Sitting of 18 February 1902

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT (1887)—ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT OF MR. J. P. HAYDEN, M.P.
Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had received the following letter relating to the imprisonment of Mr. John P. Hayden—
"17th February, 1902.
"Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that Mr. John P. Hayden, Member of Parliament for South Roscommon, was arrested on Saturday, the 15th day of February, and lodged in Castlebar Prison, in the County of Mayo, to undergo a term of 21 clays imprisonment on a warrant issued by Messrs. Harrell and Brown, Resident Magistrates, at foot of a conviction for having taken part in an unlawful assembly at Cloonfad, in the County of Roscommon, on the 17th day of November, 1901.
"I have the honour to be,
"Sir,
"Your obedient servant,
"D. HARRELL.
"The Right Honourable
"The Speaker,
"House of Commons, London."

PRIVATE BILI, BUSINESS.

  LEAMINGTON CORPORATION BILL (BY ORDER).
  Bill read a second time, and committed.
  *MR. CORRIE GRANT(Warwickshire, Rugby) moved an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill was referred, if they allowed Clauses 14 and 15, to report to the House their reasons for so doing. These clauses, he said. authorised the Corporation to close their park on bank holidays to let it for athletic sports, and other purposes, and use the money which they obtained in that way in maintaining a band of music in the town and advertising the attractions of the town in order to induce visitors to come to it. As a general principle the proposition of the Bill was contrary to the law as contained in the Public Health Act, and it was a danger-
  338
  ous power to give to a Corporation that they should first purchase out of the ratepayers money for the benefit of the ratepayers an open space and then close it on the days in the year when the poorest people in the town were practically only able to use it, and then that they should spend the income which they got in that way not for the benefit of the whole town, but for the benefit of a portion only.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid the promoters of the Bill saw no objection to the course proposed. The Corporation thought there were excellent reasons for the proposal they made, and that they would be able to satisfy the Committee.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he need not in that case add anything to the observations he had made. His only object was to secure that this proposal should not be made a general precedent.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill was referred, if they allow Clauses 14 and 15, to report to the House their reasons for so doing.—(Mr. Carrie Grant.)

  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.:—

  Bexhill and Rotherfield Railway (Abandonment) Bill.

  Great Western Railway (Crumlin Viaduct) Bill.

  Manchester and Liverpool Electric Express Railway Bill.

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT 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 petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—
  Hove, Worthing, and District Tramways.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  LONDON AND INDIA DOCKS (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  SCARBOROUGH TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  Read a second time, and committed.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Committee:—

  1. "That, in the case of the Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway (No. 2) Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the Parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the powers to construct Railways Nos. 2, 3, and 4 be struck out of the Bill."

  2. "That, in the case of the Central Argentine and Rosario Railway Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the Parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  3. "That, in the case of the Saddleworth, Springhead, and Lees Tramways Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  Resolutions agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  HOVE, WORTHING, AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS.
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
  Petition from Darlington, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Dunkirk and Standish; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Edinburgh and Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh and Leith, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION.
  Petition from Great Crosby, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Cardiff and Chepstow; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Dunkirk and Standish; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petitions for extension to women; from Cheshire, Wigan and Yorkshire; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Cranstenhill, Kinning Park, and Govan, to lie upon the Table.
  ROYAL DECLARATION.
  Petition from Canterbury against alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from London and Fulham; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP CLUBS BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY TRADING (SCOTLAND).
  Petition from Glasgow for legislation to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) ACQUISITION OF LAND ORDER, 1902.
  Paper [presented 17th February] to be printed. [No. 65.]
  WHISKEY IN BOND (SCOTLAND.)
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 23rd January; Mr. Gordon]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL DEBT (SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES).
  Annual Account presented for the period ended 20th November, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 66.]
  NATIONAL DEBT (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS.)
  Account presented of the Gross Amount of all Moneys received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of the Fund for Military Savings Banks, from 19th September, 1845 to the 5th January, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 67.]
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
  Accounts presented for the year ended 21st December, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 68.]
  CONCENTRATION CAMPS COMMITTEE.
  Copy presented of Report on the Concentration Camps in South Africa by the Committee of Ladies appointed by the Secretary of State for War, containing Reports on the Camps in Natal, the Orange River Colony, and the Transvaal [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (AUDITORS.)
  Return ordered, "giving the names of the Auditors and Assistant Auditors of the Local Government B and in Ireland, with the dates of their appointments, the amounts of their salaries, and their occupation previous to appointment, respectively."—(Sir Thomas Esmonde.)
  ALIENS.
  Address for "Return showing the names of all Aliens to whom certificates of naturalisation have been issued, and who have taken the oath of allegiance, between the 1st day of January, 1901, and the 31st day of December, 1901, giving the country and place of residence of the person naturalised, and including information as to any Aliens who have, during the same period, obtained Acts of Naturalisation from the Legislature (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 194, of Session 1901)."—([Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  BREWERS' LICENSES.
  Order [6th February] for a Return relative thereto read, and discharged; and, instead thereof—

