Sitting of 11 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.

  PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—
  Liverpool Corporation Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time upon Monday next.

  FURNESS RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS BILL).
  Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  NOTTINGHAM AND RETFORD RAILWAY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  GRAND JUNCTION WATER BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read, the third time.
MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
  SOUTHPORT AND LYTHAM TRAMROAD BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
TIPTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Ordered, That the Order [5th February] that the Tipton Urban District Council Bill be committed, be read and discharged. Bill withdrawn. (Mr. Caldwell.)
MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2).
Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Secretary of State under the Military Lands Act, 1892, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Brodrick and Lord Stanley.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4).
Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Aberdare, Amble, Dover, Frinton-on-Sea, Gillingham (Kent), Hindhead and District, Leadgate, Leather-head District (Ashstead and Mickleham), Paignton, and Stanley (Durham), ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Austen Chamberlain.
MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
"To confirm a Provisional Order of the Secretary of State under the Military Lands Act, 1892," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 145.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Aberdare, Amble, Dover, Frinton-on-Sea, Gillingham (Kent), Hind-head and District, Leadgate, Leatherhead District (Ashstead and Mickleham), Paignton, and Stanley (Durham)," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Committee—

1. "That, in the case of the London United Tramways Petition, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with; That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8 be struck out of the Bill; That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such order has been complied with."

2. "That, in the case of the South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Bill, Petition for additional provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with; That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional provision provided the Committee on the Bill think fit."

3. "That, in the case of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 129 in the case of the Petition of the 'Metropolitan Registered Lodging House Keepers' Association, and Registered Lodging House Keepers in the Metropolis 'against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

4 "That, in the case of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with; That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the powers to construct Tramway No. 11 be struck out of the Bill: That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

5. "That, in the case of the South Shields. Sunderland, and District Tramways Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with; That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

6. "That, in the case of the Exeter and District Tramways Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with; That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10, and so much of Tramways Nos. 2 and 3 as lie within the boundaries of the city of

5
Exeter, be struck out of the Bill; That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

7. "That, in the case of the Birmingham and Midland Tramways Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the powers to construct Tramway No. 1 be struck out of the Bill, and that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 7, 7A, 8, 9, 9A, and 9B, be struck out of the Bill, unless the consent of the Oldbury Urban District Council be proved before the Committee on the Bill; That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

8. "That, in the case of the Hastings Tramways Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided the powers for the proposed extension tramway be struck out of the Bill; That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

9. "That, in the ease of the Mexborough and Swinton Tramways Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with; That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

Resolutions agreed to.

LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS.
Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Goulding and Mr. Ridley.

PETITIONS.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  FRESH WATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Dumbarton and Cupar Eden; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' CERTIFICATES (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh and Leith, against; to lie upon the Table.
  HONORARY FREEDOM OF BOROUGHS EXTENSION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Westminster and St. Marylebone; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Amhurst Park: Woburn Sands; Ulverston; Sheffield: Kentish Town; Northmavine; Taunton; Burnley; and York; to lie upon the Table.
  OUTDOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Turiff; Lark-hall; and Lochans; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF LAND VALUES.
  Petition from Dumbarton for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petitions against: From Malton and Chepstow; to lie upon the Table.
  REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TAXATION OF FEU DUTIES FOR LOCAL PURPOSES.
  Petition from Kilmarnock, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2762 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (GENERAL REPORTS).
  Copy presented, of General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Southern Division of Scotland for the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 10th April; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 135.]

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 10th April; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 136.]
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.

  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY OF LANCASTER).
  Further Return relative thereto [ordered 8th August, 1898; Mr. Grant Lawson.]
(3.35.) QUESTIONS.

  South African War—Peace Negotiations.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any information to give to the House as to events in South Africa.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): No, Sir. His Majesty's Government is not at present in receipt of any communication with regard to terms from the Boer leaders.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: Has Lord Kitchener been authorised to offer any other terms than those already offered.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not in a posit on to make any statement on that subject.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government are in possession of the terms in which Mr. Schalk Burger and the other Transvaal representatives asked for safe conduct, and the reasons they assigned for that request; and, if so, whether they will communicate this information to the House; whether Mr. Steyn and the
  8
  Orange River representatives are meeting the Transvaal representatives at Klerksdorp on the suggestion of the Government of Lord Kitchener or on the invitation of the Transvaal representatives; and whether the Government are in possession of the terms of this suggestion or invitation; if so, will they communicate it to the House.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have nothing to add to the statement which I made yesterday.
  MR. BLACK: May I ask whether there is any word of an armistice during the absence of the commandants from their districts?
  MR. BRODRICK: There will certainly not be an armistice.

  General Botha's Home.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the reasons for the blowing up by the British soldiery of Commandant General Botha's home at Waterfall Vreheid; and can the War Office give approximately the date of the destruction of this house, which was intact in August last.
  MR. BRODRICK: No report of such, an occurrence has been received at the War Office,
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Well I know it to be true.

  The Sutherland Skirmish.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will ask Lord Kitchener his reasons for withholding from the War Office the details of the engagement of the 24th March last, having regard to the fact that he has supplied the list of casualties without any particulars of the action.
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Quite right

  French Ambulance for the Boers.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Vicomte Villebois Mareuil, whose application to be permitted to conduct an ambulance service to the Boer farms has been refused by the War Office, has asked permission to forward medical necessaries for the use of the Boer commandoes; and, if so, what reply has been given to this request.
  MR. BRODRICK: The answer again is no.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman decline to answer the Question, or is it the fact that these medical requisites have been refused?
  MR BRODRICK: No application to this effect has been received from Vicomte Villebois Mareuil.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman refused to entertain an application?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Volunteer Kits.
  MR. SHARPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the existing regimental regulations of the Volunteer forces could be modified to allow of boots being supplied as part of the existing kit, or in lieu of less useful articles, such as dress tunic for special ceremonial parades.
  MR. BRODRICK: I will consider this suggestion, but I fear that there may be difficulties about carrying it out.

  Medical Examination of Yeomanry Recruits.
  Sir. ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to a new attestation form (Army form E 595) for Yeomanry recruits issued to Home Yeomanry regiments, in which a certificate of medical examination is required in the form set out; whether the only persons allowed by the War Office to medically examine recruits or the Home Yeomanry are all medical officers and civil practitioners authorised
  10
  to examine recruits and medical officers of regiments of Imperial Yeomanry in Great Britain; whether it has been brought to his notice that in agricultural counties this regulation either entails on recruits living remote from an authorised medical examiner loss of time and expense in travelling, or similar loss to medical officers of Yeomanry regiments who are civil practitioners; and whether, with the view of preventing detriment to recruiting, he will sanction the medical examination of recruits for the Imperial Yeomanry, in Great Britain, by any resident civil practitioner at places where an officer qualified under the regulation mentioned is not available, or will he consider the advisability of compensating the recruits and Yeomanry medical officers for their losses and expenses.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): It rests with the General Officer Commanding and the Principal Medical Officer of each command to make the necessary arrangements for the examination of Yeomanry recruits, and, to meet the special circumstances of the Yeomanry, extra civil medical practitioners can be appointed when necessary, the expenses being recovered under the conditions of Paragraph 483 of the Militia Regulations.

  Colonial Contingents—Terms of Service.
  Sir ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Colonial contingents now serving in South Africa are enlisted for a definite term; and, if so, for how long; whether within the last twelve months any Colonial contingents have been enlisted for the period of the war; and whether any Imperial Yeoman or Volunteer Service Companies have been enlisted for a definite term.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Colonial contingents now serving in South Africa have been enlisted on various terms, but in many instances for the period of the war. Oversea contingents have been recently enlisted for one year or the period of the war. The Imperial Yeomanry raised under Special Army Order of 19th December, 1901, were enlisted for a year or the period of the war. The Volunteer Service Companies enlisted

  11
  under February Army Orders were enlisted for a year, of which not more than nine months will be spent in South Africa.
  In reply to a further Question,
  MR. BRODRICKrepeated that some of the Colonial men had enlisted for a year only.

  Remount Supplies.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Lord Kitchener has reported the absence of horses up country for a large number of trained regular soldiers belonging to the mounted branches of His Majesty's forces; whether there are also engaged in warlike operations a considerable number of the police, especially picked for mounted duty, who are without horses; whether Lord Kitchener still reports the supply of horses in South Africa to be sufficient, and what steps the Government are now taking to increase the supply of ponies or small horses, especially South African or British bred.
  LORD STANLEY: I have no information in regard to the first and second paragraphs of the Question: no such report has been received from Lord Kitchener. Lord Kitchener has reported that the numbers proposed to be for-warded to South Africa during March, April, and May would meet his requirements. Over 14,000 horses were shipped in March.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: The first paragraph of my Question is based on information from South Africa; the second on a statement of fact by the Government.

  Horse Purchases.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can say what horses have been purchased during March, and from what countries they have been drawn.
  LORD STANLEY: 1,245 horses were purchased in Great Britain and 183 in Ireland during March. It is not possible to state the exact number of horses purchased abroad, as the accounts for
  12
  March are not yet to hand, but 6,546 horses were shipped from Fiume; 5,365 from the United States of America, and 751 from Canada.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will say what horses have recently been purchased at Preston: and whether those purchased were sent to Carlisle to be inspected and then sent to Aldershot; and, if so, why was this expense incurred.
  LORD STANLEY: No horses have been purchased at Preston this year.

  Army Recruits—Age Regulations.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what is the age fixed in the Army Regulations under which recruits cannot be enlisted, or, if enlisted on false representations made by them as to their age, their parents or guardians can, under these Regulations, claim their discharge.
  LORD STANLEY: The hon. Member will find the information required by the first part of the Question in Appendix II of the Recruiting Regulations, and that required by the second part in paragraph 1,805, Sub-section vi, of the Kings Regulations.

  Highland Regiments and the Kilt.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it has been decided that the kilt is no longer to form part of the fighting kit of Highland regiments, and that it is to be replaced by trews.
  The following Questions also appeared on the Paper—
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether Highland regiments in South Africa are to be prohibited wearing the kilt, and if so, will he state who is responsible for this Regulation; is he aware that medical authorities state that the Highlanders have enjoyed greater immunity from stomach troubles than other troops owing to the thickness of cloth protecting the abdomen; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction which will be caused among Highland regiments, and

  13
  the consequent loss of recruits, will the order be rescinded, or not enforced until the opinion of Highlanders, who have personal experience of the many advantages of the kilt, has been obtained.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether orders have been issued by Lord Kitchener or the War Office that the Highland regiments in South Africa are no longer to wear the kilt: if so, what is the reason for its abolition: and what, in future, will be the distinguishing dress characteristic of these regiments.
  MR. HARMSWOR THE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if it is intended to abolish the wearing of the kilt by the Highland regiments; and if so, if he has considered the probable effect of this Regulation upon the recruiting for these regiments.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Highland regiments will retain the kilt for full dress, and instructions will be issued for providing a kilt of khaki, or some invisible colour, on active service, as is now done in South Africa.
  MR. WEIR: Who is responsible for the Regulations, and will the order be rescinded, or not enforced until the opinion of Highlanders, who have personal experience of the many advantages of the kilt, including the greater immunity from stomachic troubles which the kilt gives, has been obtained? Does the gentleman who made the Regulation know anything about the Highlanders?
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not sufficiently acquainted with the subject to be able to say anything about abdominal troubles. The Regulations are made for the whole Army, but there are exceptions in the case of Highlanders.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Is it the intention of the War Office that the distinctive tartans of the kilt are to be abolished in the Highland regiments, and is this action being taken by the War Office in revenge for Bannockburn?
  MR. BRODRICK: Of course the distinctive tartan of the Highland regiments will be preserved.

  Navy—Submarine Boats.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the recent trials of the submarine boats built for His Majesty's Navy have satisfied the Admiralty of the utility of these vessels for purposes of naval warfare; and whether it is proposed to build the other submarine boats provided for in the Estimates on the same pattern.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The trials of the submarine boats now under construction at Barrow are not yet completed, and more extended trials will be required before the exact limitations of the use of these boats can be determined. Provision is made in the Estimates for the current year for the building of additional boats, with such modifications and improvements as experience may suggest.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it was by the permission or authority of the First Lord of the Admiralty that photographs of the submarine boats just completed for His Majesty's Navy recently-appeared in an illustrated paper: and, if so, why was the paper in question selected as the recipient of this favour.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: An application was received on behalf of an illustrated paper for permission to produce a photograph of a submarine boat, and this permission was granted. The paper was not "selected" by the Admiralty. I may add that the photograph actually reproduced was already in the possession of the paper referred to, and was not supplied by or with the permission of the Admiralty. It appears to represent the boat on the occasion of the launch.

  Patent Fuel for the Navy.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to a statement made recently by a naval officer of high rank to the effect that our depôts abroad were unprovided with patent fuel; and if he can state the quantities of patent fuel made

  15
  of high - class Cardiff coal which have been manufactured on account of, or purchased by, the Admiralty during the last three years for shipment to the Mediterranean and more distant depôts.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The question of supplying a good quality of patent fuel for use in the Navy was examined by an Admiralty Committee in 1898, and, in accordance with the Report of that Committee, and as the result of exhaustive trials, orders were given, in 1900, for the manufacture of patent fuel of the selected type. "Since that date additional orders have been given, and the fuel has been distributed in required quantities to various depôts abroad.

  Coal for the Navy.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any experiments have recently been made of Scotch coal for steaming purposes, either in the Mediterranean or elsewhere by the Admiralty: and, if so, whether he can state generally the results as compared with those given by Welsh coal; and will the reports furnished the Admiralty be laid upon the Table of the House.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: A number of experiments have been made with Scotch coal for steaming purposes, and though some of the coals supplied have valuable qualities, the Reports do not lead to the conclusion that they are as satisfactory for naval purposes as the Welsh coal. It is not proposed to lay the Reports furnished to the Admiralty on the Table.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: May I ask whether the Admiralty have tried anthracite in combination with Scotch coal in their experiments?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, I think it has been tried in several combinations. If the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of the question I will endeavour to ascertain.

  Expedition against the Mahsuds.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
  16
  India whether he will state what was the total number of the forces of the Indian Army recently employed in the recent Military expedition against the Mahsuds; and will he give separately the number of battalions of infantry, regiments of cavalry, mountain batteries' and Maxim guns, and of the field hospitals, and of commissariat and transport camels and bullocks employed; and will he state how long the operations lasted.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I am unable to give all the details asked for by the hon. Member, but I will enquire.

  Greenwich Union Workhouse.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the number of inmates in the Greenwich Union Workhouse is below the number for which the building is licensed; and that this number includes eighty-four children who are to be removed to better homes; and whether he is prepared to still refuse the request of the Guardians that he should receive a deputation, with a view to pointing out how unnecessary is the new Grove Park Workhouse, which will, if completed and furnished, cost the ratepayers of Deptford and Greenwich nearly £250,000.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): According to the last Return, viz., for the week ended 29th March last, the number of inmates in this workhouse was still in excess of the number for which the building is certified. I am aware that there were about eighty children among the inmates, but of these forty-four were infants under three years of age, who could not be dealt with by the Guardians otherwise than in the workhouse. I understand, however, that representatives of the Workhouse and Infirmary Committees of the Guardians are to be appointed for the purpose of reporting on the whole question. I have been in correspondence with my noble friend the Member for Greenwich as to my receiving a deputation,

  17
  and after the receipt of the Report referred to I will, it necessary, communicate with him further on the subject.

  Higher Education in London Board Schools.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Burghley Road and Monnow Road Schools, under the control of the London School Board, were sanctioned by the Board of Education (subject to the observance of certain conditions) as higher elementary schools, and that the London School Board then withdrew its application on behalf of these schools; whether reasons for the withdrawal were given to the Board of Education, and, if so, can he state what they were.
  THE SECRETARY OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,) (for Sir J. Gorst): Yes; the London School Board were unwilling to comply with the requirements of the Higher Elementary Schools Minute.

  Poor Law School Teachers.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, having regard to the; fact that prior to the issue of the Code of 1901 it was possible for a teacher to obtain a parchment certificate by service in a Boor Law School, and that such service is no longer accepted, whether he is prepared to amend Article 63 of the Day School Code, or recommend an alteration of the Superannuation Rules, so that Guardians of the Boor may be able to secure for their schools the services of teachers who, after leaving a training college, are required to pass a period of probation in order to obtain a certificate.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: Service in a Poor Law School is now accepted under Article 63 of the Code of 1901, and this; Article will be included in an even clearer form in the Code of 1902.

  Post Office Expenditure on Wireless Telegraphy.
  MR. FULLER: On behalf of the hon. Member for South
  18
  Wolverhampton, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state what total sum has been expended by the Post Office in connection with wireless telegraphy, whether for purchases, for experimentes, and for payments to individuals; and under what Votes this sum has been presented, or will be presented, to Parliament.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): Experiments in connection with wireless telegraphy have extended over a number of years, and the Postmaster General fears that it would not be possible for him to furnish the information desired by the hon. Member without considerable expense, which would scarcely be justified by the results. Such expenditure as has been incurred has been charged partly to the Vote for the Board of Trade and partly to the Post Office Vote for Telegraphs.

