would be limited, and he opposed the Amendment. He also expressed the hope that some representative of the Government would give expression to the views the Government had upon the question.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that some of them had rather painful recollections of proceedings which had taken place after midnight when discussions had arisen respecting Orders in Council. He thought that was the weakest point in our whole present procedure, and that the manner in which those discussions had been conducted had not contributed either to the strength or the credit of the House. If the Amendment were adopted, it would alleviate the mischief and give them an opportunity of thorough discussion. It must be borne in mind that the number of proposals of that character had increased, especially in relation to secondary education, affecting not only the schools but also the universities. There was at this moment a most important change being made in Cambridge relating to the emoluments of the head of one of the chief colleges. That was a change of an important character, which certainly ought to be open to discussion by the House if any Member thought it worth his while to introduce such a subject to their notice. He therefore thought the proposal of his hon. friend an eminently wise and sound one, and that it would tend to improve the procedure of the House and to remove what he believed to be a great mischief.
  MR. O'MARAsaid he trusted the Government would not accept the Amendment, and also that they would express their views of the situation. At present there was quite enough opportunity for discussing these questions after twelve o'clock, and if this Amendment were passed, it would only mean that it would be used for the purposes of obstructing private Bills. He had known
  1322
  such a thing to happen before, when an inoffensive private Bill was only passed after much discussion, not because anybody objected to the Bill, but because they had great objections to the one that followed it. Members of the House were not above using their powers of obstruction in this way, and he strongly objected to giving them this further opportunity for obstructing private Bills.
  MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid it appeared to him that this was very much a matter upon which private Members should at any rate express their views. It was merely a question of what they would do with the time on private Members' evenings. If they preferred to discuss academic Motions, which very often led to no result, instead of discussing Addresses to the Crown, it was for Members to say. He did not think it was a matter on which the Government should take a strong line either for or against. As had been pointed out, if the Amendment were adopted it would be open to the opponents of a Motion to move an Address to the Crown on some of the numerous Papers lying on the Table. That would be an encroachment on the time the Government were anxious to give to private Members, and therefore they could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that so far as the Amendment took away from the time allotted to private Members, it ought certainly to be opposed. But there were other evening sittings than those allotted to private Members. In this particular case, the notices of Motions would really be Government business, having reference to Government action, and there ought to be a reasonable time for their discussion between the hours of nine and twelve o'clock. The evenings of Tuesday and Wednesday, however, must be kept for private Members, and if these Motions were to be discussed, let it be on either Monday or Thursday. He therefore proposed to move an Amendment giving effect to that suggestion.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that that would not be in order, as under paragraph (a) of the Standing Order, Government business was to have precedence on Mondays and Thursdays.
  MR. CALDWELLasked whether it would not be possible to move his Amendment as a kind of proviso, seeing that these Addresses to the Crown were really Government business.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that paragraph (b) proceeded to lay down how the evenings which had been excepted from Government business were to be dealt with, so that the only evenings before the House were those of Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
  MR. RICHARDShoped the Government would accept the Amendment. They seemed very ready to accept Amendments from the other side of the House, but when their warmest supporters pressed upon them the importance of accepting an Amendment of this kind, they raised objections to so doing. His hon. friend had had some experience, as a Charity Commissioner, of endeavouring to force through schemes of which, in his heart, he did not approve, and he knew the difficulties with which private Members were faced in keeping a sufficient number of Members in the House after twelve o'clock to defeat the schemes of his Radical colleagues. On one occasion in the Parliament of 1895 the Government Whips actually endeavoured to empty the House at twelve o'clock in order to prevent the bringing forward of a scandalous scheme with regard to a Welsh charity, in connection with which the Charity Commissioners experienced an overwhelming defeat, which he believed his hon. friend did not altogether regret. He could not understand why the Government refused to accept this Amendment. The hon. Member for Preston was not one who would in any way abuse the forms of the House for the purposes of obstruction; he had never known him either to propose or to oppose a Motion except on the highest grounds of public policy. The Government ought really to consider their most loyal and constant supporters, and not turn their backs on this Amendment, seeing they had just accepted one from the hon. Member for Lanarkshire. It was said that it would interfere with the opportunities of private Members to discuss academic Resolutions. He ventured to think that very little would
  1324
  be lost to the nation by the abolition of the majority of the discussions which took place on Tuesday evenings; the only object they served was to satisfy the local newspaper and the particular Member and his supporters. The House ought to assert its rights against the shuffling through of objectionable forms of legislation in the guise of schemes which had to lie on the Table for forty days. They were merely the attempts of Government officials—who were generally the enemies of all progress—to do by schemes what they could not do by legislation. He was astonished that the leaders of the Unionist party, who had some experience of the opposition they had to meet with from the-permanent officials when they came into' office, should deprive Members of the opportunity of criticising and upsetting such schemes. It would be a confession of weakness on the part of the Government to abandon them entirely to the mercies of the permanent staff, by giving them no opportunity except after midnight of discussing these matters. He appealed to the Government to remember that there was such a thing as the loyalty of their supporters, which might be strained beyond endurance.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had listened to the diatribe of his hon. friend with profound astonishment. He had never heard it put forward before as a principle of Parliamentary discussion that when an Amendment was accepted from one side they ought to accept one from the other. They must consider Amendments on their merits, irrespective of the quarter from which they came. For the hon. and learned Member to say that if they objected to this Amendment it was because they desired to be trampled on by the permanent officials, was really to make statements bordering on the grotesque. The immemorial rule of Parliament had been for these discussions to come on at the end of business. He did not think that was very convenient; he, admitted they all had to sacrifice some of their well-earned rest to discuss these schemes after twelve o'clock, but that was not the point. The point was whether they should so alter the Rules of the House that, for the first time, the privileges of private Members should be eaten into for the purpose of discussing

