Sitting of 17 February 1902

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—

  Caledonian Railway Bill.

  City and Brixton Railway Bill.

  Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Bill.

  Great Northern Railway (No. 1) Bill.

  Reading Gas Bill.

  South Metropolitan Gas Bill.

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (LONDON) BILL (STANDING ORDERS COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred pursuant to the Order of the House of the

  167
  11th day of February, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Electric Lighting (London) Bill.

  BROMLEY GAS BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  COMMERCIAL GAS BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  EAST WORCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  SOUTHPORT AND LYTHAM TRAMROAD BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  FINCHLEY IMPROVEMENT BILL (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.

  YORK CORPORATION BILL.
  Ordered, that, in the case of the York Corporation Bill, Standing Orders 204 and 235 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read a second time.— (Mr. Caldwell.)
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed.

PETITIONS.
  BOROUGH FUNDS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from St. Marylebone, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petitions in favour—From Leeds, Waterloo Main, Staveley, Monk Bretton, Mitchell's Main, Monckton Main, Darfield Main, and Flint Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour from Glasgow, Motherwell, Perth, Beith, Scottish Alliance for Temperance and Social Reform, Egin, Ardrossan, Largs (two), and Dunlop; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour from London, Ventnor, and Manchester; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition against, to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour from Leeds, Waterloo Main, Staveley, Monk Bretton, Mitchell's Main, Darfield Main, Monckton Main, Flint, and Oatland Pit Colleries; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour from Greenock, Glasgow, and Aberdeen; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (ARMY CHANGES).
  Return presented relative thereto [Address 13th February, Mr. Schwann]; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICA (DESPATCHES).
  Copy presented of Despatch by General Lord Kitchener, dated 8th January, 1902, relative to military operations in South Africa [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (IMPERIAL YEOMANRY).
  Copy presented of Training Return of Imperial Yeomanry for 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY.
  Copy presented of Return of Military Forces in South Africa, 1899–1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1902–3 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  Estimate presented, showing the several services for which a Vote on Account is required for the year ending 31st March, 1903 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 64.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) ACQUISITION OF LAND ORDER, 1902.
  Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 13th February, 1902, making General Rules for the procedure under Section 10 (2) of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
(3.30.) QUESTIONS

  South African War—Censorship.
  MR. LLOYD - GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs): On behalf of the hon. Member for the Eifion Division of Carnarvonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the names of the newspapers, periodicals, and books whose circulation in South Africa under martial law has been prohibited or interfered with.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): The hon. Member wrote to me that he did not intend to put the Question. Still, I have no objection to answering it. No such list is available.

  Reported Arrest of Peace Delegates.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Eifion Division of Carnarvonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the three Dutch subjects of His Majesty, Messrs. Botha, De Wet, and Du Plessis, who came here in 1900 to urge a peaceable settlement of the conflict in South Africa, have since their return to Cape Colony been arrested; and, if so, when and for what offence or offences; whether they or any of them are now under arrest, and whether they have been brought to trial.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no information on this subject.

  General Kritzinger.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Eifion Division of Carnarvonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will impress Lord Kitchener with the importance of securing to General Kritzinger ample facilities for producing his witnesses at his trial; and, in the event of
  170
  that being impossible, owing to the witnesses being engaged in the field with the Boer Army, to have the trial postponed until the conclusion of hostilities.
  MR. BRODRICK: I should like to refer to a Question addressed to me on Friday last — whether General Kritzinger's trial had begun. I said I did not know whether it had. On Saturday I received a telegram stating that the trial had begun. Lord Kitchener will certainly take care that General Kritzinger has ample facilities for producing witnesses at his trial, and that justice is secured to him. All such trials are carefully conducted and the sentences and evidence submitted to Sir Richard Solomon before confirmation. It is not necessary to give any special instructions.

  Natal Volunteers' Gratuities.
  MR.EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether certain gratuities were paid last year to the Natal Volunteers, and to the relatives of such of them as had died, which the War Office afterwards declared to have been improperly paid; whether instructions were given to the chief paymaster in Natal in September last to insist that such sums paid to the widows and orphans of deceased Volunteers should be refunded by them; whether the War Office has persevered in this demand; and who is the official responsible for the original blunder, if any, and for the demand for repayment.
  MR. BRODRICK: No instructions were given by the War Office to the chief paymaster in Natal to recover issues of war gratuity. This officer, on his own interpretation of the regulations, which was not sustained by the Secretary of State for War, had issued the sum of £662 10s. to the Master of the Supreme Court, Pietermaritzburg, and of his own accord he recovered from that Court the sum of £417 10s. So far as is known at the War Office, no recovery was effected from any widow or orphan who had actually received the money, and the remaining unrecovered £245 has been charged against

  171
  Army Funds. The matter has been under my consideration and the Commander-in-Chief, South Africa, has discretion as to pay a war gratuity in the case of Colonial corps specially employed.

  Imperial Meat Company's Contract
  Mr. LAMBERT (Devonshire, S. Molton): I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War office whether he will lay a Copy of the meat contract with the Imperial Meat Company upon the Table of the House; if not, is the undertaking to obtain as far as possible the live and dead stock from the Colonies defined, and what is the definition attached to the words as far as possible; and whether failure to fulfil this undertaking would invalidate the contract.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): I will lay a copy of the contract on the Table. We shall closely watch the observance of this clause in the contract to which we shall hold the contractors as to any other provision of the contract.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Is there a contract now in existence with the Imperial Meat Company?
  LORD STANLEY: Yes.
  MR. LAMBERT: When will the copy of the contract be in the hands of Member?
  LORD STANLEY: I cannot tell, but there will be no unnecessary delay.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Can we have copies of the conditions of tender?
  LORD STANLEY: I will consider that.

  Remounts—Military Court of Inquiry— Terms of Reference.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can state the exact nature of the terms of reference or instructions that will be given to the Court of Inquiry on the management of the Remount Department; if not, whether
  172
  he can give assurance that they will define the nature and scope of the Court's inquiry into the conduct of General Truman during the whole time he has been at the head of that Department; into the sufficiency of the staff allowed him when war broke out to deal with exceptional pressure; and into the responsibility of Inspectors-General of Remounts for collecting and tabulating in peace time information as to possible purchasing of horses in our Colonies, and in Foreign Countries in the event of war.
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot give the precise terms, but they will be definite and will cover General Truman's responsibility for collecting information.

  Remounts—Argentina Purchases— Messrs. Houlder's Contract.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the officers or any of the officers sent by the War Office to Argentina, in regard to the supply of horses from that country to the Cape, were members of the Remount Department, and what are the names of the officers sent; whether he is aware that the distance from the Plate to London is 6,500 miles, or about 32 days' steaming, and that the average price before the war for cattle shipped from the Plate to London was £4 10s., or including the disbursements by the persons sending cattle for fodder and attendance £5 10s. per head, and that the distance of the Plate to the Cape is 3,700 miles, or about 18 days steaming; whether he can state what was the number of horses shipped to the Cape from Argentina under the first contract made between the War Office and Messrs. Houlder, and the number of horses shipped by that firm under subsequent contracts, and the price paid per head under each contract entered into; and whether, on making these contracts, the price paid for the transport of cattle from the Plate to London before the war, and the respective distance of Argentina from the Cape and from London, were borne in mind.
  LORD STANLEY: In 1897 three officers of the Remount Department

  173
  were sent to Argentina to buy horses —viz., Colonel Truman, Major Wood, and Captain Peters; and again in 1898, Colonel Truman, Major Peters, and Captain Ferrar. In 1899 no officers of the Department were available, and Majors Aspinwall and Kennedy were employed. The horses were landed in Natal, which is 4,900 miles from Buenos Ayres, and not at the Cape. As regards prices, no comparison can be made with cattle boats, as for horses, ships have to be specially fitted. The numbers shipped under the first contract, 1897, with Messrs. Houlder were 1,361, and the freight per head £9. Under subsequent contracts the numbers were 27,258; the rates under the various contracts being £11, £18 10s., £15, £14 10s., £11, £12 10s., and £12 respectively, inclusive of fittings, fodder, attendance, utensils, &c., on the voyage. The difference in prices is due to the enormous rise in freights generally and the price of coal.

  Remounts—Suggestions from Military Attachés Abroad.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can say what action was taken by the War Office on receiving from the Foreign Office information and suggestions from Military Attachés Abroad as to obtaining supplies of horses for South Africa; through what departments, sub departments, or branches of the War Office did the information pass, and what period of time elapsed between their reaching the War Office and their receipt by the Remount Officers charged with the duty of obtaining such horses in the countries concerned.
  MR. BBODRICK: It is not customary to give details of action taken on information received from Military Attachés abroad.

  Registration Fees for Horses.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT (Westmoreland, Kendal): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what percentage of all the horses which were registered by payment of an annual fee to the owners in the United Kingdom, as available for remounts in case
  174
  of war at the time of the outbreak of the war in South Africa, have since been purchased by Government; and whether the system of registration has continued in force during the war and is still in force.
  MR. BRODRICK: The general Return includes draft horses as well as remounts. I am afraid the figures would take some time to make out. The reply to the last paragraph is in the affirmative.
  SIR BLUNDELL MAPLE: Will the Secretary for War give orders to discontinue the payment of these registration fees, inasmuch as the Remount Department have taken all the available horses they can?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir, I cannot give any pledge of that kind.

  Army Boot Contracts.
  MR. LOUGH: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state for what amount of army boots the War Office has given contracts to the Cawnpore or other factories in India; for what period, and on what conditions and terms; whether the tests applied to these boots are identical with those insisted on for Army boots supplied by contractors in Great Britain; whether these Indian factories are allowed to supply boots made on the combination principle, while contractors in Great Britain are not allowed to supply boots made on that principle; and, if so, on what grounds these advantages are given to the Indian factories and refused to British manufacturers.
  LORD STANLEY: Arrangements have been made with the Indian Government to supply 100,000 ankle boots per annum for the next three years. They will be inspected by the military authorities in India with the same rigidity as is employed for supplies passed for the use of the British troops in India. They are to be of the hand-sewn pattern supplied to British troops there.
  Mr. LOUGH: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, of the 400,000 pairs of Army boots for which tenders have been invited in the past few weeks, only a small proportion of the tenders have been accepted; and whether the average contract price for the screwed Army boot last year was 11s. 6d., whereas this year the War Office is refusing all tenders at over 9s. 9d. Whether contractors have offered to supply 40,000 pairs of boots a year for three years, similar in pattern to the Indian Combination boot, but of stronger and less brittle leather and of stronger workmanship, at practically the Indian price, and have had this offer refused. Whether the hand-sewn boot contracts formerly given to Northamptonshire villages are now being transferred to India, with the result that numbers of hand-sewn workers in Northamptonshire are out of employment. And, whether the policy as to Army boot contracts will be re-considered with a view to equality of treatment of British manufacturers and workmen and those in India.
  LORD STANLEY: The whole of the boots in the recent tenders have been ordered for production in this country. The average price paid for the screwed boots showed a considerable reduction, but it is not the case that tenders over 9s. 9d. have all been declined. Contractors have offered to supply a combination boot. The pattern is now under consideration, and a certain number of such boots have been ordered from various British manufacturers for trial. The Northamptonshire villages delivered only 117,000 last year. 162,000 boots have been ordered for the coming financial year, and further orders will be placed with them as these approach completion. The surplus beyond the number which it is in the power of Northamptonshire to produce has been ordered from India.
  MR. CHARLES SPENCER: Will Northamptonshire villages have a chance of competing?
  LORD STANLEY: They have had.
  MR. C. R. SPENCER: I thought the noble Lord said the residue of the contract was going to India.
  LORD STANLEY: They supplied 117,000 pairs last year, and are to supply 162,000 this year.
  MR. NANNETTI: Were any Irish manufacturers invited to compete?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question.

  Cawnpore Boot Factory.
  MR. LOUGH: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the Cawnpore boot factory is carried on wholly as a private industrial undertaking for private profit, or includes among its directors or managers or shareholders British and Indian Military Officials interested in the securing of contracts; and whether this factory has any direct or indirect subsidy or guarantee from the Imperial or Indian Government.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): The Cawnpore Boot Factory is carried on by a private firm. No British or Indian Military Official is included in the Directorate. As regards managers or shareholders there is no information in this country. The firm receives no direct or indirect subsidy either from the Indian Government or from the Imperial Government, but there is a guarantee that, on certain, terms expressed in the contract, the Government of India will purchase not less than 120,000 pairs of boots per annum for 10 years.

  Table Bay.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the continued retention since October, 1899, of the south arm of the harbour works at Table Bay for the exclusive use of the military authorities, together with up wards of 4,000 feet of quay space and warehouses, is an inconvenience to the Harbour Board of Capetown and the shipping and mercantile community; and

  177
  whether he will instruct the general officers and commandants at base ports to consider the advisability of erecting Government warehouses on the sites offered by the Government Railways, and in any case to occupy the harbour piers, sheds, and quays at Capetown, Port Elizabeth, East London, and Durban as little as possible.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): The points raised in this Question had already been referred to the General Officer commanding at Capetown. He has replied as follows: "The sheds at Capetown are not used for storage of supplies. Hay is stacked in the open, pending trucks being available for up country. I now propose to stack forage at Maitland as soon as rolling stock is available for conveyance from the docks. I am making every effort to meet local requirements at the docks"

  Imperial Yeomanry at Aldershot.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of Yeomanry at Aldershot and the number of commissioned officers with that force prepared to proceed with them to South Africa; also, what inquiry, if any, has been made into the merits of these officers.
  MR. BRODRICK: The numbers of Yeomanry at Aldershot are: Officers, 181; other ranks, 5,010. The military antecedents of these officers are known before they are granted commissions. The General Officer Commanding, 1st Army Corps, is responsible for seeing that all ranks of the corps are fully efficient before they are sent on service.

  Reservists' Grievances — Post Office Employees.
  MR. LOUGH: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of the reservists who have been recently called out again after being allowed to return to their avocations on working furlough; whether he is aware of the loss inflicted on many of these men in having to break up their homes a second time within two years;
  178
  and whether, seeing that in many such cases employers who had after the first calling out been in a position to reinstate the reservists in their employ are now declining to keep their posts open for them, the special exemption granted to these men when in the employ of the Post Office can be extended to other cases.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid that it is not possible to accede to the hon. Member's request. The exigencies of the war must necessarily override other considerations, and while admitting the desirability of meeting the needs of the employers and men where possible, I cannot see my way to permit any further extension of the furlough. This is one of the hardships which are unfortunately inseparable from war. All consideration which can be shown to the reservists has been shown. The case of the Post Office employees is quite exceptional, they have been re-transferred to the reserve.

  Reserve Officers.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will take into consideration the cases of re-employed Reserve Officers who have been serving for months on a low rate of pay, and who by regulation are placed lowest in the rank in which they formerly served, being thus superseded by officers formerly their juniors, and who have been refused promotion except in certain cases; and will he take into consideration the conditions thus imposed upon these officers, inasmuch as any who have become entitled by further service to an increase of pension are compelled by regulation either to refund the gratuity granted by the Royal Warrant, or else to forego the increase of pension.
  MR. BRODRICK: If Reserve Officers become senior of their rank in the unit with which they have been employed, they would on the occurrence of a vacancy receive promotion, taking up the next senior with them. In cases where promotion is given after a definite period of service, Reserve Officers receive the benefit of such promotion. Officers who have been employed in higher

  179
  rank than they hold in the reserve, have been granted a step on reverting to the reserve, and in many cases where special circumstances existed, promotion has been given to Reserve Officers while serving. Several officers have been promoted for services in South Africa. The cases of others are under consideration. As regards the last part of the Question, a Reserve Officer is given the option of electing the gratuity allowed by Article 601 B of the Pay Warrant, or the increase to pension or gratuity allowed by Article 601 A; he cannot be granted both.

  Army Corps—Cost of Establishment.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what has been the additional cost of establishing the first, second, and third Army Corps; and when he will be in a position to announce the composition and numbers of these three Army Corps.
  MR. BRODRICK: It is impossible to work out these figures with any accuracy while the troops are mainly in South Africa. The only expense so far incurred is in the Staff, and this could not be definitely stated as the Staff is largely employed in superintending the training of troops for South Africa. I replied to the concluding paragraph of the Question on Thursday last.
  MR. LAMBERT: The right hon. Gentleman did not say when he will be in a position to announce the composition of the three Army Corps?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot do that until the troops return from South Africa.
  MR. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman suspend the Army Corps Scheme till the troops return?
  MR. BRODRICK: Certainly not, Sir.

  Volunteer Sergeants Major.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of recognising the merit and services of the Sergeants Major of Volunteers by granting them the rank of Warrant Officers.
  * See preceding Volume, page 1244.
  MR. BRODRICK: Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to a Question put on the 10th instant by the hon. Member for East Norfolk †

  Commissioned Army Officers.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he can state the number of commissioned officers deficient both at home and abroad; also, how the number of commissioned officers with the troops in South Africa compares with the number which any of the great Continental powers would employ for field service; and what steps, if any, are being taken to make good any deficiency which may exist.
  MR. BRODRICK: There are 31 vacancies in the Cavalry, and 43 in the Loyal Artillery. None in the Engineers or Infantry. In the Army Service Corps there is a surplus of 248 due to the number of attached officers. The numbers would compare favourably with those of the Continental Armies.

  Under-age Recruits.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether when a boy under eighteen years of age enlists in the Army, and his parents at his request apply to the Commanding Officer of his Regiment for his discharge in accordance with the War Office regulations, he is entitled to his discharge.
  LORD STANLEY: Will the hon. Member kindly refer to paragraph 1805, King's Regulations, which will give him full information on the point, and which, is too long to repeat in answer to a Question.

  Wei-Hai-Wei.
  *MR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the decision of His Majesty's Government not to use Wei-Hai-Wei as a Military and Naval station is due to a general strategic or financial policy, to international considerations, or to the unsuitability of the place for a Naval base.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD - FORSTER, Belfast, W.): Wei-Hai-Wei will still be
  See preceding Volume, page 851.

  181
  used as a Naval Station for many purposes. The decision to discontinue the fortifications was arrived at on strategic grounds only, and was not due to any of the other considerations referred to in the question.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the reports received by His Majesty's Government regarding the value for naval or other purposes of the harbour of Wei-Hai-Wei, or some of such reports, will be presented to the House.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Wei-Hai-Wei is of great value for many naval purposes—the decision to discontinue the fortification of the place was arrived at on purely strategic grounds, and was not the result of any special reports. There are consequently no such documents to be presented to the House.
  MR. BRYCE: No documents whatever, showing the grounds on which the decision of His Majesty's Government was arrived at?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir. The decision of the Government, so far as the Admiralty was concerned, was based on general knowledge of the position and capabilities of the place for the purposes for which it was required.

  Navy Estimates.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONhad on the paper the following Question:—"To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he can say when he proposes to bring on the Navy Estimates, and when the Navy Estimates will be circulated. "On being called upon to put it, he said the Estimates had been circulated, but he would like to know when they were to be taken.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I believe they will be put down on Friday. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address a Question to the First Lord.
  MR. LOUGH: With Mr. Speaker in the Chair?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, I think so.

  Keyham Training College.
  MR. PENN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether he will state the number of engineer officers, engine room artificers, and stokers borne on the books at the present time, what number of these officers joined from Keyham and what number from outside sources, and what have been the additions to and subtraction from these grades in the present financial year.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The numbers at present borne are:—

  Engineer Officers

  949

  Artificer Engineers

  133

  Chief and other Engine Room Artificers

  3,322

  Stokers

  22,330

  Labour Immigration into Assam.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that the triennial reports on the Labour Immigration into Assam are now in arrears, none having been presented to Parliament for years, he can say when he will distribute to Members of the House the reports in arrear.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: There are no such triennial reports as the hon. Member seems to suppose upon labour immigration into Assam: but I am now prepared, if the hon. Member will move for it, to lay on the Table the special report which I received in March, 1897, together with the correspondence relating to it.

  Telegraph Rates to India.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether the prospect of a further reduction to 2s. per word in the telegraphic rate to and from India is contemplated, contingent on a certain

  183
  standard of earnings being maintained; and, if so, will he state to the House the standard so prescribed.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The understanding with the Eastern and Indo-European Telegraph Companies is that if a any time after the introduction of the 2s. 6d. rate the average revenue of the Cis-Indian Joint Purse of the three preceding years, whether wholly at 2s. 6d., or partly at 4s. and partly at 2s. 6d. a word, shall amount to £360,000, a rate of 2s. a word will be at once introduced, provided that the necessary arrangements can be made with the Foreign Administrations interested.

  Bolivia—British Diplomatic Representation.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having regard to the fact that in 1853–54 the British Minister in Bolivia took part in a political agitation in that country, using the Embassy to shelter one of the contending parties; that, in consequence, this Minister's papers were handed to him, and that since that time no diplomatic relations have existed between England and Bolivia; and, in view of the desire of that country for a Minister accredited to her from England, will he consider the advisability of sending out a Minister.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE, Rochester): There has been no British Diplomatic Representative accredited to the Bolivian Government since 1853. Diplomatic relations were broken off by Her Majesty's Government not, so far as I am aware, for the reason stated, but in consequence of the President's disregard of all representations for the redress of injuries inflicted upon British subjects by certain arbitrary acts of the Bolivian Authorities. There is, however, a Bolivian Minister accredited to this Court. The suggestion contained in the last paragraph of the Question is receiving consideration.

  The "Ban Righ."
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can afford the House any information respecting the circumstances under which a vessel, formerly known as the "Ban Righ," and now on the seas under the name of the "Libertador," and which was detained by the British Government, was allowed to depart; and whether he has any official information showing that this vessel has been declared a pirate by the Venezuelan Government.
  LORD CRANBORNE: With regard to the first part of the Question, I may refer him to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire on the 20th of January.† As to the second part, His Majesty's Minister at Caracas has sent home a copy of a decree issued by the Venezuelan Government on the 30th of December last, declaring the "Ban Righ" or "Libertador" to be a pirate.

  Welsh Colony in Patagonia.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the care of the interests of the Welsh residents in Patagonia comes within the scope of the functions of the Foreign or Colonial Departments; whether he is now aware that the Canadian Government is willing to reserve a complete township at a place to be chosen by the Colonists or their representatives for the purposes of the proposed Welsh colony, and to appoint a special staff to accompany and assist the emigrants, and to provide house accommodation for two or three months while the emigrants are putting up houses, and give a bonus of £1 per head to the 500 Welsh settlers who have expressed their wish to leave Patagonia for Canada; whether he will take steps to enable these emigrants to avail themselves of this offer; and whether Mr. Scott, of His Majesty's Legation at Buenos Ayres, during his recent visit to Patagonia, ascertained if any of the settlers desired to return to Wales.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The care of the interests of all British subjects in
  † See (4) Debates ci., 308.

  185
  foreign countries is the business of the Foreign Office. In answer to the second paragraph of the Question, I am informed by the High Commissioner for Canada that the statement is correct. There is no mention in Mr. Scott's Report of any wish on the part of the Welsh Colonists referred to, to proceed to Wales.

  Australia and Lascar Seamen.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to a memorial of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, to the Government of India, regarding the legislation now before the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, under which no postal contract is to be given except on condition that white labour only be employed on the mail steamers; if he is aware that such legislation will inflict injury on a number of British Indian subjects of the Crown who pursue a seafaring life; and if the Australian Government has any control over the methods by which owners of British steamers may desire to man or otherwise work their vessels.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): I have not seen the memorial in question. We cannot prescribe to the Commonwealth Parliament the conditions which it should require in its mail contracts. It does not attempt to control the manning of British steamers except in the case of steamers seeking to enter into contract with the Government of Australia for the carriage of mails.
  MR. CAINE: Have they any right to control these steamers?
  MR J. CHAMBERLAIN: They have a right to control the conditions of their own contracts.

  Bornu.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of Government to lay before Parliament Papers relating to the condition of Bornu, the mission to Fadel Allah, and the death of Fadel Allah.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My information is not yet sufficient to enable me to lay any Papers, but as soon as the inquiries I am making into all the circumstances are completed, I will consider whether I can lay the results on the Table.

  Vaccination Exemption Certificates at Norwich.
  MR. PRICE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a case at the Norwich Shirehall Police Court, on Saturday, the 8th instant, when the Bench decided that they would, only grant a certificate of exemption from vaccination on the production of a medical certificate that the vaccination was likely to be prejudicial to the health of the child; and whether, having regard to the provisions of the Act with respect to exemptions, he will state what steps he proposes to take.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I have made inquiries, and am informed that the Justices for the Taverham Division of Norfolk were not satisfied in the particular case referred to that the applicant's objection applied to the child in question, and suggested that further evidence such as that of a medical certificate might be more satisfactory. I do not find that they have decided that the production of any such collateral evidence is in all cases a necessary condition of granting a certificate. There are no steps for me to take in the matter.
  MR. PRICE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to the report the clerk to the Magistrates gave it out officially as the requirement of the Justices?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I have communicated with the Magistrates, and the result I have given the hon. Gentleman. I know no more.

  Free Railway Passes for Members of Parliament.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can arrange with the carrying companies to have the Colonial system of free passes to the Members of the Legislature extended to the Members of this House.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I am not prepared to take any action in the direction suggested.

  London Water Bill.
  *SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is prepared to insert in the London Water Bill a clause protecting the consumers of water in the area of the Metropolis supplied by the Middlesex Water Company, from the loss of the discount on their water rates to which by law they are now entitled.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): Under clause 35 of the Bill the scale of water charges enforceable by the West Middlesex Company will continue in force until repealed, altered or superseded. The powers of the Water Board in this matter will be precisely similar to those of the Company at the present time, and I do not propose to insert any special provision in the Bill on the subject. I do not express any opinion as to the legal right of consumers, but no such right which now exists would be taken away by the Bill.

  Food Adulteration.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the Report of the public analyst for the borough of Paddington for the quarter ending 24th June 1901, in which it is stated that, on a conviction for adulteration of milk by adding 22 per cent. of water, the magistrate inflicted a fine of 5s.; and, in view of other similar prosecutions by local authorities for adulteration of milk and butter, which have either failed in consequence of the terms of the contract or other such reasons, or have resulted in either only the imposition of costs or modified fines, whether he can, by legislation or by other means, enable the local authorities to enforce the law against adulteration, especially of those articles in constant demand among the humbler classes.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have not yet received the Report referred to in
  188
  the Question. I have no authority to intervene in the manner suggested nor does it appear to me that I can undertake to promote legislation on the subject. I may especially point out that it must remain in the discretion of the Magistrates whether a fine should be inflicted in any particular case, and if so what the amount should be.

  Vaccination Statistics.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the number of successful primary vaccinations in 1898, 1899, and 1900, and the first six months of 1901, respectively; and also the number of conscientious objections which have been made to vaccination under the Act of 1898 during the same period.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Parliamentary Return already issued gives the number of successful primary vaccinations for 1898 as 500,314, and for 1899 as 669,349. According to Returns which I have since received, the number for for 1900 is 677,655. I have not at present received Returns from all the Unions for 1901. The number of certificates of conscientious objection received by Vaccination Officers is as follows:—

  In 1898

  203,413

  In 1899

  32,341

  In 1900

  39,839

  First six months of 1901

  19,252

  Embossed and Impressed Stamps.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General. whether he will discontinue the demand for payment of double postage from the recipient of a letter when stamps are affixed which have been cut from spoiled envelopes and postcards, whether he is aware that in Victoria, Australia, such stamps are allowed to be used for postage; and will he state what objections there are to the use of these stamps on letters.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The prepayment of postage by cut out

  189
  embossed or impressed stamps is prohibited by law in this country; and the Postmaster General is therefore obliged to treat as unpaid letters bearing such stamps only. Probably no such prohibition exists in the Colony of Victoria.

  Fixed Wages for Rural Postmen.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the complaint as to the question of fixed wages for rural postmen; and whether he will consider the advisability of recommending the immediate abolition of the practice of appointing rural postmen on a fixed wage.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The wages of rural postmen are fixed according to the work performed and the rate of wages current in the district, the minimum being 16s. a week in Great Britain and 15s. a week in Ireland. The Postmaster General sees no reason for substituting wages on a scale for fixed wages where the latter method of payment has been adopted.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: May I ask if the rural postmen have no chance of getting more than 15s. a week in Ireland and 16s. in Great Britain?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I had better have notice of that Question.