  Hospitals in the Highlands.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the difficulty experienced in securing suitable hospital accommodation in the poorer districts of the highlands and islands of Scotland, the Secretary for Scotland will consider the expediency of introducing legislation such as will provide for the establishment and maintenance of hospitals in congested areas.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am sorry I am not yet able to add anything to what I told the hon. Member on the 15th March, 1901. †

  Ballyshannon Petty Sessions—District Inspector O'Connor, R. I. C.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state the result of the inquiry instituted into the conduct of District Inspector O'Connor, Royal Irish Constabulary, on the representation made by the magistrates of the Ballyshannon Petty Sessions Bench, who are constant in their attendance at these Petty Sessions, with reference to the refusal of District
  †See (4) Debatas, XCI., 86.

  19
  Inspector O'Connor to carry out the order of the magistrates to remove constables whom he had placed at the entrance of the magistrates' room in the court house, and to obey other directions of the court.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Some of the magistrates attending Petty Sessions objected to the presence of a constable placed outside the door of their room whilst the court was sitting. Other magistrates, and apparently a majority of those residing in the district, have expressed full approval of the arrangement. Should, however, a majority of those attending the Petty Sessions desire the constable to be withdrawn at any time, the District Inspector will be happy to comply with their wishes.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That is fair.

  Prisoners under Crimes Act (Ireland).
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the hon. Member for South Mayo and Mr. Denis Johnston, who are at present confined in Tullamore Prison, under Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act sentences of four and five months respectively, are obliged to exercise in the ring with ordinary prisoners; and whether he will consider the advisability of relaxing the prison rules so as to permit Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Johnston to take exercise apart from the common prisoners.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have called for a report on the facts, but have not yet received it. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the question on Monday.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it intended to continue to treat these gentlemen as common criminals, in view of the judgment recently delivered by the Lord Chief Baron?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not prepared to debate this matter by Question and answer. When I have the report on the facts, I will then answer.

  Tallow Police Arrangements.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed to reduce the number of extra police stationed at Tallow, County Waterford; whether any person at Tallow is under special police protection; and, if so, can he state for what reason.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is not at present proposed to relax the police arrangements at Tallow. The extra force was sent there to afford protection to persons who were subjected to intimidation.

  Limerick Postal Staff Grievances.
  MR JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the extra attendance of the officers at the Limerick Post Office in the case brought under his notice was necessary, owing to the increased clerical labour entailed by the Jubilee concessions, and the introduction of the amalgamated system. Whether it is usual to accept the services of officers gratuitously, and whether he is aware that a claim for overtime was previously lodged by one of the men; whether, seeing that necessary services, were rendered, he will now undertake to make further inquiries with a view to having the claim allowed. And, having regard to the fact that provision was made in the recent revision for one chief clerk, two superintendents, one clerk, and four sorting clerks and telegraphists in the postmaster's enquiry office, will he state whether their absence from their different departments is provided for; and is he aware that previous to the 11th March dual officers had ceased to be employed in the telegraph office.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is not aware that the extra attendance of the officers referred to at Limerick was due to the cause stated, or that any claim for overtime has been made by one of those officers. Any such claim, if made, will receive duo-consideration. In the event of any of the officers mentioned in the last paragraph being temporarily absent from the office, the usual provision would be made for their duties. As regards his inquiry

  21
  respecting "dual officers." the hon. Member is referred to the reply given to him on the subject on the 24th ultimo.†

  Cable Communication with Tory Island.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the cable communicaion between Tory Island and the Donegal mainland has for some months past been interrupted through the cable having been broken: and whether, as these islanders are engaged solely in the fishing industry, and as their season for fishing begins in May, steps will be immediately taken to have the cable repaired and communication restored.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is aware that cable communication between Tory Island and the Donegal mainland is interrupted. The cable is not, however, the property of the Postmaster General but of Lloyd's.

HOME INDUSTRIES BILL.
Order for Second Reading upon Friday next read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.
Leave given to present another Hill instead thereof.—(Colonel Denny.)

HOME INDUSTRIES (NO. 2) BILL.
"For the better regulation of Home Industries," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 147.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection that they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including agriculture and fishing), shipping, and manufactures—Mr. Jeffreys; and had appointed, in substitution, Mr. Talbot.
Mr. HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and
† See preceding Volume, p. 840.
22
Manufactures, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Shop Clubs Hill:—Mr. Ban bury, Sir Harry Bullard, Mr. Hunter Craig, Sir Charles Dilke, Major Evans-Gordon, Mr. Goulding, Mr. Claude Hay, Mr. Holland. Dr. Macnamara, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. Harry Samuel, Mr. George White. Mr. J. W. Wilson, Mr. Wylie, and Mr. Yoxall.
Mr. HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Licensing Bill:—Mr. Bailey, Mr. Bond. Sir Harry Bullard. Mr. Caine, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Emmott, Mr. Harwood, Major Jameson, Mr. Nussey, Mr. Remnant, Mr. White Ridley, Mr. Secretary Ritchie, Sir John Rolleston. Mr. Tritton, and Mr. Whittaker.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  HIGHWAYS BILL.
  "To amend the haw for the administration of Highways," presented by Mr. Bill, under Standing Order 31; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 1st May, and to be printed. [Bill 148.]
  UNDER SHERIFFS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To regulate the appointment, duties, and remuneration of Under Sheriffs in Ireland," presented by Mr. John Gordon, under Standing Order 31: supported by Mr. Lonsdale, Mr. Field, and Sir John Colomb; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 6th May and to be printed. [Bill 149.]
NEW PROCEDURE RULES.
[NINTH DAY'S DEBATE.]
NEW STANDING ORDER.

  PRIORITY OF BUSINESS.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on proposed New Standing Order (Priority of Business) as amended [10th April]. "
  Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
  Question again proposed, "That the words 'That 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) At the Evening Sittings of Tuesday and Wednesday Notices of Motion and Public Bills, other than Government Bills, shall have precedence of Government Business;

  (c) After Raster Government Business shall have precedence at the Evening Sittings of Tuesday;

  (d) After Whitsuntide, until Michaelmas, Government Business shall have precedence at all Evening Sittings, and at all Friday Sittings except the Sitting on the' be there inserted."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYmoved to leave out the words "and fourth" and to insert instead the words "fourth and fifth." The effect would, he said, be to give one more day to private Members. It was but a small concession he was asking for, as in practice the Government now gave three Wednesdays, and he now invited them to give the equivalent of three Fridays. He asked this because otherwise private Members would have very little chance of passing slightly contentious Bills through the House. Three separate days were usually required, but under the Government proposal only two would be available, and if there were a small and well-organised body in the House determined to oppose a measure, however acceptable it might be to Parliament generally, they could succeed in defeating it even if the Government were anxious to help it forward. There was another objection to the limit of two Wednesdays. It was quite true that in the past the Government, when asking for the whole of the time of the House, had been ready to make concessions and to give the third Wednesday; but if this hard and fast rule were laid down, they would not be willing to do so in the future. Members were now able to put pressure on the Government when they were anxious to take the whole of the
  24
  time of the House, and the result was that many a Bill got through which otherwise would be blocked. The right hon. Members for North East Manchester and Sleaford apparently objected to legislation by private Members, but the great majority of the Members of the House did not take that view. The right hon. Member for Sleaford had pointed out that, unless more time was reserved to private Members, the agricultural interest would be neglected. Undoubtedly, since the last General Election, little opportunity had been afforded of debating agricultural questions. The hon. Member for Finsbury, replying to that, said he was glad if that was the case, for agriculture had had more attention paid to it of late years than it deserved. Were hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were always declaring that they were the friends of the agricultural interest, prepared now to sacrifice that interest? If not, then he appealed to them to support this Amendment. Agricultural Members were well aware that the agricultural interest, at the present moment, was feeling strongly on the question of milk-blended butter. A Bill might be brought in by a non-official question to deal with the subject, and it would practically be an uncontentious measure, but the hon. Member for Finsbury, who objected to all agricultural measures, might, with some few of his friends, make it absolutely impossible to get the Bill through, and his Amendment was intended to meet cases such as that. There was, too, the social question, which had been raised by the hon. Member for East Somerset. There was a Bill now before the House affecting the great friendly societies of the country—promoted by the hon. Member for Stepney. That Bill had the general assent of the House, and had been referred to a Grand Committee, but what would be its fate if it came back to the House under the proposed Rule of the right hon. Gentleman? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley had threatened to move a number of Amendments, and one day might not be sufficient for the Report stage, and in that event the Bill would be killed. On behalf of the members of friendly societies he appealed to the House to accept his

  25
  Amendment, and thus give that particular Bill a chance. This was a question they ought to look at entirely from the point of view of the unofficial Member, because undoubtedly both front Benches dealt with it in a very half-hearted way. He had noticed that throughout these debates the Opposition Whips had only issued three line Whips, thereby practically telling hon. Members it did not matter whether or not they came down to the House. The general attitude of the Front Bench, mind, was to treat private Members as a general nuisance. They seemed to think that only the legislation which they themselves proposed was necessary or desirable. He therefore suggested that Members below the gangway on both sides should unite against those on the front Benches, so as to make it impossible either for the present or future Governments to prevent unofficial Members from carrying Bills of their own, however unpretentious.
  Amendment proposed—
  "D line 11, to leave out the words 'and fourth,' and insert the words 'fourth and fifth.' (Sir, Edward Strachey.)
  Question proposed "That the words 'and fourth' stand part of the Question."
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid he would urge the Government to make the little concession embodied in the Amendment. He admitted that under the proposals of the Government more time might be given to private Members' Bills than had been the practice in many sessions in the past; but hon. Members ought not to be expected to part with the whole of their time for Ministerial purposes, they should have some reasonable opportunity afforded them of passing their Bills into law. The House ought not to be reduced as far as their Bills are concerned to the level of a mere debating society.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid that no doubt it would be very difficult for private Members' Bills which had got through the Second Reading and Committee stages to become law if the Rule were passed in its present form, but he did not think that the Amendment provided the best solution.
  26
  One extra Wednesday or Friday would not be of much value. Members who had a special object in so acting could easily spread their opposition over three instead of over two Wednesdays. He would suggest that the difficulty might be got over by giving the Bills of private Members which obtained a Second Reading before Easter priority between Easter and Whitsuntide over Bills less advanced. That would give them a chance of passing into law-There was an old saw "Don't bite oft" more than you can chew," and it did seem to him that in using every Wednesday up to Whitsuntide for Second Readings they were biting a good deal more off than they had a chance of being able to chew. He humbly suggested to the Government that they might make this concession to private Members.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEhoped that the Government would give favourable consideration to this Amendment. When Governments had proposed to take the whole time of the House, they had not always been animated by the same guiding principle. He would like to point out the divergence of view in the present Government from that of its predecessor. In 1888, when the late Mr. W. H. Smith made a proposal to the House, by which the time allotted to private Members' Bills was affected, he said his object was to give Members, who had obtained assent to the principle of their Bills, opportunity for proceeding with them. Mr. Smith considered this a question for the House to decide, apart from Party majority. It was evident from what he said on that occasion, that Mr. Smith attached considerable importance to legislation proposed by private Members. On the other hand, the present Leader of the House wished to curtail the opportunities for passing such legislation. The present proposal to add a fifth Friday after Whitsuntide was a moderate one, and if the Government allowed a free decision, he felt confident that this and many other Amendments on the Paper would be carried.
  MR. FLYNNthought that a strong case had been made for the Amendment, and suggested that much stronger illustrations might have been

  27
  cited in support of it. To say that no legislation was of value except such as was promoted by the Government of the day was subversive of all Parliamentary traditions: yet it seemed to have become rooted in the minds of the occupants of both front Benches that private Members were to have no rights at all, and that there was to be no legislation except that which emanated from the Government of the day.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think it is desirable I should say a word or two on this Amendment. This topic, or a part of it, was very fully debated last night. I will not occupy the time of the House with a second speech on the subject; but there are some points I would like to put forward in an uncontroversial spirit, and with every desire to make the House understand the motives that influence the Government in the course they are pursuing. I have been represented as a tyrant anxious to deprive Members of the few remaining rags, tatters, or fragments of privileges they have the right to enjoy. I should be sorry to go down to posterity in that character, and I wish to point out that there is absolutely no basis in fact for the allegation. Under the system I have ventured to propose, I think it will be admitted that a scheme of business has been so arranged that the privileges of private Members will be preserved. I do not deny that it will be in the power of the majority to take them away for reasons which have been thought legitimate by every Government. But compare what the plan will give with what has been the habit in the past. I have had some figures taken out. I have been informed that in the course of the present session private Members will have seventeen Wednesdays. Parliament met rather before the usual time, and Whitsuntide is rather earlier. In 1888 private Members had twelve Wednesdays, in 1889, twelve; in 1890, thirteen; in 1891, fourteen; in 1892, thirteen; in 1893, seven; in 1894, eight; in 1895. fourteen; in 1896, ten; in 1897, thirteen; in 1898, nine; in 1899, fourteen; in 1900, fourteen. Under the circumstances I think I may appeal to the House to say whether there is the slightest ground for the allegation
  28
  that the Government are diminishing the total amount of time for private Members' legislation. Still it is said that with only two Fridays after Whitsuntide it is extremely difficult to bring legislation to fruitful result. I have admitted all along that in that contention there is a certain amount of truth. I have said on many occasions I do not think that, as a logical or coherent system, it is possible to defend our present system of dealing with private Members' Bills.
  On the other hand, I do not think the form of words suggested by the hon. Member opposite is one the House should hastily adopt. In the first place, if the object is to get through controversial Bills—in which term, in this connection, I include Bills which have behind them a great volume of opinion in the House, but are violently opposed by a small section—I do not think that stub Bills would have any better chance than they now possess, and the result, so far as that class of Bills is concerned, of giving another Wednesday would be that another day would be lost. There would be that time-limit in front of the opponents of the Bill, and they would combine to en-deavour to wreck the Bill—an endeavour which would, in very many cases, meet with a large amount of success. Then, turning to Bills which not only have a large amount or support in the House, but which, if not unopposed, have only a few luke-warm critics, those measures will get through under the present system, and also under the new system, quite as well as if the Amendment was accepted. It has been alleged over and over again in the course of the debate that the only means of forcing the Government to adopt a benevolent attitude towards private Members' Bills is in the debate which takes place when the time of the House is asked for. That is an entire misconception, and I am really surprised that anybody acquainted with Parliamentary practice should have thought it worth while, except for purposes of debate, to put it before the House. Every Government is sensitive to the opinion of the House, and especially to the opinion of those on whose votes it depends from day to day for existence. But the pressure which represents the opinion of

  29
  the House, and of the majority of the House, is not put on effectively in a debate of that kind. Everybody knows that the Government have means of obtaining information as to the feeling of the House on both sides, and they do their best to weigh the different views which prevail, and to shape their course accordingly. To put forward the idea that the House is going to throw out the demand for time on the ground that the Government does not grant privileges to a particular Bill, is entirely to misrepresent what has ever taken place. If that were done, it would amount to a vote of want of confidence, and no Government would attempt to continue to carry on the business of the House if they were deliberately defeated, after debate, on a question of that sort. That is not the way the thing is done, ever has been done, or ever will be done. I would remind the House that there is a far more important opportunity for making this demand than that afforded by the request for the time of the House immediately after Whitsuntide, which is a mere incident in the progress of the session. The time when these privileges are usually given to uncontroversial Bills is towards the end of the session. The announcement of the intentions of the Government with regard to the Bills to which they will give privileges is not made, as a rule, when they ask for time immediately after Whitsuntide; it is made when they ask the House for the purpose of winding up the session to consent to the abrogation of the Twelve o'clock rule for the remainder of the sittings. That opportunity remains wholly untouched by anything we propose to do.
  There is one other point, to which I have referred more than once, but which I beg the House most earnestly to bear in mind in dealing with this question of private Members' Bills. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division, who has taken so prominent a part in discussing these new Standing Orders, apparently looks at the whole matter as if it concerned the fate of the Pure Beer Bill alone. But let none of us regard the matter from the point of view of one particular measure. Let us consider it in the light of the general system which we wish to see adopted in this House. I am
  30
  far from denying that excellent work has been done, even in recent years, by private Members' Bills. But if the scheme of business which gives time to private Members is to be so adjusted as to enable very contentious Bills to pass through, I say most emphatically that you must alter your procedure with regard to the earlier stages through which private Members' Bills have to pass. It is surely perfectly manifest to all Members of experience that, if you are to allow private Members to carry through this House controversial Bills like those which the Government have to carry through, you must safeguard that procedure with the same safeguards as are applied in the case of Government measures. If the Government brings in a controversial Bill, you insist that there shall be a night devoted to the First Beading, three nights to the Second Beading, followed by prolonged discussion in Committee. Compare that with' the most controversial Bill brought in by a private Member. Take a Bill to repeal the Crimes Act. It would be brought in without a word; the debate on the Second Beading would probably be closured at half-past five, and the question put: and then, after three or four days before a Standing Committee, you might have an alteration in our legislation, for good or for bad, which every human being acquainted with House of Commons procedure will agree ought not to be initiated except on the responsibility of the Government of the day. Therefore, though I am far from saying that our present system is perfect, or that it ought not to be drastically reformed, I do say it would be a very hasty interference with ancient practice if we were to attempt to reform it simply by the method suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I think I reminded the House last night, but I may be forgiven for reminding them again today, that when some of us were younger, in our early days in the House, private Members at large had a very simple method of preventing the undue passage of controversial Bills—they were always talked out at half-past five or six o'clock. The only Bill in which as a private Member I was ever involved suffered that fate. I mention that simply to remind the House that you are touching a piece of machinery which ought to be surveyed as a whole before I you deal with any one of its weaknesses.