  1325
  these schemes. It was desirable as far as possible to preserve the two evenings under the Rule for private Members. The Government bad been abused for diminishing the rights of private Members, and it was undoubtedly the case that the paper rights of private Members were largely intrenched upon by the new rules, but the consideration the Government gave for that was that they hoped the two nights would not be disturbed by Government interference. The Government would not come down in future, as they had constantly been obliged to do in the past, and say they required the whole of the time for Government business. They desired as far as possible to give private Members the full security of the proposed alterations. He did not say the security was complete, nor could it be. But to allow a new invasion of the kind suggested was surely to trench upon the ancient privileges of unofficial Members to a degree which the House could hardly be asked to tolerate. The abstract subjects put down for discussion upon those occasions often led to very little result. Perhaps they were rather empty and sometimes mischievous. He should be sorry to see any greater limitation put upon those privileges than the new Rules imposed. He admitted that the Rules were a great interference with the nominal privileges of unofficial Members, but he maintained that their real privileges would be greatly extended. In the interests of the House generally, the Amendment, although there might be much to be said for it, ought on the whole to be rejected.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the First Lord of the Treasury had thrown over his colleague the Under Secretary of the Local Government Board, who had absolutely blest this Amendment. The criticism made by the Under Secretary of the Local Government Board was that after all this was a matter to be settled between private Members themselves, and he said that the Government desired to know their opinions. He left the impression upon the House that if private Members were in favour of this Amendment the Government would have no opposition to offer. Now, the First Lord of the Treasury had raised a very serious objection to this Amendment,
  1326
  and he claimed that it was unnecessary, because his proposal only interfered with the paper rights of private Members and not with their real rights. The First Lord of the Treasury by these Rules made certain of the time for Government business at the beginning of the day, but left no certainty to private Members for their time, and in this respect he was like the bedfellow who complained that the other fellow took his share of the bed out of the middle and left him to take his share out of the two sides. As a private Member, he supported the Amendment, because it would really give' effect to what always was the intention of Parliament, that when a scheme was ordered to lie on the Table for forty days there should be some reasonable opportunity to challenge it. These schemes, referring to matters which could not wait, had a natural right to precedence over ordinary notices of Motion. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that questions of this sort could only be raised after twelve o'clock. If this Amendment were accepted, it would give hon. Members facilities for challenging questions of this kind, and if the right hon. Gentleman really wanted to know the opinion of private Members he ventured to say that this was a very reasonable proposal to give him that opportunity. He was aware that this course might take some time out of the discussion upon some other Motions, but he thought these matters ought to have-precedence. He felt a certain amount of diffidence in discussing this Amendment, because when they came back to the discussion of the sittings of the House they might find themselves hampered by what they had done. After the reception this Amendment had met with from the right hon. Gentleman's colleague on the Front Bench, he was very much surprised at the handling which he had just given to it. His belief was that no private Member would complain of Motions like those to which he referred having precedence over other Motions. He felt very strongly that those matters which were pressing, and which could not be postponed, were entitled to precedence.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYhoped the House would support the First Lord of

  1327
  the Treasury and reject this Amendment. One hon. Member opposite had accused the Government of "squashing" private Members, and he had described the process. If this Amendment were carried, it would not only "squash" the private Member, but it would pulverise him as well. Two short periods at the end of the sittings on Tuesday and Wednesday certainly could not be described as affording full facilities for the many matters which

  AYES.

  Bowles, T. Gibson,(Kings Lynn)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Levy, Maurice

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Mr. Tomlinson and Mr. H. C. Richards.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork. N. E

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Abraham William (Rhondda)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Garfit, William

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Chapman, Edward

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Ambrose, Robert

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby (Salop

  Arrol, Sir William

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Austin, Sir John

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Grant, Corrie

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Crean, Eugene

  Gunter, Sir Robert

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

  Cremer, William Randall

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G.'(Mid'x

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hammond, John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Delany, William

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford

  Bell, Richard

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Haslott, Sir James Horner

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bignold, Arthur

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Bigwood, James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Black, Alexander William

  Doogan, P. C.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Blake, Edward

  Doughty, George

  Helder, Augustus

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Bond, Edward

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Henderson, Alexander

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Higgingbottom, S. W.

  Brigg, John

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Brodrick Rt. Hon. St. John

  Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Holland, William Henry

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Brotberton, Edward Allen

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Hoult, Joseph

  Bull, William James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Billiard, Sir Harry

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

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Burns, John

  Field, William

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Butcher, John George

  Finch, George H.