  Orkney Sea Trout Fishings.
  MR. BIGNOLD: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if the attention of the Government has been directed to the letting by the Crown of the sea trout fishings on the shores of Orkney to individual proprietors; and whether, in view of the conditions under which these fishing rights have been hitherto exercised by the public, the present temporary arrangements will be reconsidered.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will, with permission, answer this Question. There have been two cases in Orkney in which the Crown right to fish for fish of the salmon kind includ-
  190
  ing sea trout has been let, one in 1900, and one in 1901. In one case the lessee is to be allowed to purchase the right on completion at his own expense, of extensive works for the improvement of the fishings and subject to definite obligations as to allowing fishing by the public on reasonable terms to be sanctioned by the Secretary for Scotland. In the other case the letting is also subject to a condition as regards permission to the public to fish and is terminable at short notice should occasion arise.

  Melsetter Salmon and Trout Fishings.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been directed to the advertisement by which the lessee claims the absolute ownership of the fishings, ex adverso the estate of Melsetter; and whether, seeing that the lessee is bound to give the public right of fair fishing with rod and line, he will state what steps he proposes to take.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The advertisement dated 19th March, 1901, states that the salmon and trout fishings in the sea ex adverso of the Estate of Melsetter have been granted on lease to Mr. Middlemore and warns people against fishing in those waters or in the burns and lochs of the estate. The lease referred to was granted by the Commissioners of Woods, and under it Mr. Middlemore was bound to execute certain extensive works to improve the Burns as spawning grounds, which works have now been completed, and to permit fishing in the sea by the public for salmon and sea trout under such bye-laws and regulations as to licences as may ultimately be made by any District Fishery Board which may be constituted, and meanwhile under such regulations as may be sanctioned by the Secretary for Scotland. Steps are now being taken to have regulations prepared and approved by the Secretary for Scotland and to point out to the lessee that any further advertisements or notices should be so framed as to show that authority to fish in compliance with these regulations may be obtained on application to the lessee or his agent.

  Government Telephone Service.
  SIR ERNEST SPENCER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Post master General, if he can give a definite date when the Government Telephone Service will be in working order and subscribers able to avail themselves of the new system; and whether the exchanges will be opened simultaneously both in the City and other parts of London.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The junction lines between the Post Office Central Exchange and the trunk wire system have already been completed, and those connecting the same exchange with most of the chief exchanges with the National Telephone Company will, it is hoped, be ready for use in the course of the present week. It will then be possible to give an exchange service to those subscribers whose lines have already been completed, and to others as their lines are completed day by day.

  Compassionate Gratuities in the Post Office.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of recent decisions withholding the grant of compassionate gratuities to unestablished postmen on retirement from the service, he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Minute, No. 12, 262/01, embodying the results of an inquiry as to the retention in the employment of the department of unestablished officers over 60 years of age.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General cannot undertake to lay on the Table a copy of the Minute referred to, which is a confidential document, and related to many persons other than unestablished postmen; but the unestablished and auxiliary postmen who were retired were all considered to have reached an age when their retention was no longer desirable in the interests of the service. Their ages varied from 66 to 84. Gratuities were granted to all those who were qualified to receive them.

  House of Commons Accommodation—The new Clerk of the House.
  *MR. CREMER: I wish to ask the First Commissioner of Works what provision is being made for the residence of the new Clerk of the House of Commons; whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons Accommodation, which in 1894 reported that the officials in the Houses of Parliament had the exclusive use of 283 rooms in the building; that, out of the number so occupied, the Clerk of the House of Commons had 28 rooms for his exclusive use, including 12 bedrooms, and whether the new Clerk is to be allowed the use of the same number of apartments, or whether the recommendation of the Committee will be adopted—"That, on the occasion of the next appointment to the Clerkship of the House of Commons, the question of giving additional accommodation to Members and the Press should receive attention."
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, St. Augustine): The new Clerk of the House will occupy the house used by his predecessor, the late Sir Archibald Milman. The change recommended by the Select Committee of 1894 was carried out on the retirement of Sir Reginald Palgrave from the Clerkship of the House two years ago.

  Extra Police in County Clare.
  Mr. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an extra force of police, ten in number, has lately been drafted into the district of Dorra and Clare Castle, county Clare; and can he explain the reason for this action, the expense of which is thrown on the district.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The normal police force of this district has been increased by seven (not ten) men in order to afford adequate protection to certain individuals who have been subjected to intimidation.

  Irish National Education—New Rules.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that in June, 1900, the Commissioners of National Education, Ireland, issued a memorandum for the purpose of explaining the new Rules, which had come into operation on 1st April, 1900, and which memorandum stated in paragraph four that the teachers would receive the equivalent for a full years results fees for the results year 1900–1901, and having regard to the fact that when the number of pupils qualified for examination had increased in that period, no increase in the equivalent for results fees was given, and that in some such instances the so-called equivalent was less in amount than the previous year's results fees, whether he will take steps to have the payment of the increased equivalent assured to the teachers.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The memorandum of June 1900, dealt with provisional payments, and explained that the payment of consolidated incomes, based on the average incomes of teachers from all State sources for the three preceding financial years, was deferred until after the last day of the month of what had previously been known as the Results period. With this consolidated payment there was to be remitted the equivalent of a full year's results fees. The equivalent was based, as was the total consolidated income, on the average receipts of the teachers in results fees, etc., for the three years ended on the 31st March, 1900, and was not increased or decreased in accordance with the fluctuations of the average attendance during the year 1900–1. All these provisional payments, however, were subject to revision, and in many cases substantial increases have been given on the sums originally voted. The revision of payments is not yet completed. The special circumstances connected with each case, that in equity might be considered as warranting an increase in the amount of the provisional income, are always reviewed before the income is finally fixed by the Commissioners.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Will the equivalent be paid under the new scheme?
  MR. WYNDHAM: This is not a matter that can be discussed by way of Question and answer across the floor of the House. If the hon. Member will communicate with me, I will consider the matter.

  Castlecaulfield Water Supply.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the Local Government Board in February, 1900, expressed an opinion that steps should be taken by the Rural District Council of Dungannon to provide the district of Castlecaulfield with a supply of wholesome water; whether a complaint has been made under section 15 of The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1896; and whether any steps have been taken in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are as stated. The delay has been caused by the consideration of the question of area of charge. The Rural District Council desire a small local area, whereas the Local Government Board would not be prepared to depart from the principle of rural or dispensary district rating underlying the Order of l5th May, 1899, the population of Castlecaulfield being only 170. The general question of areas of charge for minor sanitary expenses is at present under consideration.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the question will be definitely settled?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am doing my best to settle that, but there are great differences of opinion to be dealt with.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Are we to expect any definite reply this year?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am prepared to make a proposal which I think should commend itself to hon Gentlemen opposite.

  Ballymacawley National School.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at a Local Government Board Inquiry, held at Armagh on 28th December, 1901, concerning the application of trustees for power to acquire lands at Ballymacawley, County Armagh, as site for a national school and teacher's residence, the inspector of the Local Government Board allowed evidence to be tendered as to the necessity for a school in that place, though a school already exists which is largely attended, sanctioned by the Board of National Education, supported by their grants, and under the management of the local Presbyterian clergyman; and whether, in any further proceedings in this case, the above facts will be taken into consideration.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It was shown at the inquiry that the site is required for the erection of new premises for the school at present under local Presbyterian management. The Local Government Board on Friday last issued a Provisional Order authorising the acquisition of the land. The Order will become absolute in a month from the date of publication, unless petitioned against, in which event it will require to be confirmed by an Order in Council.

  Wicklow Lunatics in Richmond Asylum.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of lunatics, chargeable to the County Wicklow, confined in Richmond Asylum during the years 1890 to 1902.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have communicated the figures to the hon. Member.

  Rathkeale Labourers' Cottages
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the cause of delay in the carrying out of the scheme for the building of labourers' cottages in the Rathkeale Union, in the County of Limerick.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Local Government Board, on the 25th January, sanctioned a loan for the provision of 109
  196
  cottages and 169 additional allotments. The remaining portion of the approved scheme, which includes 11 cottages and 17 allotments, is before the Privy Council for confirmation.

  Tarbert Steamboat Services.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, when arranging for the extension of the subsidised tourist service from Tarbert to Glin, he will take into consideration the fact that the tourist steamer, which runs from Kilrush to Tarbert daily from the 1st June to the 30th September, arrived at Tarbert Pier at 10 a.m. and remains there until 3·45 p.m., and that it would be a boon to the public if, instead of this steamer remaining at Tarbert Island 5¾ hours, it proceeded, after landing her passengers at Tarbert, to Glin Pier, and thence to Foynes, to meet the train which arrives from Limerick at Foynes about 11·45 a.m., thus making it possible on the return journey to bring passengers arriving by the Limerick train to Glin, Tarbert, and Kilrush, and would be in time to meet the coach at Tarbert Pier at 3·45 p.m.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have undertaken to look into this matter, and pending investigation, the hon. Member must not assume that the extension will be authorised. He has, I think, been misinformed on some points upon which I will communicate with him.

  Derryoober (Galway) National School
  MR. ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that Mr. Owen Maguire, principal teacher of Derryoober National School, County Galway, applied recently for a licence to carry a gun; and will he explain why this application was refused.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have not yet completed my inquiry into the facts of this case. Perhaps the hon. Member will, repeat the question on Monday next.

  Police Action at Glanworth, Co. Cork.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of

  197
  Ireland whether he can assign any reason for the presence, of some hundred or more fully armed police at Glanworth Railway Station last Sunday, when Mrs. Alice Nagle was met and welcomed on her release from Cork County Prison by a number of her friends and neighbours, when, notwithstanding the orderly conduct and demeanour of the people on this occasion, the police persisted in accompanying the people, marching in the middle of the procession from Glanworth to Kildorrery, a distance of over four miles; and if such unusual action on the part of the police on occasions of a similar kind will be discontinued.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The police had reason to believe that the procession would pass the house of an individual who has been subjected to intimidation, and the County Inspector with 40, not 100, men attended in order to preserve the peace. Upon the information before me it appears that some thirteen men only of this additional force were stationed at Glanworth, the remainder being concentrated at the residence of the individual referred to.

  Dublin Metropolitan Police—Case of Constable Corr.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named Peter Corr, of Drumhowna, County Cavan, entered the C Division of the Dublin Metropolitan Police in January, 1892, and that this policeman was injured whilst arresting a prisoner in Great Britain Street on 27th June, 1894, and confined to hospital for a period of 18 months; is he aware that a Board of three medical doctors examined this man on 12th September, 1896, and can he say what report these doctors made to the Government. And, seeing that this policeman was dismissed from the police on 24th October, 1897, without any cause being given, will he say whether it is usual for a policeman who is injured in the discharge of his duties to be discharged from the service without compensation or pension, and will he take this policeman's case into consideration.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This constable was examined on the 14th September in Cavan by the principal medical officer of the Force, and his own medical attendant. As a result, he was moved to a hospital in Dublin for closer observation. After treatment and prolonged observation in hospital the medical officers of the Force expressed the opinion that he did not suffer from any organic disease and had systematically simulated symptoms from which he did not suffer. He was dismissed from the Force as a malinger in October 1897. There are no grounds for reopening the case.

  Public Meetings in Tipperary.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state on what authority the police blocked the road between Barna and Barnane, in the county of Tipperary, on Sunday 26th January, and endeavoured to prevent the people who attended a meeting at Barna from passing along the public road; and, is he aware that on this occasion the police drew their batons and used them on the people end struck the horses under the cars.
  At the same time may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state on what authority the police prevented the people of Drom and Templemore from walking on the public road leading from Drom to Templemore on the 21st January last, when they were accompanying a member of the United Irish League home on his return from addressing a meeting at Drom under the auspices of the United Irish League.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The action of the police on this occasion, as also on the 21st January, to which reference is made in the next question of the hon. Member, will, no doubt, be fully investigated before the magistrates at the hearing of charges for riot and unlawful assembly, arising out of both events, which will be brought before them at Templemore Petty Sessions on Wednesday next. Under the circumstances I am debarred from discussing the matter further.

  Templemore Extra Police.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of extra police drafted into the district of Templemore, in the county of Tipperary; can he explain the reason for this action, having regard to the condition of the said district; and will he state in what districts is this charge to be made.
  MR. WYNDHAM: An extra force of one head constable and thirty men, under the command of a District Inspector, has been drafted into Templemore for the protection of individuals who have been subjected to intimidation, and for the preservation of the public peace. The question of the area of the district to be charged with a moiety of the expense of this force is at present under consideration.

  Labourers' Cottages Scheme at Thurles.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the application of James Kinnane for the erection of a dwelling-house, came before the inspector of the Local Government Board at the recent inquiry under the Labourers' Acts held for Thurles Rural District; that the inspector reported that the applicant was a tailor, and therefore not entitled to have the house erected for him; is he aware that Kinnane gave evidence at the inquiry that he had given up working as a tailor, and had been working as an agricultural labourer for years past; has the Local Government Board received a memorial from a number of ratepapers, stating that this man has regularly worked at agricultural labour for the past twelve years; and will the Local Government Board recommend the inclusion of the House for this applicant in the scheme.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Local Government Board informed the District Council it was prepared to include the application of Kinnane in the Provisional Order, provided the consent of the occupying owner of the site was obtained. This consent was not forthcoming, and the case cannot now be
  200
  included in the Order, which has been made absolute. The Council may, however, include the application in its next scheme, and if there be no objections on the ground of evidence or site, it will be sanctioned.

  North Donegal Electoral Divisions.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Lord Lieutenant has received a Resolution passed by the magistrates of the county of Donegal, in quarter sessions at Lifford in the month of January last, as provided by the Ballot Act, requiring the establishment of polling stations for Parliamentary elections at Malin Head and Cabry in the North Donegal division of said county; and whether those responsible will take immediate steps for the confirmation of said Resolution by the Irish Privy Council, in order that effect may be given thereto in the next register of voters for said division.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This matter will be brought before the Privy Council at an early meeting of that Body.

  Mr. Hayden, MP.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the speech for delivery of which to his constituents the hon. Member for South Ros-common (Mr. Hayden) is now imprisoned in Castlebar Gaol.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The speech of the hon. Member formed only part of the evidence in the case. There is no precedent for adopting such a course and I am not prepared to create one.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is the case that Mr. Hayden, a Member of this House, has been in Castlebar Gaol since Saturday afternoon?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have had no notice and have no information, but I anticipate it is so.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Have you, Mr. Speaker, received any formal notice of the commitment of Mr. Hayden to gaol?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I have received no information.

  Thompson Estate, Co. Clare.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of the Thompson tenants in Clonfin, Co. Longford, who in the year 1897 entered into agreements for purchasing their holdings with a Mr. J. A. O'Sullivan, 27, Chancery Lane, London, acting on behalf of the landlords; whether he is aware that, at Mr. O'Sullivan's request, the tenants transmitted to him several payments on account of alleged legal expenses; whether he is aware that on 12th May, 1898, the Scottish Union and National Insurance Company issued a circular to the tenants, stating that Mr. O'Sullivan had no right to enter into any agreements for said sale, and such agreements would not be sanctioned by them; whether any of these agreements were ever lodged with the Land Commission; and, if so, can he explain the delay in proceeding with the sale; whether, seeing that this solicitor was subsequently adjudicated bankrupt, will he take steps to bring the solicitor's conduct to the notice of the proper authorities.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): No proceedings for the purchase of this estate have been taken in this matter to the Land Commission. If Mr. O'Sullivan has been guilty of any professional misconduct, the parties aggrieved should communicate with the Incorporated Law Society of England if he be an English solicitor, and with the corresponding Society of Ireland if he be an Irish solicitor. If they allege that he has been guilty of any crime, they should communicate with the police, and make information before a magistrate. I have no further information on the matter mentioned, nor power to interfere in them at the present stage.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman inquired into this case at all? He has not answered one single part of the Question on the Paper.
  MR. ATKINSON: The hon. Member fails to understand that this is a matter affecting a private individual with whom the law officers of the Crown have at present no right to interfere.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: But surely the tenants have a right to complain of the action of the Department?
  MR. ATKINSON: It is not the action of the Department. No proceedings have been taken by the Department whatever.

  Royal College of Science, Dublin.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state about what time the building of the Royal College of Science will be commenced in Merrian Street, Dublin; whether he is aware of the scarcity of employment in Dublin; and whether the plans are prepared, and by whom.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am unable to give any date for the commencement of the building. The plans arc not yet prepared and cannot be begun until Parliament has made provision for the building.

  Tulla (Clare) Postal Arrangements.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that inconvenience is caused to the inhabitants of Tulla, County Clare, by the non-delivery until the following day of the letters which reach Limerick at 10 a.m. every morning, and whether arrangements could be made whereby a midday delivery would be effected, seeing that this advantage is enjoyed by the residents in the neighbouring town of Quin.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is aware that there is no second post to Tulla, County Clare, and he has considered the question of establishing such a service. He regrets, however, that in view of the relatively

  203
  high cost of the existing service he would not be justified in incurring the expense involved in providing additional facilities.

  Dublin Post Office—Corcoran Defalcations.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to a meeting of postal servants held in Dublin recently, and to the resolutions which were then passed, and whether, in view of the feeling existing, he will grant an inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the recent Corcoran defalcations out of which the alleged imputations on the staff by the Controller were made; and whether he will lay upon the Table the correspondence which took place in that investigation.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General's attention has been called to the meeting referred to. In view of the fact that all the circumstances connected with the Corcoran defalcations were very fully and carefully investigated at the time, the Postmaster General does not consider that any further inquiry is necessary. The Papers connected with the case contain confidential reports, and the Postmaster General cannot lay them on the Table.
  MR. NANNETTI: I shall put another Question on this subject.

  Cork Post Office—Female Telegraphists.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, in reference to the Cork General Post Office, whether the female telegraphists in that office who entered in 1893, and who hold Civil Service Certificates since 1897, and who are doing appointed clerks' duty but not appointed themselves, will be entitled to the privileges of appointed clerks such as full pay when on sick leave; and whether the number of years of unappointed service will be counted in the case of pension or marriage portion.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is understood to refer to two women learners at Cork; so long as they are unestablished they will not be entitled to more than two-thirds
  204
  pay when on sick leave; the only portion of their unappointed service which could be counted in the case of pension would be the period of full time service immediately previous to and continuous with their appointed service. Marriage gratuities are calculated on established service only, but the periods of full time unappointed service would be allowed to count towards the qualifying period of six years necessary to entitle an officer to be awarded such a gratuity.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: What is the cause of the long delay in the appointment?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think I have already answered a Question as to this. If not I must ask for notice.

  Kilfree Postal Service.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, owing to the present arrangements for the delivery of mails in the Kilfree, Co. Sligo, postal district, letters cannot be replied to on day of delivery; whether a petition bearing on this matter has been received by the Dublin postal authorities; and whether, in the interests of public convenience, the Postmaster General will consider the advisability of having the present delivery arrangements altered.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is aware that there is no evening collection of letters at Kilfree, Co. Sligo. A petition for such a collection was received by the Dublin postal authorities some time ago, but on inquiry it was found that, in view of the high cost of the existing service as compared with the amount of correspondence, the expense of affording an evening collection at Kilfree was not warranted. A collection is made at about 5.30. p.m. from a letter box at Tansey Cross, some two miles from Kilfree.

  Limerick Post Office.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as

  205
  representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been drawn to a meeting of the Limerick Chamber of Commerce in which it was stated that the accommodation at the General Post Office, Limerick, was both bad and unhealthy; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made in order to remedy any defects that may exist.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A newpaper report only of the meeting referred to has been seen. The Limerick Post Office is small, and is about to be enlarged; but there is no reason to suppose that it is unhealthy. Further inquiry will he made on the subject.
  MR. JOYCE: When may we expect the enlargement to commence?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say.

  Rosscarbery Parcels Post.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the parcel post despatches from Rosscarbery during the months of October, November and December of last year were in excess of the parcel post despatches from every other town in Ireland of equal population; whether, seeing that there is a large correspondence between it and the different centres in England and elsewhere, steps will be taken to establish a second daily delivery of letters in that town.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is aware that the parcel post business at Rosscarbery is considerable, but as regards the question of establishing a second post to that place he is unable at present to add anything to the answer given to the hon. Member on the 30th of January.†

  Telegraph Facilities at Ramsgrange.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that an application, largely signed by the ratepayers of Ramsgrange and the surrounding
  † See (4) Debates, ci., 1346.
  206
  neighbourhood, was made for a telegraph office at Ramsgrange; and whether, seeing that the usual guarantee, as required by the Postmaster General, was offered, he can state on what grounds the telegraph office was refused.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is aware of the application for a telegraph office at Ramsgrange to which the hon. Member refers, and he has also received a copy of a resolution passed by the Wexford County Council on the same subject. The grounds on which he has been unable to accede to the application are that there is already a telegraph office at Arthurstown, only a mile and a half distant, and that the telegraph business of the locality is not at present sufficient to justify two offices. The Returns which have been taken show that only about two telegrams a week are now sent which would be handed in at Ramsgrange instead of at Arthurstown.

  Ramsgrange and Hook Postal Arrangements.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the people of Ramsgrange and Hook parishes are inconvenienced in the matter of the delivery of letters owing to the fact that they are at present in the Waterford postal district; and whether he will consider the advisability of amalgamating said parishes with the Wexford postal system, as suggested by the Wexford County Council at their last meeting.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has repeatedly considered the question of transferring Ramsgrange and other places in the neighbourhood from the Waterford postal area to the Wexford postal area, and has explained to the Wexford County Council that it would not be practicable, if the transfer were made, to afford so good a service as that at present provided. He can hold out no hope that the suggestion of the County Council will be adopted, but he has directed some further inquiry to be made, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.

  Committee on Private Bill Procedure.
  MR. GEORGE KENYON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in settling the terms of reference to the Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure, he will consider the desirability of including the practicability of extending the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to other parts of the United Kingdom.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): The plan which my hon. friend suggests, and other plans for the re-arrangement of Private Bill Legislation, may properly engage the attention of any Committee appointed to investigate the subject.

  Clergy Discipline.
  MR. BRAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the continuance among a section of the clergy of certain doctrines and practices, he will, in accordance with the terms of the Government Amendment of 10th May, 1899,† either himself introduce legislation without further delay, in order to maintain the observance of the laws of Church and Realm, or give full and early facilities for the discussion of the Bill to make further provision for enforcing discipline in case of offences committed by clergymen, which was read a first time on 28th January last.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no official information bearing out the allegation which forms the premiss of the hon. Member's Question. As far as I know, this House has never dealt with the question of doctrine. It has always concerned itself with the practice of the clergy, and not with doctrine. The hon. Member would hardly suggest that I should add to the already heavy load of work which we have to get through this session by introducing so controversial a measure.

  Supply—Procedure of Foreign Parliaments.—Suggested reference of Estimates to a Committee.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will cause information to be collected
  † See (4) Debates lxxi, 243.
  208
  and published as to the practice of Foreign Parliaments in dealing with Estimates; and whether he will initiate a system whereby the Estimates of the public departments should be examined by a Committee or Committees of the House before presentation to Parliament, approximating as far as possible to the procedure of the Public Accounts Committee after the money has been spent.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member proposes that I should initiate a system whereby the Estimates of the Public Departments should be examined by a Committee of the House. The propriety or possibility of that plan is one of the things, and indeed, probably the main thing, which the Committee that the Government intend to appoint will have to consider. Therefore it would be absurd to suggest that the Government should themselves initiate, such a system until they have the Report of the Committee before them. If that Committee should desire any information with regard to the practice of foreign Parliaments, the Government will do their best to obtain it; but, speaking for myself, I doubt whether our conditions are sufficiently analogous to systems in foreign countries to make such information of much value.

  Standing Committees—(Titles of Bills).
  LORD HUGH CECIL: They to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will assent to the Return relating to Bills committed to a Standing Committee, which appears on the Paper.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no objection to the Return desired by my noble friend.

  Business of the House.
  SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What class of Supply will be taken on Friday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We propose to take the Navy Votes—that is to say, to move the Speaker out of the Chair.
  MR. WHITLEY: Will that be before the Naval Supplementary Estimates?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.

  STANDING COMMITTEES (TITLES OF BILLS).
  Return ordered "showing the Titles of those Bills which have been committed to the Standing Committees for Law and Trade respectively in each year since 1882, and the number of days upon which each of those Bills was discussed in the Committee, and the further stages through which they passed after Committee."—(Lord Hugh Cecil).

  DRUNKARDS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading upon Wednesday 5th March read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  Leave given to present another Bill instead thereof.—(Mr. William Johnston.)

  DRUNKARDS (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Drunkards in Ireland," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 5th March, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]
  NEW PROCEDURE RULES.
  [FOURTH DAY'S DEBATE.]