  31
  May I be permitted to recall the House for a moment to one of the realities of Parliamentary life so far as they affect the distribution of time. From listening to these debates, one would imagine there was an unlimited store of time in the keeping of the Government, which they ladled out to the various interests according to their respective merits. That is not the case. I traced out this morning how the case would stand if this new Rule passed, and it may interest the House if I give them my calculation as to the distribution of Parliamentary time as between the great topics or interests which we have to consider in the course of the session. I take a session of 120 days. I am afraid the present session will be longer, but for the purposes of this calculation I take 120 days as a good full session. That is, roughly, twenty-four Parliamentary weeks of forty hours each, giving altogether 960 hours. Those 960 hours we have to distribute amongst the various interests. I calculate the King's Speech as taking ten days, or eighty hours; Questions, on the ninety-six Question days, three-quarters of an hour a day, in seventy-two hours; private Members' Bills, fourteen Fridays—I have given what I regard as an underestimate; of the number of days they would get—making seventy seven hours: private Members' Motions, up to Easter, seven weeks at six hours a week, and, up to Whitsuntide, six weeks at three hours a week, less eight hours—that is the highest limit of the possible diminution—for Private Bill Business, altogether fifty-two hours: Private Bill Business, taking the sessional average over a good many years (this is from a Return), thirty-two hours; Supply, twenty-three counting days, to which we must add eleven days for Supplementary Estimates, and getting Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the three separate occasions on which that operation has to be accomplished, making 255 hours; extra days, consisting of Motions for the holidays. Votes of Censure, special Resolutions, Motions for adjournment and contingencies—I cannot put those at less than five or six days—say thirty-eight hours; then add for the Budget and Appropriation Bills, ten days, or seventy-eight hours; and the total, before you come to any legislation in the proper sense of the word, is
  32
  684 hours. Taking those 684 hours from the total of 960, you have left for Government legislation only 276 hours, or about six weeks. I am addressing an audience which is in the habit of spending the first fortnight of the session in bringing forward a series of Votes of Censure on the Government for not adding to their legislative programme. I ask whether it is possible to carry on the legislative work which the country desires on a less allowance of time than 276 hours in a session of 120 days. I am afraid I have detained the House upon this point, but I have endeavoured to show why it is that the Government have made these changes. We are anxious to carry out the legislation which the majority of the House, and presumably the majority of the country, desire should be carried out. I have tried to show why I think, if any alteration is made in the privileges of private Members, it should be done only after careful inquiry as to how those privileges work, and after very careful consideration of all the aspects of one of the most perplexing problems that has ever come before the House of Commons. I trust that the House will not accept the Amendment of my hon. friend.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAX (): I am sure the House will recognise and appreciate the temperate way in which the right hon. Gentleman has resumed the debate upon this question, which both yesterday and today has perplexed the House. The light hon. Gentleman has referred to a number of figures which are somewhat difficult to follow, and which I think will require a considerable amount of investigation before we altogether accept them. But still, if the conclusion he comes to is that there is not time enough for the Government to fulfil all the duties which fall upon them in the way of legislation and conducting the business of the country in this House, that is a conclusion which a good many of us have arrived at a long time ago, and we have a remedy for that unfortunate condition of things which may be called rough and ready, but which, at all events, would be an effective

  33
  remedy, namely, the remedy of devolution upon a largo scale of at least half the business with which the House is at present concerned. The right hon. Gentleman has enveloped in a cloud of figures the original question, which was the treatment of private Members. The right hon. Gentleman had the whole House with him when he said that the present arrangements for private Members' legislation are indefensible. The manner in which that legislation originates is absurd in itself; the ballot is absurd, and the whole proceedings from first to last are almost ludicrous, and, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have that large question looked into by a Committee, I am sure there will be no objection to that course in any part of the House. But we are dealing with that system as it exists, and it is not necessary to have any revolutionary measure altering those arrangements. What we have to do is to see that this new Rule does not take away from the private Member anything that he now has, and that it does not alter his position for the worse; and when I say his position, it is not because of any particular liking for the unofficial Member or his projects, but with a view to securing that the House should have the opportunity of itself deciding in these matters how far those projects are to be pursued.
  The right hon. Gentleman pointed out another matter, in which I am disposed very much to agree with him. He said that the mere giving of one, two, or three more fixed days for the purpose of the final stages of private Members' Bills will very likely be an illusory concession. It may be in many cases, because there is a fixed time which cannot be exceeded for these final stages, that there would no doubt be abundant opportunity and temptation for the evilly-disposed enemies of the measures to take those steps which are so obvious to them. Still here are many measures upon which the House may have bestowed an immense amount of labour—Bills which lave passed through their preliminary stages and through the Grand Committee, and been discussed at great cost of abour and time, and which are lost for want of opportunity. What we are
  34
  afraid of is that the right hon. Gentleman's proposals will diminish still further those opportunities. At all events, as we pointed out last night, it will make the optional Rule of recent years a cast-iron Rule in the future. It will take away from the House of Commons the opportunity of dealing more leniently towards the private Member and his desires than we have done in recent years. That is the cause of the strong expression of feeling we have had during the last two days, and I think the right hon. Gentleman might look with some favour upon the proposal of my hon. friend, and give an extra day for the purpose, in order to prevent the possibility of the private Member and private Members' legislation being worse off in the future than in the past.
  MR. CHAPLINagreed with the remark of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the conciliatory tone adopted in the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury. But notwithstanding that, holding the views which he did hold, he was bound to support any proposal which he thought improved the position of private Members or rendered the position: less hard than it would be under the scheme of his right hon. friend. At the same time, he was bound to say that if he had to choose between what the right hon. Gentleman opposite described as devolution—which he took to be the latest description of Home Rule—and the scheme of his right hon. friend the Leader of the House, undoubtedly he should feel it his duty to sacrifice what he believed to be the rights of the private Member. However that might be, that question, fortunately, did not arise at the present time. He entirely agreed with his right hon. friend that the Amendment as it stood would not be sufficient, and he was perfectly right in saying that it would simply lead to a useless loss of one more Parliamentary day in the great majority of cases. He should like to add to the Amendment of his hon. friend, by leaving out of the proposal of the Government the words:
  "on the third and fourth Fridays after Whit Sunday."

  35
  and insert, after "Sittings," the words:
  "and that all Friday Sittings, except the sittings on the first six Fridays after Whitsuntide."
  The right hon. Gentleman had described what would happen under the Bill by the figures he had submitted to the House, and he made out that private Members would have fourteen Fridays in the future. He thought in making this statement his right hon. friend forgot to consider that private Bill legislation would be relegated to private Members' nights.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to be able to satisfy the House upon that point when we come to that Rule.
  MR CHAPLINsaid he should be delighted if that were the case, but as the Rule stood, there was no doubt that the private Members' Fridays, under the Rules as they stood at present, would be seriously eaten into by the time which would be occupied by what is known as private Bill Legislation. If his right hon. friend was going to make some other arrangement for private Bill legislation, that would, of course, alter the position. There was, however, another side to the picture, and he was perfectly right in what he stated the previous night, for this system of taking private Members' Fridays was an entire innovation. In the year 1891, under the Rule of their late lamented friend, Mr. W. H. Smith, private Members' Wednesdays were not taken until the 15th of June; in 1890 they were taken on the 17th of June; in 1889, on the 17th of July; and in the year 1888, not until the 11th of July. Now the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take Fridays after Whitsuntide, which this year fell upon the 18th of May. His right hon. friend seemed to think that he regarded this question of the rights of private Members solely from the point of view of one particular Bill, but in that he was entirely mistaken. He stated himself the other night that there were bad Bills introduced by private Members, and that there were also a number of very good and useful Bills introduced by private Members, and he cited, as an illustration, the Children's Bill, and the Beer Bill which was introduced last Session.
  36
  One of his late colleagues said that the greatest danger they had, in his opinion, would arise from private Members' Bills supposing the Conservative Party were in opposition. He believed that was an entirely erroneous notion. The real danger they had to provide against in future was from a Government which might be composed of men of extreme opinions, and with the uncontrolled power they would have over the proceedings and the whole time of the House. That was the danger which they were laying up for themselves, and it might be perhaps not so distant as a good many of his hon. friends, in the pride of their present majority, believed.
  He was rather amused last night by the lecture addressed to him by the right hon. Baronet the Member for North-East Manchester upon his attitude towards the Government since he had ceased to be one of them. The right hon. Baronet had been kind enough, to write to him a letter couched in terms of kindly and almost fatherly remonstrance, but it might surprise him to learn that, not only personally but politically, upon all questions except in these Rules of Procedure his relations with his former colleagues since, to his regret, he parted from them had been universally of the most friendly character. Last night he asked the right hon. Gentleman to cite a single instance upon which he had been in opposition to the Government, and had tried to defeat their proposals, except upon these new Standing Orders. He had made some reference, and he had not been able to produce a single ease. His right hon. friend had stated in his letter that it was his manner, and the whole tone of his speeches, that appeared to give the impression that he was acting in an organised attempt to defeat the Government in these proposals, and that he was far indeed from being dispassionate. Well, he did not pretend that his manner Could ascend to the level of the right hon. Gentleman's. But that was his misfortune, not his fault. While the right bon. Gentleman was lecturing him last night he was irresistibly reminded of an occasion in this House when Mr. Horsman, who at that time was a very prominent figure, lectured

  37
  Mr. Disraeli. Mr. Disraeli rose and replied that both sides of the House; acknowledged that the hon. Gentleman was "a superior person." He did not think he could do better than pass on the compliment to his right hon. friend. But even from the pedestal of his admitted superiority, he was not warranted with great respect, in imputing blame to him, either for his action or his motives, in the Debates on the Procedure. He need not, perhaps, have noticed the attack of his right hon. friend, but it would have been discourteous to ignore it, and what he said tonight would save the necessity of any S further reply to the letter of his right hon. friend.
  This curtailment of the rights and privileges of private Members was greatly to be regretted in the interest of the House of Commons on totally different grounds. Even Prime Ministers and Leaders of the House of Commons had begun by being private Members themselves, and if the rights and privileges of private Members were to be curtailed in the manner that is now proposed, what opportunities would be left to young Members for political and Parliamentary training? It was his fortune to come into Parliament under the great Leaders of former days. There was nothing more remarkable, either in Mr. Disraeli or Mr. Gladstone, than the never-failing interest they took in any young Member of this House who showed ordinary aptitude, and the encouragement they gave to him to persevere in his Parliamentary work, and to induce him to take as prominent a position as he could. But how completely changed was all this. His opinion was that there never was a time since he had been in the House of Commons when there was so much political ability among the younger Members on the Conservative side of the House than at present. He spoke of this side because he knew more of it than of the other. What opportunities did they get commensurate with their deserts for taking part in the proceedings of the House? Why was it they had not opportunities? It was all due to the system of obstruction, which the Rules of the Leader of the House were avowedly not brought forward for the purpose of stopping. The Whips went round
  38
  making entreaties to Member after Member on this side of the House not to speak.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the only Question before the House is whether there shall be two or three Fridays after Whitsunday when Government business shall not have precedence.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he always bowed to the ruling of the Speaker. He was supporting an Amendment which was intended to strengthen and improve the position of private Members. He was endeavouring to show how unfortunate was the position of private Members at the present time, and in support of that he made the statement that it was impossible for them now to take part often in the proceedings of the House because of the obstruction which prevailed, and which these Rules would not prevent.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As a matter of personal explanation. My right hon. friend has made an attack upon me for discouraging rising talent, I suppose on both sides of the House, and certainly on this side. I never remember a case in which any gentleman came to Parliamentary eminence through bringing in Bills on a Wednesday. The truth is that these are not the opportunities by which a Member of this House has ever risen to the summit of his Parliamentary ambition.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that nothing that had occurred during the whole of these debates so directed attention to the difficulties of their position as the very interesting and lucid statement which the Leader of the House had rendered this afternoon with regard to the time occupied by private Members and by Government measures. No doubt it was a great revelation to many hon. Members of the House, and he could not help thinking that oven at this late hour the Leader of the House must see how wise it would be even now to throw the whole of these Rules overboard and appoint a competent Committee to suggest some system for the re-organisation of the sittings of the House and the

  39
  season of their meeting. The Amendment now proposed was exceedingly moderate, and he sincerely trusted that the House, taking an independent judgment upon it, would carry it.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid the First Lord of the Treasury must have observed that many Members of the House on the Government side viewed these Rules with somewhat lukewarm enthusiasm. The right hon. Gentleman must be cheered by the fact that very often the objections raised to them were mutually destructive. He, for one, welcomed that callousness to the demands for the further worsening of this Rule, as he regarded it. Every hon. Member had got his own view as to the importance of the Resolution which he wished to bring before the House, or he thought that the Bill which he wished to pass was the most excellent in the world. But what the House had got to consider was whether, when private Members introduced on Fridays Bills of a revolutionary nature without proper consideration, they ought to facilitate their passage into law. He held that they ought not, and, therefore, he advocated that the fewer days devoted to that purpose the better. To increase the two days for private Members' business to three would only produce a scandalous state of things, and increase the obstruction to the proposed measures or Resolutions. He did not say that that obstruction would be wrong. Probably he would conceive it to be right, and would take part in it. He thought it would be a far less evil to stop the passage of a Bill by even unnecessary conversation than allowing it to pass into law without proper consideration. He did not think the proposed Rules would stifle rising talent. It was entirely beyond the power of the First Lord to effect that. He joined the hon. Member who had just spoken in congratulating the First Lord on the extremely interesting speech he had made, and in giving the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity of poaching on the manor of the hon. Member for Waterford and dragging in the question of Home Rule.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that the First Lord of the Treasury had admitted that the position of private Members' business was very unsatisfactory. Why should the time of the House be taken up in discussing private Members' Bills which could not pass, and in which few Members took a real interest? This was one of the evils which ought to be inquired into and dealt with. The second difficulty was, supposing twelve private Members' Bills had been carried to a second reading, but that only two or three of these had any chance of passing into law; assuming that all those Bills went to a Grand Committee, and were carefully considered and brought into shape, the process of obstruction might be brought to bear on the first, and the remaining eleven would have no chance of passing at all. That was a waste of the time of the House which did no credit to the practical sanity of the House. The moral which they ought to draw from the First Lord's interesting classification of private Members' Bills was that there was only a limited time to consider these, and that the House ought to economise that time; in fact, that unless they employed private Members' time more usefully it was wasted. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to promise the House an inquiry, either by the Cabinet or by a Committee of the House, as to how the leakage of the time of this Chamber could be avoided. There was another grievance. Year after year the same Bills were brought forward and the same discussion took place upon them, but those Bills never got any more forward. He took, as an illustration, the Rating of Machinery Bill, which had been before the House for twenty years, and on which a great number of Wednesdays had been wasted. That Bill ought to be dealt with once for all. There was another instance—the Registration of Firms Bill, which had been discussed over and over again, and the Second Reading carried by large majorities. Here there was a limited amount of time for private Members' business, which the right hon. Gentleman had shown the House was needed for so many purposes, but which was squandered. He hoped the First Lord would take this subject