  BREWERS' LICENSES.
  Return ordered, "of Accounts of the number of persons in each of the several Collections of the United Kingdom licensed as Brewers for sale, i.e. Common Brewers' Victuallers, Retailers of beer to be drunk on the premises, Retailers, of beer not to be drunk on the premises, and Brewers of beer not for sale, particularising each class in each Collection, and of the number of Licenses issued to Victuallers and Retailers of beer to be drunk on the premises and not to be drunk on the premises; and stating also the quantities of malt, unmalted corn, rice, etc. and sugar, including its equivalent of syrups, etc. used by brewers of beer for sale, and of malt and sugar used by brewers not for sale, from the 1st day of October, 1900, to the 30th day of September, 1901."
  "Of the amount of License Duty paid and Beer Duty charged from the 1st day of October, 1900, to the 30th day of September, 1901, distinguishing brewers for sale from other brewers."
  "Of the number of brewers for sale (i.) who use malt only and (ii.) who use malt and malt substitutes paying for licenses, from the 1st day of October, 1900, to the 30th day of September, 1901, separating them into classes, according to the number of barrels of beer charged with duty calculated at 1·055 degrees gravity, viz., under 1,900 barrels; 1,000 and under 10,000; 10,000 and under 20,000;

  343
  20,000 and under 30,000; 30,000 and under 50,000; 50,000 and under 100,000; 100,000 and under 150,000; 150,000, and under 200,000; 200,000 and under 250,000; 250,000 and under 300,000; 300,000 and under 350,000; 350,000 and under 100,000; 400,000 and under 450,000; 450,000 and under 500,000; 500,000 and under 600,000; 600,000 and under 700,000; 700,000 and under 800,000; 800,000 and under 900,000; 900,000 and under 1,000,000; 1,000,900, and under 1,500.000; 1,500,000 and under 2,000,000; 2,000,000 barrels and over; showing separately, in each class, the quantities of malt, unmalted corn, rice, etc., and sugar, including its equivalent of syrups, etc., used; and stating also the number of bulk barrels of beer brewed and the amount of License Duty paid and Beer Duty charged in each class."
  "And, of the number of barrels of beer exported from the United Kingdom, and the declared value thereof, and where exported to, from the 1st day of October, 1900, to the 30th day of September, 1901, distinguishing England, Scotland and Ireland (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 111, of Session 1901)."—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)

  EVICTED FARMS (IRELAND).
  Returns ordered, "showing how farms front which tenants were evicted on certain specified estates since the 1st day of May, 1879, were occupied (1) at the time of the inquiry of the Evicted Tenants' Commission; and (2) on the 1st day of February, 1902 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 129, of Session 1896)."—(Mr. Dillon.)
(3.30.) QUESTIONS.

  South Africa—Transvaal Gold Law No. 22 (1899).
  Mr. CHARLES ALLEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state on what date the Transvaal Gold Law No. 22, 1899, was repealed.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The law was repealed
  344
  by Proclamation No. 34 of the 27th of November last.

  Taxation of Transvaal Gold Mines.
  MR. CHARLES ALLEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can say under what law with respect to taxation the gold mines in the Transvaal have been worked since their re-opening; what was the date of its enactment; and whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing the provisions of the proposed new law before its enactment.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The gold law in force is that of 1898, which has not been repealed. The reform of the gold law is at present under investigation by a local Commission, and until its Report has been considered, I am not in a position to make any statement.

  Banishment of Boer Officers.
  MR. LOUGH: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now issue as a Parliamentary Return a list of all Boer officers sentenced to permanent banishment under the Proclamation of August last.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Notices have been published stating that certain leaders have come within the terms of the Proclamation of August 7th, but, as I have already stated, legislation will be required to make this Proclamation effective. The list of those affected is, of coin se, entirely incomplete, and I do not think it would be of any use to publish it in its present form, although I shall be ready to do so later on.

  Ladysmith Siege—Sir Redvers Buller and Sir G. White
  MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, S. Molton): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Sir Redvers Buller has been ordered not to publish a copy of the message which he sent to Sir George White on the 16th December, 1899, alleged to contain an order to him to surrender Ladysmith; and, if so, whether there is any precedent for so limiting the discretion of a Commander-in-Chief.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I made to the hon. and learned Member for South Donegal on 20th January.† As regards the last paragraph in the Question, officers are in no case permitted to publish confidential telegrams.
  MR. LAMBERT: Has this Question ever been put before?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I am able to state that I never asked such a question.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid the hon. Member does not always remember the Questions he asks.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Oh, I do.
  MR. LAMBERT: Am I to understand that Sir Redvers Buller has been ordered not to publish a copy of this message?
  MR. BRODRICK: Certainly, Sir. Sir Redvers Buller, like all other officers, has been ordered by the Commander-in-Chief to publish no confidential telegrams.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then he ought to have disobeyed.

  Mrs. De Wet.
  MR. LOUGH: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any intimation has been made to Mrs. De Wet that she is at liberty to go to Europe; and whether the option of living at some house of her own in South Africa on her own means will be offered to her.
  MR. BRODRICK: Mrs. De Wet may either leave South Africa or have a change of domicile in Natal. Doubtless this decision has been communicated to her.