  STANDING ORDER 21 (ORDER IN DEBATE).
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Standing Order 21 (Order in debate), as amended [13th February].
  And which Amendment was, in line 17, after the last Amendment, to insert the words—
  "If any session shall continue until the expiration of the next twenty days on which the House sits, on the second occasion, until the expiration of the next forty days on which the House sits, and on the third or any subsequent occasion, until the expiration of the next eighty days on which the House sits, and the number of days of suspension shall be reckoned irrespectively of any prorogation or adjournment.
  If a Member is suspended under this Order, his suspension shall, notwithstanding the expiration of the days of suspension aforesaid, continue until he has written a letter to the Speaker, expressing his sincere regret to the House for the offence for which he has been suspended."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I was, I need hardly say, an attentive listener to the debate which took place upon the Question put last Friday night, "that the words in the existing Standing Order stand part of the Question." That debate turned almost entirely—not quite, but almost entirely—upon the subject of the apology to be given by a Member before resuming his seat after having disobeyed the order of the Chair. I have heard all the arguments urged, not entirely from one side of the House, but from both sides of the House I quite admit, against the proposals of the Government. I heard it argued that it was a humiliation to which Members ought not to be exposed, but I confess, though it might be so, I am unable to see how an apology for disregarding Mr. Speaker's ruling can be regarded as a humiliation by any hon. Member of this House. I have heard it described by a small section of the House as an attack by the majority upon the minority. I can only say that that was not the intention with which the Rule was framed, and, if any Member on this side of the House or above the gangway on the other side, were guilty of disregarding the ruling of Mr. Speaker, I should rejoice to see him excluded from our deliberations until he apologised. I have heard a great many arguments of undue subtlety on the morality or immorality of the various declarations connected with an apology—a discussion which really reduces the House almost to the level of the 17th century casuists. I have heard it stated also that the Rule and its application would disfranchise the constituency whose Member refused to apologise. That argument also leaves me quite cold. I believe the whole feeling of the House and of the country to be that if a Member disgraces us and his constituency, and if the Member then will not apologise and is excluded from our deliberations, he has brought that exclusion on himself. Therefore, I am not at all influenced by the general tenour of the arguments which we have heard in the debate which concluded last week, but I have, nevertheless, to announce to the House to-day that we propose to make an alteration, an important alteration, in the Standing Order. That alteration is in the nature of limita-

  211
  tion; in the nature of a limit to the time during which a Member can exclude himself from the deliberations of this House, and I will explain to the House how we have come to that opinion, and the character of the alteration which we suggest for the acceptance of the House.
  I venture to lay down two principles which ought to govern the House in dealing with questions of this kind. In the first place, any Standing Order we adopt—in order to work, when once it is adopted, smoothly and automatically—ought not to be allowed, when it is put in force, unfortunately put in force, to lead to controversial or prolonged debate on difficult or embarassing questions. That is my first proposition; my second proposition is, that under no Standing Order of this House ought it to be possible for the decision of this House, come to under the Standing Order, to be rejected, or in any way affected by the action of any outside body or authority whatsoever. If this House decides that a Member of this House ought not to take part in its deliberations under certain circumstances, we ought not to tolerate the constituency which he represents, or any other body, saving, "You have indeed decided that this Member shall not take part in your deliberations until he apologises, but we think otherwise, and we have the power to send him back among you, purged, not indeed of his offence, but of any penalty which that offence might carry with it." This proposition will, I think, be probably accepted by both sides of the House; by those most opposed to the apology, and those agreeing with us like the hon and gallant Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire, the hon. Member for North Islington, the hon. Member for Durham, and others, who have spoken powerfully and ably in defence of the principles which animated, and still animate, our policy.
  Now I want to explain to the House as clearly as I can how these two governing principles would be violated if we were to keep the Rule precisely in the form in which it is on the Paper, and in order to make it perfectly clear to the House I must explain two points which, taken in combination, have introduced a difficulty which necessitated some change in the framing of the Rule. Let me first remind the House what is the Practice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  212
  with regard to the acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds. The Chiltern Hundreds is, perhaps, the most curious of the many curious survivals in our Parliamentary constitution and Parliamentary practice. As every Member is aware, no Parliamentary representative has it in his power, on his own initiative, to resign. The acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds is a dodge which was discovered in the middle of the 18th century, by which the immemorial Rule of Parliament, that a man could not resign, was evaded, and which gave the necessary elasticity and alleviation of the Rules; and ever since that date, although the Rule that a Member may not resign has remained in undiminished force, it has always been got out of by this curious practice of taking an office of emolument under the Crown, an office which carries with it no emolument, and which is not, except in any but the most technical sense, under the Crown at all. Gradually the practice has grown up that the Chiltern Hundreds cannot be refused on Party or political grounds. An hon. Member, to whichever side he belongs, can apply with equal facility to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Chiltern Hundreds, and with equal certainty of his request being granted But there is one exception which has always been in operation, and that is this: If the House desires to retain its control over a Member, then the Chiltern Hundreds can be, and, in my opinion, ought to be, refused. All of us have seen examples in which that refusal has been made, and the Member has been compelled, against his will, to remain a Member of this Assembly. That is the first point; the second point is this: a Member who has received the Chiltern Hundreds, and who is, therefore, not a Member of this House, has a right to seek re-election in his own constituency or in any other, and after re-election has a right to come to the House, and—I do not say with absolute certainty, but probably—to present himself at the Table to be sworn. That is a question upon which I do not pronounce myself with absolute security. The House is aware of the great controversy all through the prolonged debates it had with regard to Mr. Brad-

  213
  laugh. The law of Parliament has probably been correctly laid down by Speaker Peel, that every man, duly elected, has a statutory right to present himself at the Table to be sworn, and it was under that ruling that Mr. Bradlaugh, in the new Parliament of, I think it was 1886—[A Voice: "1885"]—of 1885, presented himself at this Table to be sworn.
  Then, Sir, having reminded the House of those two sets of circumstances, I ask them to consider how they work in combination. Let us, for example, take an extreme case, as it is by extreme cases that Rules are best tested. Let us suppose a Member has been suspended under this Standing Order for 20 days; that the 20 days elapse, and the Member announces that he does not see fit to apologise to the House because he has disregarded the ruling of Mr. Speaker. The Standing Order, no doubt, says in general terms that he shall not resume his seat until he has apologised; but my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer holds the view which will probably recommend itself to most of those who hear me, that this is somewhat too indefinite in its character to justify the refusal to a Member of the Chiltern Hundreds, because the exclusion might run not only for a session, but the succeeding session, and the session after that, until seven sessions had been reached. Personally, I should have no objection to an exclusion for that length of time, if a man was deliberately bent on excluding himself by refusing to apologise. If he chose to exclude himself, I see no particular reason against his not being allowed to carry out his own wishes. But under the principles which guide the bestowal of the Chiltern Hundreds, there is no definite limit fixed, and my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer holds that the Chiltern Hundreds might be granted, and the result might be that, while this House might say, "The hon. Member for So-and-so is not to take part in the deliberations of this House until he has apologised," the Gentleman might resign and be re-elected. If he sat for a loyal seat, I do not think he would have much chance of being returned.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What is a "loyal seat," I should like to know? We are loyal to our country.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was alluding in this case to a seat which has returned an avowed traitor.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It did not return a Government hack.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If a Member sat for a scat of that character he might resign and come back a week afterwards, not having apologised, but, having been re-elected, he might take part in the proceedings of the House. I do not think that would be a proper position to put Parliament in. I do not think it would be right. There is another point I wish the House to remember. There is no doubt that under Mr. Speaker Peel's ruling the Member could take the oath. It is not absolutely certain what the Member does under this Rule after he takes the oath. It certainly would be competent for a Member to rise in his place and suggest that as the hon. Member had not yet obeyed the Standing Order he should be excluded again, and thus raise the long and controversial debates which many of us remember to have been raised in Mr. Bradlaugh's case. Therefore, there are two reasons why I do not think it right to allow a Gentleman who has refused to apologise to this House for having disregarded the ruling of Mr. Speaker, to go to his constituents and ask them to reverse the decision of this House.
  I hope I have now made quite clear to Gentlemen in all parts of the House exactly where the difficulty lies in connection with this Standing Order— a difficulty which all must feel, whatever their views may be on the question of the apology. The way to meet it appears not difficult to my mind, though it necessitates a limitation of the Rule. If the period during which a Member could be excluded from this House were definitely laid down in the Standing Order, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not give the Member the Chiltern Hundreds even if asked to do so until that period had expired, and there would be no chance whatever of any collision between the constituency and the House, or any difficulty such as I have suggested either in connection with the Member re-taking his seat, or with the debates that might be consequent thereupon. What, then, is the period it would be desirable to lay down in the

  215
  Standing Order as that beyond which a Member should not be allowed to exclude himself from the service of the House by refusing to apologise? [Laughter.] Well, I cannot imagine a much more accurate way of putting it. The old methods by which the House dealt with its recalcitrant Members were, of course, much harsher and more summary than anything which would be tolerated nowadays. We do not imprison Members; we do not ask them to apologise on their knees; we do not endeavour to injure them either in purse or in person, or to subject them to any humiliation whatever. But we have, of course, to deal with recalcitrant Members. The severest sentence the House has power to pass on a Member is that laid down by the Standing Orders of last session, under which a Member who forcibly resists the ruling of the Chair is excluded for the period of a whole session—or possibly for the period of a whole session—from the service of the House. I do not think that that length of time ought to be exceeded in the Standing Order now proposed. As the House knows, in the form of the Standing Order we have placed on the Paper we do not go by sessions; we go by the number of days, which are irrespective of adjournments, holidays, or prorogations. Taking a session as averaging about 120 days, we propose to lay down that the time during which a Member might be unable to serve in this House through refusing to apologise, should under no circumstances exceed 120 days. The result of that would be, of course, that there could be no collision with constituencies, no long debates, no friction in the working of this Rule. I think, if it were ever called into effect—which I trust it would not be—it would work perfectly smoothly, though I may perhaps be allowed here to express my conviction that when the Rule is actually in force there is not a Member sitting in any quarter of this House, or belonging to any Party, who would feel that either his interest, or his dignity, was injured by having to express through Mr. Speaker his regret at having refused to obey the ruling of the Chair.
  I hope I have now made clear both the main modification we propose to the Rule and the reasons which have induced us to adopt it. The subject is rather
  216
  complicated, and requires two or three different lines of argument, but, if I have succeeded in making clear what those lines of argument are, both the modification and the reasons for it will have made themselves evident to every Member.
  Before I sit down, may I also say that we think we can meet some of the minor objections to the Rule, and, by certain emendations which I will explain to the House, make it more acceptable to those who accept its general principle. It has been suggested that, though this apology has always been defended by the Government and its supporters on the ground that the apology was for disregarding the ruling of the Chair, it was possible that a Member might be suspended for something which did not involve disregard of the ruling of the Chair. That has never happened. I do not believe there is a single case in our Parliamentary history in which that has occurred, and I do not think it ever would or could happen. But, in order to make it quite clear that it never shall happen, we propose to make the paragraph read—
  "If a Member is suspended under this Order for disregarding the authority of the Chair."
  Those last words are new, and they make perfectly clear what has always, been the intention of the Government.
  Then there is one other change which we have introduced. It has been suggested that while, under the Standing Order as it stands Mr. Speaker would have no doubt in informing the House when an adequate apology or an obviously derisive apology had been made, there might be a middle state in which he would have to submit the question to the House. That would, I suppose, lend itself to debate, and I cannot imagine a more unprofitable subject of discussion. We, therefore, propose that Mr. Speaker should be the sole judge of whether or not the apology to the House is sufficient.
  There has also been taken an objection with which I confess I do not greatly sympathise—to the words "sincere regret." Some Members dislike the word "regret"; some dislike the word "sincere"; and others object to both "sincere" and "regret." We propose, therefore, to substitute for "sincere regret," the

  217
  words "adequate apology." [Nationalist laughter.] I quite understand that that will give no satisfaction to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it may ease some tender consciences on this side of the House.
  Then—it is a mere matter of drafting—the words at the end of the first paragraph we propose to put at the end of the second paragraph. The House will see, when I read the whole of the two paragraphs, how they run—
  "If a Member be suspended under this Order his suspension on the first occasion in any session shall continue until the expiration of the next 20 days on which the House sits; on the second occasion until the expiration of the next 40 days on which the House sits; and on the third or any subsequent occasion, until the expiration of the next 80 days on which the House sits.
  "If a Member is suspended under this Order, for disregarding the authority of the Chair, his suspension shall, notwithstanding the expiration of the aforesaid days, continue until the Speaker certifies to the House that he has received from him, in writing, an adequate apology to the House; provided that the total period of suspension shall in no case exceed 120 days. The number of days of suspension shall be reckoned irrespectively of any prorogation or adjournment."
  I hope the House will forgive me for what is a rather long and perhaps somewhat complicated statement, but I trust that at all events I have made it perfectly clear what it is we propose to do and why it is we propose to do it.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN: I do not know whether the Question is before the House.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Question is, "That these words be there inserted."
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We have listened to a speech which I think is almost the most remarkable we have heard during recent times. The first observation I would make upon it is that it is an absolute and entire justification of the prolonged and full debate that we have had of this proposal. Besides what I may call a preliminary canter, we have had two full nights of debate, with a large number of Members on each side offering themselves whenever there was an opportunity, and at the end of the second night the debate was closured by the Government. If it
  218
  had been allowed to go on for another night, Heaven only knows what further concessions would have been made. The right hon. Gentleman expresses himself as having not been in the least degree affected by all the speeches that were made. He is as fond of the apology as before, he sees in it no harm or degradation to anyone, he thinks it absolutely necessary for the dignity and honour of the House. In giving a sort of retrospect of the debate, he admitted—I think this will have been observed by the House—that there were strong opinions expressed on both sides against the proposal of the Government, but he said there were his hon. friends—and he named three Members—and others who supported it. Who were the others? Those whom—with great precision of memory—he named as having supported the proposal of the Government, happen to have been, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the only Members on that side of the House who did support it. The whole of that process leaves the right hon. Gentleman entirely unmoved, but on looking into the question he comes upon a fact which really lies on the surface—viz., the position of the offending Member with his constituency and the relation of this House with that constituency; and he drew a picture of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, unable to decide whether or not an hon. Member ought to receive the Ghiltern Hundreds if he applies for them. Now it appears that the solution of the difficulty is to be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should defer granting the Chiltern Hundreds until a certain period has elapsed; then he is to give this office to the Member, and enable him to stand again. Thereupon, owing to the term having elapsed, this terribly contumacious offender, who has committed a crime which the right hon. Gentleman appears to think ought to exclude him altogether from the society of Members of the House, is to be allowed to come back again, after all, without having purged himself of the offence which we were told was so heinous as to be absolutely intolerable—he is to come back, sit with us, and take his part among the Members of the House.
  Why, Sir, the proposal originally brought forward had not, as the debate showed, a leg to stand upon, but the

  219
  right hon. Gentleman has compromised even the leg that he thought it had to stand upon. The whole argument goes with this so-called concession of allowing the Member to come back at all.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not a concession.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This disqualification, if it ever existed, must remain as a permanent disqualification until the hon. Member removes it by his own action, that is to say, by submitting himself and making an apology; and this disqualification the right hon. Gentleman proposes to remove after 120 days. It is difficult on the first blush of a thing to realise what the result of the thing will be. But the right hon. Gentleman does not stop there. He admits—and here again we have evidence of the good effect of a lengthened debate upon the mind even of a pertinacious Minister—that he has discovered that there are two things that may provoke the suspension of a Member, the disregarding of the authority of the Chair, and the abusing of the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House or otherwise. We have pointed out again and again, although it was always personal disregard of the Chair that was put forward, that that did not exhaust the matter, for it went much further. There are other matters which are offences, although they have not the same personal significance that may be attached to disregarding the authority of the Chair, but which are more important almost from a Parliamentary point of view than the others. There is to be no apology for these offences. An hon. Member may abuse the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business, and there is to be no apology; he is only to have the punishment of suspension; and it is only in the case of disregarding the Speaker's orders that he is to be subject to this indignity of having to make a public apology. I have said that it is difficult to realise what the exact bearing of these proposals may be. If they are to immediately come before us, they would almost justify the moving of the adjournment of the House. [Opposition cries of "Hear, hear!"] I
  220
  do not know whether that is the view of hon. Members behind me as to what ought to be done. [Opposition cheers and cries of "Yes."] I think safety will probably be found in having an opportunity for the calm consideration of this change, and therefore I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned." (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do ask the House of Commons to pause before they enter upon this matter. It is perfectly plain from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there is in this proposal a most important constitutional question involved. The right hon. Gentleman has, by his speech, made this a reproduction of the contest in the case of Wilkes against the House of Commons. It is the very same case. It is the claim of the House of Commons to refuse to a constituency for a certain period the right to choose its Member, and I may venture to say that as long as this sort of thing goes on that contest will be continued. As to the question of the Chiltern Hundreds, why, Sir, in the earlier part of this debate I addressed that consideration to the right hon. Gentleman. However, he took no notice of it. Is it worth while in dealing with this question of procedure that we should open this great constitutional problem? Let me put this case to the House—
  *MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the only Question before the House at the present moment is the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, and it is only so far as the right hon. Gentleman's general observations bear upon that Motion that he will be in order.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I will submit to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I was urging upon the House to take time to consider before they went into this great constitutional conflict, and I was just going to ask the House whether it was worth while upon this question of procedure to open such an immense

  221
  question as that. What I wish to point out, and I will do it very briefly, is whether this question—of the right of a constituency to determine in this case whether or not it should be relieved of a Member who will take away from it its representative right for 120 days—is worth raising upon a rule of this character? It is impossible to raise a more profound constitutional problem. We have no right to assume that the constituency approve of the conduct of its Member. It may be that they desire him to resign and do not desire to reelect him. They may disapprove of his conduct as much as you do, and yet you prevent him going through the only process of resignation that can possibly take place. This matter was considered by a Committee of the House of Commons upon which I had to give evidence as to the Chiltern Hundreds. I remember then that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House disapproved of the doctrine laid down by myself, but I am happy to think that my successor has laid down exactly the same doctrine. I urged then that there ought to be some simple form of resignation instead of the technical grant of the Chiltern Hundreds, and then a man might resign and give to his constituency its full rights again. In the Wilkes case the House of Commons endeavoured to prevent the constituency from re-electing a Member whom the House had expelled. That was a very much stronger case, and the expelled Member did come back, and ultimately all the proceedings after years and years were erased by the vote of the House of Commons. Do let us consider if it is worth while throwing away public time over a proposal of this character, which we are bound on both sides of the House to fight in the interests of the electors and the constituencies, and we shall certainly do it. Is it worth while on this procedure question to insist upon this rule? I have had the advantage of hearing the opinion upon this question of most experienced Parliamentarians who are no longer Members of this House and who are men of the highest authority in this matter. Their opinion I find has been almost universally against the course which is being proposed in this matter.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I
  222
  must say that he is entering into a general debate upon the merits of this proposal and that is not the Question before the, Chair.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Of course I will obey your ruling at once, but I do ask the House to take time before they enter upon this profound constitutional question, and consider whether it would not be much better that we should at all events give ourselves time to consider the bearing of this proposal made by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House admits himself that it is a complicated statement, and hon. Members have a right, I think, before they go further into the matter to have time to consider it, and therefore I shall certainly support the proposal of my right hon. friend to adjourn the debate.
  MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.) saidthat hon. Members were supposed to contrast the original proposal of the Government with the Amendment of the hon. Member for King's Lynn and other Amendments. That was supposed, till within twenty minutes, to be the Question which was before them, but what was before them now? They had now before them simply the oral statement of the Leader of the House, made after all these long debates and deliberations, and he terminated his speech by reading a portion only of the proposed substitution.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I read the whole of it.
  *MR. BLAKE saidthe right hon. Gentleman did not read the latter part.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is mistaken.
  *MR. BLAKEsaid he did his best to gather and collect the sense of the right hon. Gentleman's oral statement, and he did not hear the latter part road. Were they going to conduct this debate simply upon a statement which the right hon. Gentleman declared himself was a complicated one? This matter demanded the earnest attention of the House in order that they might gather distinctly the meaning of this complicated statement, and in order

  223
  that they might fully understand the proposals which now rested in their memory alone. They knew that the original proposal was not brought forward because it had met with general disapprobation in all parts of the House. The right hon. Gentleman found that a slip had been made and that the original plan as it stood was not effective. He said that the Chiltern Hundreds could not be refused because the duration of exclusion was indefinite, and therefore a maximum was to be established, to which he said, forsooth, that the Member condemned himself, and not to which the House condemned him. He talked about seventeenth century casuists. When he heard the right hon. Gentleman he thought there was one seventeenth century casuist alive today. They were to get rid of the "sincere regret" by the introduction of a phrase in regard to "adequate apology," which they questioned seriously. There were most important variations between an expression of regret, or sincere regret, and an adequate apology. The original proposal, at any rate, left it clear what an offender had to do; but the new one set everything at large. The right hon. Gentleman said the Speaker was to be the sole judge of the adequacy of the apology, and the House was to have no voice in it. Thus a judge without appeal was appointed to try what might be his own cause. There was now to be a definite provision limiting the period of suspension to 120 days, because under the proposed Rule, as it stood, there would be raised the grave constitutional question of the rights of the constituencies. But the exclusion of a Member for the whole session raised in an acute form the right of the constituency; while the suggestion that the Chilterns was to be refused aggravated the constitutional offence. This was a most serious innovation. Were Members to have no opportunity of seeing the new proposals in print? Were they not to have an opportunity of considering for a little that which it had taken the right hon. Gentleman three weeks or more to find out, namely, a remedy for the situation he had been proposing to create, and which, by the way, he (Mr. Blake) had pointed out on the Second Reading debate? Were they to
  224
  go on debating this question now? No one could vote rationally on the Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for Kings Lynn, while yet uncertain as to the terms of the main proposition to which it was an Amendment. If ever there was a case in which the House was entitled to demand time before going forward, it was this. He would therefore vote for the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the House had rarely found itself in so difficult a situation on so important a matter as this. Let hon. Members reflect where they were. The Leader of the House had an Amendment on the Paper in terms. To that Amendment the hon. Member gave notice of an Amendment also in terms, but since the right hon. Gentleman had spoken there was no Amendment before the House. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment which was on the Paper had entirely in its essence disappeared, and it had been replaced or was to be replaced by something else. The House had only a vague notion of what it was to be replaced by. The complete effect of what was proposed could only be appreciated by hon. Members when they had seen the words altogether. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman himself quite appreciated the effect of the words he proposed to put in. If the proposed words were introduced, it seemed to him that they would necessitate another Amendment in the form of the Standing Order, otherwise this strange position would result—that after a Member had been named and suspended for wilfully obstructing the business of the House, he was to go on without any apology, but there was to be an entirely different procedure if he had been named for abus ng the Rules of the House in any other way. There were a thousand ways in which they could be abused. It could not be right that a Member who had been named should apologise for the one offence and not for the other. The right hon. Gentleman had made this new proposal because he had discovered certain difficulties. Those difficulties might have been discovered before, but, being discovered now, he submitted that

  225
  the House should have time to consider the entirely new form of the proposal. By accepting the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, the right hon. Gentleman would meet not only the wishes of hon. Members opposite, but also the views of many on his own side.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must say that the suggestion which has been made to me is unreasonable. It is first said that the proposals of the Government are so complicated that it is impossible for the House to understand them even after the explanation I have endeavoured to give. The hon. Members who have just spoken have themselves by their example shown that my statement was a perfectly clear one, and that it conveyed the whole case. The hon. Member for South Longford showed a perfect appreciation of the proposal, which he seems to regard as obscure and complicated. The proposals in themselves, I venture to say, are absolutely simple. I admit that all the train of reasoning which brought us to these conclusions did present some little difficulty, and I was afraid that I might not make the proposals perfectly clear to the House. But the Amendments themselves, I venture to say, a child might understand. It is said by the hon. Gentleman, what a monstrous thing it is that we should not have this in print before us. Well, the hon. Member for South Longford and the Gentlemen who are near him cheered that, but they have made it a practice to spring upon the House the most complicated Amendments in a most bewildering way, which I am sure is perplexing to those in charge of a Bill and to the House which has to deal with them. They have no scruples in presenting the most complicated propositions in manuscript for the Speaker to decide upon from the Chair, and for the House to understand without any preliminaries or explanations. In the third place it is said that these Amendments go to the root of the whole of the Standing Order. They do nothing of the kind. I may have given a wrong impression to the House by the lengthened statement I inflicted upon them in regard to the Standing Order. Under the Standing Order as it was originally
  226
  introduced, a Member who refused to apologise might be kept out of a whole Parliament of seven sessions, but under the standing order as we now propose to modify it he can only be kept out 120 days. Is the bearing of that so excessively difficult that the House must sleep over it, and consult about it, before they can be asked to take serious account of it? Finally, we are told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire that we have started by this Amendment the gravest constitutional question. It would be very improper now to discuss that "grave constitutional question," but I suppose it is relevant to this debate to tell the House that we have done nothing of the kind. Last session we passed a Standing Order by which any Member guilty of a certain offence could be excluded from the precincts of the House for a whole session. That rule was passed in order to deal with the unhappy scene which we all have fresh in our recollection. At any rate, it is perfectly clear that no new constitutional question has been raised. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer never would give the Chiltern Hundreds to an hon. Member resisting the Speaker's ruling. There is no difference between the Rule which we propose and what was laid down by the Rule passed last session. There is no new constitutional question, and I can only suppose that the right hon. Gentleman, when he made his speech, had forgotten what was done last year. I venture to say that the considerations I have brought before the House on this subject, coupled with the fact that there is very little likelihood of our reaching any part of the Standing Order to which this Amendment refers in the course of the evening, induce me to advise the House to resist the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which can only lead to a great waste of public time.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I have listened with absolute amazement to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I take the liberty of saying that if the House of Commons supports him in forcing on a discussion of this new rule tonight, it will be laying down a

  227
  precedent which may have far-reaching effects in the future. Let the House of Commons consider for a moment the position in which it stands. For six months, to judge from the extra-Parliamentary declarations of the right hon. Gentleman and of some of those who sit beside him, the Government have been considering the framing of new rules for this House, and at the commencement of the session these rules were explained to us in a long speech by the Leader of the House. He then made the reasonable arrangement whereby Members would be able to see the new rules in print, and a considerable portion of time would be afforded for their study before they came to be discussed here. But now, at the last moment, the most important and most far-reaching, as affecting the future, and what I think the most unconstitutional rule of them all, is withdrawn without any notice whatever, and for it an entirely new rule is substituted. The House of Commons is gravely asked, without having this new rule in their hands in print, to take up the work not only of considering the principle of it, but of carefully considering the amendments to the phraseology of various portions of it which it may be desirable to propose. It is an absurdity.
  I will endeavour not to transgress your ruling, Mr. Speaker, by discussing the terms of the new proposals, but I may be allowed to follow the right hon. Gentleman in one sentence on one point in which he said that there is no change of substance in the Amendment on his original Amendment at all, because the former rule contemplated the possibility of a Member being excluded for the whole term of a Parliament. That is quite true; although the fact did not seem to dawn upon the right hon. Gentle man until we had debated the matter here for two or three nights. But the right hon. Gentleman's original proposal did not contemplate any change in the constitutional right of Members to obtain the Chiltern Hundreds. Whatever we may think of this ancient pretext or "dodge," as the right hon. Gentleman called it, for enabling an hon. Member to resign his seat in the House of Commons, at any rate it has been in accordance with the practice of the House of Commons for
  228
  centuries, and the Chiltern Hundreds has never been refused to any Member asking for it, except he had been guilt of something in the nature of a crime, or of a breach of the rules of the House outside as well as inside Parliament. I say there is no such precedent as proposed to be established by the right hon. Gentleman in the new Rule. H is proposing a serious change in the constitutional practice of hon. Members accepting the Chiltern Hundreds. There was nothing about that in the original Rule, and it is too absurd to say that at a moment's notice we should b asked, seriously, to take up a debate on such an important question. If the discussion is forced on, it will become necessarily a farce, and I cannot conceive that the sense of fair play in the House is so conspicuously absent a it would be if the Government were enabled to force on the consideration of this Rule without our having seen it in print, or having had any opportunity of carefully scrutinising it and of equally carefully preparing Amendments to it. There can be no useful or reasonable discussion of the new Rule to-night; we ought to see it in print tomorrow, and have from to morrow till Thursday to put Amendment on the Paper. We are not asking the Government to give up any of their time. I could understand the indignation of the right hon. Gentleman if we were asking the House to adjourn. There are other proposals on the Order Paper which we may discuss. The right hon. Gentleman will lose nothing by taking these up; and it seems to me that he will have a great deal to gain All we ask is that this new puntive Rule, the exact terms of which we do not understand and have not before us, should be postponed till Thursday, and that we should now go on to the consideration of the next Rule.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I ought to apologise to the House for intervening again, because I know I have no right to speak a second time, and also because I must confess I did not understand the exact purport of the Motion which had been made. I thought we were to abandon the discussion of the Rules to-night. But as long as we do not waste the public

  229
  time, and if the House is prepared to go to the next business, and will raise no objection to its coming on on the ground of short notice, we shall be glad to agree to that.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: said that if this matter was to be adjourned he would suggest to his right hon. friend that it would be convenient if some arrangement could be adopted in regard to the printing of the Amendments. For instance, nobody seemed to know what the real meaning of the original Amendment was when it stated: "Another Amendment proposed, in line 17, after the last Amendment, to insert the words, etc." Now, hon. Members could not find in the White Paper anything on line 17 about "the last Amendment"; and they would be still more puzzled if they referred to the Blue Paper.
  *MR. SPEAKER: So far as I have observed, the lines referred to in this Amendment are the lines in the Folio Edition of the Standing Orders.
  *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: said that that was one of the inconveniences which should be remedied before the discussion on the new Amendment. Hon. Members could not carry in their pockets the Folio Edition of the Standing Orders. He would also point out that his right hon. friend's Amendment as it now stood seemed to be in the wrong place. It should unquestionably commence at an earlier portion of the Rule. He hoped his right hon. friend would see his way first of all to give the House some facilities of finding out what his Amendments really were, and also that he should put them in their right place.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise to make another suggestion. I think we have approached this subject in a thoroughly friendly spirit, and that the best course will he, in the first place, that the Motion for adjournment be withdrawn, and that then I shall be permitted by the House to withdraw the words proposed from the Chair and to substitute for them the words as amended in the manner I have advocated. They would then appear on the Paper in the form in which the Government desire to see them passed. I shall next move, if
  230
  it is agreed to, that the consideration of this Rule be postponed till Thursday next.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As I moved the adjournment of the debate on the proposed Amendment to the Amendment, perhaps I may say that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman seems to me to meet the case, and I will be very glad to withdraw my Motion.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid that if the Government proposed to go on, after the next Rule, with the Rule relating to the "Sittings of the House," that would be most objectionable, and would be treating some of his right hon. friend's supporters very hardly, for they had not anticipated that it would come on that night, and had not fully made up their mind in regard to it. He would make a suggestion which would be a great deal better and more convenient, and that was that they should continue the discussion of the present Rule until they came to the point at which his right hon. friend's alterations would be taken.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid he had a far better suggestion still; and that was that the House should proceed with the Naval Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would, he hoped, see the great danger of discussing now the new amended order, but if they went on to the next Rules they came to proposals which were more offensive to several of his supporters than the one suggested to be postponed.
  *MR. BLAKEsaid there were a considerable number of business-like and practically non-controversial Rules on the Paper which might be taken now.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, it is impossible to please everybody, but I think the House must admit that before I assented to the appeal made to me to accept the adjournment of the discussion of the new Amendment, I did endeavour, as well as I could, to find whether the arrangement would be generally acceptable. It is not possible for me to go back on what I have said, and proceed with this discussion. In the Rule which immediately follows, there are no

  231
  obscure or subtle questions. That is, at all events, plain sailing, and we may at once embark upon it.
  MR. WALLACEsaid he hoped that the consideration of the next Rule but one, dealing with the time of the meeting of the House, would also be postponed, as hon. Members had had no opportunity of putting down Amendments. There was a strong feeling on both sides regarding it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Let us go on with the next Rule, and I will endeavour to meet the convenience of the House with regard to the sub sequent Rules.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Ought not the Rule, as it would be amended if my proposals were carried out, to be put from the Chair?
  *MR. SPEAKER: It will be sufficient if it appears on the Paper in the ordinary course.
  Further Consideration of Standing Order 21 (Order of Debate), as amended, adjourned till Thursday.