  41
  into his serious consideration and institute some inquiry in regard to it, with the view of the allotment of private Members' time on a more business-like footing.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid that many hon. Members had spoken as if for the first time private Members were called upon to give up their opportunities for carrying legislation. He ventured to say that in all his earlier years in Parliament the opportunities afforded to private Members were mainly with the view of bringing forward Motions for ventilating their; grievances. These took up eight hours each on Tuesdays and Fridays, while five or five and a half hours on Wednesdays were devoted to unofficial Members' legislation. He had never disguised his; feeling that private Members' time should be devoted to ventilating grievances rather than to passing measures, many of which were bad. He maintained that unofficial Members should stand by their rights and privileges to call attention to grievances, and to raise questions of general interest. Private Members should insist on a legitimate opportunity being given to them to bring forward important questions and not concentrate their attention on Bills.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he intended to vote for the Amendment on pretty much the same grounds that he had ventured to urge to the House with reference to another Amendment yesterday. At the same time, he confessed he preferred yesterday's Amendment, because, although it only left two Fridays after Whitsuntide, it still preserved liberty of action on the part of the House, and gave the House the power to meet anything like flagrant obstruction by giving another day to a measure which had received the sanction of the overwhelming majority of the House. But, as he had said last night, half a loaf was better than no bread. He did not think the hon. Member for the St. Albans Division was quite correct in saying that, so far as obstruction was concerned, three Fridays would be just the same as two. He thought if the House saw that there was
  42
  a deliberate campaign of obstruction against a particular measure which was backed by the general feeling of the House, that some means would be devised whereby a third Friday should be used for the passage of the Bill. Therefore he thought there was a very considerable difference between three Fridays and two. He entirely dissented from the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet. He was disposed to accept the right hon. Gentleman's general attitude in hostility to mere fads and fancies. He was as much an anti-faddist as the right hon. Gentleman himself, but the right hon. Gentleman appeared to regard the majority of private Members' Bills as merely' faddists' Bills. That was not his opinion. The faddist's Bill generally met with an early death, but the kind of private Member's Bill he wished to preserve was of a very different character. He saw on the opposite Benches an hon. friend and countryman of his own, the hon. Member for Devizes, who, in a private Bill and without any Government support, but simply by his own energy", effected a very considerable and desirable change in the social and economic condition of the agricultural labourers of the country. That was a very remarkable instance of a measure carried by a ministerialist Member by the support of the House generally. That was the kind of private Bill he wished to see preserved. He mentioned last night the changes in the social condition of married life in this country, every one of which had been carried by Bills proposed by private Members, and carried through without the support of the Government of the day. He did not think the First Lord of the Treasury was quite fair in giving the repeal of the Crimes Act as the kind of private Members' Bill of which the House was thinking. That Act was passed after many weeks of Parliamentary time, in face of a fierce and obstinate opposition, and its repeal would also demand a large proportion of parliamentary time unless the House had arrived at an united opinion regarding it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it would obviously be a very controversial I measure.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that for that very reason it was not the kind of measure they were thinking of in proposing three Fridays.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Very likely not.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked if anyone imagined that a Bill of such a controversial character as the repeal of the Crimes Act could be carried on a Friday afternoon. The House of Commons had got into an unfortunate legislative habit of dealing with every question in the most piecemeal fashion. He would call, in support of that statement, the testimony of the Home Secretary. Last year the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Factories Bill, a beneficent measure, which he successfully piloted through the House. He was not going to reveal any secrets as to what occurred between the right hon. Gentleman and himself, but between them they managed to get the dockers into that Bill. The docker was within the existing Acts on one side of a vessel, and outside them on the other; one half of his body was within and the other half outside the law. That was one of those preposterous, piecemeal, tinkering Bills which the House constantly indulged in, and the only way of repairing small defects was either through the countenance and support of a sympathetic Minister like the Home Secretary, or by a private Member's Bill. Seamen were still outside the Compensation Acts, and no Government would take the question up. A private Member would have to take it up, and it was just the kind of question which a private Member could carry better than any Government. That was the kind ox legislation which the right hon. Gentleman was now trying to destroy. He joined with other hon. Members in admiration of the extremely interesting speech which had been delivered by the First Lord of the Treasury. That speech was more than interesting; it was historic. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman in the matter, because it was one of those Parliamentary accidents which would occur, but that speech should have been delivered last night, and it would have been more appropriate on the preceding Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman
  44
  said that there were 960 hours in a Parliamentary session of 120 days, and then, by a series of calculations, the accuracy of which he had no means of testing, but which he was quite willing to accept, the right hon. Gentleman arrived at the conclusion that only 276 hours remained for the legislative business of the Government—276 hours for the government of one-fifth of the human race! If he had the advantage of being the proprietor of a great daily paper, he would tomorrow put the right hon. Gentleman's speech on one side of a large column in letters of gold—if the resources of the establishment permitted—and on the other side he would put the following:—
  "The English"
  —those were the only words not contained in the original text—
  "are the greatest, people the world has ever seen, but whose fault is that they do not know their strength, their greatness, and their destiny, and who are wasting their time on; their minor local matters.… The American has been taught the lesson of home rule and the success of leaving the management of the local pump to the parish beadle."
  The right hon. Gentleman would reeognise the quotation.
  "He does not burden his House of Commons with the responsibility of cleansing the parish drains. The present position in the English House is ridiculous. You might as well expect Napoleon to have found time to have personally counted his dirty linen before he sent it to the wash and re-counted it upon its return."†
  When the right hon. Gentleman paid his well-deserved tribute to the great English-man whose obsequies were celebrated yesterday in so touching a fashion in so many different parts of the world, he hoped he took to heart the great lesson which the last words of that great man taught, and to which the speech of the right hon. Gentleman tonight was a most eloquent and convincing epilogue.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURpointed out that the Amendment under discussion had occupied a considerable number of hours on the previous evening. He therefore appealed to the House to bring the debate to a speedy conclusion.
  †The quotation is from certain notes published in the Review of Reviews for April, 1902, and described by the Editor as "The Political Will and Testament" of Mr. Cecil Rhodes.
  MR. CHANNINGthought that the speech that the right hon. Gentleman had made on this Amendment required some elucidation. The right hon. Gentleman had no doubt a strong case for showing that this Rule, if passed, would make very little difference to private Members' Bills, but the suggestion of the hon. Member for Partick was that Standing Order 12—the Whitsuntide Order assigning precedence to the Committee Stages of Bills on two Wednesdays after—should be ante-dated to Easter, so that private Members' Bills which had been fortunate enough to obtain a Second Heading early in the session should really have a chance of passing through their further stages in the course of the session by having those days between Easter and Whitsuntide which were now allotted to Second Readings of private Members' Bills allotted to them. He hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would indicate whether he was favourably disposed to the solution of the difficulty of private Members which was suggested by the hon. Member for Particle. If the right hon. Gentleman were favourably disposed, he would not carry the discussion further. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Partick was a practical one. There were, in that case, two further questions he would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. First of all, would he consent to the appointment of a Committee to consider this particular point, the alteration of the present Rule, and, next, would he take steps as to the ballot with regard to Bills, in the sense which had so frequently been suggested by the right hon. Member for Aberdeen and other Members in the past? The right hon. Gentleman would do himself great credit and facilitate the passing of the Rules if he were to indicate his general approval of the scheme in some form or other of this particular solution of this question so that it might be placed upon the Paper and become a Standing Order this session. If that were done, it should be possible to place important private Members' Bills in such a position in the early part of the session as to give them a real chance of becoming law.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he had a very strong feeling against all encroachments of
  46
  private Members' rights. The House of Commons was becoming more and more an official Registry. He remembered when the Home Rule Bill was under discussion, Mr. Courtney moved an Amendment; he wished to have a Resolution passed whereby a Cabinet Minister in one House should have a right of audience in the other, but Mr. Gladstone rose up and with some heat said that for fifty-two years he had been a Member of Parliament, and he would never sit in a House of Commons in which the smallest privilege was given to a Member by reason of his being a Minister of the Crown.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman must make his remarks relevant to the question before the House.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he only wished to show that every encroachment on private Members' rights gave further power to official Members on one side or the other. The argument of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was that if this extra day were not given, no private Bill of a contentious nature had the least chance of passing. Everybody knew that there were private Bills which, though not controversial in their nature, were highly contentious, and which no Government desired to take up. For instance, there was the great class of Criminal Law Amendment Bills brought in by Sir Samuel Romilly, all of which were brought in as private Members' Bills. On the ground that if he went into the Government at all the question would become a Party question, Sir Samuel Romilly refused the Solicitor Generalship, and actually got an independent seat in order to give expression to his views. All philanthropy of that; kind, by a man who wished to hold himself independent of Party, would be utterly destroyed by this Rule. But there was a more recent illustration—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going into some interesting historical reminiscences, but at the same time, I must remind him that they have nothing to do with the question before the House.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he dared no; make a compromise with Mr. Speaker, but would he state at what time or stage it would be in order for him (the hon. Member) briefly to show the benefits that had come from private Members' Bills; and the way in which these Rules would affect that question?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that he could not lay that down beforehand. If the remarks of the hon. Member were irrelevant he would be interrupted; he would then, exhaustively, And out whether he was in order.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he would not venture to transgress the Rules of the House in order to find out when, by accident, he might be in the right.
  MR. SPEAKER: I did not suggest that the hon. Member would wilfully transgress.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he would endeavour, by some species of ingenuity, when the Rule as amended was put
  from the Chair, to bring forward the point he desired to lay before the House. The First Lord had throughout gone on the assumption that he was taking care of the interests of the House as a whole. If that was so, why did he not divest the proposals of their Party character, and allow Members to vote according to their independent views? As long as the Government Whips were put at the doors each, Motion became a vote of confidence, and Members were obliged to vote according to Party. That was not the way to pass Rules which were supposed to be for the regulation of the House as a whole. Probably hon. Members were better judges of their own House than the First Lord himself—
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 196; Noes, 136. (Division List No. 100.)

  AYES

  Acland-Hood, Capt, Sir. Alex. F.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

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

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Coddington, Sir William

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

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cranborne, Lord

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Croasley, Sir Savile

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

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

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Han bury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Dixon-Hartland Sir Fd. Dixon

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Bignold, Arthur

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Bill, Charles

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Bond, Edward

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Helder, Augustus

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Henderson, Alexander

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Brotherton, Edward Alien

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Finch, George H.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Butcher, John George

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Forster, Henry William

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Garfit, William

  Knowles, Lees

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. C. (Liver pool

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Chapman, Edward

  Godson, Sir Augusts Frederick;

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Ed. H.

  Charrington, Spencer

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

  Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Leigh Bennett, Henry Currie

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Spear, John Ward

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick, N. S.

  Myers, William Henry

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

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

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Parker, Gilbert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Penn, John

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Valentia, Viscount

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Purvis, Robert

  Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield

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

  Randles, John S.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Reid, James (Greenock).

  Whitmore Charles Algernon

  Malcolm, Ian

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Renwick, George

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

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

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

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

  Middlemoro, Jno. Throgmorton

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Mildway, Francis Bingham

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H (Yorks.)

  Mitchell, William

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

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

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Russell, T. W.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  More, Robert. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Wyndham-Quio, Major W. H.

  Morgan, Hn Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Younger, William

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Morton, Arthur, H. A. (Deptford

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES,—Sir William Walmond and Mr. Anstrnther.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Simeon, Sir Barnington

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Nolan, Joseph (Lough, South)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Gilhooly, James

  Norman, Henry

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc, Stroud

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herb't Jn.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Grant, Corrie

  0'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary M.

  Austen, Sir John

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

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

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hammond, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Bell, Richard

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Blake, Edward

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  O'Malley, William

  Brigg, John

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Mara, James

  Broadhurst, Henry

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Shee, James John

  Burns, John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Came, William Sproston

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Partington, Oswald

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, D'vid Brynmor (Swansea

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, Robert John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Priestley, Arthur

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lambert, George

  Rea, Russell

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Reddy, M.

  Crean, Eugene

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Louth, Thomas

  Robert, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Delany, William

  Lundon, W.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Roche, John

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Sheelan, Daniel Daniel

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Crae, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Govern, T.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Kean, John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mansfield, Horace Randall

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Fergusson, B. C. Munro (Leith

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mather, William

  Sullivan, Donal

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mooney, John J.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  50

  51

  Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Weir, James Galloway

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  TELLERS For THE NOES Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Walton, Jn. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  (6.18.) Question put accordingly, "That the words 'and fourth' stand part of the Question
  The House divided:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 140. (Division List No. 101.)

  AYES

  Acland-Hood, Capt, Sir. Alex, F.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Finch, George H.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Fisher, William Haves

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fison, Frederick William

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinbnrgh W

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Arrol, Sir William

  Forster, Henry William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Atkinson, Et. Hon. John

  Gardner, Ernest

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Garfit, William

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

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

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Mildway, Francis Bingham

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Gordon, Hn J. E (Elgin& Nairn)

  Mitchell, William

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

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry. S.)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

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

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby (Line)

  More, Robert, Jasper (Shropshire)

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'ths.

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Bignold, Arthur

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mort on, Arthur H. A (Deptford)

  Bigwood, James

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bill, Charles

  Gremell, William Henry

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Bond, Edward

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Myers, William Henry

  Bowles, Gibson (King's Lynn

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Han bury, Rt. Hon. Robert Win.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Butcher John George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow

  Harris, Frederick Liverton

  Parker, Gilbert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Penn, John

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Devonshire

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Helder, Augustus

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Purvis, Robert

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Randles, John S.

  Chapman, Edward

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffi'd, Brightside

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Coddington, Sir William

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry C-cil

  Renwick, George

  Collums, Et. Hon. Jesss

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ridley, Hn M. W. (Stalvbridge

  Corbett, A. Cameton (Glasgow)

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Knowles, Lees

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Cranborne, Lord

  Laurence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Denny, Colonel

  Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

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

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneaga

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Spear, John Ward

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwick)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. Jas. (Kent)

  Stewart, Sir Mark T. M'Tazgart

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Willox, Sir John Arshibald

  Younger, William

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffi'd

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

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

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

  Wason, Jno. Cathcart (Orkney)

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

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

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  NOES.

  Abraham, Win. (Cork, N. E.).

  Hammond, John

  O'Malley, William

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicsstor

  O'Mara, James

  Allen, Chas. F. (Glouc, Stroud)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  O'Shee, James John

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Austin, Sir John

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

  Partington, Oswald

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife. West)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Bell, Richard

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Black, Alexander William

  Joues, Day, Brynmor (Swansea

  Price, Robert John

  Blake, Edward

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire

  Priestley, Arthur

  Brigg, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Rea, Russell

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Joyce, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Bryee, Rt. Hon. James

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burns, John

  Lambert, George

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Caine, William Sproston

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Caldwell, James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Roche, John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lough, Thomas

  Russell, T. W.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lundon, W.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Channiag, Francis Allston

  MacDonuell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cogan, Denis J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Crae, George

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  M'Govern, T.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Delany, William

  M'Kean, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Tennant, Harold John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mather, William

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

  Edwards, Frank

  Mooney, John J.

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

  Elibank, Master of

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Walton, Jno. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Murphy, John

  Wason, Eugene (Cackmannan

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Norman, Henry

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Fitzmaurlce, Lord Edmond

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Brien, P. T. (Tipperary, N.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jno.

  O'Connor T. P. (Liverpool)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

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

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Dowd, John

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Haldane, Richard Burton

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

  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.

  Amendment proposed—
  "After line 11, to add the words—' (e) At the Evening Sittings at which Government Business has not precedence Notices of Motion shall have precdence of the Orders of the Day.'" (Mr. Caldwell.)
  Amendment proposed—
  After the words last added, to add the words—(f) At all Afternoon Sittings the House
  54
  will first proceed with Petitions, Motions for Unopposed Returns, and Leave of Absence to Members, giving Notices of Motions, and Unopposed Private Business.' "—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES, in moving the next Amendment, said it would be observed that the proposed Standing Order began with the words—

  55
  "Unless the House otherwise direct." He thought the Rule was too cast iron, but the House having made it, he wanted to take care that the Government—he did not say this Government, but some Government—should not unexpectedly move to suspend the Standing Order and sweep the whole thing away, or direct otherwise than as the Standing Order directed. He did not want a Motion to be sprung upon the House suspending the whole of the Standing Order or altering a portion of it. He was quite prepared to accept any other wording, and if there was any good reason why the addition should not be accepted, he should be glad to hear it.
  Amendment proposed—
  "After the words last added, to add the words—'And no Motion to the effect that the House shall otherwise direct than is in this Order provided, or for the suspension of this Order, shall he moved, unless it has appeared at latest on the Notice Paper circulated two days before that to which it applies.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he could not accept this Amendment. The hon. Member wished two days notice for any relaxation of the Rule. He did rot know why there should be longer notice for the relaxation of this Rule than for suspending the twelve o'clock Rule. All Governments, he believed, endeavoured to meet the convenience of the House of Commons so far as they could.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought the proposal that two days notice should be given in this matter was a very moderate requirement.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he saw no reason why two days notice should be given. There might be occasions on which it would be extremely inconvenient to give two days notice. He hoped that his hon. friend would not press the Amendment.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNER-MAN: Would one day's notice not be sufficient?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: No. Sir.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid there had been in the past great uncertainty when particular items of business would come on, and he understood that the right hon. Gentleman laid great stress on the necessity for removing that uncertainty. His hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn did not at all wish to prevent the Government from varying the Order; he merely insisted upon reasonable notice. He did not know whether his hon. friend would divide the House, but he had done a great service in calling attention to this matter.
  Sir ROBERT REID"said this Rule was one which largely interfered with the rights of private Members. It was reasonable, with regard to such of those rights as were left, to ask for some security that they would not be taken away. The hon. Member for King's Lynn, modest and unassuming as he always was, merely wished reasonable notice of what the Government intended to do. He could not understand why in little things of this sort the right hon. Gentleman seemed disposed to be obdurate in a degree which was scarcely warranted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the observation of the right hon. Gentleman was quite uncalled for, and he hoped that the discussion would not be continued much longer. He was convinced that he was appealing in this case to the general convenience of the House.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he hoped that the hon. Member for King's Lynn would force his Motion to a division, if only for the one reason that it would teach the First Lord of the Treasury that he was the servant, and not the master, of the House. He maintained that the Notice Paper had hitherto not been considered part and parcel of Parliamentary procedure, but the effect of the Motion under discussion would be to make it so.
  MR. McKENNAsaid that if the First Lord of the Treasury would only look at this question from the private Member's point of view, he would see that there was much more in it than he apparently imagined. Suppose that he were fortunate enough to win a first place in the ballot for a

  57
  Wednesday morning sitting. Now a Member must devote a considerable amount of time to get up his subject—say the previous Monday and Tuesday—and he maintained that they ought to have reasonable warning that they need not waste their time if the Government were going to take that Wednesday.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid that there might be an arbitrary Government in power, which might wish to prevent a discussion on some great question affecting, say, the trade of the country; and it was only reasonable that Members should have notice that the Government were going to deprive them of their day.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE LEYsaid he supported the Amendment if for no other reason than that it would be a very good training for the Government Departments to look two days ahead, which was a faculty that seemed to be at present dormant. If they could only look two days ahead there would be a wonderful awakening and smartening of the business of the House, and he was sure that the First Lord of the Treasury would find it a very great convenience to himself and to the efficiency of the House in getting on with its business.
  MR. LODERsaid he was not sure that it was possible for the Government to alter the Standing Order without notice. If that were so, this Amendment was not necessary, but he thought the House ought to be protected by some provision of this kind. At the same time the suggestion of the hon. Member for King's Lynn requiring two days was too much. But inasmuch as Ministers had to give notice of their intention to suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule, they ought also to have to give notice with regard to this Rule.
  MR. POWERexpressed the opinion that as private Members of the House had surrendered most of their privileges, the few remaining to them should be properly safeguarded, and that, if those few remaining privileges were to be taken away, they should only be taken away after duo notice. If the first Lord of the Treasury applied the argument that
  58
  notice should be given as to the work the House was to do on particular days to this case, he would find that the Amendment was a most reasonable one. But the First Lord of the Treasury had been instrumental in depriving the House of its privileges, and so far as he could see, the right hon. Gentleman had no inclination to give the House any assurance that their few remaining rights and privileges should be safeguarded and preserved.
  MR. BLAKEasked whether, in the event of the Amendment not passing, the House would be entitled to the ordinary one day's notice.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that would be so. Notice might be given on a Monday, and it would appear in the Paper on Tuesday morning, and the Motion made on the Tuesday.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that there was nothing in the Standing Orders which required notice to be given, and that the decisions given by Mr. Speaker with regard to notice would be based on the traditions of the House.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid it was the well-established immemorial practice to give notice of such Motions.
  MR. BLAKEsaid he assumed that it would be necessary, and in that case the House was entitled to what might be called the ordinary one day's notice. He thought it was not an unreasonable thing that there should be a somewhat longer notice. This was a part of the new scheme of the right hon. Gentleman I for giving greater certainty and security to hon. Members with regard to the order of the business with which they would be called upon to deal. Such notice as this Rule gave was notice only as from the morning, and that only to; those Members who received their papers; at their own houses, which certainly did not leave the House much security. He recognised the view which the First Lord had rather adumbrated than stated, that there might be occasion on which so short a notice was all that could be given without great inconvenience, such as, for instance, the illness of a Minister

  59
  in charge of a measure. Under these circumstances he would suggest the Amendment to the Amendment now before the House by adding, after the words, "notice paper" the words "unless in case of sudden emergency," which would have the effect of preserving the
  power of the Government to act on shorter notice when it must.
  (7.8.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 129: Noes, 187. (Division List No. 102).