  Remounts—Military Court of Inquiry—Maj or-General Truman.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT (Westmoreland, Kendal): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position
  † See (4) Debates, ci., 302.
  346
  to make any statement with regard to the communications which passed between the Commander-in-Chief and Major General Truman before the latter asked for a Court of Inquiry; and whether he can state when that Court will begin its sittings.
  MR. BRODRICK: As the case of General Truman had been, at his own request, referred to a Court of Inquiry, I was unwilling when questioned in this House to make any statement which might prejudice that officer before the Court. But yesterday in another place statements were made from a Memorandum attributed to General Truman, which that officer acknowledges to have been written by him, but which he states was not intended for publication, which make it desirable that I should state the facts. Some months ago I brought to the notice of the Commander-in-Chief certain circumstances connected with General Truman's control of his Department, and I was strengthened in my doubt, which the Commander-in-Chief shared, as to his capacity by General Truman's evidence before the Departmental Committee. As, however, I was preparing a scheme for the complete re-organisation of the Department, and two lawsuits were pending which would throw further light on the matter, and having regard to the great pressure of work under which his Department was labouring, I postponed any action as regards General Truman till it was possible to set on foot an improved organisation. When, however, the whole question was debated in Parliament, the opinion was expressed on all sides that General Truman's evidence required explanation, and I was forced to tell him that, although there was no imputation on his honour, there were certain points on which, unless he had further explanations to offer, I could not defend him. The Commander-in-Chief suggested to General Truman that he should offer his resignation, and General Truman handed in a provisional resignation asking for further inquiry. The Commander-in Chief at once granted him a Court of Inquiry, which will sit without delay. Pending the report of this Court, General Truman

  347
  will remain at the head of his Department, but another officer will be appointed to assist in the ditties, as General Truman's time will be largely occupied with his defence. I may say that this is the proper and legal way of dealing with an officer in his position. I regret to have had to make this statement, which I should have made before but for the reasons mentioned, and which should not make now but for the statement made yesterday in another place.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Is it not a fact that General Truman was not approached on this matter in any way until attention was drawn to his conduct in this House?
  MR. McKENNA: Will the right hon. Gentleman state if all the information with regard to General Truman was not in his hands on the 9th August last?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes. I have stated that the evidence was in my hands in August last. I was engaged at that time, and have been engaged since, on a scheme for the complete reorganisation of the Department, and it would be natural to consider, when rearranging that Department, what General Truman's position was to be. I then also mentioned to the House that two suits were pending, both of which were likely to throw considerable light on the matter, and I did not think it desirable to deal finally with General Truman's case until all the circumstances were before me.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): Will the right hon. Gentleman say what were the points on which he informed General Truman that he was not prepared to defend his conduct?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Censorship Regulations.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)had on the Paper the following Question 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
  348
  or interfered with under martial law. On being called on, he said, "This question was answered yesterday, but I should like to know if Methuen's book on 'Peace or War in South Africa' is among those prohibited?"
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): I have not read the hook, but I have every confidence in the discretion of the Censor.

  Operations against De Wet.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many combatant Boers were killed, wounded, and captured, respectively, during the enclosing movement against General De Wet, from sunset on the 5th to mid-day on the 8th inst., when the movement ended.
  LORD STANLEY: We have no further information beyond that which was published in the papers of the 10th inst., and which gave a total of 283 killed, wounded, and prisoners.

  Royal Army Medical Corps.
  DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, before the issue of the promised Royal warrant for reform of the Royal Army Medical Corps, he will carefully consider the objections raised, both by the officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps and the Medical Schools, to the recommendations of the late Departmental Commission, as regards examinations for promotion; and if he will make such alterations as will limit these examinations to the real requirements of the service, viz., for promotion to the ranks of Major and Lieutenant-Colonel, as suggested by the Sub-Committee appointed by the Council of the British Medical Association to consider the reform of the Army Medical Service.
  MR. BRODRICK: The only examinations in purely professional subjects will be those for Major and Lieutenant-Colonel. The examination of Lieutenants for the rank of Captain will be in corps and service duties only.

  Army Medical Officers—Retirements.
  DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to a recent statement of Dr. C. Ball, of Dublin, a member of the Advisory Medical Board, respecting the retirement of Army Medical Officers, and will he explain whether it is the intention of the Government to recommend that an Army Medical Officer, who has served 18 or 20 years in the Army and who has failed to pass the examination to a lieutenant-colonelcy, should be compulsorily retired on a gratuity, or whether such an officer will be allowed to serve for 20 years as at present and then be retired on a pension of £1 per diem.
  MR. BRODRICK: An officer who fails to pass the examination for the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel will be permitted to complete 20 years service and retire on £1 per diem.

  Army Canteen Inquiry.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that notices have been issued by the War Office to general Officers commanding districts that contracts for supplies to Army canteens in the United Kingdom will not be allowed beyond June next, he will now state what changes, if any, are intended to be made by the War Office with regard to the mode of supplying and management of Army canteens.
  MR. BRODRICK: A Committee is about to be assembled by the Commander-in-Chief to consider the existing conditions under which canteens and regimental institutions are conducted, and to report whether any alteration is desirable. Pending the Report of this Committee, it is not thought desirable to make contracts beyond next June.

  Self-propelled Lorries.
  MR. TOMKINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the War Office to issue an official report of the recent trials of self-propelled lorries at Aldershot; and in view of the fact that in these trials the comparative results shown by the motors
  350
  exhibited by Messrs. Foden and Messrs. Thorneycroft, over the same distance, showed a superiority by Messrs. Foden's in the matter of speed and in economy of fuel and water of about 40 per cent., and of the further fact that the price of their motor was lower, whether he will state the reasons for which the first prize was awarded to Messrs. Thorneycroft, and the second to Messrs. Foden.
  LORD STANLEY: An official report of the recent trials of self-propelled lorries at Aldershot will be included in the Report of the War Office Committee on Mechanical Transport, the publication of which will be considered by my right hon. friend. In awarding the prizes, a number of points, duly set forth in the conditions of the competition, had to be considered, and it was after full consideration of the merits and demerits of the various vehicles, in relation to these points, that the prizes were awarded as stated by the hon. Member.