  Joyce, Michael

  Caldwell, James

  Finch, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Knowles, Lees

  Campbell, John (Armagh S.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lambert, George

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lawson, John Grant

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Cavendish V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Flower, Ernest

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  private Members desired to bring before the House. He entirely differed from what had been said by the hon. Member for Finsbury, for he thought even those academic discussions instituted by private Members were of great interest to the country generally.
  (9.58.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 7; Noes, 265; (Division List No. 91.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Spear, John Ward

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R (Northants

  Lough, Thomas

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Lowe, Francis William

  O'Malley, William

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  O'Mara, James

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lundon, W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Tennant, Harold John

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Partington, Oswald

  Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan, Gower

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Tomkinson, James

  M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  M'Crae, George

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Valentia, Viscount

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  M'Kean, John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wallace, Robert

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Purvis, Robert

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Randles, John S.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Reckitt, Harold James

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Reddy, M.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Reid, James (Greenock.)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und Lyne

  Mooney, John J.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Whitaker, Thomas Palmer

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell-) Birm

  Morgan, David J. (W'lthamstow

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Wilson, Jonh (Durham, Mid)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Robinson, Brooke

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Round, James

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Murphy, John

  Russell, T. W.

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Rutherford, John

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South).

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Norman, Henry

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Younger, William

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny.)

  Smith, H. C (North'mb, Tyn'side

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

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  MR. DISRAELI*(10.10.) MR. DISRAELI moved as an Amendment the omission of Sub-section C, which gave Government business precedence after Easter at the evening sittings on Tuesday. Of the proposals which had been brought before the House in regard to the Rules, this was the one which after all affected more fully than any of the others the procedure in relation to the time of private Members. The proposal was that after Easter the time of the House should fall automatically into the hands of the Government without their asking the House in the ancient and constitutional way for the time, and getting it in the usual manner by a majority. A Motion for this purpose had always been the vehicle by which the Government had been enabled to state their plans and answer the questions of Members before the time was given up to them. It was proposals such as these that made them feel the Leader of the House was treating the House with callous indifference, which
  1330
  made other hon. Members on that side of the House than himself feel with the greatest bitterness about these Rules. This Rule ought not to be passed; the House ought to keep its control upon the Ministry. One after the other these Rules tended to the exaltation of the Executive at the expense of the Members of the House. The Rule now proposed placed the Executive in the position of being able to take the whole time of the House without offering any reasons for doing so. He ventured to think that that was a most unconstitutional position for any Government to take or for the House to allow itself to be placed in.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out lines 7 and 8."—(Mr. Disraeli.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'After' stand part of the Question."
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,)said he did not think his hon. friend had made out any case for the omission of this sub-section. It was not a new proposal, because it had been the practice of the Government for many years past to take the greater portion of the time for Government business at a late period of the session. He did not think that on that balance private Members had anything to complain of. Under the Rules which the Government were now proposing private Members would have greater certainty as to their time during the session than they had hitherto had. He was sorry the Government could not see their way to accept the Amendment of his hon. friend. He did not think the hon. Member was serious in bringing it forward.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid that it must be remembered that Easter was a movable feast, and if the House met comparatively late in a year when Easter fell early, private Members' time would be cramped into the smallest possible space, and if this Rule were adopted, there would be no opportunity in the future of criticising the use which the Executive had made of the time the House had already placed at their disposal. They all knew that hitherto grievances had been ventilated and criticism passed on the conduct of public business when the Government asked for additional time, and it seemed to him that this was an unreasonable proposition to place before the House. He was bound to say that while he had steadily supported the Government on these Rules he could not remove from his mind the uneasy feeling that this proposal would put the House into bondage, and hand it over body and soul to the Executive of the day. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, in introducing the new Rules asked his supporters to treat them as though they were sitting on the left of the Speaker. He had been looking at this Resolution from that point of view, and he asked what would be their position when another Executive was in office making use of the fetters with which they were asked that day to bind the House. If the Amendment went to a division he should feel compelled to vote for it.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid he-should feel bound to support the hon. Gentleman in his endeavour to curb the Government in seizing the time of private Members; and he was very glad to hear hon. Members opposite were waking up to a realisation of the fact that they were parting with their ancient privileges. He did not think that any reasonable man in the House would say that three nights before Easter and two nights after Easter were more than sufficient for the ventilation of grievances by private Members or the initiation of legislation. The discussions on these occasions were not always academic and many useful measures had been passed by the lead of private Members.
  MR. CALDWELLsupported the Amendment because it would compel the Government, if they wished to take the Tuesday evenings between Easter and Whitsun, to come to the House and satisfy it that that time was required in the interests of the country. What hardship was there in that? For everybody knew that the Government never had any difficulty in carrying a Motion of that kind. If this new Rule were passed, and the House did not meet until the middle of February the Government might take away nearly half the private Members' time before Easter. The House would do well, he thought, to give effect to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Altrincham, leaving it on the Standing Orders that Tuesday was a private Members' night, and that if the Government wished to appropriate it they must show cause.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid that some hon. Members seemed to forget what the chief reason was for the alteration in the Rules of the House. It was that excessive discussions prevented the progress of public business and the whole country had wondered that Parliament had not reformed its procedure long ago. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark had said that the Government could get the time for their business if they showed cause, but the hon. Member knew that when the Government made such a demand half an evening or more was