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, X. E.)

  Hammond, John

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud)

  Harden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  O'Mara, James

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Austin, Sir John

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

  O'Shee, James John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Palmer, George Win. (Reading)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Partington, Oswald

  Bell, Richard

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Black, Alexander William

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Blake, Edward

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Price, Robert John

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Priestley, Arthur

  Brigg, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Russell

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Reddy, M.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Lambert, George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burns, John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Raid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Caine, William Sproston

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Caldwell, James

  Lloyd-George, David

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Roche, John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lundon, W.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  M'Govern, T.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Denny, Colonel

  M'Kean, John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mooney, John J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Elibank, Master of

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Weir, James Galloway

  Fenwick, Charles

  Murphy, John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nannett, Joseph P.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fuller, J. M. F.

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

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Gilhooly, James

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

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  O'Dowd, John

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Banbury, Frederick George

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

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bill, Charles

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Chapman, Edward

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bond, Edward

  Charrington, Spencer

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Corbelt, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bull, William James

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Butcher, John George

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Cranborne, Lord

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Houston, Robert Pate, son

  Purvis, Robert

  Dewar, T. R. (T'r H'mlets, S. Geo.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Handles, John S.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Knowles, Lees

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmou'h)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Renwick, George

  Durning-Lawrencs, Sir Edwin

  Lawson, John Grant

  Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

  Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas, Thomson

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Russell, T. W.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Finch, George H.

  Leder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lowe, Francis William

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Forster, Henry William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Spear, John Ward

  Garfit, William

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Store, Sir Benjamin

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Malcolm, Ian

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

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

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Valentia, Viscount

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mitchell, William

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  More, Robert. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd'x

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Han bury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Helder, Augustus

  Myers, William Henry

  Younger, William

  Henderson, Alexander

  Nicol, Donal Niman

  Hormon-Hodge. Robert Trotter

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Parker, Gilbert

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Main Question, as amended, proposed.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that, as the Resolution which had now been put from the Chair would in a very short time be added to the Rules of the House, he would like to make a few observations upon it. He had taken no part at any time in the numerous wails of lamentation which had been raised, not without reason, he thought, by private Members upon the question of their time being taken away, and the position of extreme impotence to which they had been reduced; but he had watched the thing go forward, and since the time when he
  62
  first entered the House great changes had taken place. Then private Members had two days a week for Motions and the whole of Wednesday, and if he was not mistaken, whenever the Government attempted to take away, even at a belated period of the session, a considerable portion of the time of the House, it always accompanied its suggestion with something like a pledge, in 1880 that tradition was strong in the House. It was not a mere ministerial chamber, as was at present the case, but it was a place in which the minority were on titled to a hearing. It was not considered then, even in the official view, that the constituencies represented by 250 Members were of no account as a legislative

  63
  body. The life and occupation in this House of private Members had been changed. In these latter days nothing could be done by them except to vote or to take part in demonstrations inside the House, or occasionally to take part in debates against the Government, because if they took part in support they were apt to suffer great discouragement. The change which was about to be made now would set the final seal of humiliation upon private Members. Certain figures had been given, extending over a number of years, showing the number of days taken by private Members and the time which had been taken by the Government. But there were certain other figures given by the right hon. Gentleman. The number of hours left to the Government, although they took—and he fully acknowledged they were bound to do so, if they meant to go on with Government business—more and more time from the private Member, was 276 hours, or about six weeks in the whole course of the session. The Government themselves had not sufficient time for debating and transacting the business of the House. They had practically extinguished the private Member, and they had now come to the point at which the iron pot, having crushed the earthen vessel, was finding itself in a similar difficulty. He would not mind the time for debate being shortened if it merely meant putting an end to useless talk and obstruction, for which he had no inclination or taste. But business was scamped, and the House was often unable to hear the valuable views of gentlemen on the other side who, from loyalty to the Government, did not take part in debates. In addition to that, many questions were not taken up in the House—questions which the Government would be wiling to take up, which they placed year after year in the King's Speech, and, no doubt sincerely, declared to be of great importance to the vital interests of the country. Moreover, controversial Government business, as well as the private Member, was practically extinguished. It was impossible to get through the House a long measure, of any kind unless it was uncontroversial, or if more than six or eight Members opposed it. The Government were obliged constantly to repeat the same proposals, with assurances of their
  64
  importance, and then towards the end of the session to make the humiliating confession that they had not time to carry them into effect.
  The House were now discussing a Rule, the purpose of which undoubtedly was largely to curtail the rights and opportunities of private Members. But trumpery little economies of time here and there would do nothing, The right of private Members could not be resuscitated as long as the House remained charged with all the duties it had taken upon itself. The reasoning of the First Lord had carried him a great deal farther than he wished to go. It came to this—that the House of Commons as a legislative machine, so far as private Members were concerned, had actually broken down, and that so far as Government business was concerned it had largely broken down. The more the House realised how complicated and difficult were the immense problems with which they had to deal, how much time and care they required, and how much mischief might arise from the mistakes made by the House, the more they must realise that the instrument they had to use was ineffective for the purpose. It answered the purpose of our forefathers, but it was not adequate to the needs of the present time. That state of things would not be altered by any Rules of Procedure. He was not leading up to the Irish question; the Irish question led up to itself. In regard to England, quite as much as in regard to Ireland, it was impossible, in the House of Commons alone, for Members to do anything effective to redeem the pledges made to their constituents. That tended to create a certain amount of insincerity when Members went to their constitutents, because, when they were asked about certain proposals it was very difficult to say it was impossible to carry them. Until the House recognised the difference between business which it could delegate to other quarters and business which could not be delegated and confined itself solely to the latter, it would never again become the powerful engine of the State that it used to be. That was the real moral of the figures given by the First Lord of the Treasury. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman

  65
  would be historic, because, although not designed for the purpose, it was an explicit admission on the part of the Government that the House was not competent to discharge, not merely the private business of private Members, but the public business of the Government.
  MR. BROADHURSTcould not refrain from taking the opportunity to enter his protest against this new Standing Order. It marked a serious parting of the ways in Parliamentary life, freedom, and efficiency. For two months the Rules had been under discussion, and; the proposal now being considered was most destructive as against the liberty of the House of Commons. The opportunities of private Members would be almost nil. The Labour Party had been endeavouring for some time to secure opportunities for bringing forward Motions connected with the Labour
  movement, but even with the liberties hitherto enjoyed the chances had been very few. AH through the session they had been trying to bring forward Motions of the utmost importance, concerning the very existence of trade combinations, the safety of their funds, and the protection of the aged, the widows, and the orphans dependent upon those funds, but they were absolutely powerless. They were rapidly approaching the time when the "Mother of Parliaments" would be a mere machine. It was already regarded as an offence to criticise the Government.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes. 160; Noes, 104. (Division List No. 103.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt, Sir Alex. F.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Agg, Gardner, James Tynte

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hog, Lindsay

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dyke, Rt Hon Sir William Hart

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Arrol, Sir William

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Keswick, William

  Bagot, Capt, Josceline Fitz Roy

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Bain, Colonel James Robert.

  Finch, George H.

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lawson, John Grant

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Banbury, Frederick George

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick, N. S.

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Forster, Henry William

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Garfit, William

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bignold, Arthur

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bill, Charles

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Bond, Edward

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

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry. S.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

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

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Ball, William James

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

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Middlemore, J'hn Throgmorton

  Cavendish, V. C W. (D'rbyshire

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mitchell, William

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Green, Walford D. (W'dnesbury

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  More, Robert, Jasper (Shropshire)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morgan, David J. (W 'lthamstow

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Chaplain, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Chapman, Edward

  Han bury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Mount, William Arthur

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Myers, William Henry

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Helder, Augustus

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Orr-Ewing. Charles Lindsay

  Dewar, T. R. (T'r H'mlets, S. Geo.

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Parker, Gilbert

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Penn, John

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Valentisa, Viscount

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Purvis, Robert

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Randles, John S.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. (Bath

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Spear, John Ward

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Renwick, George

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O' Kelly, James (Roscommon. N

  Allen, Charles P,(Glouc, Stroud

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  O'Malley, William

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Mara, James

  Austin, Sir John

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barry, E. (Cork. S.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Shee, James John

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Partington, Oswald

  Bell, Richard

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Black, Alexander William

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Blake, Edward

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Priestley, Arthur

  Brigg, John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rea, Russell

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Lloyd-George, David

  Reddy, M.

  Burns, John

  Lough, Thomas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Caldwell, James

  Lundon, W.

  Reid, Sir. R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roche, John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Crae, George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Govern, T.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Kean, John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Delany, William

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sullivan, Donal

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Elibank, Master of

  Murphy, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Broadhurst and Mr. Channing.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

  Hammond, John

  O'Dowd, John

  (7.53.) Main question, as amended, put accordingly.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 160; Noes, 101. (Division List No. 104.)

  AYES

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bignold, Arthur

  Chapman, Edward

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bill, Charles

  Charrington, Spencer

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Ceilings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bond, Edward

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bull, William James

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Dewar, T. R. (T'r H'mlets, S. Geo.

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds)

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

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Deby shire)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Penn, John

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Purvis, Robert

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Keswick, William

  Randles, John S.

  Finch, George H.

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lawson, John Grant

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Forster, Henry William

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Renwick, George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Loder, Gerald Waller Erskine

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Garfit, William

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

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Smith, Abel H. (Hortford, East)

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

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Spear, John Ward

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Malcolm, Ian

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Mitchell, William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  More, Robert. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd'x

  Morgan, David J. T. Walthamstow

  Valentia, Viscount

  Han bury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

  Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Helder, Augustus

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Henderson, Alexander

  Myers, William Henry

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

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

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Parker, Gilbert

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Gilhooly, James

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hammond, John

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

  Austin, Sir John

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Bell, Richard

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  O' Dowd, John

  Black, Alexander William

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N)

  Blake, Edward

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Malley, William

  Brigg, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Mara, James

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Caldwell, James

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Partington, Oswald

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Loagh, Thomas

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Channing, Francis Allston

  London, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cogan, Denis J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rea, Russell

  Crean, Eugene

  MacVeagh Jeremiah

  Reddy, M.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Delany, William

  M'Crae, George

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Govern, T.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Kean, John

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Roche, John

  Elibank, Master of

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mooney, John J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Murphy, John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth., South)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  70

  71

  Sullivan, Donal

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Broadhurst and Mr. Charles Hobhouse.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  The new Standing Order (Priority of Business), as finally adopted, is as follows:—
  That, 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) At the Evening Sittings of Tuesday and Wednesday notices of Motion and Public Bills, other than Government Bills, shall have precedence of Government Business.

  (c) After Easter Government Business shall have precedence at the Evening Sittings of Tuesday.

  (d) After Whitsuntide, until Michaelmas, 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.

  (e) At the Evening Sittings at which Government Business has not precedence Notices of Motion shall have precedence of the Orders of the Day.

  (f) At all Afternoon Sittings the House will first proceed with Petitions, Motions for unopposed Returns, and Leave of Absence to Members, giving Notices of Motions, and Unopposed Private Business."

NEW STANDING ORDER (BUSINESS IN SUPPLY).
Motion made and Question proposed,
"As soon as the Committee of Supply has been appointed and Esimates have been presented, the business of Supply shall, until disposed of, be the first order of the day on Thursday, unless the House otherwise order on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown, moved at the commencement of public business, to be decided without Amendment or Debate.
"Not more than twenty days, being days before the 5th of August, shall be allotted for the consideration of the annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account. The days allotted shall not
72
include any day on which the Question has to be put that the Speaker do leave the Chair, or any day on which the business of Supply does not stand as first Order.
"Provided that the days occupied by the consideration of Estimates supplementary to those of a previous session or of any Vote of Credit, or of Votes for Supplementary or Additional Estimates presented by the Government for War Expenditure, shall not be included in the computation of the twenty days aforesaid.
"Provided also that on Motion made after Notice by a Minister of the Crown, to be decided without Amendment or Debate, additional time, not exceeding three days, may be allotted for the purposes aforesaid, either before or after the 5th of August.
"On a day so allotted, no business other than business of Supply shall, except on the last two of the allotted days, be taken before midnight unless it is unopposed, and no business in Committee or proceedings on Report of Supply shall be taken after midnight, whether a general Order for; the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule is in force or not, unless the House otherwise order on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown, moved at the commencement of Public Business, to be decided without Amendment or Debate.
"Of the days so allotted, not more than one day in Committee shall be allotted to any Vote on Account, and not more than one Sitting to the Report of that Vote. At midnight on the close of the day on which the Committee on that Vote is taken, and at the close of the Sitting on which the Report of that Vote is taken, the Chairman of Committees or the Speaker, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Vote or the Report.
"At Ten of the clock on the last day but one of the days so allotted, the Chairman shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Vote then under consideration, and shall then forthwith

73
put the Question with respect to each class of the Civil Service Estimates that the total amount of the Votes outstanding in that class be granted for the services defined in the class, and shall in like manner put severally the Questions that the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy, the Army, and the Revenue Departments be granted for the services defined in those Estimates.
"At Ten of the clock on the last allotted day, the Speaker shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the report of the Resolution then under consideration, and shall then forthwith put, with respect to each class of the Civil Service Estimates, the Question: That the House doth agree with the Committee in all the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of that class, and shall then put a like Question with respect to all the Resolutions outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy, the Army, the Revenue Departments, and other outstanding Resolutions severally.
"On the days appointed for concluding the business of Supply, the consideration of that business shall not be anticipated by a Motion of Adjournment, and no dilatory Motion shall be moved on proceedings for that business.
"Any additional Estimate for any new service or matter not included in the original Estimates for the year, shall be submitted for consideration in the Committee of Supply on some day not later than two days before the Committee is closed.
"For the purposes of this Order, two Fridays shall be deemed equivalent to a single day of two Sittings."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
MR. WHITLEYmoved an Amendment on the first paragraph of the proposed Standing Order substituting "Monday" for "Thursday" as the day on which Supply should be taken. By putting Supply at the end of the week instead of at the beginning, the Government were contributing to the leisure of those hon. Members who were disposed to be satisfied with three days attendance in the week to their Parliamentary duties, and in fact it would lead to what people in the North of England would call Parliamentary half-timers. The examination of Supply was one of the most important duties of
74
Parliament, and he contended that it ought not to be relegated to the end of the week in the way proposed. He should have preferred Tuesday or Wednesday for the consideration of Supply, but these days had already been allocated for other purposes, and Monday was the only other day available. He admitted that Monday was open to some extent to the same objection as Thursday, but it would have the great advantage of putting Supply in the first place at the beginning of the week, thus giving far greater importance to the work than if it was left to Thursday, which, as many hon. Members had said, would be treated as an additional half day. The First Lord of the Treasury about a year ago said that there was no longer in this House any party of economy.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR MR. A. J. BALFOUR indicated dissent.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that was his recollection. That was largely due to the way in which the Estimates had come to be considered. The large bulk of Members felt that when the Estimates were being considered they could go away and enjoy themselves elsewhere. Anything they could do to increase the attendance of Members when the Estimates were being discussed would be for the good of the House and the country. Those who criticised the financial proposals of the Government were called unpatriotic, for they objected to large expenditure, and they were called niggardly if they objected to small items of expenditure. He was persuaded that if the Estimates were discussed on Thursday, as proposed by this Rule, at least half the Members would not be in attendance.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 3, to leave out the word 'Thursday,' and insert the word 'Monday.' "—(Mr. Whitley.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'Thursday' stand part of the Question."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Member had almost entirely put his Amendment on the ground that as the result of the change he proposed Members