  Runnymede Rifle Range.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the thousand yards' rifle range at Runnymede is about to be offered for sale by auction for building purposes; and whether, having regard to the fact that it is almost the only rifle range so near the Metropolis, and with a view to prevent the 40,000 troops therein being deprived of facilities for rifle shooting, he sees his way to adopt the unanimous suggestions of the Volunteer Officers' Parliamentary Committee, and urge the acquisition of Runnymede upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  BRODRICK: This matter has been already carefully considered, but great difficulty has been caused by the Volunteer Commanding Officers having rejected the offer of the London County Council to contribute, as we understood, some £70,000 towards the cost of a range. This has thrown on the War Office a charge of about £145,000 for the purchase and construction of extensive ranges at Rainham, which will

  351
  find accommodation for a large number of the Metropolitan Volunteer Corps, as well as for regular forces and militia. The cost of Runnymede is estimated at £60,000 to £100,000. Had the Volunteer Commanding Officers accepted the offer of the London County Council, the Government would have been able to assist largely in its purchase, although it is not required for regulars or militia.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer the matter back again to the Commanding Officers?
  MR. BRODRICK: Against my strong suggestion, they refused the offer of the London County Council many months ago, and I am not aware that the Council is now willing to renew it.

  Navy Anchors—H.M.S. "Edinburgh."
  MR. GROVES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that, during the recent gunnery practice of H.M.S. "Edinburgh," one of the anchors was lost off Margate; that long and unavailing efforts were made to recover the same; and, seeing that many similar anchors are now lying in the Government dockyards, of no value beyond their weight in old iron, being of obsolete design, whether he will see that in future one of these is taken up to replace an anchor accidently lost, and thus save the expenditure of time and public money in such searches.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge): It is not the fact that the anchor lost by H.M.S. "Edinburgh" was of obsolete design. It was of the close stowing type at present in general use in battleships, and the larger first-class cruisers, and in making every endeavour to recover it the Commanding Officer was carrying out the instructions contained in the King's regulations. The reserve of such anchors would require to be considerably increased if, as the hon. Member suggests, no efforts should be made for the recovery of those accidently lost.
  MR. GROVES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the search for this
  352
  anchor cost the taxpayers of this country over £2,000?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Naval Ratings.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the artisans and electricians mentioned in the First Lord of the Admiralty's statement as among the increases of the naval ratings are to be attached to the deck or the engine-room department.
  MR. PRETYMAN: The 250 additional ratings referred to consist of carpenters, crews, blacksmiths, plumbers, painters, coopers, armourers and electricians. None of these ratings form part of an engine-room complement.

  Naval Pensions and Gratuities.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any assistance, by way of pension or otherwise, is or will be granted by the Government to persons who have been discharged from the Navy by reason of ill-health, so as to prevent them becoming a burden on the rates.
  MR. PRETYMAN: Provision is already made in the King's Regulations for the award of pensions, either temporary or permanent, or of gratuities to men invalided from the Naval Service by reason of ill-health. The award of such pension or gratuity depends on certain conditions, the most important being the length of service of the individual and the cause and degree of his incapacity.

  Bornu Expedition.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an expedition is about to be sent to Bornu in Northern Nigeria; and whether he can give the House any information on the subject.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir F. Lugard reports that he has sent a force to Bornu under the command of Colonel Morland, who has been instructed to inquire into the circum-

  353
  stances in which Fad-el-Allah was killed, and to take measures to establish peace and order in the country. Pending the receipt of Colonel Morland's report it is not possible to give any further information on the subject.

  Naval Attachés Abroad.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether our Naval Attachés abroad are, like our Military Attachés, placed under the instruction of the missions to which they are temporarily attached; and whether all official communications between the Admiralty and the Naval Attachés abroad are carried on through the Foreign Office and the head of the missions.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE, Rochester): Under the terms of their appointment Naval Attachés, like Military Attachés, are placed under the instructions of the heads of the missions to which they are temporarily attached. A memorandum is annexed to their letter of appointment, showing the principal points to which the Admiralty wish that their attention should be directed. All official communications between the Admiralty and Naval Attachés abroad are conducted through the Foreign Office and the heads of missions.

  Newchwang Customs.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House what flag flies over the Chinese Imperial Customs at Newchwang; by whom the customs duties are collected; and to whom, or to what account, they are being remitted.
  LORD CRANBORNE: I am afraid that there is nothing to add to the answer which I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Gentleman in April last year.† The situation as regards the customs remains the same.
  MR NORMAN: Is the noble Lord able to tell us whether the state of
  † See (4) Debates, xcii., 786
  354
  things existing at Newchwang then described is regarded by the Government as part of the regular status quo of Manchuria?
  LORD CRANBORNE: I cannot answer that Question without notice.

  New Swiss Tariff.
  MR. HOLLAND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any information has been received respecting a proposed new Swiss tariff; and, if so, whether he will submit the details to the Commercial Intelligence Committee of the Board of Trade, as was done in the case of the new German tariff.
  LORD CRANBORNE: A copy of the proposed new Swiss tariff has just been received. It will at once be forwarded to the Board of Trade for examination.