  1333
  wasted in threshing out subjects already settled, and so much of the time gained by the demand the Government had made was lost in useless discussion. He ventured to think that hon. Members were bound to make some sacrifice in the public interest and it was primarily expedient that their discussions should be shortened. He was sorry that the hon. Member for Altrincham, in moving his Amendment, had thought it necessary to charge the First Lord of the Treasury with callous indifference to the feelings of the private Member. There never was an accusation less deserved, for he maintained that the First Lord of the Treasury had shown the utmost consideration for the opinions of Members. Indeed, if any charge could be laid against him, it might be that the right hon. Gentleman had shown himself somewhat irresolute in his desire to meet their wishes. By the scheme before the House, one evening would be left for private Members' Motions, and if hon. Members had matters to bring forward which were exciting great public interest they might do so by coming down to the House after enjoying an hour and a half for dinner. By the proposals of the Government, private Members would have, after Easter, two days a week for submitting Motions and having Bills discussed. If they were in earnest in reforming the proceedure of the House, he ventured to think that the passing of these Resolutions would relieve them from reproaches which had been cast upon them.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that if the light hon. Baronet was of opinion that the new Rules were going to seriously accelerate the work of the House, he was living in a fools' paradise. He would call the right hon. Baronet's attention to the fact that he had expressed an opinion entirely at variance with that expressed by the First Lord of the Treasury, because the First Lord of the Treasury very wisely said that he did not look to these Rules to accelerate business, or to put down the Parliamentary offence of obstruction. Therefore, he did not think the right hon. Baronet was entitled to bring that forward as a serious argument. The right hon. Baronet, repeating another statement of
  1334
  the First Lord of the Treasury, said that a private Member would, under the new scheme, be safeguarded in a way which did not now exist. Did anyone ever hear such nonsense? Why, when the First Lord of the Treasury made that statement, he, being a man possesed of a sense of honour, had no sooner made it, than he began to laugh at it himself, because having referred to the securities to be given to private Members, he immediately added "for what they are worth." Borrowing the now historic phraseology of the Lord Chancellor, who described the war which was costing many valuable lives every week "as a sort of war," the right hon. Gentleman now spoke of the safeguards of private Members "for what they are worth." They were worth absolutely nothing. The hon. Member for North West Ham very properly appealed to Members on his own side to remember that a Conservative Government would not always exist. There were such things as Liberal administrations who desired to pass a great deal of legislation, and he ventured to say that Members of the House would live to see the day when a Liberal Government would attempt to pass measures which hon. Gentlemen opposite would consider against the institutions of the country. What would happen? Hon. Gentlemen need not wait to know. Under the Standing Order as it was, Tuesdays belonged to private Members. During the present session not a Tuesday had been given to private Members, except a miserable rag of an evening which was got by the accidental fact that the Government had discharged all its business sooner than was expected, and so impressed was the House, that hon. Members celebrated the occasion by defeating the Government. Although Tuesdays belonged to private Members, not a single Tuesday, except the miserable rag he had mentioned, had been given to them during the present session. Yet the memories of hon. Members were so short that they actually believed, in spite of the First Lord of the Treasury having spoken with his tongue in his cheek, that the new Rule would be a solemn covenant and ordinance which no Government would ever dare to depart from. Even in the very next session, if the First Lord was in his

  1335
  present position, it was quite possible, nay, it was quite probable, that the very first thing he would do, owing to exigencies of getting money or carrying on the war, would be to take away at the beginning of the session these sacred and indestructible two evenings in the week which he now declared were as sacred as Magna Charta. They knew these two evenings would be taken away by the Government if they wanted them. Tuesdays were taken away during the present session, but they were taken away by Resolution. What did the First Lord now propose? He would ask hon. Members to project their minds to next session. Next session the First Lord might ask the House for Tuesdays and Wednesdays before Easter. After Easter he would get Tuesdays automatically, without even asking for them. The hon. Member for North West Ham very properly pointed out that Easter was a movable feast. He did not profess to be able to tell what the periods were within which the feast could be moved. That was a theological question, which no one except the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich could solve. He would express no opinion on it, except to say that he thought Easter Sunday might come a fortnight, three weeks, or four weeks earlier one year than in another. The House might meet in February, and Easter Sunday might be towards the end of March, so that private Members would only have three or four Tuesdays altogether before Easter; and after Easter, Tuesdays would fall to the Government automatically. He should be sorry to accuse the First Lord of callous indifference to the feelings of anybody. He was sure he would not show callous indifference even to the feelings of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, though he occasionally must feel restless under the scourge of that very keen Parliamentary satirist. But he thought the right hon. Gentleman showed a great deal of callousness to the rights of private Members. He was not surprised at that. He was perfectly sure that the right hon. Gentleman was convinced that there was no such absurdity as a private Members' Motion. That was the natural, traditional, and inevitable feeling of the official mind, whether Liberal or Conservative. Therefore, the right hon.
  1336
  Gentleman was not concerned when he was told that he was interfering with the rights of private Members. To him that was another way of putting down a nuisance; but private Members who thought of something else than passing Government measures with the greatest rapidity thought it worth while to fight for their rights, and he thought the Party opposite would be forgetful of some of their best traditions if they allowed the Government to deprive the House of the remaining right of private Members.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that he for one would support the Amendment on the ground that the proposal of the Government was another attack on the few remaining rights and privileges left to private Members. He thought that the division which had been taken earlier in the evening showed that private Members were beginning to realise the serious position in which they would be hereafter placed if these Rules were carried in the form in which they stood on the Paper. If private Members, like the right hon. Baronet the Member for North-East Manchester, were inclined to throw their rights away, why then there was an end of the matter. But he did not wish to see private Members deprived of their rights, and it was for that reason that he would most earnestly press on hon. Members to seriously consider, before they fettered themselves, whether the proposal as it stood should be accepted. The right hon. Baronet gave as a reason for supporting the proposal, the serious character of the obstruction which had prevailed in this House for many years, and with reference to which the whole country was wondering why no effective steps had hitherto been taken by the House itself. But the right hon. Baronet was reminded by the hon. Member who had just spoken of something which he appeared to have forgotten, viz., that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury pointed out with perfect frankness that he did not claim for the Rules that they would put an end to obstruction, and that that was not the object with which they were put forward. It was idle, therefore, to speak of the necessity of stopping obstruction,