75
would be more ready to attend to their duties on Monday than on Thursday. He could understand the hon. Member's point of view more clearly if he had proposed Tuesday or Wednesday as the day on which Supply should be taken. But Monday was even worse for the purposes of the hon. Member's argument than the Government proposal of Thursday. Thursday came in the middle of the week, while Monday came at the beginning and immediately after what would become the Parliamentary holiday. The inevitable result would be that, if, as the hon. Member suggested, hon. Members would be slack in their attendance on Thursday, they would clearly not be in their places until Tuesday, and therefore the object which the hon. Member sought to attain would be defeated by the Amendment. He hoped that under the circumstances the hon. Member would see the propriety of not pressing the Amendment, as nothing could be gained by the change proposed. (8.15.)
MR. O'MARAsaid he regretted he could not agree with the reasons given by the First Lord of the Admiralty for not accepting the Amendment now before the House.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
MR. O'MARAsaid he thought that the right hon. Gentleman was a little hasty in rejecting the Amendment, and could not quite have understood the grounds upon which it was moved. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment laid great stress upon the fact that he considered Thursday was given to Supply in order to facilitate the arrangements of Members who wished to get away at the week end; that they would look upon Friday as a slack day, and therefore be able to leave on the Thursday night. The First Lord of the Treasury had a perfect answer to the Amendment substituting Monday for Thursday fur Supply, because, Monday being the first day of the week, hon. Members would remain away, and their holiday would be just as long; but the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the House could not
76
approach the consideration of Supply with the same amount of efficiency on a Thursday, after three long nights, as they could upon a Monday. Human nature was the same all the world over, and it would be impossible for the House to approach Supply with any efficiency on Thursday, after being in attendance in the House up till midnight on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. The inclination of the House would be not to approach matters of Supply with the energy which was necessary in the ordinary course; but when, later in the session, the Twelve o'clock Rule was suspended, the position would become simply intolerable, and the business of voting the supplies would become an absolute farce. The country could be very well run upon the legislation already passed, if it were only properly administered; it was the process of raising the revenue which required the energy of the House. Each Member desired money to be spent on matters in which he was interested—some desired it spent on education, some upon the Army and the Navy.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question is whether the House shall take Supply on Monday or Thursday.
MR. O'MARAsaid he was only trying to illustrate the importance of Supply, and the advantage of dealing with it when Members were fresh from the week end holiday, rather than on Thursday, when they were jaded. In his opinion, the particular Rule they were discussing was part of a well-defined policy for giving Members of the House an extra holiday. It was a curious fact that those who were out of the House desired to get in, and those who were in always desired to get away as often as possible; and the result of this Rule, if it passed, would be that they would get away on Wednesday night. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division, in which case it would have his hearty support.
MR. SPEARsaid his constituents were anxious for a more speedy and expeditious dealing with the business of the House, and

77
the alterations in the Rules which the Government had submitted to the House were for that purpose. To those alterations he gave his most hearty support, the more so as he noticed that those who, by their prolonged speeches, last session obstructed and prevented legislation, were on this occasion against the alterations in the Rules. It was most important that the finances of the great spending Departments of this country should be submitted to close examination. During the early days of Supply last session,
considerable discussion was given to unimportant Votes, with the result that to wards the end of the session large sums had to be voted without any discussion, whatever. It was because he believed that the right hon. Gentleman desired to secure for Supply more business-like and adequate discussion, that he gave his thorough support to the proposal before the House.
(9.5.) Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 137; Noes, 93. (Division List No. 105.)

AYES

Ackland-Hood, Capt, Sir Alex F.

Forster, Henry William

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fuller, J. M. F.

More, Robert. Jasper (Shropshire)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Gardner, Ernest

Morgan, David. J. (Walthamstow

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Garfit, William

Morrison, James Archibald

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (Cityof Lond.

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray, C.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Godson, Sir Augutusus Frederick

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

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

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

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

Parker, Gilbert

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby (Line)

Percy, Earl

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon;

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bartley, George C. T.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Purvis, Robert

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

Randles, John S.

Bignold, Arthur

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

Bill, Charles

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Ratcliff, R. F.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Reid, James (Greenock.)

Bond, Edward

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Renwick, George

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Holder, Augustus

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas, Thompson

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Henderson, Alexander

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Bull, William James

Hogg, Lindsay

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Houston, Robert Paterson

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich.)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Chapman, Edward

Law, Andrew Bonar

Smith, James Parker (Lanarkes)

Charrington, Spencer

Lawson, John Grant

Spear, John Ward

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Cranborne, Viscount

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

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

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Denny, Colonel

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Dewar, T. R. (T'r H'mlets, S. Geo.

Lowe, Francis William

Valentia, Viscount

Dickson, Charles Scott

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lucas, Reginald (Portsmouth)

Webb, Colonel William George

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Macdona, John dimming

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

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

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Finch, George H.

Majendie, James A. H.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Malcolm, Ian

Fisher, William Hayes

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose H

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Flower, Ernest

Mitchell, William

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Bell, Richard

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Austin, Sir John

Black, Alexander William

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Blake, Edward

Brigg, John

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Partington, Oswald

Caldwell, James

Lloyd-George, David

Pickard, Benjamin

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Lough, Thomas

Power, Patrick Joseph

Causton, Richard Knight

Lundon, W.

Rea, Russell

Channing, Francis Allston

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Reddy, M.

Cogan, Denis J.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Condon, Thomas Joseph

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

Crean, Eugene

M'Crae, George

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Govern, T.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Delany, William

M'Kean, John

Roche, John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Schwann, Charles, E.

Donelan, Captain A.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Doogan, P. C.

Mooney, John J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Duke, Henry Edward

Murphy, John

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Stevenson, Francis S.

Fenwick, Charles

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South.)

Sullivan, Donal

Ffrench, Peter

Norman, Henry

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Flynn, James Christopher

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wallace, Robert

Furness, Sir Christopher

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

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Gilhooly, James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Weir, James Galloway

Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Hammond, John

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

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Dowd, John

Woodhouse, Sir. J. T. (Hud'ersf'd

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Keily James (Roscommon. N.

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

O'Malley, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Broadhurst and Mr. Whitley.

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Mara, James

Joyce, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

O'Shee, James John

MR. O'SHEEsaid his desire was that at the most important period of the session, when the Government were anxious to get through their business with dispatch, Friday should not be a dies non for a good many hon. Members. His object was to enable the Government to induce a number of hon. Members who otherwise would go away on their holidays to stay in London and attend to the business of the country which arose in Committee of Supply. It ought to be the desire of the Government to do their business thoroughly and efficiently, and no more important business was transacted in the House than the business of Supply. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider that his request that hon. Members should be asked to attend on Fridays was a reasonable one. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 3, after the word 'Thursday,' to insert the words 'except after Whitsuntide until Michaelmas, when it shall be first Order of the Day on all Friday sittings except the sittings on the third and fourth Fridays after Whit Sunday.'"—(Mr. O'Shee.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted"
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not quite sure as to what the object of this Amendment is, but its effect would be to diminish the amount of time given to Supply and give more time for Government business. I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he again wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman to recollect that Ministers of the Crown were not privileged persons, but simply paid and salaried servants of the House. The right hon. Gentleman would very soon be taking a leading part at the Coronation. [Ministerial cries of "Question, Question."] Hon. Members would see if they would wait that it was the question, if they had enough intelligence to understand it. The right hon. Gentleman, as he said before, would be taking a leading part in the Coronation, and he wished to remind the First Lord of the Treasury that under the statute—
MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to speak seriously to the Question before the House.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he was quite serious, and he was trying to show that there ought to be no privileges

81
allowed to Ministers of the Crown unless there was a very good reason for it. He was simply giving an illustration of a constitutional principle from the Act of Parliament, and he assured Mr. Speaker that he was perfectly serious.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to enter into a general discussion as to what are the privileges of Ministers of the Crown.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid this was a new system of introducing, under the Rules of the House, certain Motions which could only be moved by Ministers of the Crown, and that brought Ministers into a position which they ought not to occupy as servants of the House. Ministers ought not to have any exceptional privileges in the Orders of the House which were not accorded to the humblest private Member. Hon. Members were selected for the House of Commons by the people at large, exactly in the same way as Ministers of the Crown, and he was utterly averse to allowing any Minister to have the slightest privilege which did not belong to the humblest private Member. His whole contention was that these Rules were unconstitutional, and that the right hon. Gentleman was acting in an unconstitutional manner in this matter. He begged to move his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 3, to leave out the words, 'the Motion of a Minister of the Crown,' and insert the words 'a Motion.' "—(Mr. Swift Macneill.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he could hardly think that the hon. Member was serious in this Amendment. If it were passed it would be inoperative, because, as Motions standing in the name of private Members stood at the end of business and not at the beginning, the matter would never come on for discussion. He did not think that that was a proposition for serious debate, and he hoped his hon. friend would not press his Amendment to a division.
MR. FLYNNsaid that the First Lord of the Treasury, by his argument, certainly seemed to be putting a great strain upon their common sense. The Amendment of his hon. friend simply meant that Ministers of the Crown ought not to practically usurp the business of Supply, and introduce it just when the convenience of the Government might require it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But that is not the Amendment.
MR. FLYNNasked why should a Minister of the Crown alone be entitled to make such a Motion, when the same privilege was denied even to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Leader of any other section of the House? The more days they could get for Supply, the better they would be pleased, and the ordinary Member of the House would not, unless under great pressure, desire to have other business taken upon the days allotted to Supply.
MR. BARTLEYsaid he hoped that Ministers would put a step to the absolute waste of time that was now going on. There was not a single Member present on the front Opposition Bench; there were hardly any M embers in the House, and they had been debating this subject day after day, in order, he supposed, that they might have an autumn session. He appealed to the Government to exert a little pressure to get these Rules through.
MR. O'SHEEsupported the Amendment, because he considered that a great many of the rights of private Members had been taken away, not only during this session, but in previous sessions. What was now proposed by the hon. Member for South Donegal would give unofficial Members an opportunity of expressing their views. By passing the Amendment, they would, to some extent, restore the rights of private Members.
MR. O'MARAasked whether the expression of the hon. Member for North Islington, that this discussion was a waste of time, was in order.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member; thought it was out of order, he should have appealed to me at the time.
MR. O'MARA: I do not think myself it was in order, but perhaps hon. Members on the other side have privileges which are not accorded to those on this side.
MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw that expression, which is both unfounded and improper.
MR. O'MARA: I withdraw it. [An HON. MEMBER: Sit down.]
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the hon. Member any right to ask any Gentleman to sit down?
MR. SPEAKER: I did not hear any, expression of that kind, and as the expression did not reach my ears, I decline to take any notice of it.
MR. O'MARAsaid he shared the opinion of the hon. Member for South Donegal that a Minister of the Crown, in the matter under consideration, should not have greater privileges than an ordinary private Member. Ministers of the Crown did not necessarily represent the largest constituencies. As a matter of fact, they might sit for the smallest constituencies. If the Rule was amended in the way proposed, the House would decide upon a Motion made at the commencement of public business without debate.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MANsaid this was not an Amendment which he could support. On the contrary, he took the very opposite view 'from his hon. friend the Member for South Donegal, who seemed to regard it as a great privilege to be able to perform the function referred to in the proposed Standing Order. The reason for giving to a Minister of the Crown alone the right of making the Motion was that the Ministers of the Crown were responsible to the House, for its business, and he was one of those who took the view that, in regard to
84
the submission of Votes in Committee of Supply, and the modes in which they were to be dealt with, the House ought not to divest the Government of the day of the responsibility properly attaching to them. For that reason he had always had an objection to the kindly proposal the Leader of the House had often made, that the selection of the particular Votes to be taken on particular days should be left to a Committee, and even a Committee of those opposed to him in politics. He objected to this, because he thought it was peculiarly the function of the Government and the Leader of the House not only to guide the House in this matter, but to undertake the duty of determining what should be done. Therefore, when he found the usual phrase was here inserted which occurred in many other cases that a certain thing should happen,
"Unless the House otherwise order on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown,"
he confessed that he thought that was a perfectly proper stipulation, and in this particular case it was more eminently proper than in many to which it might be applied.
MR. POWERsaid he rose to remind the hon. Member for North Islington that if time had been wasted in the discussion of the new Rules, as much of that time had been occupied by hon. Members opposite as by Gentlemen on this side of the House. He thought his hon. friends were right in opposing the new Rules because their rights were being taken away, and so far from blaming them, he rather complimented them. They could not forget that last year at Blenheim the right hon. Gentleman declared that most of these Rules were directed against the Irish Members and Irish representation, and certainly they made no apology for taking whatever steps they thought right against them.
(9.42.) Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 185; Noes, 60. (Division List No. 106.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt, Sir Alex, F.

Forster, Henry William

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

More, Robert. Jasper (Shropshire)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Fuller, J. M. F.

Morgan, D'vid J(Walthamstow

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Gardner, Ernest

Morrison, James Archibald

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Garfit, William

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

Mount, William Arthur

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Austin, Sir John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Godson Sir Augustus Frederick

Myers, William Henry

Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

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

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Banbury, Frederick George

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

Parker, Gilbert

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Partington, Oswald

Bartley, George C. T.

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Percy, Earl

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Gouldmg, Edward Alfred

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Grant, Corrie

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Biginold, Arthur

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Purvis, Robert

Bill, Charles

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

Randles, John S.

Black, Alexander William

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Ratcliff, R. F.

Bond, Edward

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Rea, Russell

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Reid, James (Greenock)

Brigg, John

Han bury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Broadhurst, Henry

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Renwick, George

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas, Thomson

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Bull, William James

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Butcher, John George

Helder, Augustus

Russell, T. W.

Caldwell, James

Henderson, Alexander

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hogg, Lindsay

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

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

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Honldsworth, Sir Win. Henry

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Chapman, Edward

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Charrington, Spencer

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Law, Andrew Bonar

Spear, John Ward

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lawson, John Grant

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Stevenson, Francis S.

Cranborne, Viscount

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie

Stewart, Sir Mark, J. M'Taggart

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Crossley, Sir Savile

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

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

Valentia, Viscount

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Denny, Colonel

Lowe, Francis William

Wallace, Robert

Dewar, T. R. (T'r H'mlets, S. Geo.

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Webb, Colonel William George

Durning-Lawrence. Sir Edwin

Macdona, John Cumming

While, Luke (York, E. R.)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

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

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

M'Crae, George

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

M'Iver, Sir Lewds (Edinburgh W

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

Fenwick, Charles

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Majendie, James A. H.

Woodhouse, Sir. J. T. (Hudd'rsfi'd

Finch, George H.

Malcolm, Ian

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Mansfield, Horace Kendall

Fisher, Wm. Hayes

Markham, Arthur Basil

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

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Middlemore, Jno. Throgmortcn

Flower, Ernest

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

NOES.

Abarham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Cogan, Denis J.

Hammond, John

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud)

Crean, Eugene

Hayden, John Patrick

Atherley-Jones. L.

Delany, William

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West).

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Doogan, P. C.

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Ffrench, Peter

Jordan, Jeremiah

Bell, Richard

Flyun, James Christopher

Joyce, Michael

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Lough, Thomas

Channing, Francis Allston

Gilhooly, James

Lundon, W.

86

87

MacDonncll, Dr. Mark A.

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

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

O'Dowd, John

Roche, John

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Schwann, Charles P.

M'Grovern, T.

O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

M'Kean, John

O'Malley, William

Sullivan, Donal

Mooney, John J.

O'Mara, James

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Murphy, John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

O'Shee, James John

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Pickard, Benjamin

Norman, Henry

Power, Patrick Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

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

Reddy, M.