  Nottingham Railway Fatality—Case of John Carrington.
  MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the circumstances resulting in the death of John Carrington, employed as a platelayer on the Great Northern Railway at Nottingham, on the 17th December last; is he aware that this man's hours prior to the accident, commencing at midnight on the 15th, were four hours duty, three hours rest, ten hours duty, seven hours rest, four hours duty, and three hours rest, and that he had been on his last turn eight and a half hours when the accident occurred. Can he say whether look-out Men were provided at the spot the man was working at the time of the accident, as was the case when he was working at the same place the previous week; and what representations have the Board of Trade made to the Company on the subject.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I have communicated with the Company upon the subject of the hon. Members' Question, and they do not admit the accuracy of the facts stated therein. I think the best course to adopt will be to investigate the circumstances by means of an inquiry, and one shall be ordered.

  Swine Fever at Spalding.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will give particulars of the most recently reported cases of swine fever in the Spalding Division; whether he has had the cases investigated; and, if so, with what result; and can he give an approximate date when the markets will be re-opened providing no fresh cases arise.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My right hon. friend has asked me to give the following answer: Two outbreaks were detected as recently as the 14th and 27th of last month. The cases were fully investigated, and appear to have been connected with a recent outbreak in the same neighbourhood. As swine fever has lingered in this district for eight months, and the local authority decline to exercise veterinary supervision over the markets, I cannot undertake to say when the markets will be re-opened. To name a particular date might perhaps encourage concealment of the disease.

  Port of London Commission.
  SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state when the Report of the Royal Commission on the Port of London will be presented to Parliament.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Royal Commission on the Port of London that they hope to be able to present their Report soon after Easter.

  Dr. Jameson's Gaol Treatment.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant the Return relating to Dr. Jameson's treatment which stands on to-day's Paper.†
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): No, Sir. It would
  † The following is the Return referred to in the question:—
  "Dr. Jameson's Treatment (Royal Warrant)—Address for Return giving the text of the Royal Warrant under which Dr. Jameson was treated as a first-class misdemeanant."
  356
  be unusual to lay the warrant on the Table. It was, however, in the usual form in the ease of conditional pardon. Unless in capital cases conditional pardon is only given in very exceptional eases, and could only be justified by very exceptional circumstances.
  MR. DILLON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell me whether this power cannot be exercised in Ireland as well as in England?
  *MR. RITCHIE: Certainly.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Why was special consideration extended to Dr. Jameson?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question.

  Knutsford Water Supply.
  MR. GROVES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the danger to the inhabitants of Knutsford. Cheshire, arising from the pollution of their water supply; that the medical officer of health to the Urban District Council has warned such council that Knutsford was liable to an epidemic similar to that which visited Maidstone, and that such opinion has been confirmed by an independent expert; and, seeing that the Council have taken no steps to stop such pollution or to secure a pure supply of water, whether he will take proceedings to compel the Council to fulfil their duties; whether, in view of the application to Parliament for borrowing powers by the Knutsford. Light and Water Company, he will see that conditions are imposed to compel the Company to fulfil their obligations, and to obtain their supply of water from an unpolluted source.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): I am aware of the complaints which have been made as to the water supply of Knutsford. The Local Government Board have been in frequent communication with the Urban District Council with regard to it, who state that they feel the responsibility of their position, but that they

  357
  consider that they have taken every practicable step in their power for the safety of the inhabitants of their district. I am still in correspondence with them on the subject. I have no control over the Company by whom the water is supplied; but at my suggestion the District Council have placed before the Board of Trade the facts as to the alleged pollution of the supply, so that the same may be considered in connection with the application of the Company to that Department for a Provisional Order to enable them to raise additional capital.

  Metropolitan Asylums Board Smallpox Hospital.
  MR. GODDARD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether persons desiring to inspect the register kept at the Smallpox Hospital of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, in accordance with Section 8 of the Vaccination Act, 1898, are required by the Medical Superintendent to be vaccinated before doing so; and whether a person who refuses to be vaccinated can demand a copy of the register on payment of the fees set forth in Section 8.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I recently gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member for the Rugby Division.† I shall be happy to give the hon. Member a copy of that reply.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: But the Question as to vaccination was not asked by me.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I think it was. I will send the hon. Member for Ipswich a copy of it.

  Chief Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the chief clerks in the offices of surveyors of taxes in large cities only obtain the same increment as the second clerks; and whether he will advise an increase in the chief clerk's increment in the higher sections, as promotion at present does not carry any
  † See (4) Debates, ci., 1331.
  358
  higher increment, and in view of the nature of the chief clerks' work; and will he state what is the rate per hour paid to clerks for overtime in Sections A, B, and C.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): It is true that a first clerk in the office of a surveyor of taxes often receives only the same increment as the second clerks, viz., 2s. 6d. per week per annum. But in any important district promotion from second clerk to first clerk would be accompanied by an immediate rise of salary, which is an ample recognition of the more important duties performed by a first clerk. Overtime payment to clerks in Sections A, B, and C is at the rate of 1s. per hour.