  1337
  and to call on hon. Members to accept the proposals before the House for that purpose. He should be very sorry indeed to support the view that his right hon. friend the Leader of the House had shown anything like callousness to the feelings of hon. Members. He thought his right hon. friend, as far as the feelings of the House were concerned, had done all that could be done, or could be expected to be done, by the Leader of the House. But when they came to consider the rights of private Members, he thought his right hon. friend had shown an absolutely complete indifference to them, at which he was not surprised, because when it became a question of priority between the Government on one side and a private Member on the other, naturally the Government tried to get all they possibly could. The Government came forward with those proposals because they wanted to get more time for themselves; but, on the other hand, private Members desired to retain as many of their privileges as they could. His right hon. friend the First Commissioner of Works said he could not believe that the Amendment was seriously put forward. For his own part, he hoped most sincerely that that Amendment and the next would be seriously pressed by private Members on both sides of the House with all the earnestness they could command. His right hon. friend said that the proposal was not new. That might be true in one sense, but the proposal was now to be carried out in a totally new way. Hitherto, private Members' days could only be obtained by the Government after discussion and by the assent of the House, but in future the process would be absolutely automatic. His right hon. friend the Leader of the House admitted that what he called the paper rights of private Members would undoubtedly be largely entrenched upon by the new Rules, and he pointed out that there would be compensation in the fact that the Government would not, in future, take away the remaining rights of private Members. How did his right hon. friend know that? What guarantee could he give to the House of Commons upon that point? So long as his right hon. friend remained a Member of the present Government, he could give that assurance.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the right hon. Gentleman could not, because he would not be so foolish as to bind himself for all the time he would be in office.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he understood that the argument of his right hon. friend was that the Government would not take away the remaining rights of private Members.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that was a pious hope, not a pledge.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that a statement made by the Leader of the House for the purpose of obtaining the support of his followers on a particular proposal should be considered as something more than a pious hope, and as a guarantee, so far as it could be given, for his own Government. Of course, his right hon. friend could not give a pledge as regarded future Governments, as no Government was immortal. He saw absolutely nothing whatever to prevent any future Government proposing to apply the provisions of Section D of this particular Rule to Easter instead of to Whitsuntide if they thought their necessities required it. He would give the House one little illustration from his own personal experience last session of the difficulties in which private Members would be placed. He was interested in a little Bill called the Beer Bill. For nearly the whole of the session, he was sorry to say, he felt it his duty to be continually pestering his right hon. friend and asking him to give facilities to get that Bill to a Grand Committee. Those facilities were refused and refused, until at last he thought to himself that the time had come when really something should be done. He consulted his friends and hon. Members who were in favour of the Bill, and before the day came on which the Government intended to ask for all the days after Whitsuntide, he issued a rather strong whip to his friends and to the supporters of the Bill asking them to refuse, to consent to the Motion of the Government unless a distinct promise were made in the direction he desired. He was glad to say he was successful so far as the Government was concerned, but he did not think he would have got what he did if he had not secured the support of a number of Gentlemen on that occasion

  1339
  That would be impossible in the future if the proposal before the House were accepted. It was really nothing more nor less than an additional attack on private Members and a further curtailment of their rights. As he had already said, it rested entirely with private Members to say whether or not they would assent to the change being made. If they did assent, he personally would very much regret it in the interests of the House of Commons itself, as well as in the interests of private Members, and he also believed in the best interests of the country, for

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart

  Malcolm, Ian

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r

  Milvain, Thomas

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Finch, George H.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Arrol, Sir William

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morgan, David J. (W'lthamstow

  Bagot, Capt, Josceline FitzRoy

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Mount, William Arthur

  Balcarres, Lord

  Flower, Ernest

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

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

  Gordon, Hon J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Murray Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(S'lop

  Nicol Donald Ninian

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bigwood, James

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

  Pease, Herbert Pike (D'rlington

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Bond, Edward

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Penn, John

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Purvis, Robert

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Randles, John S.