  NEW STANDING ORDER. (POWER OF SPEAKER TO ADJOURN HOUSE OR SUSPEND SITTING).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Speaker may, if in the interests of order he thinks it desirable to do so, adjourn the House without Question put, or suspend any sitting for a time to be named by him."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On a point of order, will I be allowed the right of reply if I explain the Rule now?
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman, having moved this Standing Order, will be exhausting his right of reply if he speaks now.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman may, by leave of the House, speak now, and reply later.
  *MR. SPEAKER: By leave of the House the right hon. Gentleman may do so.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then I will gladly speak now. The object of this Amendment is very simple. I think I gave some indication of its scope and character in the speech in which I introduced the Rules generally to the House. It is intended to meet two contingencies. The first of these is extremely rare. I doubt whether we have ever had an example of it; but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that new developments have occurred in our own lifetime in respect to Parliamentary debate. It is possible that, were we a full House, such a scene of disorder might come about that it might be desirable for Mr. Speaker to give the House a brief period—an opportunity— for coolly considering, and perhaps himself considering, precisely what course ought to be adopted in difficult and unexampled circumstances. I remember bringing before the House, in my opening speech, the case of the great disturbance in 1893. No such adjournment of the House was possible then; but I do not know if it would have been disadvantageous. In slightly different circumstances I can quite imagine that an adjournment of the House would be the only way of meeting an unexampled Parliamentary crisis. That is one contingency. The other contingency is of a somewhat different character. It will, be remembered that it is not many years since we first adopted in our Rules a period after which controversial business was not permitted, nor could a division be taken. There might be a debate, although the House would be incapable of coming to a decision. Such a period occurs in the ordinary course after 12 o'clock; and if these Rules are passed in anything like their present form, it will occur between 7.15 and 8 o'clock. During these periods, when no division can be taken, and when there is no public reason why Members should stay, the Members in the House might be a very incomplete expression of the whole sense and feeling of the House. I was bitterly reproached the other night by hon. Gentlemen opposite because I did not stay after the last division on Thursday, when no controversial business

  233
  could be taken. I imagine that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench never think of remaining here after 12 o'clock, and I do not see why they should. The whole object of the Rule as regards morning sittings is to permit Members of the House to go away as soon as Questions begin. If they are not interested there is no reason why they should stay. The result is that the House, at these hours, may be a most incomplete expression of itself, and might not be in any sense representative, and I can imagine that the Speaker might not find himself supported if the House were not representative. In these circumstances I see no injury but rather the contrary in giving Mr. Speaker the authority, which the President of every Foreign Assembly possesses, to adjourn the House for such a brief period as he may think fit. This Rule can do no possible harm, and may, in imaginable contingencies, greatly conduce to the dignity and order of our debates.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that before the Amendment on the Paper was moved, he desired to say a few words on the Rule as proposed. As he understood the Rule it applied not only to the Speaker but also to the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman when acting for the Speaker. The objections which had been raised on the first Rule to arming the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman with some of the powers of the Speaker —however much they might trust them individually—continued in force as regarded the Rule under discussion, In discussing the Rules they had, of course, in their minds the excellent Parliamentary character of the present Chairman and Deputy Chairman. They should remember, however, that they had had as Chairmen Gentlemen who were pretty strong partisans, although they were undoubtedly good Chairmen. Old Members of the House would remember two, one on each side, who although perhaps the best Chairmen the House had ever seen, were strong partisans; and they had sometimes seen in the Chair Gentlemen, who, although possessed of great ability, frequently made mistakes with reference to the business of the House. There was the case of Sir Lyon Playfair, who, al-
  234
  though he possessed conspicuous ability and was one of the ablest men who had ever sat in the House, was yet not a good Chairman, and frequently made mistakes, despite his great ability. Those cases of partisanship or of error should make the House careful in giving powers of the kind proposed. It was the partisanship of future Chairmen that was to be feared, as the power to suspend the sitting might be used by a strong partisan in certain circumstances to defeat the desire of the House. It was said that the Rule was conditional on disorder, but disorder might very quickly be provoked by partisanship, and he thought that the power should be rigidly confined to the Speaker as long as the Chairman and Deputy Chairman were closely connected with the Government of the day. He therefore submitted that there were strong objections to the Rule as proposed, and if it were to be passed at all it should be accompanied by one of the Amendments on the Paper.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid it seemed to him the Rule was necessary. After 12 o'clock he submitted, with due respect, that the Speaker would not be able to enforce his authority, as it was impossible to divide the House or suspend a Member. He did not like the proposed alterations, but it was obvious they were necessary, and as the Rule before the House was harmless it ought to be adopted.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid it had been represented to the House that this Rule would only be appplicable in cases of great disorder in the House, but the remarks of the Leader of the House would seem to show that it would apply in other cases.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is my mistake. Perhaps I did not make myself quite clear. Scenes of disorder do sometimes occur, but if the House is normally constituted no doubt Mr. Speaker and the Chairman would have the support of the House. If, however, a scene of disorder occurs at these unusual hours I am not sure that Mr. Speaker might not find himself unsupported. It is that contingency I had in view, and I hope I have now made it clear.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that, that being so, it was very necessary that they should have a strict definition of what was meant by disorder, otherwise, a partisan Chairman, when he found the Government was not in a majority, might threaten to adjourn the House. He might do it at any time of the day. It was quite plain that so long as there was a Speaker capable of taking the Chair, the Chairman of Committees and the Deputy Chairman should call the Speaker in. That had always been the practice, and such a practice as this should be tied down in every possible way, and it should not be used except in a scene of the very greatest disorder.
  *(6.2.) MR. JAMES LOWTHERassumed from what had been said, that if anything occurred say between 7.15 and 8 o'clock under this new Rule, and the House was suspended, the sitting would be resumed at the time at which, under the new Standing Order, it should resume. He complained that his right hon. friend the First Lord laid down no definite doctrine on this point. As to the Speaker leaving the Chair when disorder occurred, he thought such an idea was preposterous. To run away when an Assembly misconducted itself was the last thing a Speaker ought to do. His place then should be in the Chair where he could control disorder, but to follow the precedent of the Presidents of Foreign Assemblies who rang their bell and then ran away was to his mind quite the wrong principle of doing business. An explanation was needful in the event of the sitting being suspended on other grounds than disorder, say, when there was not a fair representation present of the various sections of the House. This might occur at hours when he thought no business ought to be done, as, for example, after 12 o'clock. The rules enabled the occupant of the Chair to quell disorder, and he was not disposed to be a party to the initiating of the new principle that the chief officer of the House should run away at a time when his authority was most required.
  *(6.5.) ME. BLAKEthought the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman for this Rule were absolutely in-
  236
  adequate. As a rule disorder rose from controversy in heated debate. That was the condition under which the House was liable to disorder. In the extraordinary hour between 12 and 1 it was very unlikely that any disorder would occur, as there would be nothing controversial or heated to promote it. Between 7.15 and 8 also there could be no question of disorder. At that period the only business was to be Questions. The right hon. Gentleman had said that at both these stages there might be a condition of things which would not give a sufficient guarantee that the ruling of Mr. Speaker would be respected a condition in which Mr. Speaker might not receive the support always given to him in a full House with the Leaders present. But this Order went further; there were other times and seasons in which the proposed House ought not to be, but yet might be, deprived of the suggested guarantee of order—the presence of leading Members of the House—and in which it might be important to one side or the other that a division should not take place. In that case disorder might be created to avoid division, therefore, in his judgment, this Rule might be provocative of disorder. He suggested that in place of the word "desirable" the word "necessary" should be substituted in the Rule. It must, of course, always be a matter of opinion for the occupant of the Chair, but it should be limited to the condition in which he thought action necessary, and it ought not to extend to any person but the Speaker himself. He himself was a witness to the entry of Mr. Speaker Peel at, perhaps, the most critical time the House had seen in the last ten years. The entrance of Mr. Speaker calmed the storm then at its height. He hoped that would always be the result of the Speaker's entrance; he declined to look forward to a time when the Speaker would cease to have the authority and the moral power to quell by the exertion of his influence a disturbance in the House, and he deplored the suggestion that this time might arrive. At any rate, if it was considered necessary to adopt this Rule, let the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman do their duty, and if they thought that disorder had arisen let them summon the Speaker and

  237
  let him be the judge. The power under this Rule should be limited to the Speaker himself.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked, on a point of order, whether there would be power on the part of the Speaker to name a Member after 12 o'clock. His view was that there was such a power.
  *MR. SPEAKER: There is no doubt whatever that I have the power to name an hon. Member after 12 o'clock, and that a division may be taken upon the Question of suspension. Proceedings under a Standing Order are exempt from the 12 o'clock rule. The naming and suspension of a Member are proceedings taken under a Standing Order.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the House now knew that the Rules of Order and the increased penalties to secure the maintenance of order extended over the whole sittings of the House. The extraordinary increase in the severity of the Rules seemed to him to be almost a conclusive argument against the granting of the unknown power which this Rule placed in the power of the Chair. He did not know whether hon. Members had had any experience of the working of this kind of Rule in controversial business. It had never been necessary, hitherto, in the House. On the contrary, it had been necessary, to bring the House to order when disorder arose, not that the Speaker should leave the Chair, but that he should be summoned to the Chair. There was a, special Order which said that whenever disorder arose in the House the Speaker should be sent for. There had been a case of that kind in 1893, when the entrance of the Speaker had quelled the storm. The point was, not that the Speaker should leave the Chair, as was the case in foreign Assemblies, but that he should come back to it. In Continental Assemblies disorder went on growing, and the President rang his bell and kept on putting on his hat until, in despair, as it were, he jumped overboard and suspended the sitting. The usual result of that was a free fight on the floor of the House. The moment the sitting was suspended and the Speaker left the Chair, there was no authority in the House, and the passions which had been aroused during
  238
  the preceding discussion found free play without the respect which even a Continental Assembly gave to its President. The only occasion on which any suggestion of this kind had before been made was, as he had already pointed out, in the time of Charles I., when the Speaker attempted to adjourn the House, but was held in his Chair while a Resolution was passed over his head. Scenes of that description might be re-enacted under such a Rule as that under discussion. He did not believe that—even under the new Rule, which would tend to make the House of Commons more disorderly—an occasion would ever arise in which the present powers in the hands of the Speaker would not suffice, and when it would be necessary to do so extraordinary a thing as this Rule for the first time made possible. There was the further point that the power might be exercised not only by the Speaker, but by the Chairman of Committees and by the Deputy Chairman.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: When acting as Speaker.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESadmitted the limitation, but pointed out that the Rule threw an enormous responsibility on the discretion of the person acting as Speaker. The condition under which the rule became possible was that the Speaker must think it desirable, in the interest of order, to adjourn the House without Question put or to suspend the sitting. To adjourn the House without Question put was to take the business of the House out of the hands of the House, and that was contrary to all its traditions. With regard to the discretion of the Gentleman in the Chair, he did not intend to make the slightest imputation or suggestion against either the Chairman of Committees or the Deputy Chairman, but it could not be supposed that either of those Gentlemen would bring to bear exactly the same discretion, the same knowledge of the rules, and the same judgment of the temper of the House as would the Speaker. An occasion might arise under which the Deputy Chairman would adjourn the House, without Question put, thereby stopping all business, under circumstances that were highly

  239
  exasperating. To adjourn the House and carry the business over to the next day was one thing, but this rule gave the Speaker or his Deputy the extraordinary power of suspending the sitting for a period to be named by him. No such power belonged to the President of any political Assembly in the world and no justification whatever had been put forward of the proposal to make it possible here. The power would be exercised only in such a scene of disorder that the Speaker felt he could no longer exercise authority over the House, and therefore suspended the sitting. The wording was rather vague, but he presumed the sitting must be resumed the same day. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.] But for how many hours was the sitting to be suspended? It might very likely be that on resuming a few hours afterwards the angry passions would not have cooled, and then the only course open to the Speaker would be that which should have been adopted in the first instance—viz., that of adjourning the House. He did not like these new - fangled notions. The right hon. Gentleman had said that we had not much to learn from foreign Assemblies. In his (the hon. Member's) belief we had nothing whatever to learn from them; on the contrary, they had a great deal to learn from us. The President of a great foreign Assembly had said to him that the so-called popular Assemblies in Europe were rubbish, that the only one that was not rubbish was the British House of Commons, and the reason that was the exception was that it was a free Assembly, its Members having the rights of free speech, of free action, of managing their own business, of fixing their own adjustments—in fact, all those rights many of which were now to be taken away. It was because of those rights that the House of Commons had learnt to exercise a considerable amount of selfcontrol; but if they were to be treated as an assembly of naughty school-boys, to be put in the corner and birched, to be kept out of the House, and all that sort of thing, the character of he House of Commons would certainly be destroyed. He hoped this most unnecessary rule would be reconsidered;
  240
  otherwise it would have an extremely damaging effect on the reputation of the House.
  MR. ASQUITH: You have already corrected from the Chair, Sir, a misapprehension under which the Leader of the House appeared to labour.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not at all.
  MR. ASQUITH: At any rate, there was one misapprehension that many of us from his speech thought that he was under, viz., that it was impossible after 12 o'clock to put a Motion on which it was necessary to take a division.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not say a single word that could be interpreted in that sense.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am sorry if I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but I can assure him it is a misunderstanding shared by a large number of Members of the House; and I thought, therefore, it might even now be worth while to point out that on the occasion which many of us remember with much pain and regret—I mean the events which occurred on March 5th last—precisely that question arose. The Chairman suspended business at 12 o'clock; the right hon. Gentleman moved the Closure, which was carried; and it was on the consequential Motion that the original Question be now put that the scene of disorder arose, being caused by certain hon. Members refusing to leave the House. Thereupon, the Speaker, who had been called in, named those hon. Gentlemen, and the Motion was made and a division called on the Question that they be suspended. It is, therefore, quite clear that the House has power as well after 12 o'clock as before to entertain Motions of this kind, and to take disciplinary action that may be necessary for the preservation of order. I simply say that by way of correcting a possible misapprehension.
  Let me add with reference to this particular proposal that, on the question of principle, so far as I am concerned,

  241
  I do not see the serious objections to it which have been taken by the hon. and gallant Member for Kings Lynn. If on March 5th last the Speaker had had this power either of suspension or of adjourment, I think that scene would never have taken place, and one of the most painful incidents in the recent history of this House would have been avoided. Therefore, supposing the power is adequately safeguarded and kept in the right hands, I, for one, am in favour of this change. There are two safeguards which seem to me to be absolutely essential. In the first place, it should be perfectly clear that the power should never be exercised except for the specific purpose of repressing grave disorder. It should be put beyond all possibility of suspicion that the Chair, in the exercise of its discretion, was acting only for the purpose of the maintenance of order when order was seriously menaced. The second safeguard, which is of equal importance, is that this power—which cannot be often resorted to, and happily will be used on the fewest and rarest possible occasions—should be confined to the permanent occupant of the Chair. I am sure that if that power of suspending the sitting is given to the casual occupants of the Chair, the misunderstandings and misconstructions to which the exercise of that power would give rise would be infinitely more detrimental to the interests of order and the reputation of the House. But if the power is confined to the Speaker, with his great judicial position, put, as he is, above all possibility of suspicion of partisanship or improper motive, it seems to me to be a power which might be very usefully granted, and, which would, in the long run, add to the order of the House and the authority of the Speaker.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that he was more in agreement with the Government than was the hon. Member for Kings Lynn in regard to this particular proposal, although he admitted that under certain circumstances the suspension of the sitting might lead to an aggravation rather than a diminution of disorder. He trembled to think what might have
  242
  happened on that famous occasion to which so many allusions had been made, if the Speaker had not come into the House at the right moment, and, by the influence of his own strong character as much as by that of his high office, quieted the disturbance. The Leader of the House was, certainly, going on right lines in giving Members an opportunity to recover their senses and to cool their tempers. There was one point, however, he would put very strongly to the right hon. Gentleman. He and his colleagues had a very strong feeling—which doubtless the Leader of the House thought a wrong feeling—that the most punitive of these rules were intended for one section of the House. He himself was of opinion that the Irish Members could play their part within the rules of the game, that they could advance their cause and at the same time keep strictly within constitutional rules. But everybody was liable to lose his head under certain circumstances, and the supreme and ultimate punishment, involving the suspension of a Member, and, more important still, the disfranchisement of the constituency, should be avoided, if possible. This rule was a step in that direction, but he would propose a further safeguard, viz., that before the portion of the rule dealing with punishment was brought into operation the Speaker should suspend the sitting, in order to give hon. Members an opportunity of cooling down and reconsidering the situation, so that they should not act on mere impulse. Irish Members had a special right to ask for this extension of the rule, because they formed a permanent minority in the House, and were perhaps by nature somewhat more excitable than other Members. Under the latter portion of the rule which had just been postponed it was possible to suspend 10, 50, or 80 Irish Members all at once. That was a most undesirable thing in the interests of Ireland, and he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would join with him in adopting any means to prevent such a thing. Although he was in favour of this rule, he had always felt that it was a rule which might be used to the advantage of British Members and to the prejudice of Irish

  243
  Members. They all remembered the sitting of 1893. In that sitting English men, Scotchmen, and a certain number of Irishmen, lost their heads—
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: No, it was an English row altogether.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he was aware that the English Members began the row, but he thought there was a certain inclination on the part of the Irish Members to have a hand in the fight. If it had been so many Irish Members had lost their heads upon that occasion, it would have ended in the wholesale suspension of Irish Members. It ended, however, in the entrance of Mr. Speaker, who calmed the whole storm without a single hon. Member being either named or suspended, and he thought that was a proper ending. If that row had been made by Irishmen, they would have been suspended en bloc. He thought Mr. Speaker should suspend the sitting before ho carried out any wholesale suspension of hon. Members. He wished all sections of the House to be upon the same level, and he strongly put it to the House that before Mr. Speaker was given power to suspend any large number, hon. Members should be given an opportunity of recovering their senses and getting back their good temper. With those safeguards he thought this was a rule which the House might very well adopt.
  MB. VICARY GIBBSsaid he could not take the same constitutional objection to this proposal as that put forward by the hon. Member for Kings Lynn, although he thought the House would be inclined to agree with the objection taken to the last few words. He suggested that his right hon. friend should consider the matter and strike out all the words after "put." If that course were adopted he thought it might lead to the termination of the discussion on this point. If those powers were confined to Mr. Speaker and not to any Deputy Speaker, he thought there would be no objection at all to this Clause. His meaning was that Mr. Speaker should have power to adjourn
  244
  the House without Question put, and he thought that would be quite sufficient to meet the case. He thought those powers were more likely to be accepted by the House if they were confined to one official instead of being spread over a number of other men.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)said the general tendency upon the Opposition side of the House was to look with suspicion upon most of the proposals which were made by the Government. He confessed, however, that upon this matter he had been very much shaken from his usual attitude. Hon. Members would remember some time ago the debate upon the South African question, in which the Colonial Secretary wound up the debate and completely exonerated Mr. Rhodes. Immediately after the Colonial Secretary sat down, the hon. Member for Birkenhead got up and began to protest very strongly against the Colonial Secretary's statement, and when it was discovered what his object was, gentlemen opposite caused a great clamour. The hon. Baronet, however, courageously struggled against the clamour, but without avail, and Mr. Speaker was under the necessity of calling upon the hon. Baronet who was attempting to address the House, to sit down and yield to the illegal disorder and clamour of the House. If upon that occasion the present proposal had been in force and if Mr. Speaker had intimated to the disorderly majority that he would suspend the sitting, he ventured to say that the hon. Baronet the Member for Birkenhead would have been given a hearing. Under those circumstances he certainly should not vote against this proposal, and he felt himself put under the necessity of voting for the Government.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid he should like to know if the First Lord was going to move an Amendment to his own Amendment in order to make it quite clear that it was only the Speaker who was going to use these functions and not the Deputy Speakers. As the matter stood, the Speaker meant not only the Speaker

  245
  but also the Deputy Speakers. He hoped that that point would he made clear. Technical reasons were matters which they could not afford to leave out of sight. They had sometimes the Whips sending hon. Members in during the dinner hour, and at other times, in order to keep the debate going until the Government had a proper majority. To him that seemed an absurdity, and he thought this was a matter which could be used in wasting time to get men to come down to the House. They had an illustration of these tactics quite recently, and he did not think that this power ought to be put in any other hands except those of the Speaker without some very strong reservation. He looked upon the fact of the Speaker leaving the Chair in somewhat the same way as he should look upon troops firing on a mob after the Riot Act had been read. The Speaker could leave the Chair without the authority of the House if he chose to do so. He would move an Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, in order to strengthen the position of the House in its dealings with the Speaker.
  MR. LOUGHsaid it seemed to him that the discussion now going on had shown a great deal of unanimity on the part of the House, and that Members on both sides knew pretty well the direction in which this Amendment to the standing order might be restricted. The right hon. Gentleman had, be thought, agreed that it should be reserved for cases of grave disorder. In the second place, it was suggested that the power should only be left in the hands of the Speaker. Perhaps that was a little more debatable. He moved that the words on the Paper should be prefaced by these words: "In the case of grave disorder arising in the House."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The only difference between the Amendment of the hon. Member and the Standing Order as proposed by myself, is that he inserts the word "grave." It is only a matter of drafting. I think that strange and exaggerated fears have been suggested as to the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker. If it will allay
  246
  those fears, and if it will make doubly clear what I think is already clear, that it is only in the contingency of grave disorder that this Rule is to be put in force, I have not the slightest objection to accept the Amendment.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid something more than the hon. Gentleman suggested would be required. What he wanted to guard against was the wilful provocation of disorder for the purpose of bringing about the suspension of a sitting. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman thought this was an imaginary danger. Ho was quite sure it was not an imaginary danger. There were cases, of which they had an example the other day, where persons were profoundly stirred and where the minority in the House had the strongest conscientious objections to a particular measure proposed to the House. There were other cases where a small minority of the House might desire to bring forward questions which still more strongly aroused passions, and where they had the right to bring their opinions to the test of a division in the House. That was the proper constitutional way of bringing the questions before the Government. There were Members of the House who were violently opposed to the legis ation favoured by the majority. He was certain that, if the Rule was passed in this unguarded form, grave disorder would be provoked for the purpose of getting the sitting of the House suspended. The memory of Members would take them back to cases where such action would have been taken. This Rule would add to the facility with which it would be possible to defeat the constitutional right of minorities to bring questions to the test of a division in the House.
  *MR. CLAUDE LOWTHERsaid he should like it to be in the power of the Speaker not only to adjourn or suspend a sitting, but also to prolong a sitting. If the Speaker had had that power the other day, it would have been impossible for what happened to have taken place. In that case the committal of a Bill to the Committee was prevented by the organised dilatoriness

  247
  of Members in passing through the lobby. It seemed to him little short of miraculous that a measure which was approved by an overwhelming majority in the country, should be prejudiced and perhaps indefinitely shelved through the machinations of a few frenzied faddists. He moved after the word "suspended" to insert "or prolong."
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is not in order. That would be an Amendment on the 12 o'clock rule.
  Question amended, by inserting at the beginning the words—
  "In the case of grave disorder arising in he House," by leaving out the words "in the interest of order," and by leaving out the ord "desirable," and inserting the word necessary."—(Mr. Lough.)
  MR. DISRAELImoved to insert after the word "so," "and after repeatedly calling the House to order." That was to prevent the Speaker from taking the matter into his own hands.
  Amendment proposed—
  After the word "so," to insert the words "after repeatedly calling the House to order."—(Mr. Disraeli.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This would be dictating to the Speaker, and I hope the hon. Member will not insist upon it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  AYES.

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

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Charrington, Spencer

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Boscawen, Arthur Grifiith-

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Boulnois, Edmund

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

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St John

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Asher, Alexander

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Bull, William James

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Butcher, John George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edwd. H.

  Crombie, John William

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Cross, Herb. Shephord (Bolton)

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Crossley, Sir Savile

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

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

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

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

  Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Bignold, Arthur

  Chapman, Edward

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  (7.0.) MR. LOUGHsaid there was an Amendment on the Paper in his name to leave out, in line 1, from "so" to "suspend," in line 2. He had given this matter a good deal of thought, and he believed that it would be quite sufficient if the Speaker had only the power to suspend the sitting for the same day.
  Amendment proposed, after the word "so," to leave out the words—
  "Adjourn the House without Question put."—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not see any reason why we should limit the power of the Speaker in this way.
  Amendment proposed, after the word "put," to leave out the words—
  "Or suspend any sitting for a time to be named by him."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
  (7.7.) Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Aves, 262; Noes, 131. (Division List, No. 30.)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. Salop-

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Round, James

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lawson, John Grant

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Evans, Sir Fr'ncis H. (Maidstone

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edwd. H.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J.(Manch'r

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edwd.

  Finch, George H.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edwd. Algernon

  Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Flower, Ernest

  Lowe, Francis William

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Spear, John Ward

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Foster, Philip S (Warwiek, S. W.

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)

  Stanley, Hn Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (S'merset)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. WG. Ellison

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stewart, Sir Mark J M 'Taggart

  Garfit, William

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

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

  Stock, James Henry

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

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

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Gordon Maj. Evans-(TrH'mlets

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Mollor, Rt. Hn. John William

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edwd. Murray

  Green, Walf'rd D. (Wednesbury

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Morgan, D'vid J. (Walth'mstow

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Gretton, John

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Welby, Lt, -Col. ACE (Taunton)

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Muntz, Philip A.

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

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'x.

  Myers, William Henry

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'nde'ry

  Nicholson William Graham

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hardy, La'rence (Kent, Ashford

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Palmer, Walter Salisbury

  Williams, Rt Hn J Pow'll-(Birm.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

  Percy, Earl

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wood, James

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Hope, J.F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wylie, Alexander

  Horner, Frederick William

  Randles, John S.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Rankin. Sir James

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Reid. James (Greenock)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Johnston. William (Belfast)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Joicey, Sir James

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Bell, Richard

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Ambrose, Robert

  Blake. Edward

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.))

  Boland, John

  Burns, John

  250

  251

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

  Caldwell, James

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Malley, William

  Carew, James Laurence

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Mara, James

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

  O'Shee, James John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lambert, George

  Price, Robert John

  Crean, Eugene

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rea, Russell

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reddy, M.

  Cullinan, J.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Davits, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lough, Thomas

  Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries)

  Delany, William

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Lundon, W.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Dillon. John

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roche, John

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Crae, George

  Russell, T. W.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Govern, T.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Esmonde. Sir Thomas

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Murphy, John

  Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'n, N

  Field, William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Newnes, Sir George

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Ure, Alexander

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wallace, Robert

  Grant, Corrie

  Norman, Henry

  Walton, J. Dawson (Leeds, S.)

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wrarner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hammond, John

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

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Harcourt, Rt Hon. Sir William

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whiteley, George (York,W.R.)

  Harwood, George

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

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

  Young, Samuel

  Holland, William Henry

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Doherty, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

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

  Mr. Caine and Captain

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  O'Dowd, John

  Donelan.