  London Telephone Exchanges.
  Mr. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any post office telephone exchanges, under the management of the Post Office, have yet been opened in London, and can he state what is the total number of subscribers to the Post Office System in the Metropolis up to the present, and if no exchanges have yet been opened when it is anticipated that any will be provided.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The number of agreements for connections with the Post Office London Telephone Exchange system up to Saturday last was about 2,250, but many of these agreements cover the use of a number of exchange telephones. The work of connecting the premises of these subscribers with the Central Exchange by means of the underground system, which has already been constructed, is now in active progress, and an exchange service will probably be given to those subscribers to the Central Exchange whose lines have been completed in the course of the present week. Additional subscribers are being connected every day. The exchanges at Putney, Chiswick, and Kingston, are so far advanced that the work of connecting subscribers can be taken in hand at once. The Westminster, Kensington,

  359
  Wimbledon, Richmond, and Twickenham Exchanges will begin working shortly. The Exchange at Croydon, and an exchange to serve Mayfair, Marylebone, and Bayswater, will probably be completed by the end of the year. Arrangements are also in progress for an Exchange at Hampstead, and the surveys for the underground work in connection with a number of other Exchanges are nearly completed.
  MR. LOUDH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General whether, from 9 p.m. till 7 a.m., the trunk wires of the Post Office telephones are switched on to the system of the National Telephone Company; and whether the control of the State telephone business is in the hands of the Company between these hours.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The chief exchanges of the National Telephone Company, as well as of other licences of the Postmaster General, are connected by means of junction lines with the nearest Post Office trunk wire exchanges. Where those exchanges are at Post Offices which are not always open the junction lines are extended to the nearest trunk wire exchange at which a constant service is given, but the control of the lines and of the traffic is not in the hands of the National Telephone Company.

  Irish Postal Staffs.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General whether a confidential circular has been issued to certain provincial postmasters in Ireland, requesting them to furnish the names and state the qualifications of any male sorting clerk and telegraphist at their offices who wishes a transfer to the Dublin establishment; if so, is it contemplated to employ women in place of officers thus transferred, seeing that such a system would reduce the number of positions to be given by open competition in Dublin, and lower the service efficiency standard; and whether this matter will be reconsidered.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No such circular has been issued.

  Income Tax Notices.
  MR. M'CRAE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the date on which threatening notices have been issued in London for the recovery of Income Tax due to be paid on or before 1st January last; and, if these notices have not yet been issued, whether he can state on what date it is proposed to issue the same; and whether he can give similar information with regard to any of the other towns in England.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is not possible at such short notice to give the date of the issue of the notices to which the hon. Member refers for any particular district. The general instructions to the officials charged with the duty of collecting the Income Tax in England are to the effect that the second notices, which demand payment within ten days, are to be sent out 21 days after the issue of the first, or on the 22nd of January, whichever date may be the later. If this notice be not attended to, then the third notice, threatening recovery by restraint, becomes issuable.
  MR. M'CRAE: I will put down another Question for Friday.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will try to get the information by then.

  Government Advertisements.
  MR. AGG-GARDNER: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury if he can conveniently state by what principle of selection provincial newspapers are chosen to receive Government advertisements, and if the extent of the circulation of a newspaper is allowed to exercise any influence on the decision.
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir WILLIAM WALROND, Devonshire, Tiverton): The selection of the newspapers in which particular advertisements appear rests with the heads of the Departments

  361
  concerned. I imagine that regard is had in each case to the question of the circulation of the paper amongst the classes whom the advertisements are desired to reach.

  Local Taxation in Scotland.
  MR. EUGENEWASON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can state when the final Report of his Majesty's Commissioners appointed to inquire into the system of local taxation in Scotland will be presented to Parliament.
  MR ANSTRUTHER: My right hon. friend has asked me to state that the Report in question has been finally adjusted and is in the hands of the printers, and will be presented so soon as it can be got ready.

  Ex-Sergeant Sheridan, R.I.C.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the course of last spring or last summer a police inquiry was held in Hospital. County Limerick, in the case of Sergeant Sheridan for the burning of Mrs. Quinlan's hay, and for the stabbing and mutilating of Michael Cregan's ass on the lands of Ballinamona; will he state at what date the inquiry was held, and who were the police inspectors who conducted it; and, seeing that Constables Keegan and Anderson gave evidence at the inquiry incriminating Sergeant Sheridan in connection with the charges, whether he proposes to take further steps in this matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This matter was very fully discussed on the Appropriation Bill at the end of last session, when I announced the decision arrived at by the Government. On that occasion I stated that a secret and searching investigation had been held by my direction into all these cases. The investigation was conducted in June by District Inspectors Morrison and Hobbins.

  Sergeant Gallagher, R.I.C.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief
  362
  Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in a case heard at the Abbeylaix, Queen's County, Petty Sessions, on the 8th inst., Sergeant Gallagher, Royal Irish Constabulary, swore upon cross-examination that he recommended physical force as the only practical remedy for the grievances of Ireland; and will he state what steps he proposes taking in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Inspector-General, after careful investigation, is satisfied that Sergeant Gallagher's ill-advised and improper observation was made ironically as a sarcasm; that it in no degree represented his opinion, or was not understood to do so by those present. The Inspector-General has informed Sergeant Gallagher that he strongly disapproves of such language, even though used in jest. This censure, in his opinion, with which I concur, sufficiently meets the exigencies of the case.

  Prisoners in Castlebar Gaol.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Michael Delaney and other prisoners now in Castlebar Gaol, undergoing sentences inflicted by specially constituted courts, will be allowed freely to write and receive letters concerned with their private business.
  MR. WYNDHAM: These prisoners are subject to the same rules as other local convicted prisoners in respect of writing and receiving letters on private business. If prisoners express a desire to write letters on business or family affairs of an urgent nature, they will be permitted to do so by the Governor.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Are these prisoners treated as contrition criminals?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think the words used by the hon. Member exactly represent the case. They are treated as persons condemned to imprisonment with or without hard labour, as the case may be.