  Bull, William James

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ash'frd

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Butcher, John George

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Richards Henry Charles

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edwd. H.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire

  Henderson, Alexander

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Robinson, Brooke

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Round, James

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rutherford, John

  Charrington, Spencer

  Houston, Ropert Paterson

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Knowles, Lees

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

  Shaw-Stewart, H. M. (Renfrew)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Cranborne, Viscount

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

  Spear, John Ward

  Cross, Herb-Shepherd (Bolton)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Doughty, George

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  he did not think it was desirable, whether the Government belonged to one party or to the other, that the initiation of all business and of all legislation should rest in the hands of the Government and the Government alone. It was because he held those views most strongly that he would warmly support his hon. friend if he went to a division.
  (10.55.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 182; Noes, 130. (Division List No. 92.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Wyndham, Ht. Hon. George

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Walker, Col. William Hall

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

  Younger, William

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Wortley, Rt Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell-(Birm

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Dowd, John

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  O' Kelly, James, (Roscommon, N

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Malley, William

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Mara, James

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hammond, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Palmer, George Wm, (Reading)

  Austin, Sir John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Partington, Oswald

  Barry, E. (Cork. S.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Bell, Richard

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Black, Alexander William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Blake, Edward

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Prics, Robert John

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

  Holland, William Henry

  Priestley, Arthur

  Brigg, John

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Rea, Russell

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Reddy, M.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Joicey, Sir James

  Redmond, John E (Waterford)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Burns, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Caine, William Sproston

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Caldwell, James

  Lambert, George

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Russell, T. W.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy, Maurice

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lough, Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Chaplain, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lundon, W.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cogan, Denis J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Crae, George

  Tennant, Harold John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Kean, John

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, J. A (G'amorgan, Gower

  Delany, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Tomkinson, James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Wallace, Robert

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mooney, John J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Edwards, Frank

  Murphy, John

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Ellis, John Edward

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Norman, Henry

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Field, William

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Ernest Gray.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  MR. GIBSON BOWLES*(11.8.) MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved to omit paragraph (d). Under the Standing Orders the Government were entitled to only four-tenths of the time of the House, while as a matter of fact they always obtained nine-tenths of it. But how did they get it? By permission of the House, after coming down, making the request, and making out a case. There had always been periods when the Government required time beyond that given by the Standing Order, but it had been necessary that the Government should show that the business they had to do was more than could be dealt with in the time allotted. That Standing
  1342
  Order had never been an impediment to any Government getting the time they wanted. The question the House had now to consider was whether they should release, not this Government alone, but all Governments for ever, from the necessity of making out a case for taking the whole of private Members' time. Whether the power given by paragraph (d) was conferred or not, the Government would always be able to get the time they required. The very first line of the Rule showed that it was contemplated that on any emergency they should come down and ask for the time. That was quite reasonable, and the whole of his conten-

  1343
  tion was that the House should keep its ancient rights over its own business, that it should not hand those rights over to the Government by Rules such as that now proposed, by which hard and fast lines were laid down as to what should be done before and after Easter, and before and after Whitsuntide. The Rule had no elasticity; it left no power in the hands of the House. The House would have no control over its own business, but would become little more than a mere registering machine for saying "Aye" or "No," according to the dictates of the Government of the day.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 9, to leave out paragraph (d)—'After Whitsuntide, Government business shall have precedence at all evening sittings, and at all Friday sittings except the sittings on the third and fourth Fridays after Whit Sunday.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  Question proposed—"That the first word 'after' stand part of the Question."
  MR. CHANNINGcordially supported the Amendment. He welcomed it the more because it raised a wider question than that involved in the Amendment he himself had on the Paper. Every Member who had been in the House during the last seven years could recall many instances in which the discussion of the position of public business had been a real benefit to the whole House, and even to the Government itself. Amongst others, mention might be made of the Education Bill of 1896, when such discussions had been of real and essential value to the House in asserting its right and in helping or checking the Government, where check was necessary. He had been present at most of those discussions for the last fifteen years, and none of them ever went to any serious length, and those questions had usually been disposed of after one or two hours discussion. Those opportunities had hitherto been employed in useful criticism of public business, in checking mismanagement and directing the channel of public affairs in an effective manner. He thought hon. Members ought to safeguard the right of the House to take its share in the conduct of public business.
  MR. DISRAELIcontended that if the Government wanted more time, they ought to take it in a constitutional manner. At a certain period of the
  1344
  session they always had what was known as "the massacre of the innocents," which was followed by an explanation of what the Government intended to do. He held that this course was necessary and was not a waste of time. His right hon. friend the Member for North-East Manchester was very severe upon him for saying that the First Lord of the Treasury had abused the feelings of the House with callous indifference, but what he meant was that the right hon. Gentleman had abused and forgotten the traditions and history of the House, which were the property of every Member. He should certainly support this Amendment if it went to a division, because he believed that such discussions were a distinct advantage.
  MR. TENNANTsaid that it was in the general interest of the House to leave this time to private Members. The settled policy of the Government seemed to be to take the time of the House from unofficial Members. If hon. Members would enquire, they would soon find how many useful things had been passed and initiated by private Members. He might mention in this connection the Fair Wages Resolution.
  MR. LOUGHthought that some Minister ought to get up and say a few words upon this very drastic change. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that no case had been made out for the Amendment, but it was the duty of the Government to make out a better case for their proposal. A very great principle was involved in the present Amendment, and this was a debate in which they were fixing an important Standing Order of the House under which they would work perpetually. He agreed with what had been said by the hon. Member opposite in regard to "the massacre of the innocents." The Government had got all the time they could get, and there was no reason why they should waste time explaining measures which could not be proceeded with. This was a question which involved the principle of the control of the House over the Ministry, and the Ministry should not forget that they were still the servants of the House. He was quite willing to accept a