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

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

MAJOR RASCHsaid that he did not propose for a moment to elaborate the arguments in favour of the Amendment on the Paper, arguments which the House had heard with so much patience and forbearance during the last two or three years. He would remind the House, however, that sixty years ago there was a lucid interval, when a distinguished Member of the House, Mr. Milner Gibson, moved an Amendment limiting the duration of speeches to an hour, If he had proposed half-an-hour he would have done even better. He was supported by two Gentlemen who were experts in public speaking—Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright—and was only beaten by a majority of twenty votes. He himself had moved a Resolution in a similar sense, and had carried it by a majority of three to one in a fairly large House. In every deliberate Assembly in the Metropolis, at any rate, from the Church House at Westminster to the august assembly which met in Spring Gardens, there was a similar practice, and in almost every Colony in the Empire a time limit was the rule, and worked with the greatest possible success. When it was objected that the House of Commons had lasted for some 600 years, and that what was good enough for their predecessors was good enough for them, his answer was that things were by no means what they were. Formerly, Members came there to vote and not to speak. They used to sit in rows on each side of the House and applaud everything that was said by the wise, great, and eminent occupants of the front Benches; and sometimes they had their reward in an apotheosis in the House of Lords. A proposal like what he submitted required no special pleading; it spoke for itself. The man who in those days could not deliver his soul in a quarter of an
88
hour, or twenty minutes, did not know his trade, and was not fit to be a Member of Parliament.
Amendment proposed—
"In line five, after the word 'Debate,' to insert the words 'and no Member shall, in Committee of Supply, speak more than once to the same Question or for longer than twenty minutes'"—(Major Rasch.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I rise at once in the character of one of the members of that section of the House which, in this matter, is led by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am a supporter and an advocate of a time limit for speeches, and I have both spoken in favour of that and voted with the hon. and gallant Gentleman on previous occasions. But I am bound to say I cannot do so on the present occasion, because he has mixed the matter of a time limit up with single speeches in Committee of Supply, which is another question altogether. If there is any part of the business of the House for which a restriction is less required, it seems to me to be Committee of Supply. The hon. and gallant Gentleman appears to have forgotten the fact that a Minister has to defend the Vote under discussion, and that even on individual points in it very serious and complicated questions may arise. I do not know any part of the business of the House in which there is less of an attempt to make a display or to advertise themselves on the part of Members than in Committee of Supply. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman were to direct his attack against the long and tiresome speeches on the Second Reading of Bills, I could see very much more reason in what he proposed, and I should be disposed myself, with

89
due conditions and modifications, to support his ideal. But the business of Supply is the very time when we ought to give power to a Member to get up again and again, and to a Minister to get up again and again, and to explain more fully some difficult point which had been brought forward in the discussion. Supply, as I have said, is the most important part of the business of the House, and I do not think we ought to begin with it as the particular portion of our duties to which this experiment should be applied. I make this declaration against the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as one who has supported him on the general principle of short speeches, to which I adhere strongly.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am one of those who think that in all probability the time will come when the House will be compelled to adopt not the Amendment now before us but some limitation on the duration of speeches. I should not myself in the least object to that time coming quickly, if I could see my way to a particular plan which would carry my hon. friend's intention out without really injuring the efficiency of the House. I am in entire sympathy with the general object of my hon. friend, but as regards the subject of Supply, which is the only thing now before us, I do not see how we are to get over two difficulties. The first is that in; Supply we very often have debates of the first magnitude on policy. The Colonial Secretary is, for instance, attacked, and he makes a great statement upon South African policy. Is it possible to confine him to twenty minutes? Surely the thing is absurd on the face of it, and we must abandon any notion of the kind. That difficulty seems to me to be insuperable, but there is another difficulty which has been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, with whom I am in entire accord in this matter, and that is that on the Estimates, as a rule, a Minister is on his defence. He can defend himself, but no one else can defend him. No one else knows the case. It is very; easy to say, "Let a colleague get up"; but the colleague does not know the details, and the Minister must stand or
90
fall by his own policy; and unless you give him a chance of replying more than once, you hand him over bound hand and foot. Even in the discussion of these Rules I found great difficulty in not being able to speak more than once, and it has been only by the extreme kindness and consideration of the House that I have been able to put the case at all, no one can tell in what way an attack may develop. An Amendment is started, in which the mover does not seem to have very much interest. NO one else seems to have very much interest in it, and a Minister gets up, who is perhaps equally perfunctory, and then gradually the skirmish develops into a first class battle, in which the Minister must be allowed to have his chance. For these two reasons, which I do not wish to develop further, I think my hon. friend's Amendment will not do in the form in which it-stands. If by his ingenuity, which is very great, and by his power of compressing observations, which I think is unrivalled, my hon. friend could bring forward some plan for the limitation of speeches. I am sure he would have no more enthusiastic disciple than myself; and I gather also from the speech of the right Hon. Gentleman opposite that he will have the unusual advantage for an independent Member of having two Front Bench men in his favour.
SIR CHARLES DILKEthought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not, on consideration, be able to vote for his own Amendment. He agreed that the practice which had sprung up from the time of Mr. Goschen of making a statement on the Army and Navy before the Speaker left the Chair was a most unfortunate one, and he had often heard the hon. and gallant Gentleman attack the present system for its inconvenience. Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not suggest that in a year when great military changes were being made the Secretary of State for War should be confined to twenty minutes.
MR. RENWICKsaid he would have the greatest pleasure in seconding the Amendment. Both the

91
Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition had given expression to the opinion that they were in favour of short speeches. If they really were in favour of short speeches, he hoped the Leader of the House would take advantage of the alteration of the Rules to give effect to that opinion. He wished to point out that neither his hon. and gallant friend nor himself wished to deny, in any way, to Ministers or to Members of the Front Opposition Bench an extended time to develop their arguments. He was quite aware that it was necessary that they should have an extension of time, and he was quite ready to give it to them. During the course of the debate they had heard a great deal of the experience of hon. Gentlemen who had been in the House for many years. His hon. and gallant friend had been in the House for seventeen years. He himself had only been in the House seventeen months, but during that period he had been an observer, and the observations he had made led him to the conclusion that the Amendment which had been moved, or something like it, was very necessary. He wished to carry hon. Members back to August of last year. After the expiration of the twenty days which had been allotted to Supply, what happened? On August 7th, the last of the days allotted, there remained some sixty millions or eighty millions of money to be voted. The discussion was commenced at half-past five, and one hon. Member of the Irish Party spoke for an hour and a half on a Vote for some £46,000 for local government in Ireland. He was followed by other hon. Members on the Irish Benches, and between them they occupied all the available time on the discussion of that Vote, and from ten o'clock at night until six o'clock in the morning the closure was being moved, and hon. Members walked through the division lobbies twenty-six times, and sixty millions or eighty millions of money was passed without a word of discussion. Although the Leader of the Irish Party was largely responsible for what had taken place, he rose about two o'clock in the morning and said that in his experience of Parliament he had never known such a scandalous state of things. Would any hon. Member, remembering what had
92
taken place, say there was no necessity for the Amendment before the House? As long as it was possible—and it would be possible under the new Rules—for a repetition of such a state of affairs, there would be a necessity for limiting speeches in the direction indicated. He challenged the Leader of the House, or any other supporter of the proposed alteration of the Rules, to say how such a state of affairs could be avoided in the future if it was open to Members to obstruct business in the same way as they did last year. During the recess a great deal was heard as to the necessity of altering the Rules of Procedure, in order that the dignity and traditions of the House of Commons might be upheld. Whenever the matter was mentioned to the electors, and it was pointed out that £80,000,000 of their money could be voted without a single word of discussion, an unanimous desire was expressed that the Rules should be altered. New Members had been told that they were going to be destroyed, extinguished, or crushed, while one prominent Member had stated that the proposed new Rules set the seal upon the final humiliation of private Members. They might be killed, but when they were buried it would be very appropriate to write on their tombstones that they had been killed by long speeches. It might be that they were going to be crushed or extinguished, but, at any rate, the new Members would feel it less than the older Members because they had had no other experience. During the seventeen months he had been a Member of the House he had many times gone very reluctantly into the Lobby in support of the Minister, of the Crown who had moved the closure, but he ventured to tell the Government that if, as the result of these new Rules, in August next the House were again called upon to vote a similar amount of money without discussion as was the case last year, then even more reluctantly, if at all, would he record his vote for the closure. There was now a golden opportunity to deal effectively with this great scandal, and he sincerely hoped the Government would not let that opportunity be lost.
MR. EUGENE WASONsaid there was a general

93
consensus of opinion on both sides of the House that speeches ought, if possible, to be curtailed. In order to get rid, once for all, of the difficulty suggested by the Leader of the House, he moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, after the word "Member," to insert "other than a Minister of the Crown." That would give a Minister, if attacked, power to reply at length. As to other Members, if they could not say all they had to say-in twenty minutes, there were twenty of the colleagues who could follow, and between them have plenty of time to say all that was desired.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"After the word 'Member,' to insert the words 'other than a Minister of the Crown.'"—(Mr. Eugene Wason.)—
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
MR. T. P. O'CONNORthought the Amendment just moved did not improve the original proposal. It introduced a principle which the House of Commons had never yet accepted and he hoped never would accept, viz., that there should not be absolute and perfect equality between all Members. Then, too, it would probably be admitted by all official and ex-official Members of the House that a Member who made an attack on the policy of a Minister might have just as much right to a longer time for the development of his attack as the Minister for his reply. The Leader of the House was a very important Member, so also were the Leader of the official Opposition and the Leader of the Irish Opposition. Sometimes he thought the latter was the most important of all. If they were to have any first-class debates upon the policy of a Minister, it would be as absurd to limit the duration of the speech of the Member who opened the attack as to limit that of the Minister who replied. The hon. Member for Newcastle had delivered a remarkable, interesting, and significant speech, with almost the whole of which he found himself able to agree. Unfortunately, however, the premisses of the hon. Member, which he adopted, led him to a different conclusion. The hon. Member
94
had complained that after spending many hours in discussing a Vote of £46,000 for Irish Local Government, the House proceeded to vote £60,000,000 for the services of the year without any debate whatever—a state of things which he described as scandalous. To that he (the speaker) said "ditto" from the bottom of his heart. It was a scandal that Irishmen should have to discuss Irish Local Government in this House at all. He did not, however, rise for the purpose of developing an argument in favour of Irish Home Rule, although all discussion led to Ireland; but he wished, in passing, to point out that the speech of the hon. Member, taken with that of the First Lord of the Treasury earlier in the evening, formed an admirable and irresistible plea for that which was the complement of Homo Rule for Ireland, viz., Home Rule for England, and for the British Empire.
As to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for the Chelmsford Division, the First Lord had conclusively pointed out that a Minister could not be expected to limit to twenty minutes his defence of a great question of public policy. The hon. Member for Newcastle had met that difficulty by complaining of the length of the speeches of Irish Members. It, therefore, appeared that the proposal ought really to read that Ministers of the Crown and English Members were to have as much time as they liked, but that all Irish Members should be limited to twenty minutes. [" No."] His hon. friend did not support that, but that was the difficulty of starting upon the inclined pack of ice—you never knew where you would get to. If the undemocratic and unworthy principle of making distinctions and grades between different Members were adopted, there would also have to be distinctions, not merely between ministerial and private Members, but also between Members of different nationalities. The hon. and gallant Member had made two proposals. First he suggested that in Committee of Supply no Member should address the House for a longer period than twenty minutes in one speech. That was grotesquely absurd, as under such a Rule it would be possible for a Member to make three or four or more speeches of twenty minutes each. The hon. and gallant Member saw the absurdity of that proposal, and amended it by limiting

95
Members to one speech of not more than twenty minutes. But that destroyed the whole foundation of, and reason for, debates in Committee. It was not for the purpose of encouraging talk that the House made a distinction between speeches delivered on Second Readings and those delivered in Committee. It was because in Committee details were discussed, and in order to discuss details properly it was necessary that a Member should be able to speak more than once.
As to the limit of twenty minutes, he agreed that speeches should be curtailed. But the usage of the House in regard to the length of speeches had changed in a remarkable degree within the last twenty-two year. As the House had been told, when the First Lord entered the House it was a common practice for private Members' Bills to be talked out; but now, as a result of the closure, nobody attempted to talk out a Bill on a Wednesday afternoon. The closure, like every other political cause, had had many effects which nobody had contemplated or foreseen, and it had undoubtedly completely transformed the character of debates in the House. The hon. and gallant Member thought that speeches were very long and the debates of great duration. If he had been a Member when he (the speaker) was about to deliver—until closured by a coup d'état on the part of the Speaker of the day—a two hours speech in the course of a forty-one hours sitting, he would know what really prolonged debates were. To the old stagers in the House the debates in the present piping times of peace were; a model of compression—almost of undue and artificial compression. These things should be left to natural causes. What would happen if such artificial limits were imposed? If it were laid down that no Member should speak for more than twenty minutes, the result would be that every Member who; spoke at all would speak for twenty, minutes ["No."] If debate were artificially shortened in one direction it would be lengthened in another. Take the case of an Irish Coercion Bill being introduced with such a rule in existence. Could it be supposed that every Irish Member would not consider it his duty to exercise his right to the fullest extent? The result of the Rule
96
in that case would be that, instead of having one or two speeches of thirty, forty, or fifty minutes duration, the House would have to listen to twenty or thirty—[" eighty "]—of twenty minutes each, and the last state of the House would be worse than the first. He had seen a similar arrangement tried in the House of Representatives in the United States. He had great respect for the constitution of the United States, but in no sense of the word could it be said that the debates in the House of Representatives were as real or relevant as those in the House of Commons. What happened there? If a Member did not want the whole of the time allotted to him, he delegated a portion to some other Member, with the result that the debates were more like a dress rehearsal at a theatre than the relevant and pertinent discussions of the House of Commons. He might illustrate by an experience how the system worked. The question under discussion was whether or not a certain apartment should have a tesselated pavement. The Speaker left the Chair for a time, and when he returned he found an honourable gentleman from a division of the State of Tennessee ending his speech with the words—
"And now, Sir, I think I have sufficiently vindicated my own conduct and that of my State in the late Civil War."
These artificial rules had brought the House of Representatives to a discussion not of the actual issues of the day, but of the history of parties and the history of the country. He hoped the House would reject the Amendment as being destructive of one of the best virtues of the House of Commons, viz., the naturalness, actuality, and relevance of its debates
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not intend to discuss the Amendment, as he had already sufficiently expressed his views on the subject. The debate had been extremely interesting, but it was really resolving itself into a general discussion of the management of debates as a whole. He hoped, therefore, it would not be thought unreasonable if he asked them to come to a decision on the Amendment, so as to make some progress with the question before the House.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
(10.38.) Question put, "That the words 'and no Member shall, in Committee of "Supply, speak more than once to the
Same question or for longer than twenty minuties be there Insterted:—
The house divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 68. (division List No 107.)

AYES

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc, Stroud

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Broadhurst, Henry

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Cautley, Henry Strother

Lough, Thomas

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Elibank, Master of

M'Kenna, Reginald

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Grant, Corrie

Priestley, Arthur

TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Mr. Robert Wallace and Mr. Fuller.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Renwick, George

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

Schwann, Charles E.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

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

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Cogan, Denis J.

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

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Green, Walford D (Wed'esbury

Arnold-Forster, Hugo. O

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

Ashton, Thamas Gair

Cranborne, Viscount

Grenfell, William Henry

Atherley-Jones. L.

Crean, Eugene

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hatmilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

Austin, Sir John

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hammond, John

Bagot, Capt. Joscelinc FitzRoy

Crossley, Sir Savile

Han bury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Bam, Colonel James Robert

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Hardy, Laure'ce (Kent, Ashford

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

Delany, William

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Denny, Colonel

Harmsworth, R. (Leicester)

Banbury, Frederick George

Dewar, T. R. (TH' ml' ts. S. Geo.

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Hayden, John Patrick

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Bartley, George C. T.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Donelan, Capt. A.

Helder, Augustus

Bell, Richard

Doogan, P. C.

Henderson, Alexander

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

Herman-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Bignold, Arthur

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hogg, Lindsay

Bigwood, James

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Black, Alexander William

Edwards, Frank

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Blake, Edward

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Houston, Robert Paterson

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Fenwick, Charles

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Bond, Edward

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Mane'r

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Brigg, John

Ffrench, Peter

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Jordan, Jeremiah

Brotherton, Edward Alien

Finch, George H.

Joyce, Michael

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Keswick, William

Brymer, William Ernest

Fisher, William Hayes

Lambert, George

Bull, William James

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

Law, Andrew Bonar

Butcher, John George

Flower, Ernest

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth

Caldwell, James

Flynn, James Christopher

Lawson, John Grant

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Forster, Henry William

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Lee, A. H. (Hant-., Fareham)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Causton, Richard Knight

Gardner, Ernest

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie

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

Garfit, William

Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

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

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gilhooly, James

Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Channing, Francis Allston

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Lowe, Francis William

Chapman, Edward

Gordon, Hn J. E (Elgin & Nairn

Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

Charrington, Spencer

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Lnndon, W.

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

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

O'Dowd, John

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Macdona, John Cumming

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Simeon, Sir Barring ton

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

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

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

O'Malley, William

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Maconochie, A. W.

O'Mara, James

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Spear, John Ward

M'Crae, George

O'Shee, James John

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

M'Govern, T.

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

M'Kean, John

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Sullivan, Donal

Majendie, James A. H.

Parker, Gilbert

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Malcolm, Ian

Partington, Oswald

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Mansfield, Horace. Rendall

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

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

Markham, Arthur Basil

Penn, John

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Pickard, Benjamin

Valentia, Viscount

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Power, Patrick Joseph

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Mooney, John J.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wason, Jn. Catcheart (Orkney)

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Purvis, Robert

Webb, Coloncl William George

More, Robert, Jasper (Shropshire)

Randles, John S.

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

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Ratcliff, R. F.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'ths.

Rea, Russell

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Morrison, James Archibald

Reddy, M.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Moulton, John Fletcher

Reid, James (Greenock)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Mount, William Arthur

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Murphy, John

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

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

Myers, William Henry

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Woodhouse, Sir. J. T. (Hudd'rsfi'd

Nicholson, William Graham

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Roche, John

Younger, William

Nolan, Joseph (Lough, South)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Norman, Henry

Russell, T. W.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

O'Brien, P. T. (Tipperary, N.)