  MR. GALLOWAYsaid he should only delay the House a moment or two in moving the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper. He thought the proposal of the Government was a very grave step for them to take, and until they saw how the Rule worked he thought this power ought to be confined to the Speaker. He hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would be able to accept this Amendment, which he assured him was not moved in any hostile spirit but simply in the interests of the House.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words—
  "But this power shall not be exercised by the Chairman of Ways and Means or the Deputy Chairman when acting under Standing Order 83."—(Mr. Galloway.)
  Question proposed "That those words be there added."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certain hon. Members of the House seem very unduly alarmed about the powers which this Standing Order would give to the Chairman of Committees and to the Deputy Chairman when acting in the capacity of Speaker. The occasions when they would act in the capacity of Speaker are not very common. If there were cases of grave disorder, it is the Chairman and Deputy Chairman who would be most in need of the power conferred by this order. In the course of my Parliamentary experience, I have seen speakers who exercised an immense personal authority over the House which grew from year to year during the tenure of the office. But that control over a stormy scene must be somewhat less in the case of a Deputy Speaker suddenly and unexpectedly called upon to take the Chair; and he, above all others, should have the opportunity in a stormy scene of allowing heated passions to cool by an Adjournment of the House until such a time as his less experienced

  253
  hand would obtain control over it. I strongly deprecate the Amendment of my hon. friend, although I quite recognise the friendly spirit in which it is moved.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked if the Chairman under such circumstances had not a perfect right to call in Mr. Speaker.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Only the Speaker or the person acting as Speaker has, under any circumstance, this power.
  MR. FLYNNsaid there was a very strong feeling on the Opposition side of the House against this enormous power being given to the Deputy Speaker. The original argument remained that the Deputy Speaker, not being a permanent official, could not divest himself so thoroughly of a feeling of partisanship as Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means. He had seen a kind of artificially fomented disorder got up by gentlemen who came down to the House after ten o'clock, and with cries of "divide, divide!" and inarticulate shouts, had tried to shout down speakers on the other side when they thought the debate was going on too long. He could easily understand the Deputy Speaker losing his head under such circumstances and giving way to artificial pressure of that kind, whereas a permanent officer of the House would not be likely to be carried away with such feelings. He thought the Amendment of his hon. friend was a valuable one, and he trusted that the House would accept it.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he was against the Rule as a whole. But he thought that if they were to signify to the Speaker that it was his duty to run away in the moment of danger, the same facilities to clear out should be extended to the Deputy Speaker.
  MR. LABOUCHEREregretted that the First Lord of the Treasury should refuse to amend any of the Rules even at the wish of hon. Members on his own side of the House. By this course he assured the right hon. Gentleman that he was not conducing to the debates on the Rules being brief. He always understood that a practical
  254
  Minister put in a good deal in order to lighten the ship by throwing it out, and then he got on better with the rest of the cargo. The First Lord said the case which had been raised would very rarely occur, and if it did occur it would only be when Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Committees were both incapacitated. If that contention was correct, then it would be better not to give these powers to the Deputy Chairman. If the case was one which hardly ever occurred, was it worth while passing this Rule against the feelings of a large number of Members of the House in order to meet this possible contingency? They were all very anxious to get to the end of these Rules as soon as possible, because these discussions were the most boring that the mind of man could conceive. If the Leader of the House would listen to the Opposition and make concessions to them, he was certain that the Rules would pass in half the time which they occupied by reason of the right hon. Gentleman's obstructive attitude.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester,N.E.)said it seemed to him inconsistent and illogical that the hon. Member who had just spoken should suggest that it was going too far to give the power to suspend the sitting to the temporary Speaker when they had already clothed the Chairman of Committees and the Deputy Chairman with the power of suspension of Members.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he agreed with the Amendment. He believed that this Rule, and in fact the majority of the Rules, were aimed directly against the Irish Party, and that it was quite possible to make this Rule a vindictive instrument against the Irish Party. What might occur under the Rule was that the Speaker, the Chairman of Committees, and the Deputy Chairman could suspend the sittings of the House. Supposing they happened to be Party men, it was only necessary for them to see a ring of members belonging to their own Party promoting disorder, and the almost irresistible temptation would be to adjourn the House to save their own Party. But that would not apply to the Irish Party. Where the Irish Party would be suspended in large numbers

  255
  English Parties would not be suspended at all. It might be that there was impending what was called a touch-and-go division, the result of which no one could foretell; then if six or seven gentlemen promoted disorder the Chairman might suspend the sitting on the ground of great disorder, so that it was in the power of a few supporters of the Government to have the sitting suspended until such time as the Government could not be taken at a disadvantage. The Rule was doubly bad, because the Deputy Chairman was one of the active Members of the House, and engaged in fighting Party battles every day. Such power as this should not be given to anybody but the Speaker himself. The Chairman and the Deputy Chairman could not divest themselves of their Party feeling in the same way as the Speaker. For these reasons he strongly urged the Government only to give this great power to Mr. Speaker and his successors in the Chair. It was intolerable that such a power should be exercised by Party men, having regard to the enormous Party advantages that could be derived from it. By that power they might be able to defeat a hostile division. It was a Rule framed in the interest of the great majority of the House as against the minority, and on these grounds he supported the Amendment.
  MR.DILLONexpressed the opinion that a very important point had been raised by the hon. Member for South Donegal. The importance of this Rule had been very much minimised. Let him refer to a case which would be in the recent memory of the House. In a case like the Second Reading of the Marriage with Deceased Wife's Sister Fill which recently occurred, was it not likely that men with such strong opinions—
  *MR.SPEAKER: Order, order! That argument is not in order on this Amendment. The question is whether this power should be given to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means.
  MR. DILLONsaid the great point in the Amendment was that the risk of the Chairman acting with a certain degree of want of impartiality if a certain section of Members promoted disorder would be greatly increased if these powers were extended to a man who was a working member of the Party opposite, and might have for a month before he took the Chair spoken and voted with the Government. For that reason it was very wrong to give discretion to a gentleman who had a certain amount of sympathy with the one side of the House in this matter. There were one or two things which ought to be the rule, especially in dealing with Deputy Chairmen or Chairmen of Ways and Means. Either he ought to be compelled on an occasion of grave disorder to suspend the sitting forthwith, or he ought to be compelled to quell the disorder, but he ought not to have the choice of the two methods which might be exercised in a partial and unfair manner for the benefit of a Party.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid that after what had fallen from his right hon. friend he was quite satisfied, and intended to support the Rule, therefore he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Leave being refused,
  (7.37.) Question put.
  The House divided; Ayes, 136:— Noes, 219.(Division List, No. 31.)

  Field, William

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Govern, T.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Roche, John

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Kenna. Reginald

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Runciman, Walter

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Russell, T. W.

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel.

  Hammond, John

  Murphy, John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Harwood, George

  Nolan, Cl. John P.(Galway, N.)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'rth'nts

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Holland, William Henry

  Norman, Henry

  Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan,E.)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

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

  Thomas, Dd. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Jameson. Major J. Eustace

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary M.)

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

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thompson, Dr. E C (Mon'gh'n, N)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

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

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

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Ure, Alexander

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wallace, Robert

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Doherty, William

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S)

  Kennedy. Patrick James

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

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  O'Dowd, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Lambert. George

  O'Kelly, James(Roscomm'n N.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Malley, William

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Leese, Sir Jo'eph F. (Accrington)

  O'Mara, James

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer-

  Lloyd-George, David

  O'Shee, James John

  Wood, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Young, Samuel

  Lundon, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Price, Robert John

  TELLEBS FOR THE AYES—

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rea, Russell

  Mr. Dillon and Mr.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Reddy, M.

  Labouchere.

  M'Crae, George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)'

  Agg-Gardener, James Tynte

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gordon, Maj. Evans- (T'rH'm'ts

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cross, Her. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Greene, Sir E. W. (B'y S. Edm'ds

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Grenfell, William Henry

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Dewar, T.R. (T'rH'mlets, S.G.)

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

  Balfour, Rt Hn. G'r'ld W (Leeds)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich'el Hicks

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Bignold, Arthur

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Bigwood, James

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Kings Lynn)

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fellowes, Hon. A. E.

  Henderson, Alexander

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

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

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Finch, George H.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Butcher, John George

  Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightsi'e

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Horner, Frederick William

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

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

  Fison, Frederick William

  Hoult, Joseph

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edwd. Algernon

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm Lawies

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Flower, Ernest

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worcr)

  Foster, Sir M. (Lond. Univ.)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.)

  Keswick, William

  Chapman, Edward

  Galloway, William Johnson

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Garfit, William

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  258

  259

  Lawson, John Grant

  Percy, Earl

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Stock, James Henry

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

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

  Pym, C. Guy

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lonsdale,John Brownlee

  Randles, John S.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rankin, Sir James

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Valentia, Viscount

  Macartney, Rt. Hon. W. G. E.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Maxwell, W.J.H.(Duinfries'sh. Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Wason,JohnCathc'rt (Orkney) Webb, Col. William George

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Round, James

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

  Montagu, G (Huntingdon)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  More, R. J. (Shropshire)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Whiteley,H. (Asht'mmd. Lyne)

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Samuol, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Williams, Rt. Hn.J.P. (Birm.)

  Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.

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

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

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

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcester N.)

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

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

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wortley, Rt. tin. C.B. Stuart

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wylie, Alexander

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Smith, H. C. (N'rth'mb. T'neside

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Spear, John Ward

  TETTERS FOR THE NOES—

  Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Peel, Hon. Wm. Robt. W.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormsk.)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Stanley, Ed. Jas. (Somerset)

  Penn, John

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that when, at an earlier stage of the debate, he proposed to make the suspension of the sitting a necessary preliminary to the suspension of more than one Member, the Speaker ruled that the proper course was to move the provision in the form of a proviso. The proviso he desired to move was as follows:—
  "Provided that before the naming of more than one Member at the same time the Speaker should exercise the said power of suspending the sitting."
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! After what the hon. Member has described had passed he brought to me the Motion he proposed to move. I then came to the conclusion that it was a Motion which could not be made on this Rule. The proper place for such an Amendment is on Standing Order No.21. This rule gives power to the Speaker to act in a certain way, and the hon. Member proposes that the exercising of the power should be a condition precedent to the suspension of several members. That
  260
  comes properly as an Amendment to Standing Order No. 21, and not to the Rule under discussion.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether he would be in order in moving the addition of the proviso which he had read to Standing Order No. 21.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I did not say that the hon. Member would be in order in interposing an Amendment to Standing Order No. 21. Of course he has the ordinary right of every Member of putting down a notice of Motion.
  Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLdesired to speak against the proposal as a whole. The Rule was a practical effacement of Parliamentary procedure and a great insult to the House of Commons. During the whole of its history there had never been a single case in which the House had been unable to vindicate its authority and to be master of itself.

  261
  This Rule, however, declared that the House was no longer able to control its own proceedings, and such a declaration would have a very detrimental effect on Continental opinion. As to the practice in Continental assemblies, he believed that, whenever the Speaker left the Chair, he afterwards communicated to the House the names of the Members whom he believed to have been instrumental in making the suspension of the sitting necessary. Under this Rule the Speaker was to do nothing of the kind. The meaning of that was that Members of the British section of the House were to be allowed to create as much disorder as they liked, whereas the Irish Members would immediately be had up under the punitive rules. He greatly regretted to see the old privileges of the House absolutely smashed and effaced by the First Lord with the aid of the majority at his back, many Members of which did not know the effect of the Rules for which they were voting. On only two occasions in Parliamentary history had there been anything approaching a riot in the House. The first was in the time of Charles II., when a serious disturbance occurred with the Chairman in the Chair. Sir Edward Seymour stepped into the Chair, and immediately the mace was placed upon the Table, and the disturbance was quelled, simply by the authority of the mouthpiece of the House itself. The other occasion was in July, 1893, and in that case also, as soon as Mr. Speaker came into the House, the disturbance ceased. He regarded this as a very shameful and despicable power to give to an unscrupulous occupant of the Chair. Disorder would be encouraged under this Rule. He remembered a case in which under this Rule the sitting would have been suspended. Ho referred to the year 1892, which was the date upon which the Unionist Government was defeated, and the right hon. Gentleman spoke

  AYES.

  Aeland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

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

  Butcher, John George

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Caldwell, James

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Asher, Alexander

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bigwood, James

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

  Atkinson, Rt, Hon. John

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derbyshire

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Boseawen. Arthur Griffith-

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Chamberlain, Rt Hon.J. (Birm.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Chamberlain, J.Austen (Wore's

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Chapman, Edward

  against time because some of the supporters of the Government were out of the House. Under this Rule the Speaker would be able to suspend the sitting until the erring sheep might come back. The thing was exceedingly improper and wrong. The First Lord of the Treasury, when he explained the reasons for the introduction of this Rule earlier in the evening, said his proposal would be very operative between 12 and 1 o'clock in the morning, because the Speaker could not then name any one. He referred to himself (the hon. Member) and said he had been guilty of disorderly proceedings on Friday morning.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said so. I never alluded to the hon. Member or thought of him.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that this Rule was intended to prevent discussions and observations taking place at the adjournment of the House, when they had an opportunity of discussing matters until one o'clock. Under such circumstances nothing would be easier than for hon. Members opposite to create disorder. This Rule was drawn up in the interest of the Government majority to enable them to work disorder which might be useful to the Ministry. It was an invidious and hateful Rule, which had not the sanction of any Continental assembly, where the President had the power to adjourn the House, and then bring to book the Members who had been guilty of disorder. This Rule showed a bitter feeling towards Irish Members, and it was a cowardly attack by the majority on the weakest section of the House.
  (8.7.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes,222; Noes, 81.(Division List No.32.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Holland, William Henry

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Round, James

  Crombie, John William

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Royds, Clement Molyneaux

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Runciman, Walter

  Crossley, Sir Saville

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lambert, George

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Denny, Colonel

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isleof Wight

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lee, ArthurH (Hants., Fareh'm

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Leese,Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tynside

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

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

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Dyke, Rt, Hon. Sir W. Hart

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Stock, James Henry

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Finch, George H.

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

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Crae, George

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Fison, Frederick William

  Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Mole worth, Sir Lewis

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Flower, Ernest

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Forster, Henry William

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Foster, Sir Michael(Lond. Univ.

  Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thshire

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Foster, P. S (Warwick, S. W.)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Garfit, William

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Webb, Colonel William George

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

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

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

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Williams, Rt. Hn. J. P.- (Birm.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Pease, Herbert p. (Darlington)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS.Edm'nds

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wood, James

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Randles, John S.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Harwood, George

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Sir William Walrond and

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Renwick, George

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Bell, Richard

  Burns, John

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Blake, Edward

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Ambrose, Robert

  Boland, John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Crean, Eugene

  264

  265

  Cremer, William Randal

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  O'Mara, James

  Cullinan, J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  O'Shee, James John

  Delany, William

  M'Govern, T.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Dillon, John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rea, Russell

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Killop, W, (Sligo, North)

  Reddy, M.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Edwards, Frank

  Murphy, John

  Roche, John

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Field, William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sullivan, Donal

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Thompson, Dr. E C(Monagh'n,N

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

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

  Hammond John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Jacoby, James Alfred

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow.W.

  Young, Samuel

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Doherty. William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Kennedy, Patrick James

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

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and

  Labouehere, Henry

  O'Dowd, John

  Captain Donelan.

  Layland-Barratt. Francis

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

  Lundon, W.

  O'Malley, William

  The new Standing Order(Power of Speaker to Adjourn House or suspend Sitting), as finally amended, is as follows:—
  That, in the case of grave disorder arising in the House, the Speaker may, if he thinks it necessary to do so, adjourn the House without Question put, or suspend any sitting for a time to be named by him.
  MR. A.J. BALFOUR: It may be for the convenience of the House that I should now state that in the special circumstances of this evening I think it would be hard to ask Members to discuss the questions which are raised by the next proposals, "Amendment of Standing Order 1, and proposed substitute for Standing Orders 4; 5, 6, 7 and 8," with reference to" Sittings of the House "—questions which are, I will not say of the most controversial nature, but which excite much interest. That Amendment would come on rather unexpectedly early. As the House is aware, all the proposals in the print from 3 to 11 inclusive, hang together, and I do not propose to touch them tonight. I shall, therefore. when the House resumes, begin with the Amendment to Standing Order 56, "Committee of Supply." The new Standing Order headed "Committal of Bills" is too important to be taken tonight. I think we may take the new Standing Order with reference to Money Resolutions.
  MR. BROADHURST: May I ask the Leader of the House what steps he will take to see that the Rules we are now leaving out in regard to "Sittings of the House" do not come on unexpectedly at some future time?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will take them first tomorrow.(8.22.)

  STANDING ORDER 56 (COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY).
  Standing Order 56 read as followeth—
  "That whenever the Committee of Supply stands as an Order of the Day on Monday or Thursday, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, unless on first going into Supply on the Army, Navy, or Civil Service Estimates respectively, or on any Vote of Credit, an Amendment be moved, or Question raised, relating to the Estimates proposed to be taken in Supply."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON, Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)said he desired to move the Amendment which stood in the name of his right hon. friend to Standing Order 56. It was to leave out the words "on Monday or Thursday." As the House knew, Friday had for a good many sessions been placed under the Rule, so that practically it now

  267
  applied to Monday, Thursday, and Friday. Tuesday had been hitherto a private Members' day; but whenever the Government had desired to secure that day by Motion, they had always added the words "Under Standing Order 56," so that the protection, if there were any protection with regard to Tuesday, could be taken away by Motion. Under the new Rule all the afternoon sittings would be Government sittings, and if the Government desired to give an opportunity for discussing Supply on Tuesday or Wednesday, which would be a full day, there was no particular reason why they should not do so. He therefore moved the omission of the words.
  Standing Order amended, by leaving out, in line 2, the words "on Monday or Thursday."
  Standing Order 56(Committee of Supply), as finally amended, is as follows:—
  That whenever the Committee of Supply stands as an Order of the Day, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, unless on first going into Supply on the Army, Navy, or Civil Service Estimates respectively, or on any Vote of Credit, an Amendment be moved, or Question raised, relating to the Estimates proposed to be taken on Supply.

  STANDING ORDER 31 (INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF BILLS).
  Standing Order 31 read, as followeth:—
  That when any Bill shall be presented by a Member, in pursuance of an Order of this House, or shall be brought from the Lords, the Questions "That this Bill be now read a first time," and "That this Bill be printed," shall be decided without Amendment or debate.
  MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid the next Amendment standing in the name of his right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury, which he proposed to move on the right hon. Gentleman's behalf, was that which proposed to amend Standing Order 31, which provided that if a Bill was received from the other House, there was no difficulty in getting it read a first time and getting it printed. Such a
  268
  privilege was not afforded to the hon. Members of this House, who, if they desired to bring in a Bill, first had to rise in their place and obtain the leave of the House, and, having obtained leave and mentioned the names of the hon. Gentlemen who supported it, they had to leave their place for the purpose of walking up the floor of the House with a Bill in their hand, which was more often than not a dummy. There was no particular reason why hon. Members should be called upon to go through that proceeding for the purpose of getting a Bill read a first time and printed, when a Member of the House of Lords could not only get a Bill printed without any such formality, but could lay upon the Table of the House of Lords anything he liked, and get it printed at the public expense. It was not proposed that the Amendment would abolish altogether the formal introduction of a Bill, but he believed the House never remembered a case where the House divided against a private Member's right to introduce a Bill.
  MR. CALDWELL: Yes.
  *MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid there might have been one occasion when that occurred, but the Rule he ventured to lay down was that any Member should have a right to introduce a Bill in the same manner as Bills were introduced into the House of Lords. It was not proposed to take away the stage of First Reading of a Bill of any importance, but if this Rule were accepted by the House, then there would be three alternative ways of proceeding on the introduction of a Bill. It could either be brought in under the Amendment, in which case it would be laid on the Table of the House, taken as read a first time, and printed, or it could be brought in under what is called the Ten Minutes Rule, or it could be brought in, in the old formal way, with all pomp and ceremony, with a solemn debate on the First Reading of the Bill, before even the House had seen it at all. Those three systems would all be open to hon. Members, and therefore he failed to see that there could be any objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Standing Order, to add the words:
  "A Member may, if he thinks fit, after notice, present a Bill without an Order of the House for its introduction; and when a Bill is so presented, the title of the Bill shall be read by the Clerk of the Table, and the Bill shall then be deemed to have been read a first time, and shall be printed."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  (9.5.) MR. CALDWELLsaid he was surprised at the hon. Member who introduced this Amendment speaking of the difference between Bills coming from the House of Lords, and those introduced by Members of this House. There was one matter the hon. Member had not referred to, and that was that this House kept within its own hands the right to refuse even the introduction of a Bill which it did not consider to be a Bill which ought to be introduced in this House, and he had known cases in which a Bill was voted upon, and a division taken upon it. Nothing would be more dangerous than to say that hon. Members of this House should be allowed to come forward with a Bill, and print it as having been read a first time in this House, although it might be of a character which the House might not approve, and the House had had no opportunity to reject it. It might be the most absurd measure, yet it would be printed, and have the imprimatur of having been read a first time. No doubt it was possible to abolish all the ancient formalities altogether, but if they were to have a House with dignity, they ought to have these formalities. Why should not a Bill in this House be introduced in the usual way? With all the formalities of asking leave, and walking up the floor of the House, it took up no time. What time would it take up if taken at the commencement of public business, on Tuesday and Friday? Why, at seven o'clock, with the help of the closure, the House would be as far forward as if the Bill had not been introduced at all. He thought the Amendment was most ill-conceived, and he could not understand it being introduced by a Conservative Government.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he did not share the fears of the hon. Member who had just spoken that Members would abuse this privilege of introducing Bills in this House. His objection to the Rule was rather upon the ground that it did not accomplish the purpose the Government had in view—that of getting rid of the unnecessary formalities which were an incumbrance and which took up a considerable amount of time in the aggregate. What they had to do when reforming the Rules was to reform those Rules which took up time for no definite purpose. The procedure of introducing Bills with all the old formalities on the average of 300 Bills in the session was 30 or 40 minutes, so that some time might be saved and profitably used, but the Rule did not accomplish that purpose. The hon. Gentleman had only assumed that when the Amendment was carried these formalities would not take place, but formalities survived a long time. The words of the Amendment were—"A Member may, if he thinks fit, present a Bill," and he proposed to amend the Amendment by striking out "present" and insert "propose."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the word "present" and insert the word "propose."—(Sir Albert Rollit.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'present' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  *MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed; its meaning was not very clear. The word "present" was the usual word, and he thought it could not make much difference if that word was changed to "propose," and in his opinion it was better to keep to the old original word.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESagreed that there was practically no difference between the word "propose" and the word "present," and neither of them would get rid of what the hon. Member for South Islington was pleased to think were ancient and obsolete usages of no account, but which he considered were of considerable

  271
  value. What was signified by the operation of walking up from the Bar to the Table? The ancient idea was that when grievances arose outside they were brought to the notice of Parliament in the form of a Petition. The Speaker then asked who would prepare and bring in a Bill to redress those grievances, and a certain Member was presumed to prepare a Bill. He went outside the House, outside the Bar, and, walking up to the Table, and making three obeisances, he presented it to the House. That ceremony, while it took very little time, was extremely valuable, for it reminded the House that its business was not that of a sort of Bill manufactory, but that of a high court for the redress of grievances felt outside.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESlooked upon the proposed alteration with great apprehension. It proposed to do what the House had never done before, viz., to infer a decision of the House without that decision being in any way formally taken. After certain things had been done the House was not to decide whether or not a certain Bill should be read a first time, but without any overt action on the part of the House, it was to be deemed to have so decided. That was respectful, neither to the Bill in question, if it was a proper Bill, nor to the House itself. It was absolutely necessary for the dignity, propriety, and order of the House that its decisions should be taken in such a manner that they could be challenged. There lay the importance of the matter. Where it was on a First, Second, or Third Reading that a decision was to be taken, or deemed to he taken, there ought to be an opportunity for challenging that decision. That was a duty Members owed to themselves, to the House, and to their constituents. Under such a Rule, a Member might bring in a Bill of any description whatever, whereupon it would be deemed to be read a first time. By a further Amendment it was proposed that on Second and Third Readings a decision should
  272
  be similarly inferred. Under such a system the House might be in the horrible position of having read a measure a first, second, and third time without any formal decision whatever. The hon. Member for the Thirsk Division had really show a certain amount of levity in defending the proposal. He had declared that Bills coming from the House of Lords were read a first time without question, and, therefore, a Bill proposed by a Member of the House of Commons might also be read a first time without question. But he apparently forgot that all Bills coming from the House of Lords had been read a first, second, and third time, and had also passed through Committee.
  *MR. GRANT LAWSON: Not a first time.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he would deal with the difference between the Rules of the House of Commons and those of the House of Lords afterwards. His present point was that Bills coming from the House of Lords came with all the authority of that Assembly after having received adequate consideration according to the Rules of that House. He was not so well versed as his hon. friend in the procedure of the House of Lords, but if, as he said, no division was there possible on the First Reading of a Bill, all he could say was that the House of Commons was not the House of Lords, and, whatever Rules the House of Lords might make for itself, it was not for the House of Commons necessarily to follow. He was prepared, however, to accept, as a proper Bill, without question on the First Reading, a Bill coming from the House of Lords, simply because it came from that august Assembly; but he was not prepared to allow a Member to bring in any Bill he pleased, and then for the House not to read it, but to deem it to be read, simply because that Member had introduced it. The First Reading stage was often one of considerable importance. There might be introduced a Bill of an amazing, scandalous, improper character. There was nothing a Member might not put into a Bill and have read a first time if this Rule were passed. It was absolutely necessary that the House should have in its own hands

  273
  power to refuse even a First Reading to such a Bill. The First Reading was not a mere form. He remembered reading in the Journals of the House of a Bill which, when presented for the first time, was not only rejected, but ordered to be torn up and thrown on the floor of the House. Bills might be introduced which deserved that fate, but the House was not to have power to refuse even a First Reading. It was an extremely dangerous Rule, especially when coupled with a further proposal by which a Bill might be read also a second and third time without a formal decision of the House. Then, too, the First Reading of a Bill constituted the order of leave. The order of leave was the charter of a Bill, and marked out the limits within which it might work and beyond which it might not go. If this Rule were adopted, there would be no order of leave. He did not know whether the title would be regarded as an order of leave and impose the same limitations. He doubted whether, without another Standing Order, it could have that effect. The result would be that a Bill, introduced under a certain title, might spread and meander about in swamps of correlative subjects until it arrived at matters cognate indeed, but not properly covered by the title. It did not become the House to allow any Bill to be read without an opportunity for the decision to be challenged by a vote; it did not become the House to deem a Bill to be read without any formal decision; it did not become the House to permit the introduction of a Bill, however ridiculous or scandalous, without having the power to reject such a measure; and it was' very dangerous to get rid of the order of leave by which the limits within which a Bill must move were circumscribed.
  MR. BLAKEthought it better to walk in the accustomed ways unless good reason could be shown for alteration. One of those ways was that from the Bar to the Table, the history and importance of which procedure had been explained by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. Now, however, that the voices of the constituencies were directly expressed on the floor of the House, he did not know that much was gained by that procedure. On the other hand, very little was lost
  274
  by it, and still less by the right to divide on a First Reading, as the time taken was so little as not to be worth talking about. There being so little to be gained, he thought the balance of convenience was against the change. How much time was lost in the course of a whole session through the maintenance of the existing right of claiming a division on a First Reading? None, for the right was not claimed. On the other hand, what danger did J they incur by abrogating this right and giving every individual Member, no matter how little his reverence might be for the honour of that House, the right to insist that a Bill should be read a first time and placed upon the Journals of the House notwithstanding any scandalous character which the title might have? Suppose, for example, it was a Bill to abolish the present law of marriage and to provide for polygamy. Would they not all shudder at such a Bill being placed as read upon the records of the House? Would they not all at once reject such a measure on the first opportunity? It was for that very reason that under the present arrangement such a measure would never be introduced. There was no loss of time and no inconvenience whatever under the present practice, for the liberty of the House to divide and so take up time was never used, and never would be used, upon the First Reading except in some scandalous case. Therefore, why should the House abrogate this security when they would not gain anything by it in point of time? He hoped the House would refuse to abolish this not very hurtful power. So far with reference to private Members' Bills. But there was a far more serious question involved as to Government Bills. He regarded the stage of the First Reading of a Bill in a formal manner, with an introductory speech, as an extremely important stage for serious and effective public business, and therefore he regarded it as most important upon the introduction of Government Bills. It was extremely important for the best result of the deliberations of this House, even if they did not have a full debate upon the First Reading, to have that explanation of the proposal by the Minister introducing the measure

  275
  which had been thus usually given to the House and the country some time in advance of the Second Reading, so as to give time for judgment to mature and ripen upon the proposals. The Government had already taken under existing Standing Orders the power of diminishing discussion upon the First Reading by allowing only one short speech to the mover and one in reply. That power had been, in practice, greatly abused. But under this new Standing Order there was nothing to prevent any member of the Government from introducing any Bill whatever, no matter how important, by the process which was prescribed, without one word of explanation; and he thought that involved a real danger which ought to be guarded against. The Minister who propounded this Rule might say that was not intended. If that was not the intention, then why not say so plainly? Let them limit, at any rate, the privilege to the necessity of the case and to the object in view, and leave the question of Government Bills to be dealt with by the two methods which at present existed. There was nothing whatever in this Rule as it stood to prevent the most important Ministerial Bill being introduced without any statement or any debate at all. He did not think the Rule should be passed in that form, and he hoped hon. Members opposite would assist to guard against these evils. If the right hon. Gentleman did not do something to meet these difficulties, he shouldcertainlydivide the House against this Rule.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid there were grave reasons why the House should not adopt this proposal. The number of debates upon the introduction of Bills where any opposition had been offered was extremely small. He had known cases of this kind, and he remembered one in particular, where one of the greatest ornaments of this House in his own hearing made his maiden speech in opposition to the introduction of a Bill. He alluded to his right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire, who was then quite new to his legislative duties. He thought the House ought to preserve the opportunity of deciding whether a measure should appear on its Orders. He would be told
  276
  that there were other opportunities for expressing opinions on a Bill, and it was true that there was no proposition for abolishing the Second Reading stage as yet. But he warned hon. Members that they would some day regret parting with their opportunities of scrutinising the measures brought in.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: My right hon. friend has been good enough to remind me of the days of my youth, more than a generation ago, when I exercised the right of a Member of Parliament to object to the First Reading of a Bill which materially altered the Parliamentary practice and constitutional principles of this House. I wish to point out that upon the occasion when the First Reading of a Bill is negatived it shortens debate and saves actually the time of the House. Ever since the time my right hon. friend has referred to, we have agreed very much in strengthening this principle and practice of the House of Commons. I think the House ought to maintain its power of objecting to a Bill on the First Reading. It may be a most objectionable Bill, which it is not to the credit of the House of Commons that it should even receive the sanction of being read a second time, or of going forward to the Second Reading, and the House ought to have the power to stop such a measure upon the First Reading. Why not reserve the power of rejecting such a measure at the outset, for the House has not suffered from this practice in the past? This is precisely what I complain of, for a great many of these new Rules are not founded upon any proved necessity or evil. For my own part, as far as I know, I have never known that this right has been abused, and I do not know that any real inconvenience has arisen from the present Rule. I can quite conceive of cases in which the House ought to have exceptional powers to refuse to allow a Bill to be read a first time, and I desire to adhere to the practice which the House has followed so long without any inconvenience.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I trust that the House will not follow the advice which has just been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member

  277
  for West Monmouthshire. The Rule we have proposed does away with one of the shams of the House. The First Reading of Private Bills is unquestionably an absolute sham, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite says that he would like to see the practice of his earlier Parliamentary days retained. That right apparently is to get up and make a speech leading to a debate on the First Reading of a Bill. Now, if that right is exercised in the case of the hundreds of private Bills which are introduced into this House, and if everybody follows the practice of the right hon. Gentleman in his earlier Parliamentary days, which he still looks back to with a longing regard, we should spend our whole time discussing private Members' Bills. If we are not to do that, then it is worth continuing this alleged right. If the right hon. Gentleman had signalised his early Parliamentary career by preventing some Bill which shocked the sense of decency, or the sense of constitutional propriety of the House; if he could have pointed to a case where he stepped into the breach and prevented on the First Reading such a Bill being printed, and which he prevented from being read a first time, then I could understand his argument. The example, however, which the right hon. Gentleman has chosen, I do not think is a very good one to choose. Judging from the phrase which fell from the hon. Member who spoke last, it seems to suggest that this proposed procedure might be very proper as regards private Members' Bills, but most improper as regards Government Bills. Many Departmental Bills certainly ought to come within it, but there is no chance of any Government abusing the Rule, nor do I think that there is any chance of the Rule being abused by any Government with a view to getting a stage by stealth on a Bill of great interest to the country. Recollect that in the case of a Bill upon which great hostility is likely to arise, it would be perfect folly on the part of the Government to cast such measures loose, without making their case out in the first instance. For example, we hope to bring in an Education Bill this session. What folly
  278
  it would be for us to introduce such a Bill as that without endeavouring to make the country aware, not merely what its provisions were, but also what our reasons were for introducing it, and also what were the reasons which induced us to adopt this or that method of dealing with it.
  Then there is the third objection which is taken, and it is that under this Rule, Bills of a scandalous character, such as Bills for the abolition of the monarchy or for the abolition of monogamy, may be introduced and read a first time, thus giving rise to a misconception. What control has the House at this moment over the First Reading of a Bill? The truth is that if you make this stage formal, as the House of Lords has already made it, and as we ought long ago to have made it, there is no chance of our action being misunderstood, either in this country or abroad. At the present time there is such a danger, because the right of the House, which is occasionally exercised, is retained. If a Bill of the kind to which objection has been made is read a first time, and printed and circulated here and in the Colonies as being a Bill which has been sanctioned a first time, what answer have we? Why, you have no answer at all. It is the primâ facie assent of Parliament, and gross misconceptions may arise from it. If you make your scheme rational and consistent, all that responsibility is upset; the Bill is printed and read a first time under this Rule, and the House has no responsibility for it. At the present time you have responsibility without the smallest means of making that responsibility effective, and for that reason, if for no other, I shall ask the House to condemn by this new Standing Order what has long been an utter delusion and an utter sham.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had described the First Reading of a Bill as a sham—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The First Reading of a private Bill.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONcalled attention to the provision in the Standing Order which provided—
  "That the Bill should be deemed to have been read a first time."