  1345
  compromise upon this matter, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether it was not possible for him to get at least one of the proposals contained in the Amendment. He appealed to the Government to make some defence of the very strong position they were taking up.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYagreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for North-East Manchester in his statement that the public took a keen interest in the procedure of the House. One thing which he found very keenly commented upon outside was in reference to Bills which had reached the Third Reading, and had passed all but the Third Reading at a certain stage of the session. When that stage was reached, the Rules of the House prevented the measure being taken, and he had heard this Rule described outside as idiotic. In the past, when the Government came to ask for the whole time of the House at Whitsuntide, it was generally possible to bargain with them for facilities for certain private Members' Bills. Under this new Rule the Government would be relieved of all such responsibility. A Bill might have passed its Second Reading, and be merely awaiting the Third Reading, and the measure might be lost altogether simply because no opportunity could be found for bringing it forward. The public were keenly interested in private Bills, and, while it might be perfectly true that a large number of Motions were a waste of time, it was equally true that a few important measures had certainly originated with private Members, some of which had afterwards been taken up by the Government, who generally got the whole of the glory for such legislation. Those opportunities were likely to disappear now, for such legislation would be crushed by a Standing Order which had no elasticity, and such a Standing Order was not fitted to modern requirements. It was because he could not contemplate with equanimity Standing Orders which were so rigid, and which were not adaptable to any change in circumstances, year by year, that he was opposed to this proposal. His opposition was not raised in a spirit of obstruction, but simply because he was afraid the proposal which had been put forward would not make for the progress
  1346
  of public business, and would arouse irritation amongst various classes of the community, who were deeply interested in measures which the Government might not think fit to take up.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the fears entertained by his hon. friend were wholly illusory. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that by the Standing Orders proposed the Government were destroying the possibility of starring private Members' Bills, or of giving such facilities as were given last year to the Children's Bill. There was no basis whatever for those fears. The action taken by the Government in this matter was not prompted by that idea, and the hon. Gentleman was wrong in his recollection of what actually took place at the end of the session. He seemed to suppose that "the massacre of the innocents" took place upon a demand of the time of the House, which would be removed by this proposal. Never on that occasion had he made what was called an announcement of the policy of the Government in regard to the dropping of Bills. That had always been reserved for a far later period of the session. It was a very painful operation, but he was afraid it would have to be done under the new Rules as under the old Rules. That was the occasion which was usually chosen by successive Governments for announcing the course to be pursued with regard to Bills which had been brought before the House. The object of this portion of the Standing Orders, as of other portions, was to endeavour to do two things—to bring the Standing Orders of the House into some conformity with the unvarying practice of the House, and to so arrange the Standing Order that more of the rights of private Members should be preserved than had been or could be preserved under the existing system. He did not go into the second of these topics now, for that was more appropriate to the earlier clauses of the Standing Order which had already been passed. The rights of private Members were in abeyance at this moment, they were in abeyance last session, and also at the time when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office. Never after Whitsuntide, except in connection with two or three Wednesdays, had any Government found

  1347
  it possible to give privileges to private Members' Bills, nor in his opinion was it desirable that this should be done. If the work of the session could be got through in a short time, let them, in heaven's name, adjourn early, and not be carrying on after Whitsuntide discussions of private Bills, which from the nature of the ease, so far as the Bills were concerned, could not come to any fruition in the course of that session. He did not admire, as some hon. Gentlemen appeared to admire, the debates that had taken place on the demand of successive Governments for the time of the House He thought they were extremely fruitless, monotonous, and barren of new ideas or useful criticism. He thought the time occupied on them was wholly wasted. He submitted that those who talked so glibly of the dignity of the House showed in this case a somewhat faint regard for it, because surely it could not be for the dignity of the House that they should keep upon their Standing Orders Rules which in the memory of every man in the House had never once been regarded or left unmodified in any session. They should make the Standing Orders of the House conform with the practice.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that after the refusal of the last Amendment this Amendment was more than ever necessary. The practice of which his right hon. friend spoke was comparatively quite a modern practice. If he understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, he said that not in the memory of any man in the House had any Government allowed private Members to interfere with the right of the Government to take the time of the House after Whitsuntide.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said that a session had never passed in the memory of any man in which the amount of time given by the Standing Orders to private Members had not been modified.
  MR. CHAPLINdid not think his right hon. friend was right even in that. Certainly in the earlier sessions in his own experience the rights of private Members were not interfered with, and the attempts which were now made to rob them of these rights would not have been submitted to. He utterly denied that in the earlier days of his experience
  1348
  of the House there was anything approaching to the practice which his right hon. friend now said was invariable. It had only grown up in modern days. He should certainly support the Amendment.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORthought the Leader of the House was not entirely mindful even of the history of his own Parliamentary lifetime, when he described these discussions as quite fruitless. Such Motions gave to the Opposition a desirable opportunity of criticising the use the Government had made of their time, and the power of calling the Government to account for the conduct of the business of the Departments. The whole bent of the right hon. Gentleman's, mind was that all criticism of the Government was futile. He took the opposite view. What happened when the Motion to appropriate private Members' time was before the House? It was true that the Motion was always carried, but the discussion gave the opponents of the Government a desirable opportunity for criticising the action of the Government. The more frequently the House could bring the Government to account, the better chance there was that the affairs of the Empire would be properly conducted. In a democratic assembly like this, they ought to have every opportunity for bringing the action of administrative Departments before the attention of the House. He instanced the debate on the case of Miss Cass, and its result, as one of the greatest triumphs of that House as the guardian of the liberties of the humblest citizen.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had not referred to Motions for adjournment; the Cass case was raised on a Motion for the adjournment.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid his second point was that the fate of the Government might hang in the balance on one of those Motions in question. They had had that evening a very interesting chapter from that volume of reminiscences which he hoped the right hon. Member for Sleaford would some day give in extenso to the world. The right hon. Gentleman wanted a particular Bill to be brought before the House on a particular day, and he showed how he got that opportunity for discussing his