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

MR. LOUGHsaid he would respond to the appeal made by the First Lord of the Treasury to leave the details and approach the heart of the question. He rose to move the omission of the second paragraph, which proposed that not more than twenty days should be allotted for the consideration of Supply. This second paragraph in the new Procedure Rule was the very heart and centre of the whole Rule. It provided that—
"Not more than twenty days, being days before the fifth of August, shall be allotted for the consideration of the annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account."
The whole Rule was simply an amplification of this paragraph. All the new Members elected to this Parliament and the last Parliament had had no experience in Committee of Supply different to that which they had had under the existing Rule. He was addressing a large body of hon. Members who had had some experience upon this question before this extraordinary Rule was adopted. This Rule, of which they had had six years
100
experience, had been a gigantic failure, and they ought to take this opportunity of modifying it in the interests of the House. The questions raised in the other amended Rules were mostly theoretic questions, but of this Rule they had had considerable experience, and it had reduced the business of Supply to a farce, and the House would never get control of the Estimates until this Rule was seriously modified. What was the object of the Rule? What was the business of the Supply Committee which this Rule was intended to facilitate? The first object of the business of Committee of Supply was to bring the national expenditure under the control of the House. In this respect the Rule had entirely failed, because it had not brought the national expenditure under the control of Parliament.
Upon this point he would give a few figures. The present Supply Rule had been in existence for six years, and he had taken out the amount of Supply which had not been discussed at all. The amount of Supply which did not

101
come under the control or consideration of the House at all was as follows:—In 1897 £52,000,000, in 1898 £43,000,000, in 1899 £56,000,000, in 1900 £75,000,000,; and in 1901 £88,000,000. Therefore during those five years a large proportion of the Supply of this House was not considered by the House of Commons at all, consequently he was justified in saying that this Rule had failed in what ought to be its first object, A most remarkable statement had been made by the hon. Member for Newcastle, who said that he had been in the habit of addressing meetings on this point in the country, and when he asserted on the platform that in the House of Commons they passed £60,000,000 of Supply without a single remark, every person in the meeting agreed that this was a state of things which ought to be altered. If the House maintained this Supply Rule as it now stood, a vast and increasing body of the expenditure must pass every year without any examination whatever. The second object of Supply was to secure the State against extravagance and waste in the financial expenditure, and the Rule had lamentably failed in that respect, for there had sprung up the grossest extravagance in many departments. In the year when this rule was first adopted the expenditure was £105,000,000, but the total expenditure of the country this year would be no less than £210,000,000. It might be said that the war was responsible for this. Not only had war, like expenditure, increased, but civil ser-vice and every branch of expenditure had developed in a very extraordinary way. In fact it was a byword that there was no party in the House that stood up for economy. There were some Members who had maintained the principles of economy as well as they could, but they had not been quite successful. There had been in every branch of expenditure in the State the most gross extravagance during the last six years. In every part of the Empire there had been the greatest extravagance. Our warlike expenditure had increased to £2 10s. per head of the population and that was most extravagant. Millions had been spent on railways leading to no one knew where in Africa.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to go into details of the expenditure. He may generally state his opinion as to the tendency of expenditure.
MR. LOUGHsaid he accepted that ruling. He only meant to give an instance. He had said enough to make his point good. They wished to secure efficiency for the vast sums which were expended. It had become a byword that we were not very efficient in this country at the present time. There was a Party, to which many of them must wish all success in their endeavours, who had made "efficiency" their watchword. When debating the Rules they ought to keep in view the question of administration. What, after all, was the meaning of examining Votes in Committee of Supply? The meaning of it was that this House should obtain an affective control over the administrative Departments of the country. Was there any man who would say that the House had secured proper control over the departments during the last six years? He ventured to say that the House had lost any control of the Departments which it formerly had. He believed that the great Departments were without control. There were two controls which ought to be exercised—one was that of the Minister in charge of a Department, and the other was the possesser by this House. He did not rely on the Minister if he was not stimulated in his action by this House. If this House had sufficient control the country would have some security that the business of the Departments was properly carried on. The First Lord of the Treasury had said that he was always willing to bring forward any Vote which the House wished to discuss. Nothing could he more conciliatory, but when they got a discussion it was desultory and came to nothing whatever. The Ministry knew that under the Rules which settled the time allowed for voting Supply the votes must inevitably be got through. But Ministers could not shake off their responsibility like that. It was the business of Ministers to secure fair and adequate discussion of all those great questions which arose in Committee of Supply. A Return had been issued within the last few days showing that

103
proposals to reduce Estimates in Committee of Supply had only been carried three or four times in the last ten years. He had heard the Leader of the House argue that reductions were carried so seldom that the discussions were not of much practical use. The discussions might bear fruit in future years. If discussion was well conducted in the House in regard to any estimate it could not be entirely fruitless. They must not judge on the utility of discussion by the number of times a Motion for reduction was carried. He remembered an instance where discussion tended to economy. About eighteen months ago it was proposed to expend £30,000 on the terrace of the Houses of Parliament. He protested and received the support of the others, with the result that the proposal was abandoned and the money was saved. He could give many illustrations to show that criticism in the House had very much reduced expenditure. He thought it would be very easy to find a more effective way of dealing with Supply than that provided by this Rule. He suggested that Committees might be appointed to deal with the Navy, Army, and Civil Service Estimates, and that there should then be a Report stage of not more than twenty days in the House. The twenty days which had been allotted year after year were wasted. Ministers were not anxious to get Supply through, because all their motive to do so had been removed. He wanted to get rid of the automatic closure of Supply. They should take away the present element of compulsion, and give elasticity to the Committee, allowing Members to criticise the votes in an honest and fair spirit. The matter had become one of gigantic importance in which the taxpayers of the country were deeply interested.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 6, to leave out the words from the words 'Not more than,' to the words 'as first Order,' in line 11, both inclusive"—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'Not more than twenty days, being days before the 5th of August, shall be allotted for the consideration of the annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account, stand part of the Question"
Mr. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was true that, if the Amendment were adopted, the Supply Rule which had existed for some years would virtually disappear, and the House would revert to the status quo ante and to a method of discussing Supply which, for some reason, appeared to find favour with the hon. Member. He would not claim that the Supply Rule was in every point of view an improvement on the ancient system. He did not say the House had lost absolutely nothing by the change. But he did claim that by it the House had been able to discuss Supply, and had escaped the torture of an absolutely obstructive style of debate. The old system conduced to no economy of expenditure. Under it, even the oldest Member could recollect nothing in the way of criticism of Estimates, or condemnation of expenditure, such as took place in the time of Joseph Hume. The Government at long intervals brought in Votes of Account, on which there; were miscellaneous and usually not very profitable discussions, ranging over the whole realm of political knowledge, and leading to no conclusive result. Supply got piled up, and at the very end of the session, a jaded House, diminished and shorn of its Members, went through the Votes till two, three, four, or five o'clock in the morning, getting through its task in physical exhaustion. The hon. Member appeared to think that there was now no adequate opportunity of criticising the administration of the departments. This, at all events, was secured—that week after week, from the beginning of the session to the end, there was opportunity for any hon. Member to make any criticism he chose. How could a Minister be perfunctory in his defence when the attack was made at an hour convenient to the House and when the debates were reported and he could be judged by his speeches in the Press and the country? In the old days he was on his defence at three in the morning, half-asleep himself, and his critics half asleep, and no reporting possible. What they should aim at was to try to divide the session equitably between the various claims, not of the Government, but of the country and the House. His opinion was that not too little time but too much time was given to Supply. Lender the existing system, thirty-five days were devoted to Supply. More days could not possibly be

105
allotted to it without restricting the time to be given to legislation. He believed it was Mr. Gladstone's opinion, and it certainly was his, that it was not desirable to ask the House to sit, broadly speaking, for more than six months of the year. It was inevitable that the House should sit more than six months this year. But he thought that as a general rule a six months session ought to be adopted. Was it conceivable that in a six months session they could carry on the business of the House if they were to give more than thirty-five days to Supply?
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that the question to be decided was whether this Rule was to be stereotyped instead of being subject to the approval of the House each session. He appealed to hon. Members on both sides of the House as to whether it could be said, in the face of the closing scenes of last session, that the Rule was a success. On the last day allotted to Supply, Votes amounting to £67,000,000 of public money were passed without discussion, and on the last day for Report of Supply £86,000,000 were passed under the same conditions. He for one could not admit that the Rule as it stood, without modification or alteration, had been a practical success. He would state to the House why, in his opinion, that result had been reached. It was not the fault of the Rule alone. There were concurrent circumstances which had led to the result he had described. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to two causes which produced that result, without being aware of the significance of the allusion he was making. He spoke of Votes of credit and alluded to the old practice by which two or three Votes on account were taken in the course of a session, and the right hon. Gentleman deprecated that practice. It appeared to him, however, that it was the abandonment of that very practice which had led to the result he had described. Twenty years ago, when a Vote on account for the Civil Service was asked for, for more than two months the House refused to grant it. The old practice was to limit a Vote on account to two months Supply. "What had they had during the present session? A Vote on account for £19,000,000
106
out of the total of £44,000,000 for the Civil Service had been granted. That represented provision for fully five months expenditure. It was not one Vote on account, but the only Vote on account. At the beginning of the session the Government got all the supply they needed for the session, and with the certainty that they would get the rest on a certain day towards the end of the session, all temptation was removed to exercise any control over Supply. He had not been as long in the House as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, but he thought he had sat through more debates in Supply than the right hon. Gentleman, and in his opinion there was only one thing which could save the House of Commons from the deplorable state of things which had arisen, and that was to have an orderly and equally divided discussion over all the Estimates. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not think he was making a personal attack on him, but what was wanted was constant, vigilant, and intelligent leadership of the House all through Committee of Supply. That was no reflection on the Leader of the House, because he was not present during most of the debates in Committee of Supply. It was not usual for the Leader of the House to lead on such occasions. During last session the right hon. Gentleman was present during the whole of the debates on one Department, viz., the Navy Department, and he kept an almost incessant control over the Navy Estimates. But he did not attempt to control the whole course of Supply. He was not making a reflection on the right hon. Gentleman, but he was showing what he thought was a self-evident proposition—that where the Government got all its money by an automatic process, unless the debates were evenly distributed over the whole financial year, it would be impossible not to have £70,000,00 or £80,000,000 guillotined without debate at all at the end of the session.
The right hon. Gentleman had been criticised more than once for his statement as to the principle on which he said the new Rules were based. The principle put forward was that the Rules of the House should be brought into

107
conformity with the practice of the House. If that were applied to Estimates, the Government would get all their Supply in two Votes. Then the right hon. Gentleman said again tonight, as he had said often before, that it was for the Opposition to select the subject for debates. It was not for the Opposition, but for the responsible leaders of the House. It was for the responsible leaders, by all the means under their control, including closure, and not excluding the gentler arts in which the right hon. Gentleman was proficient, to have an even distribution of Supply over the session. That might be making too great a demand on any one Minister, but without it he did not see that with a large, solitary Vote on account at the beginning of the session, and automatic closure at the end, they would have any other but the discreditable and deplorable result he had described. Could nothing else be done? The hon. Member for Islington pointed to an increase in the number of days. He would not argue that now, but there was an Amendment on the Paper, which he regretted was out of order, which would have raised the alternative, and the only alternative, and; that was that the Estimates should be referred to a Select Committee. That would save the situation, and would give to the new Rules a character which at the present moment they did not possess. What was the great blot in the new Rules? It was that they contained no proposal whatever for increasing the control of the House over expenditure. That was what was wanted. The Amendment to which he had referred proposed that the Estimates should be referred to the Committee before they came before the House. He would earnestly press that on the right hon. Gentleman. If the new system of closure at both ends of the session was to prevail, then devolution, in the sense of a reference to a Committee, became absolutely necessary. For his own part, he would go further, and would suggest not only that the Estimates should be referred to a Select Committee at the beginning of the session, and that they should come before the House with the criticisms and the Report of the Committee, but that afterwards, when the Estimates were executed, when the
108
House had given its mandate, a Select Committee should enquire how that mandate had been executed. In other words, he would like to see a new Committee, on the lines of the Public Accounts Committee, formed for the purpose of examining into the manner in which the Estimates were executed. That might be done by adding administrative criticism to the functions of the Public Accounts Committee. At present no Minister was bound to pay the slightest attention to the Public Accounts Committee when its criticism dealt with administration. There was the case of the Royal yacht last year. What was the use of the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee with reference to that? The Department concerned could snap its fingers at the Committee and say it was a matter of administration. His suggestion was that the Public Accounts Committee should be empowered to look into the Estimates and see whether the money had been properly expended. Allusion had been made to a party in this House and in the country which was pledged to efficiency in matters of administration. He would point out that the two proposals he was now making—and he was speaking entirely for himself—had been formulated by a Committee with reference to public administration, of which, his noble friend Lord Rosebery was chairman and of which he himself was a member. He hoped the right hon. I Gentleman would receive what, he had said in the spirit in which it was offered, and he thought the hon. Member who moved the Amendment had rendered an important service to the House and the country by calling attention to what had been well described as the heart of the new Rules.
MR. DISRAELIsaid that if hon. Gentlemen opposite would practice efficiency when in office and talk less about it when out of office, it would be better for all parties. The hon. Member charged the Leader of the House with being absent, but they all knew that the Leader of the House was almost always at his post. He did not intend to criticise the Rule; it was an old friend. It was, however,

109
now proposed to make it a permanent, instead of a sessional, Standing Order, He thought it would be a very dangerous thing to draw a hard and-fast limit of twenty days for all time, it was as if a railway company every day ran a train of the same size to a certain place, whether there were many passengers or few. It would be better if a more elastic principle could be adopted. Reference had been made to the manner in which the United States carried on its business. He believed the custom was that the two Leaders of the House of Representatives met and valued the time of a debate, and agreed, for instance, that such and such a debate was worth eight hours and another debate only worth six hours, but they had no hard and-fast Rule. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow the Rule to remain a sessional order and not make it a permanent order.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that the Amendment was one of the most important proposals that had yet been submitted to the House. [HON. MEMBERS: Divide, Divide!] Ought such an important debate to be brought to a conclusion when it had occupied only fifty minutes? Only four speeches had been delivered, and he could assure hon. Members that he did not rise for the purpose of unduly prolonging the discussion. Supply afforded private Members the only opportunity they had of discussing internal or external questions, such as foreign politics, the war in South Africa or the situation in China, and, therefore, he would make no apology whatever for continuing the discussion. Under the Rule, twenty days were given for the discussion of Supply, plus three extra days, which, however, would only be provided in case a Minister of the Crown chose to put them at the disposal of the House. As a matter of fact, however, no less than thirty-five days were habitually occupied in discussing various items of supply, and why, therefore, should there be a pretence that only twenty days would be occupied. It would be much better to get rid of what was no doubt an automatic Rule, but which, more or less, was nothing less than a sham, and allot
110
from time to time so much of the time of the House as the Government could afford for the adequate discussion of Supply. Something like £10,000,000 of Supply was on an average taken on each day, and various subjects came up for discussion. If the first item happened to be interesting, it occupied the attention of Members on both sides, and the whole of the rest of the Tote remained undiscussed. Surely that was not a very desirable state of things. It had been truly pointed out that reductions were moved in Supply, not for the purpose of reducing expenditure, but in order to call attention to the policy which entailed the expenditure. If the present proposal were compared with the proposal of last session, it would be seen that it gave some better protection to the private Member, but at the same time it was quite certain that a great number of votes and very large sums of money would have to be passed without any adequate discussion by the House by means of the guillotine. That might or might not be a desirable policy, but he maintained that there ought to be no pretence whatever about it.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that the Rule under discussion was of such a far-reaching and important character that it was absolutely necessary that every section of the House, and certainly the section he had the honour to represent, should be heard in regard to it. No section in the House had suffered more from the operation of the old Rule, when it was a sessional order, than the section which represented Ireland. He believed it was absolutely true that during the past five years all the most important votes dealing with the administration of Ireland had been closured without any discussion whatever. While listening to the speech of the hon. Member who introduced the Amendment, he thought the House must be impressed by the fact that during the past five years Estimates of the United Kingdom to the extent of £340,000,000 had been closured without any discussion.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The discussion will be adjourned until Monday next, and I only do so on the remote chance that the Budget may not come on. Hon. Members will not interpret the fact, if the Rules stand first on the Order Paper for Monday, that the Budget will not come on on that day I believe it will.
It being midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

NEW BILL.
  POOR LAW SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND).
  Bill to provide for Superannuation Allowances to certain Local Officers and Servants in Ireland, and for Contributions towards such Allowances by such Officers and Servants; and to make other relative provisions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. O'Malley.
  POOR LAW SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To provide for Superannuation Allowances to certain Local Officers and Servants in Ireland, and for Contributions towards such Allowances by such Officers and Servants; and to make other relative provisions," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 150.]

  TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the Rate of Duties, Taxes, or Imposts
  112
  collected by the Imperial Officers; (2) the Quantities or Amounts taxed; (3) the Gross Receipts derived from each Duty; (4) the net Receipts and Appropriations thereof in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1902; and (1) the aggregate Gross Receipts derived from all such Duties, Taxes, or Imposts under the principal heads of Revenue; (2) the aggregate net Receipts; (3) the Charges of Collection; and (4) the Produce, after deducting those Charges, in each of the ten years ending the 31st day of March 1902."
  "And, Notes to show any changes in the Taxes, Duties, and Imposts consequent upon the acceptance of the Budget Proposals of 1902 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 350 of Session 1901)."—(Mr. Goddard.)

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—PEACE, RUMOURS.
  On the Motion for the Adjournment—
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In view of the rumours which are cur rent, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say whether there is any news from South Africa.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am acquainted with the rumours to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and I am glad that he has given mean opportunity of dissipating these current views, for which there is no foundation. We have no information at all from South Africa, nor, in the nature of things, could there be any such information.
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.