  Irish Rate Collectors' Warrants.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will obtain the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland upon the point of how long the rate collectors' warrants remain in force, with a view to saving the expense of further litigation in the matter.
  THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): At the request of my right hon. friend, I will reply to this Question. The Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland are the legal advisers of the Crown, and not of local administrative bodies. It is no part of their duties to advise these bodies, nor would their opinion, if given, be binding on these bodies, their officers, or members of the public. The answer to the Question is, therefore, in the negative.

  Rex v. Doherty and Others.
  MR. M'FADDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he will state the reason for withholding payment from Daniel Duffy, of Raphoe, County Donegal, of the expenses to which he was entitled for attending as a witness at Londonderry Petty Sessions, in the case of the King versus Doherty and others, returned for trial at last winter Assizes in Belfast.
  MR. ATKINSON: Duffy having made a statement to the police favourable to the prosecution, was summoned as a witness by the Crown. When, however, he was interviewed by the police before the hearing at Petty Sessions he not only receded, from his former statement, but went over to the defence, and was examined for the accused and gave evidence in contradiction of his first statement. The Crown accordingly declined to order any payment to be made to him for his attendance at Petty Sessions as a Crown witness.

  Maryborough Quarter Sessions
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether
  364
  he is aware that at the last Quarter Sessions for Queens County, held in Maryborough on the 21st January, 1902, the grand jurors, after assembling, were immediately discharged by the judge, there being no criminal business to be disposed of; and, whether, under such circumstances, it is the duty of the sheriff to notify jurors that their attendance is not required.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Clerk of the Peace states that there was one criminal case tried at the Quarter Sessions mentioned. With regard to the Grand Jury, he explains he was aware that on the 14th January a man was charged at Rathdowney Petty Sessions with obtaining goods by false pretences. This case, he anticipated, would be returned to the Quarter Sessions at Maryborough, but it was returned to the Assizes instead on the 18th January. The Assistant to the Clerk of the Peace did not inform him the case had been sent to Assizes, and it was not until the morning of the 21st January, when the Quarter Sessions opened, that he became aware of the fact, when the Grand Jury was at once discharged.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufacturers:—Sir William Hornby; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Mitchell.
  Mr. HALSEY further reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had selected Mr. Wylie to be a Member of the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners in pursuance of the provisions of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, in the place of Sir Charles Dalrymple.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILL.

  RAILWAY LABOUR DISPUTES CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION.
  Bill to make better provision for Conciliation and Arbitration in Railway

  365
  Labour Disputes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bell, Mr. Tomkinson, Mr. Lawson Walton, Mr. Channing, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. Goddard, Sir Fortescue Flannery, Mr. Corrie Grant, Mr. J. A. Thomas, and Sir Joseph Leese.

  RAILWAY LABOUR DISPUTES CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL.
  "To make better provision for Conciliation and Arbitration in Railway Labour Disputes," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 12th March, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]
NEW PROCEDURE RULES. [FIFTH DAY'S DEBATE.

  POSTPONEMENT OF COMMENCEMENT OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): The Motion standing on the Paper which I beg now to move, needs, I think, little explanation. I have been asked by Members on both sides of the House how the Government propose to deal with the situation which would be created if one of the new Standing Orders were to come into force while the others depending on it were hung up. The greatest confusion would result, and therefore it would be better that the scheme as a whole should be passed before any part of it came into operation. I beg to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, until the consideration of the proposed Resolutions and Amendments to Standing Orders dealing with Sittings of the House, Friday Sittings, Priority of Business, Business in Supply, Questions to Members, Adjournment of the House, Private Business, Quorum of the House, and Standing Committees is completed, no one of such Resolutions or Amendments shall come into operation."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. DILLONsaid he did not think the matter required any discussion, but he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord that there must be very wide liberty of discussion when the House came to deal with the Amendment of Standing Orders. The right hon. Gentle-
  366
  man correctly observed the other day that they all hung together, and he must not complain if in the course of the debate hon. Members were compelled to range over the whole of the scheme of the Government. He mentioned this so that no objection might be raised hereafter. The Orders were so interdependent that it was absolutely impossible to avoid dealing with the proposed alterations from the very beginning.
  In reply to Mr. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet),
  Mr. A.J. BALFOURsaid hon. Members, on referring to the Notice Paper, would see enumerated the Standing Orders involved in his present proposition, and in answer to Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford) he added that some of those already passed had come into operation.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONhoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to printing on the White Paper the parts of the Standing Order referred to in the various Resolutions. It would be a great convenience to hon. Members.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As far as I am concerned, everything which conduces to the convenience of the House shall be adopted. I will ascertain if there is any physical difficulty in carrying out the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid he had, alter some consideration, come to the conclusion that it might be better, as the new Rules must be hung up for some time, to let them stand over till the end of the session. Two of the Amendments which had been passed, had already had to be hung up, and now they were asked to take eight or nine out of the total of 24, and to treat them in an absolutely different manner from the remaining Amendments. He thought the House and the country should know the real meaning of the Resolution, for they dealt with the very life of the House itself.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot discuss the merits of the Amendments now, nor can he debate whether the matter shall be