  1349
  Bill by bringing pressure to bear on the Government, and by proving that there was a sufficiently large number of Members of the House who would support the Bill and were anxious for its discussion. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Child Messenger Bill, but he himself maintained that some of the most useful legislation passed by the House had been brought in by private Members. He himself had been able to pass the Labourers' Dwellings Act for Ireland, which had covered that country with proper sanitary cottages instead of dog hovels. Then the hon. Member for South Shields had been able to pass a Bill which had revolutionised the position of children in this country. These and many more Bills had become law because the private Members who introduced them had the support of hon. Members in the House and of public opinion outside, and so were able to bring pressure on the Government. If they removed from the Government the necessity of coining to the House to get the time of the House, they, therefore, deprived a Member, however backed up by public opinion, of the opportunity of putting pressure on the Government to get a day for the discussion of any measure. One of the great faults of the present Rule was the omnipotence it gave to private Members to delay legislation.

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Flower, Ernest

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wrc'r

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Arnold-Foster, Hugh O.

  Charrington, Spencer

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

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gore, Hn. G R C Ormsby-(Salop

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Balcarres, Lord

  Colomb, Sir. John Charles Ready

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Green, Walford D. (W'dnesb'ry

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hamilton, Rt Hn. Lord G (Mid'x

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Bond, Edward

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanl'y

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Doughty, George

  Helder, Augustus

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Douglas, Right Hon. A. Akers-

  Henderson, Alexander

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Bull, William James

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Hobhouse, Henry. (Somerset E.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hope, J. F. (Shefield, Brights'de

  Butcher, John George

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Hoult, Joseph

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (M'nc'r

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

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

  Finch, George H.

  Knowles, Lees

  He saw the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich and the hon. Member for Mid Lanark present. These were the true masters of the House, the true leaders of the House. The right hon. the First Lord of the Treasury was under the hallucination that he was the Leader of the House. Why, he was only the humble slave and follower of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich and the hon. Member for Mid Lanark. That might seem a joke or a paradox, but everyone knew that it was perfectly true, and that these hon. Members were perfectly omnipotent over the fate of private Bills. The House might possibly sit until late in August—although he hoped it would not. That meant that for three months of the Parliamentary session there would not be one scrap of time left to the private Members: and the right hon. Gentleman invited them to follow the example of Japanese politicians of old, who committed personal suicide. He thought it was a marvellous thing that the right hon. the Leader of the House was able to propose a revolution of that kind on the whole procedure of Parliament without even dignifying it by raising his hat.
  (11.53) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 179; Noes, 118. (Division List No.93.)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareh'm

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Spear, John Ward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Leveson-Glower, Fred'rick N. S.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

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

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Loyd, Archie, Kirkman

  Penn, John

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Pilkington, Lieut-Col. Richard

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. WG Ellison

  Purvis, Robert

  Valentia, Viscount

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Randles, John S.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Whiteley, H. (Asht'nund, Lyne

  M'Calmont, Col. H L B (Cambs.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  M'Killop, James,(Stirlingshire

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Robinson, Brooke

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Mildmay, Erancis Bingham

  Round, James

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

  Milvain, Thomas

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Rutherford, John

  Wolff', Gustav Wilhelm

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C B. Stuart

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Morgan, David J. (Walth'mst'w

  Sandys, Lieut. Col. Thos Myles

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Seely, Charles, Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major H. W.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Seely, Maj. J E B (Isle of Wight)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Younger William

  Muntz, Phillip A.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Smith, H. C (North'mb Tyneside

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  O'Malley, William

  Allan, William, Gateshead

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Mara, James

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

  Hammond, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Partington, Oswald

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Heyne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Bell, Richard

  Holland, William Henry

  Perks, Robert William

  Black, Alexander William

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Blake, Edward

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Price, Robert John

  Brigg, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Priestley, Arthur

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Rea, Russell

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Joyce, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burns, John

  Lambert, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Caine, William Sproston

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Caldwell, James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Russell, T. W.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lough, Thomas

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lundon, W.

  Sheenan, Daniel Daniel

  Channing, Francis Allston

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Spencer, Rt. Hn CR (Northants

  Cogan, Dennis J.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Kean, John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, David Alfred (M'rthyr

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan Gower

  Delany, William

  M'Laren, Charles, Benjamin

  Tomkinson, James

  Denny, Colonel

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mooney, John J.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Murphy, John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Edwards, Frank

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Ellis, John Edward

  Norman, Henry

  Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk. Mid.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.

  Field, William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Gibson Bowles and Mr. Disraeli.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  O'Dowd, John

  Main Question again proposed.
  Debate arising.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday.
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.