  279
  That was the case which arose now. [Cries of "No, No."] But it was argued that by a long practice of the House a sham stage had been substituted. He had been present in other legislatures where the First and Second Readings were actually voted, and where a Member rose and proposed that the Bill should be deemed to have been read a first time. He called attention to this in order to show that the change which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make was not a change which affected only what had been called the sham of a First Reading, but it permitted the introduction of a Bill without the order of the House. It had been urged on behalf of the Government that what was now proposed was already the practice in the case of Bills brought into the House of Lords. He knew that was the case, and he held that it was a bad practice, and he had known some very bad jobs perpetrated by Bills being brought before the House without any notice at all. His hon. friend behind him had raised a new point, namely, that there was nothing in this Order to exclude it from applying to Ministerial Bills. That point must be raised now by the House of Commons. The First Lord of the Treasury said that with regard to Departmental Bills, the Rule would be necessary, and it would never be applied to larger Bills. What Member of the House who had taken part in the proceedings for the last twelve or sixteen years did not know that one of the dangers of their procedure was that Departmental Bills were introduced at the last stages of the session? Ministerial Bills were covered by the Rule, and any hon. Members, including the right hon. Gentleman himself, might,
  " After notice, present a Bill without an order of the House for its introduction; and when a Bill is so presented, the title of the Bill shall be read by the Clerk at the Table, and the Bill shall then be deemed to have been read a first time, and shall be printed "
  Under the present Rule, Finance Bills and some other Bills must originate in Committee of the whole House. This change would enable Ministers to get a First Reading'of such Bills, including the Finance Bill, without discussion. Was any hon. Member going to assent to the abrogation of that Rule? All they had got to do under the new Rule was for
  280
  any hon. Member to present a Bill, and it would be read a first time.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): That is not the Standing Order.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid this new Rule would give to any Minister the power to take the First Reading of any Bill without going through the preliminary stages.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that Standing Order No. GO would still subsist, and it would require that the Finance Bill should be introduced in Committee of the whole House.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he did not know so much about that; but at any rate this point ought to be safeguarded, and he believed it was necessary that the right of the House with regard to Ministerial Bills should be safeguarded. If the First Lord of the Treasury could not withdraw the order altogether, he hoped he would consent to add to this Standing Order, as an addendum, the words—
  "Provided that no member of the Government may present a Bill without the order of the House for its introduction."
  This was a point of the greatest importance, and he begged to move the addition of these words.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of {the proposed Amendment, to add the words—
  "Provided that no Minister of the Crown may present a Bill without an Order of the House of Commons for its introduction."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that the hon. Member has been felicitous in the drafting of his Amendment, and I think he is less felicitous in its substance. What can be more absurd than to say that Bills introduced by a Government, which presumably represents the views of the majority of this House, are to be

  281
  specially burdened with difficulties from which all private Members' Bills are to be free? The thing is so childish, really, that I cannot understand anyone seriously proposing it. Already, by no deliberate intention, but by an unintentional evolution of our procedure, the Second Reading of private Members' Bills is taken practically after only four hours debate. Now may I ask what taint there is attaching to a Bill brought in by a body of gentlemen who, whatever their defects may be, have this advantage: that they have skilled draughtsmen to assist them, and that they represent the majority of the House which required that special obstacles should be put not only to its Second Reading, but to its First Reading? The thing is so indefensible and absurd that I do not think the hon. Gentleman, if he seriously thinks over his proposal, will press it on the House.
  MR. DILLONsaid that, with all due respect to the First Lord of the Treasury, the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee was neither childish nor absurd. He had been twenty years in the House, and had never seen a Government Bill brought in without some discussion on the First Reading. The object of the Amendment was simply to get some security that the Government would not depart from what had been the unbroken practice of the House. They had good ground for the belief that the Government intended to depart from it. A practice was introduced some years ago which came to be known as the Ten Minutes Rule. When that practice was first introduced, it was specifically stated by the Minister that the rule would only be used by the Government for Departmental Bills of a non-controversial character, and after the House had been induced to give its approval to the Rule on that undertaking, it was observed for a considerable number of years. However, the undertaking was departed from gradually year by year, and the Government went on introducing more and more important Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule. For example, when the Government wanted to introduce some Bill under the plea that it was a departmental measure, but which really concealed principles of great importance, such as the Irish Tithe Bill, which divided £2,000,000 of Irish money
  282
  amongst the Government supporters, it was introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were asking by this Amendment to put Government Legislation under some special disability as compared with private Members' Bills. But there was a great difference between the two, which had always been recognised. The difference was that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred,privateMembers'Billswere never expected to pass, but were simply brought in to raise a discussion on a principle; and therefore it was not necessary to guard their various stages with the same precautions which were absolutely necessary to prevent surprises in the case of Government measures which were intended to pass. So far from the Government being justified in coming to the House and asking them to do away with one more stage in the passing of Bills, because several stages had of late years been swept away, he thought they had travelled a good deal too far on that road already. It had been something of a scandal to see of late years some Government Bills introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule. He had been perfectly amazed when the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he really contemplated that this New Rule should apply to the introduction of all Government Bills. At least, under the Ten Minutes Rule the House had adequate notice of the character of the Bill. The language of the right hon. Gentleman, so far from removing his objection to the Rule as it stood, raised the debate upon it to a character of real importance, and those who had taken an intelligent and close interest in the procedure of the House relating to the introduction of Bills would make a strong fight against it.
  (10.14.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I confess I was surprised when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House contended that the same rule should apply to Bills introduced by the Government as to those Bills introduced by private Members. Everybody knows that Bills introduced by the Government are Bills of the most serious character, and excite great interest, and if they are Financial Bills they must be

  283
  introduced in Committee. What is the object of the practice of having a statement, and generally a very full statement, of the character and the principles of Government Bills? It is that there should be notice to the country. You have it brought to the stage of Second Reading without the country or the House having had an explanation of the Bill. That is a most extraordinary proceeding. When the Government have had an important Bill, they have always made a pretty full statement of the character of the Bill, and in a week or two, when the House and their constituents had had notice of the Bill, and hon. Members had obtained their views upon that Bill, it came to Second Reading. It seems to me that the existing practices are founded on solid reason, and we ought not to depart from it except for some greater reason for abandoning it. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not to be applied to important Bills. I think we ought to ask him to put into this Rule a provision which will prevent it applying to important Bills, because I think by some other Government this Rule may be made to apply to all Government Bills, and, therefore, I think, if it is passed, a proviso ought to be inserted to prevent all important Government Bills being launched without the very important explanations which are usually being made.
  *MR. COHENsaid he could not see any consistency in the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, or the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo. There were, evidently, two kinds of Bills in the minds of the right hon. Gentle-man and the hon. Gentleman opposite, objectionable Bills and unobjectionable Bills. The unobjectionable Bills were those in which they could not foresee any danger in their being introduced, and the objectionable Bills, those which they were afraid might be dangerous. He could not, however, help thinking that the House must be impressed with the irresistable argument of the First Lord of the Treasury, who had said that the introduction of Bills under the existing procedure invested
  284
  them with the imprimatur of the House of Commons, therefore they were giving to objectionable bills an imprimatur, to which those who opposed them objected. Government 'Bills no doubt were constantly objectionable to a large portion of the House because they were generally controversial measures, but did the right hon. Gentleman ever recollect an important controversial Government Bill ever to be refused an introduction even after a division on the First Reading?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I did not say refused an introduction, but that it had often been the occasion of securing for the House an explanation of the character of the Bill when it was introduced on First Reading.
  *MR. COHENadmitted that Bills, upon their introduction, had sometimes resulted in a debate extending over two nights, and numerous divisions, but the House had never refused the introduction of a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had said the House had received explanations to the Bill, which were most valuable, but the best explanation of any Bill was the Bill itself, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman was too good a judge of Parliamentary Bills to acknowledge that anybody else's interpretation was as good as his own on the signification of the Bill, but if that suggestion was wrong, it was premature, if not unjust, to condemn a Bill, when nobody had the indispensable data of the language of it. He could see in this no surrender of the privileges of the House, which he was as jealous of and as anxious to preserve, as the right hon. Gentleman himself. They were giving up no privilege by consenting to the introduction of a Bill without these formalities, and he hoped his right hon. friend, the First Lord, would adhere to the proposal which he had made.
  MR. DALZIELsaid the thing most patent in debate was that the cat had been let out of the bag, and the Government did not know that the cat was in the bag. These proposals were very much important then, the right hon. Gentleman thought, and he would be glad

  285
  to have a declaration from the Leader of the House that when this proposal was put forward it was the intention of the Government that the First Reading stages of all Government Bills was going to be abolished.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, it was not, and it is not now.
  MR. DALZIELasked why, in the name of common sense, if it was not, could the Government not accept the Amendment of his hon. friend?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are some Government Bills which ought to be introduced under this Rule.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that now they were getting a little nearer the facts of the case. What was the matter with Clause 31? There were some Government measures which ought to be introduced which raised no opposition at all, and there was no objection to those. Then there was the Ten Minutes Rule, which was a most unfortunate Rule. He did not think it was right to dissect Bills,. and say which ought to come into the Ten Minutes Rule and which ought not. What was the objection to the proposal as it stood 1 The House must understand if this Rule was once passed it was good-bye to the First Reading of Government Bills. The Rule would be used by every Leader of the House who succeeded him, and therefore they could take no comfort in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman said they would deal with only second, third, and fourth-rate Bills by means of this Rule, that was an interpretation the House could accept; but if they consented to the Rule going through as it was they would give away one of the most important safeguards they had against bad legislation. The Home Rule Bill on its introduction gave rise to three or four nights very useful discussion, and other Bills had occupied almost as long a time. The real value of a First Reading discussion was to the Minister himself who brought in a Bill, for which he desired the support of two sections of the House. The result of a discussion of a First Reading then was
  286
  that he got the drift of the opinion of the House, and he could either withdraw his Bill, or so amend it in the drafting of it, as to make it acceptable to the House as a whole. He hoped, therefore, the House would not give up the safeguard they possessed against bad legislation without full consideration of its importance.
  MR. BANBURYsaid he was in favour of the Amendment, because he thought it was most important that there should be a First Reading stage to Government Bills. He might in future have a Minister who might not take the same view as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord, and who would not be bound by his declaration. And the temptation of the Minister would be very great to bring in Bills under this Rule. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
  MR. BRYCE: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite understands this Amendment. The question is not in any sense a Parliamentary question. We are now considering what is to be done by future Governments. quite independently of the stand taken by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that what we desire to do is to place obstacles in the way of bringing in Bills; that is not our intention in the least. It is the rarest thing in the world for divisions to be taken on the introduction of Government Bills, and we have not consumed more than a reasonable limit of time in the discussions on First Readings. What we desire is not to challenge a division and oppose the Government, but to give an opportunity for discussions which shall call attention to these Bills in the country. The hon. Member for East Islington said the best explanation of a Bill was the Bill itself, but the statements made with regard to a Bill are read in the country, and the real use of a discussion on First Reading is to call attention to a fact that might otherwise escape the public, and the real value of First Reading discussions is the value to the Government itself. I have known the passage of a Bill much eased and

  287
  facilitated by the personal explanation of a Member. The right hon. Gentleman said that would refer to a first-class measure, but of course a first-class measure would be debated in the House. I am speaking of what the right hon. Gentleman calls Departmental Bills of secondary importance but which excite a good deal of interest among different sections of the public and which may require a reply from this side of the House. I am speaking, of course, particularly with regard to what are called ten minute Rule Bills. Under the Rule of the right hon. Gentleman it can not be doubted that these Bills will be dropped.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Now really that is not the fact, and it is a little hard on me, because in putting new Rules on the Paper I distinctly pointed out that the existing procedure would be left in operation; that this was new procedure added. It is evident that important Bills ought to be introduced with all the old paraphernalia; that others ought to be intro-duced under the ten minutes Rule; and then there are much smaller and less important Bills which ought to come in without discussion.
  MR. BRYCE: I am glad of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, but I based my views on the statements of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for East Islington. The right way to deal with this would be to place in the Standing Order words which would explain its relation to the ten minute Rule. If it was made plain that this Rule was not to abrogate the Rule which exists, but to confine it to the class of Bills to which it now applies, there would be no objection. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will insert some words in the Amendment to the Standing Order to prevent the abuse in future times in a manner which he now says he does not intend it to be used.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid he thought the new Rule would not save any time at all. All it would mean, in the case of private Bills, would be that Mr. Speaker would not be compelled to ask who was prepared to back a Bill. If it was to apply
  288
  to Government Bills it was a very important thing and might save a material amount of time, but at the cost of a further reduction of the power of the House over legislation. On that ground he objected to the Rule and should record his vote against it. He had every confidence in his right hon. friend, but he felt that if he lived a normal length of time he would see another Government in power in whom he would not have that confidence.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid it would seem that hon. Members were just beginning to appreciate the Rules which they were now discussing. When he read the Rule on the Blue Paper he was under the same impression as the hon. Member for East Mayo, that this was a very unimportant change, which it was not worth while to discuss, but when he came to the House and heard the right hon. Gentleman's explanation he discovered the importance of it. Everybody thought this Rule referred to private Members' Bills, and if that were so it was a matter of no importance and need not be discussed, as the, time which would be saved would be infinitesimal, but there had been some addenda to the original proposal. The right hon. Gentleman had said over and over again that this was not to apply to large Government Bills but to unimportant Government Bills. Who was to make the destination between the important and unimportant Government Bills? He had always understood that the Conservative policy was to surround with every possible safeguard the introduction of anything in the nature of new legislation. But that was all being changed, and the Leader of a Conservative administration was engaged in removing from every class of Bill one of the safeguards and obstacles that had hitherto existed. It was suggested that theRule would apply only to unimportant measures. When the so-called ten minutes Rule was introduced, exactly the same statement was made, but, as everybody knew, Bills of a most contentious character had been introduced thereunder. If the present proposal were adopted, some day or other a Minister embarrassed by the quantity of legislation he desired to pass, by the hostility of a

  289

  strong Opposition, and perhaps by complaints of his own supporters, would, under the cry of emergency, bring in under the Rule measures which he would describe as trifling, but which the rest of the House would regard as important. If the right hon. Gentleman could give a guarantee which would have the perennial power of a statute it would be all right. But it was by the words of the Rule and not by the guarantees and pledges of the Minister that the proceedings of the House would be regulated. He wished to make no complaint against the right hon. Gentleman; no man could try to carry out the arrangements of the House with more regard for the feelings of Members; but he seemed to be a from hand-to-mouth philosopher, and, so far as the Rules of the House were concerned, did not appear to realise the full force of the proposals he was making. The House had been distinctly warned that the Rule might and would be applied to a certain class of Government measures, viz.. Departmental measures, A Departmental measure was often a very nice mask and cloak for a job, and there was no class of measure which required to be more carefully guarded and closely scrutinised by the House. Every Government whether Liberal or Conservative, always had something to conceal, and it was only by the vigilance of the representatives of the people that scandals were brought to light. He warned the House that if this proposal were carried it would be put into operation not with the guarantees which passed away with the breath of the Minister who gave them, but according to the words of the Rule which would remain long after the Minister had ceased to exist.
  MR. CHAPLINwas altogether opposed to the new Rule. It had been said that the introduction and First Reading of private Members' Bills was a mere matter of form. That might be so nowadays, but it used not to be the case. Over and over again he had seen the First Reading of Bills opposed. So far from it being an uncommon practice, it was a course which was often taken, and a very good thing it was. Nowadays, more than one-half, probably nine out of every ten,
  290
  of the private Bills introduced were never expected to go beyond their First Reading, with the result that there was an immense waste of printing and a great expense to the State for no purpose whatever. Hundreds of these Bills were never heard of again, and, though they might serve the useful purpose of advertising the Members who introduced them, they did not, as far as he was aware, do any other good to the world. But with regard to the Bills that did proceed further, there was a new danger which ought to be guarded against under this Rule. In future, private Members' Bills would be introduced on Fridays instead of Wednesdays. All those Members who were ardently interested in pet fancies of their own would stick together on Fridays for the purpose of keeping a House, while the great mass of Members were certain to take the opportunity of going away for a holiday, and thus Fridays would be a glorious time for all the faddists in the House of Commons, with the possibility of much mischief being done. With regard to the saving of time, many of these Bills were introduced without any discussion whatever, and consequently no time would be saved. But as to the Bills that might be introduced by the Government, there was a great point of objection which did not appear to have been recognised by His Majesty's Ministers. Take the case of a Bill which the Government might regard as Departmental, but which many Members would look upon as of great importance. What was to be the position of a Bill introduced at the will of the Government under this Rule? No question was to be put, and the House of Commons, however much it might object to the measure, would absolutely not have the power or right of saying "Aye" or "No." There were many objections that could bo urged against the proposal, and for the life of him he could not see what was to be gained by it except the infinitesimal amount of time at present occupied by the introduction of private Members' Bills.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLpointed out that when the Rules were

  291
  originally introduced no one had the slightest idea this proposal would apply to Government Bills. The ten minutes Rule, at the time of its introduction, was thought to be very severe, and, as had already been stated, a distinct pledge was then given that it should not apply to important measures. The way in which that Rule had been administered by the present Government was a convincing proof of the manner in which the one now proposed would be used. He would give the House some examples of what had occurred within his own experience in connection with the ten minutes Rule, and it would be seen that not merely Departmental Bills, but measures of a highly contentious nature, had been introduced under it. In 1900 the then Home Secretary proposed to bring in under that Rule the Companies Act Amendment Bill and a Bill for the Regulation of Railways. The hon. Member stated that in the past contentious measures of first class importance, such as the Companies Bill, had been introduced under the ten minutes Rule. This was contrary to what the House intended when it passed the Rule, which was to apply only to Bills of minor importance. On one occasion he took exception to the use which was being made of the ten minutes Rule, and the Speaker replied that it was entirely in the discretion of the Government what Bills they would introduce under that Rule. He mentioned this for the purpose of showing that the Government in breach of faith and of a solemn undertaking had misused the Rule. The right hon. Gentleman said there was no difference between a minor Bill introduced by the Government and that introduced by a private Member, but that argument would not hold water. A private Member introduced a Bill with the support of himself and those who backed the Bill, but a Government Bill was introduced with the full support of the Government. It was necessary that these Bills should be fully explained for the information of the House and the public. These safeguards were absolutely destroyed by the First Lord of the Treasury. He had used his position to destroy the usages of the House of Commons, and the rights of private Members.
  COLONEL DENNYsaid he did not see what was to be gained by this Rule. It would save no time. He foresaw, however, that this alteration of procedure might in the future, play into the hands of a Government, with which he should not be so much in sympathy as he was with the present Government. He had great respect for any body of men who were clever enough to form a Government, but he believed that they were all worth watching. He regretted that he could not support the Amendment.
  MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had stated that the First Reading of a Bill gave Ministers an admirable opportunity of amending the measure before going further. He did not think that was the usual practice, and he ventured to think that it would be a dangerous practice. The statement of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy was not a serious objection to the Amendment. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division opposed the Amendment, because he wanted more legislation. His answer to that, was that a Bill had a better chance of passing by diminishing the length of discussion than by increasing it. The Rules were devised for the purpose of expediting business and curtailing the laborious processes by which it was at present impeded. Of all the proposals brought forward by the Government, this was the most sensible and the most reasonable.
  SIR ROBERT MOWBRAYsaid there was a large class of Bills which ought to be introduced without any discussion at all. He sympathised with the view of the Government that they should not be put into a worse position under the new Rules than private Members. At the same time, he did not like to see discretion in this matter put into the hands of the Government. He quite understood that the First Lord of the Treasury had no intention that this Rule should be used for anything but the most unimportant Bills, but it had been pointed out, over and over again, that other people would

  293
  rise up who might not apply the Rule in the way that was intended. Notice of an Amendment had been given by the hon. Member for the Stretford division of Lancashire, who was not now in his place. It seemed to him that Amendment would put the question on the right basis, that was to say, the general rule should be that the First Reading stage of Bills should be passed without discussion or debate, subject to the provision, "unless the House otherwise determine."
  SIR CHARLES WELBYsaid he understood the main objection felt to this Rule was that it might be applied to measures of first-rate importance. He did not share that apprehension, but to obviate it would suggest the following proviso—

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork N. E.)

  Delany, William

  Labouchere, Henry

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Denny, Colonel

  Lambert, George

  Ambrose, Robert

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Asher, Alexander

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry

  Dillon, John

  Levy, Maurice

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lundon, W.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Bell, Richard

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Macnamara, Dr. James J.

  Blake, Edward

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Boland, John

  Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  M'Crae, George

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Govern, T.

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Field, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Murphy, John

  Burns, John

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Caine, William Sproston,

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Caldwell, James

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norman, Henry

  Carew, James Lawrence

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Hammond, John

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

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Harwood, George

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

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hayne,Rt.Hn. Charles Seale

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

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Holland, William Henry

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Doherty, William

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

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

  Crean, Eugene

  Jones, D. Brymnor (Swansea)

  O'Dowd, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Crombie, John William

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Malley, William

  Cullinan, J.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Mara, James

  Dalziel, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Shee, James John

  "Provided always that the above procedure shall not apply to any Bill referred to in the King's Speech." He was perfectly aware that this might be regarded in some quarters as an invitation to the Government not to include some of their most important measures among those enumerated in the King's Speech. He could hardly conceive that any Government, in setting forth the work of the session, would think it worth while to dissemble and conceal some of their principal intentions merely for the purpose of saving a few hours debate.
  (11.17.)Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 151;Noes, 221. (Division List, No. 33.)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Pease, Sir Jos. W. (Durham)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Percy, William

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Rea, Russell

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Reddy, M.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Thomas, J A (Gl'morgan, Gower

  Young, Samuel

  Roche, John.

  Thompson, Dr. E C(Monagh'n, N

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Runciman, Walter

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Robert Wallace and Mr.

  Russell, T. W.

  Ure, Alexander

  M'Kenna.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hoult, Joseph

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col W. (Salop.)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton

  Keswick, William

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lambton, Hon Frederick Wm.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Fergusson, Rt Hon. Sir J(Manc'r

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, George H.

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lawson, John Grant

  Balfour, Captain C. B. (Hornsey)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W(Leeds

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Flower, Ernest

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Forster, Henry William

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bigwood, James

  Foster, Sir Michael(Lond. Univ.

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W.

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

  Bond, Edward

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lowe, Francis William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Godson, Sir Augustus Freder'k

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Bull, William James

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

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Bullard, Sir Harry

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

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Butcher, John George

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

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W.G. Ellison

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edwd. H.

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Cavendish, V C. W.(Derbyshire

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Green, Walford D (Wednesb'ry)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Greene, Sir E W(B'rySEdm'nds)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Chapman, Edward

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfries-sh.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gretton, John

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fred. G.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hamilton, Marq of (Lond'derry)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Heath, James (Staftords., N. W.

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Dairymple, Sir Charles

  Heaton, John Henniker

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

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

  Henderson, Alexander

  Myers, William Henry

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  296

  297

  Parker, Gilbert

  Round, James

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Valentia, Viscount

  Peel, Rt. Hon. W. R. Wellesley

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. EH (Sheffield

  Penn, John

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Walker, William Hall

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

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

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Webb, Col. William George

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

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

  Purvis, Robert

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

  Pym, C. Guy

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Willoughby do Eresby, Lord

  Randles, John S.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Smith, AbelH. (Hertford, East)

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

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

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

  Renwick, George

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Stock, James Henry

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

  William Walrond and Mr.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Anstruther.

  (11.27.)Question put, "That the words 'A Member may, if he thinks fit, after notice, present a Bill without an order of the House for its introduction; and when a Bill is so presented, the title of the Bill shall be read by the Clerk at the Table,

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Finch, George H.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chapman, Edward

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Atkinson, Rt. Bon. John

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. Algernon

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Forster, Henry William

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Godson, Sir A. Frederick

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

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

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

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christen.)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

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

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

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

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

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cust, Henry John C.

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

  Bignold, Arthur

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Bigwood, James

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bond, Edward

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ySEdm'nds

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Bull, William James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Butcher, John George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Gretton, John

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw'd H.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hambro, Charles Eric

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

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

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

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'd'nderry)

  and the Bill shall then be deemed to have been read a first time, and shall be printed' be there added."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 216; Noes, 147. (Division List, No.34.)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

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

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Smith, H. C (N'r'h'umb.T'n'side

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Hoult, Joseph

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stock, James Henry

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Parker, Gilbert

  Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

  Keswick, William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Pease. Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Peel, Hn. W. Robert Wellesley

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

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Penn, John

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Lawson, John Grant

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Purvis, Robert

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Randles, John S.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Rankin, Sir James

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

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

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Willoughby de Eresby (Lord)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsm'uth

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Renwick, George

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

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Round, James

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Sir William Walrond and

  Max well, W J H (Dumfriesshire)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Caldwell, James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Dillon, John

  Ambrose, Robert

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Asher, Alexander

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Doogan, P. C.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Blake, Edward

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Boland, John

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Kings. Lynn)

  Crean, Eugene

  Fenwick, Charles

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Ffrench, Peter

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Crombie, John William

  Field, William

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Cullinan, J.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Delany, William

  Gilhooly, James

  Burns, John

  Denny, Colonel

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

  Came, William Sproston

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  300

  301

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Russell, T. W.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Murphy, John

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Hammond, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

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

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Harwood, George

  Norman, Henry

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

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

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

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Holland, William Henry

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

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

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Thomas, J A (Glam'rgan, Gower

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Doherty, William

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

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry W.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Dowd, John

  Ure, Alexander

  Labouchere, Henry

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lambert, George

  O'Malley, William

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Mara, James

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Shee, James John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Lough, Thomas

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

  Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Lundon, W.

  Percy, Earl

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rea, Russell

  Woodhouse, Sir J T. (H'ddersf'd

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Reddy, M.

  Young, Samuel

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  M'Crae, George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Mr. M'Kenna and Mr.

  M'Govern, T.

  Roche, John

  Herbert Lewis.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Runciman, Walter

  Standing Order 31(Introduction and First Reading of Bills), as finally amended, is as follows:—
  That when any Bill shall be presented by a Member, in pursuance of an Order of this House, or shall be brought from the Lords, the Questions "That this Bill be now read a first time," and "That this Bill be printed," shall be decided without Amendment or Debate. A Member may, if he thinks fit, after notice, present a Bill without an Order of the House for its introduction; and when a Bill is so presented, the title of the Bill shall be rend by the Clerk at the Table, and the Bill shall then be deemed to have been read a first time, and shall be printed.

  NEW STANDING ORDER (SECOND AND THIRD READINGS).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That if, on an Amendment to the Question that a Bill be now read a second or a third time, it is decided that the word or words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, the Speaker shall forthwith declare the Bill to be read a second or third time, as the case may be."—(Mr.A.J.Balfour.)
  MR.A.J.BALFOUR:I should hope that this new Standing Order may pass without discussion.
  MR.JOHN REDMONDsaid he thought the claim of the right hon. Gentleman was thoroughly unreasonable. The point taken by the hon. Member for Kings Lynn was of sufficient importance to show how ridiculous it was that the proposed Rule should be passed without any discussion whatever. He quite understood a Rule which would provide that on a Second Reading debate the Question put should be simply Aye or No; but this Rule proposed when an Amendment was moved "That the Bill be read a second time this day six months," that then the Second Reading was to be passed without any decision of the House being taken on it. That was an absurdity. The least the House ought to insist upon was that the Question should be put to it in the ordinary way, and while he could understand a proposal to abolish altogether the Amendment "That the Bill be

  303
  read this day six months," and to substitute simply Aye or No, he thought the present proposal an absurd one. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be very well satisfied with what had been done. They had postponed the new Rule he had proposed earlier in the evening, and then the House considered a number of subsequent Rules up and down the Paper on which many hon. Members had intended to speak, but had found themselves unprepared owing to the course adopted. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. DILLONsaid he desired to support that Motion. Ho did not know if hon. Members had observed a very important change in the Rule from the statement made by the First Lord of the Treasury in introducing the Rules. The right hon. Gentleman then stated specifically that when a reasoned Amendment was moved in contradistinction to a time Amendment, he recognised the necessity of allowing a second division; but as the Rule now stood it took away a right which the right hon. Gentleman said ought to be preserved to the House, and he asked the House to pass the Rule without having drawn attention to that important change. Although he recognised that the Rule would not require as prolonged a debate as the previous Rule, he, nevertheless, thought it ludicrous, in face of the fact he had mentioned, that they should be asked to pass it sub silentio.
  MR. A.J.BALFOUR: I agree to the Motion.
  Question, "That the debate be now adjourned," put and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Tomorrow.

  SUPPLY [14TH FEBRUARY] REPORT.
  Resolutions reported.
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1901–2.

  CLASS II.
  1."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,300, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
  2."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £98,000, bo granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for stationery, printing, paper, binding, and printed books for the public service."

  CLASS III.
  3."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £34,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,1902, for the expenses of the prisons in England, Wales, and the Colonies."
  CLASS V.
  4."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,1902, for the expenses of His Majesty's Embassies and Missions abroad."
  CLASS VI.
  5."That a sum, not exceeding £48,941, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for making good deficiencies on the Income Accounts of the Funds for Trustee Savings Banks and Friendly Societies."

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  6."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the salaries and ex-

  305
  penses of the Inland Revenue Department."
  7."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £75,000, he granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the salaries and working expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service."
  Resolutions read a second time.
  First four Resolutions agreed to.
  Fifth Resolution—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR.FLYNNsaid there was an interesting discussion on the Vote on Friday night. A good many Members desired to speak on it, but on account of the anxiety of the Secretary to the Treasury to get the Estimates, several hon. Members had refrained from speaking. The sum asked for was very large, and if the present system continued by which the Trustee Savings Banks were able to guarantee 2¾ percent., a very much larger sum would have to be taken in future years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had estimated that it might amount to a quarter of a million. They had had a very interesting discourse on Friday evening from the hon. Member for South Islington, on the great advantages of thrift, and the importance of encouraging thrift by giving a substantial rate of interest to those who invested their money in Post Office Savings Banks or in Trustee Savings Banks. Every hon. Member was in favour of encouraging thrift, but it might be carried too far. At present they were absolutely putting their hands into the pockets of the taxpayer in order to pay a comparatively high rate of interest to a certain section of the population. As long as the sum was small the House never thought it worth while to discuss the matter seriously; but now when large sums were likely to be involved, he thought the House and the Government ought
  306
  to pause. Both in England and Ireland the rural classes — small farmers, thrifty labourers, and mechanics in small towns— put their money on deposit in joint stock banks, and only received 1 per cent., 1¼ per cent., or l½ per cent. He wanted to know why those classes only received that rate of interest, while depositors in the Trustee Savings Banks had guaranteed to them 2¾ per cent at the expense of the taxpayer. In order that that artificial rate of interest might be paid, the general taxpayer was mulcted. He thought the whole system ought to be taken into consideration. A good many people who were honest and industrious could not affort to save at all, and, perhaps, many of them had to depend on charity or the workhouse in their old age; yet all their lives they had been paying duties on sugar, tea, and other articles they consumed, in order that another class who could afford to put money by, might have a high rate of interest. He was credibly informed that in Ireland a large number of the depositors in the Trustee Savings Banks were those who had an assured income, such as policemen and coastguards, and who, in addition, looked forward to superannuation. He wished to know why day labourers earning a small wage should be asked to contribute in order to provide a substantial interest for that class of depositor. It was all very well while Consols returned 2¾ per cent., but now the Government were opening up a wide vista of increased charge on the general resources of the country by keeping up an artificial rate of interest. There was, he knew, a strong body of opinion in the House that they were doing the proper thing and were encouraging thrift, when they put their hands into the taxpayers' cocket in order to pay interest which was not earned. The Vote should not be allowed to pass unless they had some assurance that the system should not be allowed to continue indefinitely.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M.HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): I have really answered the hon. Gentleman already. I have said that I was as much impressed as he

  307
  could be with the difficulties we have to meet and with the unreasonableness of making the taxpayer pay the depositors in Savings Banks more than their money has earned; and, as I have said, I intend to ask the House to appoint a Committee to consider the matter. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Member.
  MR.FLYNNsaid he thought they should have a specific assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the system would cease. It was unreal, artificial, and unfair, and if a Committee was to be formed it ought to be formed at once. He certainly should oppose the Vote.
  It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
  Consideration of Sixth and Seventh Resolutions deferred till tomorrow.

NEW BILLS.
  TEACHERS OF MUSIC (REGISTRATION).
  Bill for the registration of Teachers of Music, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Agg-Gardner, Colonel Brookfield, Sir William Houldsworth, and Mr.Chapman.
  TEACHERS OF MUSIC(REGISTRATION) BILL.
  "For the registration of Teachers of Music," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 3rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]

  LIGHTS ON VEHICLES.
  Bill to require Vehicles on highways to carry lamps at night, ordered to be
  308
  brought in by Major Rasch, Sir Robert Mowbray, Mr.Bryce, Mr. Grenfell, Sir John Long, Mr. Scott Montagu, Mr. Wanklyn, and Sir Albert Rollit.

  LIGHTS ON VEHICLES BILL.
  "To require vehicles on highways to carry lamps at night," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday,3rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]
  DILAPIDATIONS.
  Bill to amend the law relating to Ecclesiastical Dilapidations, ordered to be brought in by Major Rasch, Colonel Tufnell, Sir John Kennaway, and Mr. Gibbs.
  DILAPIDATIONS BILL.
  "To amend the law relating to Ecclesiastical Dilapidations," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 3rd March, and to be be printed.[Bill 99.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  On the Motion for the Adjournment,
  MR.RENSHAWasked if it would not be more convenient, in view of the Amendments, of which the First Lord of the Treasury had given notice, to Standing Order 21, that the Amendments now on the Paper should be taken off, in order that Members who wished might give notice of fresh Amendments.
  *MR.SPEAKER: That necessarily must be done, as the Motion to which they were Amendments has been taken off the Paper.
  Adjourned at five minutes after
  Twelve o'clock.

OFFICE OF LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN.
Petition of John James Hugh Henry Duke of Atholl, K.T., George Henry Hugh Marquess of Cholmondeley, and Charles Robert Earl Carrington, praying to he heard upon their claims to the said office on the 18th day of this instant February, notwithstanding that fourteen days will not then have elapsed since their printed cases were delivered; read, and ordered as prayed.
OFFICE OF LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN.
Several witnesses ordered to attend the Committee for Privileges to-morrow and produce documents.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with.
SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYS [H.L.]
Ordered to lie on the Table.
ONSETT WATER [H.L.]
Ordered to lie on the Table.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (No. 2) [H.L.]
Ordered to lie on the Table.
PLYMOUTH, DEVONPORT, AND SOUTH-WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY [H.L.]
Ordered to lie on the Table.
TYNESIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAM-ROADS DILL [H.L.]
Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
NORTHUMBERLAND ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Presented; read 12; and referred to the Examiners.
BRADFORD-ON-AVON GAS BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Read 2 a.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
PLYMOUTH, DEVONPORT, AND SOUTH-WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2 a.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
KING'S ROAD RAILWAY (PUTNEY EXTENSION) BILL [H.L.]
Committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
MARGATE CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
Committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY (No. 3) BILL [H.L.]
Committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY (NEW LINES) BILL [H.L.]
Committted; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
GREAT NORTHERN AND CITY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
RICKMANSWORTH GAS BILL [H.L.]
Committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 347. British Solomon Islands: Report for 1900–1901.
  INDIA (TRADE).
  Tables relating to the trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries, 1896–1897 to 1900–1901.

  ARMY.
  1. Imperial Yeomanry (in Great Britain), Training Return, 1901;
  2. Return of Military Forces in South Africa, 1899–1902 (in continuation of [Cd. 578]).

  WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  Despatch by General Lord Kitchener, dated 8th January, 1902, relative to military operations in South Africa (in continuation of [Cd. 824]).
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) (ACQUISITION OF LAND ORDER, 1902).
  Order in Council, dated 13th February, 1902, making general rules for the procedure under section 10 (2) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILLS.
  PROTECTION OF INNKEEPERS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the better protection of innkeepers and others against frauds—Was presented by the Lord Muskerry; read 1a; and to be printed. [No. 18.]
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT, 1901, AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901—Was presented by the Earl of Lytton; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday the 27th instant. [No. 19.]
VACCINATION ACT, 1898, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Beading, read.
  *LORD NEWTON: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I cannot refrain from expressing my pain and surprise at the way in which my efforts have been received by the Government. I was under the impression that I was doing the Government a good turn. I proposed to remedy what is recognised upon all sides to be a serious defect in the Vaccination Act of 1898; but, instead of supporting me, as I imagined would be the case, they have issued a whip against me and brought down their followers to reject the measure. In spite of this fact, I am unable to believe in the opposition of certain members of the Government—namely, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, the Under Secretary of State for War, and the Under Secretary of State for India. My measure is one of extreme simplicity. It proposes merely to repeal the conscientious objection clause of the Act of 1898. I do not think there is any necessity to enlarge upon the advantage of vaccination. To my mind, one of the most convincing testimonies in its favour is that in times of epidemic like the present the anti-vaccinator is silent, and, if current reports arc to be believed, instead of propagating his pernicious doctrine, occasionally utilizes the opportunity in order to get vaccinated himself. I do not believe that there is any sympathy in any part of the House with the person, known as the conscientious objector. If sympathy has occasionally been expressed for him on public platforms, I believe it to be sympathy of a purely platonic kind, for many of those who have advocated his cause have insisted on their own households being vaccinated and have been vaccinated themselves. I believe the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has gone even further, and caused all the officials in the Law Courts under his control to be vaccinated, and I am not aware that his Lordship has made any exception in favour of the conscientious objector or anybody else. I am convinced that those persons who were responsible for the creation of

  137
  the conscientious objector are thoroughly ashamed of him. Nobody likes him, and many hate him. Why not, therefore, take this opportunity of getting rid of him? If the Government are not willing to take this opportunity of getting rid of him, it can only be for the reason that they are afraid of him. We know that conscience makes cowards of us all, and the conscientious objector seems to have stricken with terror the strongest Government of modern times.
  I will recall the circumstances under which the conscientious objector came into existence. In 1898 the Government of the day, which was practically indistinguishable from the present Government, brought in a most admirable Bill, which was introduced in the other House and met with an excellent reception. It is important to notice that at this early period no mention was made of the conscientious objector. So far from considering him, the President of the Local Government Board made use of these remarkable words in introducing the Bill—
  "He was unable to accept the recommendation of the Commission that anyone who conscientiously objected to vaccination might escape the obligation by simply making a statutory declaration to that effect. The effect of that would be to make the law a dead letter whenever people chose to do so. Nothing could be more unfortunate or injurious to the community."
  This unlucky Minister little knew what fate had in store for him. On the Second Reading he maintained that same position, and the Bill passed that stage by a majority of ten to one. It was referred to a Standing Committee, afterwards returning to the House of Commons. Then, for some reason which has never been explained, owing to the opposition of a few Members on the Liberal side of the House, the Government in the most inexplicable manner, suddenly gave way and capitulated to the anti-vaccination faction. The President of the Local Government Board was thrown over, and, in spite of the opposition of a small knot of what I hope I may call consistent Conservatives the Bill was rushed through the House of Commons by the aid of the official Members of the two Parties.
  When the Bill made its appearance in your Lordships' House it was naturally
  138
  attacked in consequence of this particular clause. The clause was strongly opposed, and it was defended by the Government spokesmen with all the exaggerated vigour of the newly converted. The recommendation, of the Royal Commission—which, by the way, was not a unanimous recommendation—was largely quoted; but, if so much value was attached to this particular recommendation of the Commission, how was it that it was never mentioned in the earlier stages of the Bill? After all, the most important person in the Government is the Prime Minister, and we know well enough what the opinion of the noble Marquess is on the subject of Royal Commissions. I believe that he considers them to be frivolous and irresponsible bodies, and I know, as a fact, that on Wednesday next the Government are going to oppose a Bill in another place founded on the recommendation of the Chairman of a recent Royal Commission—my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland. So much then for the recommendations of Royal Commissions. If noble Lords care to take the trouble to read the debate which took place on the Act of 1898, it will be seen that no single independent or unofficial person supported the conscientious objection clause, with the one notable exception of Lord Lister, who, I think I may say without offence, appeared to feel his position somewhat acutely, and evidently entertained considerable doubt as to whether he ought to support it. He eventually consented to do so on the understanding that a Re-Vaccination Bill was subsequently to be introduced. On that point, Lord Harris, who represented the Local Government Board at that time, gave this assurance—
  "The noble Lord (Lord Lister) indicated that he had already approached members of Government, and had been encouraged to hope that the Government would consider the desirability of introducing a Bill next year with the object of encouraging re-vaccination. If the noble Lord had not indicated that fact I had authority to say so myself. Of course, it is impossible to attempt to introduce a Bill this year, but the Government are prepared to consider during the recess whether it is not possible to bring in a Bill next year to encourage re-vaccination."
  That comes as near to a pledge to introduce a Re-Vaccination Bill as any-

  139
  thing could be. But what is the prospect? The other day the Government were asked whether there was any intention of introducing a Re-Vaccination Bill, and the answer was "Decidedly not." Therefore I am afraid I must deliberately state that the support of Lord Lister for this particular clause was obtained on entirely insufficient grounds. Your Lordships will remember what happened. On a division this particular clause was defeated, and the Bill again went down to the House of Commons. On the Commons disagreeing with the Amendment, the Government in your Lordships' House, by the most frantic efforts, brought down their official supporter and rushed the Bill through on August 12th by a majority of ten. That is the history of the creation of the conscientious objector.
  It is not very difficult to forecast the line of argument in opposition to the Bill which will be taken up by the noble Lord who will speak on behalf of the Government. I have no doubt that he will again refer me to the recommendation of the Royal Commission, but I think I have already disposed of that argument. He will probably say, with perfect justice, that the Act has only two more years to run; and he will also urge—and this is a better argument—that in consequence of this Act vaccination throughout the country has largely increased. That is a fact which I am not going to deny, but, if the Government say that vaccination has largely increased owing to the conscientious objector section, then I part company with them altogether. What I maintain is, that if a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated now than in former years, it is not in consequence of this section but in spite of it; and I further contend that if this section had never been put into the Act there would be tens of thousands of children vaccinated at the present moment who remain unvaccinated and a source of danger to the community at large. The real defence of this section on behalf of the Government resolves itself into this, that it must be a wise provision because so few people take advantage of it. In my opinion that is one of the most extraordinary arguments ever urged in defence of any measure.
  140
  You might just as well introduce a Bill to promote polygamy and then say it was a success because the majority of the male population preferred to live with only one wife.
  The Local Government Board are very proud of the fact that in the six months following the passing of the Act of 1898 there were something like 203,000 certificates of exemption granted. To my mind these particular figures have no value at all, because it is perfectly obvious what happened. The anti-vaccinators were so delighted at the Government capitulation that they showed their gratitude by bringing up all their children under 14 years of age and getting the official imprimatur that they were the children of conscientious objectors. The figures with regard to 1898 are of no value at all on that account. The presumption is, as I have said, that every anti-vaccinator who had an unvaccinated child under 14 got it exempted. The years to which we must refer are the subsequent years. I find that in 1899 there were 32,341 exemptions granted; in 1900 39,839; and for the first six months of 1901 19,252. The figures for the latter half of last year are not available. It will be apparent to everybody, from those figures, that considerably over 100,000 children born during the last three years have not been vaccinated in consequence of this particular clause.
  Now, as to the administration of this Act. I do not know what may be the experience of your Lordships, but I hardly ever came across a single magistrate who has a word to say in favour of the clause. I think anyone who reads the debates which took place on this Act will admit that it was not the intention of the Government to make the path of the anti-vaccinator easy, but that, on the contrary, the clause was rather designed to put difficulties in his way. All I can say is that the effect is the exact opposite; and noble Lords who attend petty sessions will, I am sure, bear me out in what I say. Providing the parent who applies for an exemption certificate in respect of his child has just sufficient sense to gabble the inanity which is put into his mouth by the Act, it is impossible to refuse the

  141
  exemption; but if, on the other hand, he is foolish enough to adduce any sort of proof—to assert, for instance, that his grandmother died of vaccination, or that some relation of his sister-in-law's lost a child through vaccination—then it is possible for an expert magistrate to refuse the application. On those points I would refer your Lordships to the dialogues which take place between conscientious objectors and London magistrates. But, after all, what is a conscientious objector? A conscientious objection is presumably founded upon religious scruples. If a man had to bring an ecclesiastical authority—a clergyman, a minister, or even a deacon—in order to prove that there was something in his religion, which was an obstacle to his believing in vaccination, there would be some sense in it. So far as I know, the only really conscientious objectors to vaccination are to be found in India, where vaccination is against the native religion; but nobody has ever proposed to make vaccination optional in India. I should like to remind your Lordships that many kinds of objections of a more or less conscientious kind are entertained by numerous classes in this country. The pro-Boers, for instance, might conscientiously object to pay the extra taxation caused by the war. I have no doubt that my right rev. friend the Lord Bishop of Hereford strongly objects to the taxation imposed on him in consequence of the war.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: As the right rev. Prelate is not in the House, I hope the noble Lord will not credit him with opinions which he may not hold.
  *LORD NEWTON: Well, if I were in his position, entertaining the opinions that he does, I certainly should object to the extra taxation. There are also persons who entertain a conscientious objection to employing doctors, and who are recognized as the "Peculiar People," but their objections are not considered. There are also people who object to the muzzling of dogs, but what attention is paid to them? The privilege is granted simply and solely to the obstinate minority who see no harm in putting the community to the risk of incurring a loathsome disease. I do not wish to exaggerate the case. I do not claim for a moment
  142
  that if the House accepted my Bill the present epidemic would cease, but I do maintain that the presence of a large number of unvaccinated children is a danger to the community. Either you believe in vaccination or you do not. Presumably the Government does believe in it. At all events, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack believes in it. I ask the Government to repeal this section because it is both mischievous and retrograde—mischievous because it allows the doctrines of a few fanatics to override the convenience of the majority, and retrograde because I do not believe there is in history a case where the Government of a civilised country, having once made vaccination compulsory, has ever interfered with that provision and made it optional. This is not a political question, although the Government have issued a whip against me. There is no constitutional question involved; it is merely a question of common sense. I therefore appeal to noble Lords who believe in vaccination to exercise their independent judgment and vote for the Second Reading of my Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(Lord Newton.)
  VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, as one who took part in the debate in 1898, I rise to support this Bill. I am sure that if the Bill of 1898 had come before the House at an earlier period of the session, your Lordships would have insisted on the exclusion of the particular section which has reference to the conscientious objector instead of agreeing with the Commons in their Amendment. The Bill contained two great improvements in the law, one being that the vaccination officer should attend the homes instead of compelling poor people to bring their children probably a long distance to the vaccination station, and the other, that pure lymph should be provided. It is evident to me that the increase in vaccination during recent years has been due to those two improvements, and not to the clause which brought into existence the conscientious objector, and which I hold to be a great danger to the community. I cordially support the Second Reading of the Bill.
  LORD KENYON: I must ask your Lordships to reject this Bill. The noble Lord who brought it forward gave statistics covering several years, but he might have gone a little further back with his dates. The number of those who escaped vaccination in 1885 was 136,000, and in 1896, 350,000; while in 1899 the number had fallen to 32,000, so that you will see that the Act of 1898 had some effect. The noble Lord was perfectly right in saying that nobody would question the advantages of vaccination, and from what I have observed—I have seen many noble Lords with their arms in slings—most of your Lordships are in its favour. The noble Lord made a point as to the time at which the Act of 1898 was brought in. It was originally passed in the House of Commons. This particular clause was negatived by the Standing Committee of that House, but in view of the obvious feeling of the House, it was re-introduced on the Report Stage. The Bill came up to your Lordships in that form, and this House struck out the clause by 40 votes to 38. The Bill went back to the House of Commons, who, by a majority of 90, re-inserted the clause. It then came back to your Lordships' House, and the noble Marquess at the head of the Government suggested that if the House of Lords insisted upon their objection to the clause, the Bill would disappear and be lost altogether. The noble Marquess said—
  "If you pass this Bill you will give an experimental trial to those improved processes by which you hope the popular illusion will be dissipated."
  This Bill has only two more years to run, for it expires at the end of 1903. The Bill now, before the House would not come into operation until the beginning of the same year, so that its passing would mean only the difference of a year. When the period for the expiration of the Act arrives, a new Bill will, no doubt, have to be considered, and I urge your Lordships not to do anything hastily now, but to wait until the experiment has been thorough, and the popular illusion of the conscientious objector dissipated, before debating the subject again.
  LORD PIRBRIGHT: My Lords. I confess that I have seldom listened to a weaker defence than that which has just been made by the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board. Surely, in view of the present terrible condition of the smallpox epidemic it would be more logical to abolish the conscientious objection clause at once than wait till the expiry of the Act of 1898. It is an absurdity to allow a parcel of fanatics who may have objections, conscientious possibly, but in every sense idiotic and certianly most dangerous to the rest of society, to propagate and spread broadcast a terrible disease. This is a matter of common sense. There is no shade of argument. No argument, in fact, has been offered by the Government against the Bill. In the name of common sense I urge your Lordships to pass the measure. There is no other country in the world which allows any one to evade an Act of Parliament for conscientious reasons. You might just as well allow a criminal to have the option of a fine or imprisonment.
  *THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, the point to which I wish to address myself is, what is the exact issue before your Lordships at this moment? The Bill, the Second Reading of which the noble Lord has to-day moved, proposes to repeal a clause of the Act of 1898. That clause will, by the natural efflux of time, unless it is renewed by an Act of the Legislature, expire at the end of 1903. The proposal in the Bill is to repeal that clause on January 1st of the same year. Therefore the issue raised by the noble Lord's Bill is simply whether the conscientious objection clause shall expire at the end of 1903, or whether it shall be brought to an end at the 1st of January next. I should like to make my own position, and, I believe, the position of the Government, quite clear in the matter of vaccination. Personally, I am a firm believer in vaccination, as, I believe, every member of the Government is, and I have testified to that belief by myself submitting to re-vaccination. Perhaps I may be a less partial witness in this matter if I remind your Lord-

  145
  ships that I am responsible for the enforcing of the law with regard to vaccination in Scotland, a country which does not know the conscientious objector, and manages to get on very well without him. In 1898, as Lord Kenyon has already told the House, the number of children believed to be escaping vaccination was 350,000 out of from 930,000 to 940,000 born. Therefore, in that year a very alarming state of affairs existed. It was absolutely impossible to enforce the law with regard to compulsory vaccination. It was, in fact, rapidly becoming a dead letter.
  You may say that people ought to be vaccinated, and you may propose, if you choose, to put them in prison for not having their children vaccinated; but, in a country governed as this country is, it is impossible to enforce the law if a large proportion of the people have made up their minds that the law is wrong. In 1898, the Government found themselves face to face with what was rapidly becoming a dangerous agitation. I did not agree with the basis of that agitation, and would gladly have endeavoured to put it down with a strong hand, if that had been possible, but the fact remains that from various complex causes, there was a strong rebellion against the law as it stood, and it was absolutely necessary to do something in the circumstances in which we were placed. No question of the value of vaccination in itself need be raised tonight The fact upon which I am relying at the moment is this, that that value was not recognised by a considerable section of the people of this country. There was a state of rebellion against the law, arising partly, I think, from the carelessness with which vaccination had been administered in some cases, and partly duo to a well-planned agitation. Two or three things were done by the Act of 1898. The vaccination officers were instructed and empowered to administer vaccination on different lines; the obligation to take children to vaccination stations was, if not abolished, largely modified; the public vaccinators were empowered, and paid, to attend at the residence of the parent; and the practice of arm-to-arm vaccination was got rid of and purer lymph supplied. It was hoped that by the operation of these and
  146
  other causes, the prejudice against vaccination would die away.
  I believe that the prejudice—the false prejudice, as I think it is—has largely tended to die away during the past three years. At the time the Act was passed, a period of grace was believed to be necessary, during which, these prejudices could be combated, and popular opinion changed. I am authorised by the President of the Local Government Board to say that, so far as is known, the administration of vaccination under the law, as it now stands, has been a great deal more successful than it was before. I do not go so far as to say that this is owing entirely to the liberty given to the conscientious objector. It is enough for my present purpose to say that the Act of 1898 has, on the whole, been highly successful, that it is tending to be more successful, and that I should look with great concern on any decision of this House which would upset, so to speak, a compromise come to in 1898, a year before its natural time, as likely to encourage prejudice and agitation rather than to allay them. My noble friend Lord Pirbright, seemed to think that we should take advantage of the feeling which has been aroused by the present epidemic to make vaccination absolutely compulsory, but I did not understand him to suggest that the epidemic was in any way connected with the legislation of 1898.
  LORD PIRBRIGHT: I think it has been materially increased by the conscientious objection clause.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not think it possible to make out that the present epidemic is in any way connected with the conscientious objection clause, because those who took advantage of the clause could not have been more than 14 years of age in 1898, and of those who have been born since only an average of some 32,000 or 33,000 a year have availed themselves of this provision. To make out that the present epidemic is in any way connected with the legislation of 1898, it would be necessary to prove that only those, or mainly those, who had taken advantage of the clause, were victims of the epidemic. I am authorised by the President

  147
  of the Local Government Board to say that vaccination in London is, on the whole, better enforced than in any other part of England. People who are against vaccination might make an argumentative use of that admission, and ask why, if London is better protected, it has this epidemic. That is due to a variety of causes, which, if that question were raised, it might be necessary to examine; but I venture to say that there is not the slightest evidence to prove that either this epidemic, or any other occurring since the Act of 1898 was passed, was due to the legislation of that year. Before I sit down I would again urge your Lordships to remember that the only issue before the House is whether this particular clause shall expire on the first or the last day of 1903.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): As I have been repeatedly referred to I think it would be discourteous if I did not say why I am unable to vote with the noble Lord, although if we were discussing the subject for the first time I am by no means prepared to say I should disagree with him. This is only a demonstration, and one which would be mischievous, having regard to the time at which it could come into operation. With regard to one statement of the noble Lord, I would observe that I have no power to make an order that all persons employed at the Law Courts should be vaccinated, and I have made no such order.
  *LORD NEWTON: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon. Then I must have been misinformed.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I do not say that if I had such power I should not use it. But I did intimate that, in a place over which I had some control, and to which numbers of people were bound to go, those in office were no longer free to choose whether they should be infected or not, and I stated that, although I had no power to order vaccination, persons who were not vaccinated or re-vaccinated should no longer be placed where they could become a source of contamination. That I have done, and I take full responsibility for it. The Act of 1898 was passed as an experiment, and the experiment will come to an end
  148
  two years hence. I sympathise in a great measure with the noble Lord who introduced the Bill, but I hope your Lordships will not unnecessarily interfere with the compromise which was made in 1898, and depart from that kind of understanding without which I believe it would be very difficult to conduct public business in this country.
  *EARL SPENCER: My Lords, as the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill seems inclined to divide the House upon it, I should like to explain my reasons for voting against it. I may say that I am one of those, who, in a time of profound peace, belong to the band who wish success to their arms. Personally, I am very strongly in favour of vaccination, and, like many noble Lords, I have gone through the not very agreeable process of re-vaccination, but I feel most strongly, however much I may desire vaccination, that it is impossible in this country to carry out a law to which an enormous number of the people are opposed. This was most ably expressed by the noble Marquess the Prime Minister in the House in 1900, and I think his speech was most convincing on that point. The noble Lord who moved the Bill spoke of having been on the Bench when parents were applying for certificates of exemption under this clause. I also have had to perform the disagreeable duty of deciding upon these applications, and I may say that the strength of the feeling displayed by objectors has been to me a perfect revelation. As to the statement that the increase of the epidemic in London is, in some measure, due to the amendment of the Act of 1898, I would venture to point out that in London alone there must have been hundreds and thousands of children who were not vaccinated before that Act was passed. It is an immense advantage to secure a period of peace, such as we have obtained by this Act, in order to see whether the feeling I have referred to may not change on this subject. There is just a possibility that if this experiment goes on as satisfactorily as it has begun, a considerable change of opinion may come about, and it may be possible to take an advance in the direction taken by Scotland, where compulsory vaccination is in force.
  On Question, their Lordships divided—Contents, 32; Not-contents, 52.

  CONTENTS.

  Rutland, D.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Pirbright, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Ebury, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Gerard, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Bartrey, E.

  Glenesk, L.

  Rowton, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Kelvin, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Hardinge, V.

  Lilford, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Galloway.)

  Blythswood, L.

  [Teller.]

  Teynham, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Muskerry, L.

  Crofton, L.

  Newton, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L.Chancellor.)

  Romney, E.

  Harris, L.

  Devonshire, D.I(L. President.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  James, L.

  Norfolk. D. (E. Marshal.)

  Spencer, E.

  Kenyon, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Stanhope, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Lindley, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Verulam, E.

  Manners, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Northbourne, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Falmouth, V.

  Rathmore, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Knutsford, V.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Dudley, E.

  Belper, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Howe, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Tweeddale, L, (M. Tweeddale.)

  Lonsdale, E.

  Churchill, L. [Teller.]

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Morley, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Denman, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  JAPAN—CASE OF MR. GILMOUR.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the result of the representations of our Chargé d'Affaires at Tôkiô in regard to the ease of Mr. Gilmour; and whether the Japanese Government are prepared to compensate this officer for the grave indignities which have been placed upon him.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STALE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, representations were made to the Japanese Government in regard to the case to which the noble Lord calls attention—a case which, in my opinion, is undoubtedly a hard one. The Japanese Government fully admit that the failure of Mr. Gilmour to appear at the hearing of the civil action which was brought against him for damages and his condemnation by default were due to the negligence of the police and the prison officials who were responsible for his custody. Those officials, I am glad to say, have been
  150
  punished—in some cases by official censure, and in the others by deprivation of part of their official emoluments. The further question arose whether Mr. Gilmour was not entitled to some compensation for the hard usage he had experienced. The reply of the Japanese Government on that point was, that if Mr. Gilmour desired to obtain redress, he should, in accordance with the law of the country, institute proceedings against the authorities by whose misconduct he had suffered. In our opinion that is scarcely a proposal adequate to meet the case, because Mr. Gilmour is a person not in wealthy circumstances, and I fancy he has rejoined his ship, and would consequently not be able to have recourse to the remedy suggested. We have, therefore, asked the Japanese Government to reconsider the matter, and if possible, at any rate, to indemnify Mr. Gilmour for the costs to which he was put in the case. We have not yet received the answer of the Japanese Government, and as soon as it reaches us I shall be glad to communicate it to the noble Lord.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT—REGULATIONS AS TO CERTIFICATED OFEICERS.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the fact that vessels flying the British flag trade between Colonial and Foreign ports in charge of masters and officers who are aliens, and hold no certificates of competency according to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. Some correspondence has already taken place on this subject between the Board of Trade and the Mercantile Marine Service Association. The latter Association wrote to the Board of Trade in December last calling attention to the steamship "Agnar," as follows—
  "The British steamship 'Agnar,' also of Cape Town, until lately in the South African Trade, is in charge of a Norwegian master and officers, and I am informed that no British certificates are held by the navigating officers. The 'Agnar' is reported in Lloyd's Shipping Index as being bound from Christiana to England and Cape Town to take up the duties of a transport. I have, therefore, to inquire if the Board of Trade will take steps to enforce the observance of Section 92 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, should the vessel arrive at an English port, and prosecute the offenders if it is found that the officers are uncertificated. At a time when the nation is involved in a protracted war, this Association regards it as a strange anomaly of British Maritime Law that vessels registered as British vessels, and claiming the privileges of the British flag, should be in charge of aliens who do not hesitate to openly express their hostility to this country, and who, if the opportunity occurred, would probably become the King's enemies."
  The Association received this reply from the Marine Department of the Board of Trade—
  "With reference to your letter requesting that this Department will take action, under Section 92 of the Merchant Shipping Act, in the case of British vessels sailing with officers not having British certificates of competency, I am directed by the Board of Trade to state that they are always prepared to take action when any infringement of the Section comes under their notice. The Mercantile Marine Service Association will, however, observe that the provisions of Section 92 apply only to British foreign-going ships and British home trade passenger ships when going to sea from any place in the United Kingdom, and to foreign steamships carrying passengers between places in the United Kingdom."
  I have in my hand a copy of the articles of the "Agnar." Her port of registry is Cape Town. Mr. C. W. Thesen is director,
  152
  and her new articles of agreement were opened at the British Consulate at Christiana. Her master is Mr. L. A. Marchussen, who holds a Norwegian master's certificate. The first mate holds a Norwegian certificate, and there is no second mate. The crew are all foreigners, and the engineers hold Norwegian certificates. Now, the Board of Trade's reply seems to me a very curious one, for, as the ship was to come to England and then go to the Cape, she must sail from an English port, and as she was flying the British flag she should come under Section 92 of the Merchant Shipping Act. Some more correspondence took place, to which the Board of Trade sent the following reply—
  "With reference to your letter inquiring whether the British steamship 'Agnar.' which is reported to have left Blyth on the 15th ultimo—this letter is dated January 22nd, 1902—for Table Bay, carried certificated officers as provided by Section 92 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, I am directed by the Board of Trade to state that, as the vessel is registered at Cape Town, and on leaving Blyth was on her way direct to that port, and having regard to the provisions of Section 261 (c) of the Merchant Shipping Act, they are not, as at present advised, prepared to say that certificated officers should have been carried under Section 92 of the same Act."
  Section 92 states that every British Foreign-going ship and British home trade passenger ship, when going to sea from any place in the United Kingdom, shall be provided with Officers duly certificated under this Act. The term Foreign-going in the Merchant Service Act applies to all vessels going to a place outside the Home Trade limits, which are the United Kingdom the Channel Islands, or Ports between the Elbe and Brest. But Section 261 (c), quoted in the Board of Trade's letter, seems to be a contradiction of Section 92, for Section 261 (c) exempts ships going to the Port in the British possession or country in which they are registered. Therefore, according to the Board of Trade's reading of the Act, the largest British Mail Steamer, or any British ship, if registered at any such port could trade there from any port in the United Kingdom without a single officer holding a Board of Trade certificate. Now, I am perfectly certain that this was not the intention of the Framers of the Merchant Service Act, 1894, and,

  153
  if the interpretation of the Board of Trade is correct, the sooner the Section is amended the better. Though, unfortunately, the law permits a British ship to be commanded and manned entirely by foreigners, yet I always understood—and it is on this point that I hope to get some information from my noble friend—that a British ship must be owned by British subjects. I am informed that the owners of the Agnar are Norwegians, and if there is any truth that she was to be employed as a transport, then things have come to a pretty pass when England has to employ, to aid her in carrying on a war, a ship foreign in everything except the flag. I think this state of things emphasises the great need of a Certificate Bill such as I brought before your Lordships last session.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY): My Lords, it is, of course, the case under the present law that vessels registered either here or in a British possession abroad, and flying the British Flag, can trade between foreign ports without coming to this country, and so evade the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act which deal with the question referred to by my noble friend. My noble friend deplores this, and in theory, at any rate, I am inclined to agree with him. If it were possible to enact that every British vessel should carry certificated officers, I am inclined to think that that would be desirable, but I confess I do not in the least know how that end could be arrived at. It is obvious that legislation, which we pass in this country could not be made applicable to foregn countries, and so long as a vessel trades between ports in foreign countries, I do not know of any means by which our legislation could be applied to her. It may be said that we could insist that she should then be removed from the British register. I am afraid that action of that kind would do more harm than good to the carrying trade of this country, for any owner who wished to evade the law, with regard to certificated officers and was told that he would either have to comply with its provisions or leave the British register, would at once transfer his vessel to a foreign flag. I am told that that transformation could very easily be
  154
  effected, and we should merely lose that particular ship from the list of our British owned vessels.
  With regard to my noble friend's remarks in reference to the "Agnar," so far as I remember, the case of that vessel was very much as he has stated it. It was a vessel not on the British register but on the Colonial register—registered, in fact, at Cape Town—which signed on her crew at Christiania and touched here for stores and bunker coal. She had no British certificated officer, but we were advised we could not detain her because, under a certain section of the Merchant Shipping Act, she was bound for the port in which she was registered. I am not responsible for that exemption. I can merely state how the Act stands, and tell your Lordships that we acted according to the advice of the Board of Trade solicitor. It is held in the ease of vessels registered in our Colonial possessions, that those Colonial possessions should make the laws with regard to them. Most of them have done so, and I believe that in the Australian colonies and also in Canada and Newfoundland, laws exist pretty much upon our lines for dealing with vessels of this character. I do not suppose that even my noble friend would suggest that we should change that system, or that we should attempt to make our merchant shipping law apply in our self-governing Colonies. After all, I do not think that the grievance is a very great one, because the people who are most affected are the underwriters. If vessels were lost owing to this cause, we should have representations made by the Underwriters' Association with a view to a possible strengthening of the law. No such representations have been made, and so long as they do not come to us I think we are entitled to assume that few, if any, vessels are lost from want of certificated officers. My noble friend wishes to bring about a more complete system than at present is the case. I should advise him to try and induce the underwriters to bring pressure upon the owners and to prevent them by refusing to underwrite vessels, from sending their ships to sea without a full complement of certificated officers.

  REMOUNTS—MILITARY COURT OF INQUIRY—POSITION OF GENERAL TRUMAN.
  LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I beg to ask the Questions standing in my name, viz.—(1) Seeing that the Report of the Committee on Horse Purchase in Hungary was signed in August, if action is now considered necessary as regards General Truman, why was it not taken at an earlier date; (2) If the Under Secretary of State for War will give to the House the authority under which the novel conditions of the Court of Inquiry are adopted; (3) If he will give the names of the officers who are to serve on the Court of Inquiry on General Truman; (4) Whether General Truman will have legal assistance; (5) Whether the proceedings of the Court will be published from day to day; (6) Whether the members of the Court will be sworn, and the evidence given on oath; (7) Whether the Court will have powers to compel the attendance of witnesses other than military; and (8) Whether the Court will report its opinion on the matters inquired into to the Commander-in-Chief. The Questions require hardly any preliminary comment. But there is an additional Question which on Saturday I could not get printed in the Votes, and I therefore had to give the Under Secretary private notice of it. I may here say that I am sorry Lord Raglan is away indisposed, but I understand the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is prepared to answer the questions on his behalf. The Question of which I gave private notice is, whether the Under Secretary can inform the House whether General Truman was asked to resign his office before mention was made of the Court of Inquiry. I ask this Question owing to a remark that fell from my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth the other evening, that he had heard from the man in the street that this was the case, and that, if true, such a course was shabby; but this statement elicited no comment, and the taunt no rejoinder.
  I submit that this may be a matter of very great importance as regards the General in question and the methods
  156
  of the Secretary of State in dealing with an officer of the Army. Again, why this delay in dealing with General Truman? If he is so inefficient that a Board of Inquiry is necessary—if, indeed, he had not already been told to resign—why does the Secretary of State wait to deal with the matter till the House of Commons forces his hand? And, then, as regards the legal assistance. Lord Lansdowne will remember that he said that officers were frequently bad witnesses in their own defence—a remark in which I agree, and one which is not confined to military men. I think the officer in this case, on which so much depends, at any rate as regards himself, should, if he wished it, be allowed skilled assistance to aid him in the presentation of his case and while the inquiry lasts. So far as my own opinion goes, I do not think that this Military Court is the proper and most efficient tribunal for dealing with this matter. I do not understand that there is involved in the case any question of military law, of discipline, or even of military custom. The real question has to deal with matters of trade and business combined with the conduct of a branch of one of the great Departments. The question is not the conduct of an individual; it is far larger than that. I submit that the matter has greatly stirred the public mind, and I do not, think the case can be said to be thoroughly and efficiently met by action in regard to an individual officer, undertaken at the eleventh hour. What seems to me to be required is an absolutely independent inquiry by, for the sake of example, a mixed Committee of both Houses of Parliament, into the working of the Remounts Department, on the efficiency of which so much has depended in the war.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Raglan, I hope the noble Lord will allow me to answer the Questions. He has asked, in the first place, how it has come to pass that as the Report of the Committee was signed so long ago as August last, its publication has been delayed until quite recently.
  LORD SANDHURST: What I asked was, why there had been so much delay in dealing with General Truman.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I will come to that point in one moment. But I wish, because it is germane to the matter, to point out why it was that the Report was not published sooner. It was not published sooner because at the time it was received two lawsuits were in progress, in each of which persons were involved whose conduct had been frequently referred to both in the Report of the Committee and in the evidence received before it. One was the lawsuit between the Earl of Lonsdale and Colonel St. Quintin for libel, and the other was the case in which the Secretary of State for War took proceedings against a person named Studdart for fraudulent transactions in connection with the sale of remounts to the Government. The litigation in each case proved much more protracted than was anticipated. In the first case a settlement was arrived at on 13th January, and the other case is still pending, although it began so long ago as the end of the year 1900, and this in spite of the efforts made by the War Office to bring on the trial as quickly as possible. The noble Lord has suggested that nothing was done in this case until the hand of the Secretary of State was forced by the discussions that took place in Parliament. That observation, I think, proceeds upon an entire misapprehension. It is not the case that nothing was done by the Secretary of State. On the contrary, the whole of the facts were taken into his most careful consideration, and he set to work at once to prepare measures for the reorganisation of the Remounts Department—measures which I am able to say are in an advanced state of preparation. It had been the hope of my right hon. friend that when those preparations were completed he would have been able to deal simultaneously with all the persons concerned, including the case of the Director-General of Remounts, whose position, in particular, had been under his consideration.
  But then came the debates in Parliament, during the course of which very strong complaints were made of General
  158
  Truman's conduct, and of the manner in which he had administered the Remounts Department. It became evident in the face of the statements which had been made, that it was impossible for him to retain his official position without some inquiry into the manner in which he had administered the affairs of his Department. General Truman was informed to this effect, and after communications between himself and the Commander-in-Chief, and the Secretary of State for War, he asked to be given a Court of Inquiry. He had a right under the Queen's Regulations to make that request, and it was at once granted. I gladly give this information to your Lordships, and I am able to say that the Secretary of State is very far indeed from desiring to withhold from Parliament any information upon this subject which he can be properly expected to give. But I am bound to add that, now that the case of General Truman has been committed to a Court of Inquiry, it does not seem to me that His Majesty's Government would be right in making any intimation to the public, as to the particular opinions which the military authorities may have formed in regard to the merits of the case, and in regard to General Truman's conduct. For that reason, I do not think the noble Lord should press the supplementary Question to which he referred at the outset of his remarks.
  LORD SANDHURST: The Question as to whether General Truman had been asked to resign his office?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The Question whether General Truman was asked to resign his office, and, if so, whether he was asked before any mention was made of the Court of Inquiry. These are details into which I do not think we ought to enter. The next Question the noble Lord asks, is whether I can give to the House the authority under which the "novel conditions" of the Court of Inquiry are adopted. That authority is to be found in the Army Act of last year, Clause 4, which runs as follows—
  "The rules as to the procedure of Courts of Inquiry may provide for evidence being taken on oath, and may empower Courts of Inquiry to administer oaths for that purpose."

  159
  That change was, I understand, introduced with the object of giving a more formal character to the proceedings of Courts of Inquiry. It was considered desirable that such Courts should be resorted to in certain cases, rather than Courts-Martial, for the reason that in the case of a Court-Martial it is necessary that a direct and specific charge should be framed against the officer who is put on his trial, whereas that is not the case with regard to Courts of Inquiry. The next Question I am asked is whether I will give the names of the officers who are to serve on the Court of Inquiry. The names will be given as soon as possible, but I am unable to give them tonight. The answer to the fourth Question is that General Truman will have legal assistance on the occasion of the Court of Inquiry. Then the noble Lord wishes to know whether the proceedings of the Court will be published from day to day. No, my Lords, they will not be published from day to day. They will be submitted in their entirety to the Commander-in-Chief, and it will not be until after he has considered them that any publicity will be given to them. The answer to the sixth Question is that the members of the Court will not be sworn, but that the evidence given before them will be given on oath. Then the noble Lord desires to know whether the Court will have powers to compel the attendance of witnesses other than military. The answer to that Question is in the negative. Finally, the noble Lord asks whether the Court will report its opinion on the matters inquired into to the Commander-in-Chief. The answer to that Question is in the affirmative.
  I think I have answered the whole of the Questions put to me, and I will only add, before I sit down, that I cannot concur with the noble Lord in considering that a Military Court is an inappropriate Court for an inquiry such as that which is about to be instituted. As I ventured to explain to your Lordships the other evening, it is fully intended that there shall be a larger inquiry into the whole of this remount question, although we hold that such an inquiry cannot, without great inconvenience, take place at the present time. This inquiry, however, is for a strictly limited purpose—it is an inquiry which
  160
  has been asked for by General Truman for the purpose of enabling him to meet personal charges which have been made against him as to his conduct as the head of a Government Department, and as to the various matters which have been referred to in the evidence given before Sir Charles Welby's Committee.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I rise to express my very great disappointment and regret at the answers which have been given to my noble friend by the noble Marquess. I should first like to say that Lord Sandhurst was in error when he attributed to me the use of the word "shabby" in respect to the treatment offered to General Truman. I used that word the other night in reference to the action of the Government in the other House when the remount question was brought forward, and they threw the blame on the Yeomanry Committee, instead of the War Office taking the responsibility. That was what I described as shabby, and I was glad that the Yeomanry Committee did not receive that treatment in this House, for both the Under Secretary of State for War and the noble Marquess admitted that the War Office took the responsibility in the matter of remounts. I said the other night that I had heard a rumour to the effect that General Truman had been required to resign, and that he had asked for this court of inquiry. I put that purely hypothetically to point out that I thought such action would be very unfair to General Truman. The exact case that I put as a hypothesis turns out to be the fact. I will state briefly to the House what has taken place with regard to General Truman. I hold no brief whatever for General Truman, and I express no opinion whatever as to his management of the Remount Department; I am perfectly ready to believe either good or ill of that management, according as the inquiry may show, but an officer in General Truman's position has a right to the most generous and considerate treatment. This remount scandal took place in 1900. It was brought to light by a Member of the House of Commons in 1901, and an inquiry was held in July, resulting in a Report being handed to the War Office in August, 1901. I accept the statement of the noble Marquess that preparations were made for improvements in the Remounts Department;

  161
  but so far as anything connected with the doubtful methods which were brought to light by this Report was concerned, no action whatever was taken, though it seems to me they were of a character which would have warranted instant action. This Report was not presented to Parliament until the eve of a large Remount Vote being discussed in the House of Commons on January 31. Considerable comment having been made on the facts which came out in the evidence, the Secretary of State, the very next day, interviewed the Inspector-General of Remounts, and told him that his conduct had been the subject of grave comment in the House of Commons, that it made his position impossible, and that he ought to retire. Naturally, the gallant officer did not quite see why he should be thrown to the wolves of Parliamentary criticism.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Will the noble Lord say on what authority these statements are made?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The authority is a Memorandum drawn up by General Truman himself, which I have seen, although it was not shown to me by General Truman, with whom I have had no personal communication. He asked, naturally, for time to consider what he was to do, and drew up a short statement of his views. On Monday, February 3, however, he was again interviewed by the Secretary of State, and also by the Commander-in-Chief and the Quartermaster-General, and was told that he was expected to resign his office. That office he accordingly resigned under protest, and asked for an inquiry, which was granted. I want the House to note that the Commander-in-Chief, by asking him to resign, had already expressed a conviction that General Truman's action had not been consonant with the duties of his office. Then, when an inquiry is asked for, a military inquiry is given. This military inquiry, which is to consider General Truman's conduct, is summoned by the Commander-in-Chief, and on their Report the Commander-in Chief is to give his verdict. My point is this, that the Commander-in-Chief, by his preliminary action, had already given a strong verdict in this
  162
  particular case. That is a position which is neither fair to the Commander-in-Chief, to the Inspector General of Remounts, to Parliament, nor to the country. I make no imputations of bad motive. It seems to me, also, that absolutely to restrict this inquiry to the conduct of General Truman is not altogether fair. A very material point in the question is, surely, whether the Remount Department was organised in such a way that the Inspector-General, whoever he was, was able to do his duty. Had he a sufficient staff? Had he sufficient power to get information? Is it a fact that the Remount Department was precluded from consulting the military attaches? Is it a fact that there were difficulties with regard to the Treasury? I think I have raised a sufficient number of points to show that the proposed form of inquiry is not altogether a satisfactory one.
  THE EARL OF LONSDALEsaid there were things going on in the Remount Department which had no business to go on, and if it was now found necessary to have a military inquiry, he was surprised that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs did not institute it, instead of forcing a private law suit as he did.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I venture to suggest to your Lordships that there is a certain amount of inconvenience in carrying on a discussion upon the general question of remounts, when there is no Motion before the House on which it is possible for your Lordships to come to any decision. I wish only to say one or two words in reply to the question raised by the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite. The noble Lord gave to the House a statement of the transactions which had taken place with regard to General Truman, which, as he said himself, was based on a Memorandum he had seen. Of course, we have not seen that Memorandum, and as far as I am aware, the War Office have not seen it, and therefore we are not in a position to discuss the facts therein brought forward. And as an inquiry is going to be held, at General Truman's desire, into

  163
  his conduct, it seems to me that it would be more convenient if any discussion of the proceedings towards General Truman taken by the War Office were postponed until that inquiry has been held. The noble Lord said that General Truman had been placed in an unfair position; that it was quite possible that the organisation of the Remount Department was such that it was not possible for any officer, whoever he might be, whatever his abilities might be, to do his duty in that office. And he mentioned, among other matters, that it was possible that ho had not a staff sufficient to enable him to carry out the duties. There is no doubt that if the circumstances are so, it would be perfectly competent to General Truman at the inquiry which is being held to bring forward these facts and any other facts which might account for any shortcomings in connection with his Department. But as an inquiry into this part of the subject is going to be held, it is impossible for me to see what object is served by attempting to discuss beforehand matters which are to form the subject of inquiry by the Court. As my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has said, we are not under the impression that an inquiry of this sort, which must mainly be of a personal character, relating to the action of General Truman himself, is a substitute for the more complete inquiry which it may probably be found necessary at no distant time to undertake into the whole question. But, so far as I can see, no good object can possibly be gained at the present moment by discussing matters avowedly personal to General Truman himself before the inquiry is commenced.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I am not certain whether His Majesty's Government accept the statement made by Lord Tweedmouth that it was put to General Truman that he should resign his office. The speech of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs led me to the conclusion that that was the fact, because he said that the Secretary of State for War came to the conclusion that, after the discussion in the House of Commons, it was not right that General Truman should remain at the head of the Remount Department.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I said "Without some inquiry into the part which he had taken in those transactions."
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: Will the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs tell the House distinctly whether or not General Truman was asked to resign? If the noble Marquess is not prepared to give that answer, I must assume that the statement made is correct.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: What I understand happened was this—that General Truman was given to understand that the charges made against him during the discussion in Parliament reflected on his conduct to such an extent that it was impossible for him to continue to hold his appointment unless some steps were taken to clear his conduct, and that it was thereupon, after more than one discussion at the War Office, that General Truman did what I understand is usual when an officer finds himself in such a position—viz., to ask for a Court of Inquiry, which was given to him.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: But he resigned under protest.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBKOOK: It seems to me that that is precisely the same thing. I can make out that no other impression could have been given to General Truman except that he was asked to resign and that thereupon he asked for a Court of Inquiry. If it is the case that the Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief have already expressed the opinion that General Truman should not remain at the head of the Remount Department, it is not fair to that officer to investigate his conduct by a tribunal which has to report to the Commander-in-Chief, who is the deciding authority in the matter. I cannot think that that is a fair way to treat an officer in General Truman's position, and there should be some way in which an investigation could be made in which the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief should not be concerned. It is important that officers employed in important positions at the

  165
  War Office should be fairly treated by their superiors when their conduct is impugned. I have also to observe that nothing has been said of the Quarter-Master General in whose departments General Truman served.
  THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, I am sure the Commander-in-Chief, though I understand that he did practically dismiss General Truman, will act fairly as regards the opinion which is placed before him by the Court of inquiry. But I do not think that a Court of inquiry is the proper Court to deal with the case of a man who has been convicted and dismissed. Moreover, a Court of inquiry such as this cannot compel the attendance of witnesses other than military, and this case of the remounts is bound up and connected with civilian witnesses, and for that reason, and that reason alone, I consider that this Court of Inquiry is not a proper and fair Court to try General Truman. I hope His Majesty's Government will consider the matter in the interests of justice and of the Commander-in-Chief, who, I am sure, would be glad to be freed from giving any opinion upon it.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The criticism of the noble Lord who has just sat down seems to me to be applicable to all Courts of Inquiry. The case must surely have arisen before, when the Commander-in-Chief, or some superior authority, has said to an officer against whom charges have been brought, "You must either clear yourself by a Court of Inquiry or, if you are unable to do so, I must regard you as unfit to hold your present position." That seems to me to be the perfectly natural way of dealing with cases of the kind. I would also point out this—that, if the inquiry were made, not by a military court, but by a Committee of this House, it would still remain with the Commander-in-Chief to decide what military notice should be taken of any offences of which the accused officer might be found guilty.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: I cannot endorse what has fallen from the noble Marquess. A Court of Inquiry is assembled
  166
  to inquire into circumstances that are not quite clear to the person who has to adjudicate on the conduct of an officer. But a Court of this kind should not be assembled, because the Commander-in-Chief, if it be true that he has called on General Truman to resign, has already expressed a conviction that General Truman ought not to remain in his position, and has therefore prejudged the case. I agree with Lord Tweed-mouth that some other court should be substituted in this case.
  House adjourned at half-past Six of the Clock, till to-morrow, Eleven of the Clock.