  367
  postponed to the end of the session. He must confine himself to the Amendment on the Paper.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid he would move an Amendment which would effect the object he had in view.
  *MR. SPEAKER: On the present Amendment the hon. Member cannot discuss either the merits of this proposition nor the desirability of postponing the operation of the new Rules altogether.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words 'Until the consideration of,' and insert the word 'when.'"—(Mr. Disraeli.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Question."
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that apart
  from the view of those who objected to the Rules altogether, and could therefore vote with the hon. Member if he went to a division, there was a particular case for a longer delay which could be made out in the course of the discussion on the next Rule. He did not know whether he should be in order in alluding to it, but he should like to mention that the First Lord of the Treasury had already made a statement as to the time when private business would be taken, and had indicated that it would be necessary to have a Committee to deal with the subject. The House did not know what were the proposals of the Government in regard to private business, and that he thought justified the demand for further delay.
  (4.15.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 175; Noes, 119. (Division List No. 35.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hoult, Joseph

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Denny, Colonel

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Finch, George H.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

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

  Bignold, Arthur

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Garfit, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Boulnois, Edmund

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

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

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward H.

  Green, Walford D. Wednesbury

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

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

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

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

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

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

  Chapman, Edward

  Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'nderry

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfo'd

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mitchell, William

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Collings, Rt. Hn. Jesse

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Myers, William Henry

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Percy, Earl

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Purvis, Robert

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

  Pym, C. Guy.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

  Randles, John S.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Rankin, Sir James

  Smith, H C (North'mb, Tyneside

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

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

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

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Rea, Russell

  Spear, John Ward

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

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

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

  Stock, James Henry

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wylie, Alexander

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Russell, T. W.

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  William Walrond and Mr.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Anstruther.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Valentia, Viscount

  NOES.

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

  Harwood, George

  O'Dowd, John

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Holland, William Henry

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pease, Sir J. W. (Durham)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Blake, Edward

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Price, Robert John

  Boland, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Reddy, M.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Caldwell, James

  Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kitson, Sir James

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Labouchere, Henry

  Roche, John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lambert, George

  Runciman, Walter

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Langley, Batty

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Crean, Eugene

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Crombie, John William

  Levy, Maurice

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Cullinan, J.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Delany, William

  Lundon, W.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dillon, John

  M'Crae, George

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Thompson, Dr. E C (Monagh'nN

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Govern, T.

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

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Tomkinson, James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Ure, Alexander

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Wallace, Robert

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Murphy, John

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Field, William

  Norman, Henry

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersfld

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tip'erary Mid.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Grant, Corrie

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

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Hammond, John

  O'Doherty, William

  Disraeli and Mr. Warner.

  Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Ordered, That, until the consideration of the proposed Resolutions and Amendments to Standing Orders dealing with Sittings of the House, Friday Sittings,
  370
  Priority of Business, Business in Supply, Questions to Members, Adjournment of the House, Private Business, Quorum of the House, and Standing Committees

  371
  is completed, no one of such Resolutions or Amendments shall come into operation.

  STANDING ORDER No. I (SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.)
  (4.28.) Standing Order No: 1 read, as followeth:—
  That, unless the House otherwise order, the House shall meet every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, at Three of the clock, and shall, unless previously adjourned, sit till One of the clock a.m., when the Speaker shall adjourn the House without question put, unless a Bill originating in Committee of Ways and Means, or unless proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament or Standing Order, or otherwise exempted as hereinafter provided from the operation of this Standing Order, be then under consideration.
  That at midnight an Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, except as aforesaid, and at half-past Five of the clock on Wednesdays, the proceedings on any business then under consideration shall be interrupted; and if the House be in Committee, the Chairman shall leave the Chair, and make his Report to the House; and if a Motion has been proposed for the adjournment of the House, or of the debate, or in Committee that the Chairman do report progress, or do leave the Chair, every such dilatory Motion shall lapse without question put; and the business then under consideration, and any business subsequently appointed, shall be appointed for the next day on which the House shall sit, unless the Speaker ascertains by the preponderance of voices that a majority of the House desires that such business should be deferred until a later day.
  Provided always, That on the interruption of business the Closure may be moved; and if moved, or if proceedings under the Closure Rule be then in progress, the Speaker or Chairman shall not leave the Chair, until the questions consequent thereon and on any further Motion, as provided in the Rule "Closure of Debate," have been decided.
  That after the business under consideration at 12, and 5.30 respectively, has been disposed of, no opposed business shall be taken; and
  372
  the Orders of the Day, not disposed of at the close of the sitting, shall stand for the next day on which the House shall sit.
  That a Motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, to be decided without Amendment or debate, to the following effect: "That the proceedings on any specified business, if under discussion at 12 this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order 'Sittings of the House.'"
  Provided always, That after any business exempted from the operation of this Resolution is disposed of, the remaining business of the sitting shall be dealt with according to the provisions applicable to business taken after 12 o'clock.
  Provided also, That the Chairman of Ways and Means do take the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, when requested so to do by Mr. Speaker, without any formal communication to the House. And that Mr. Speaker do nominate, at the commencement of every session, a panel of not more than five Members to act as temporary Chairmen of Committees, when requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 2, to leave out the words 'Thursday and Friday at Three of the clock, and shall, unless previously adjourned, sit till One of the clock, a.m., when,' and insert the words 'Wednesday, and Thursday at Two of the clock for an afternoon sitting, and at Nine of the clock for an evening sitting. If the business appointed for an afternoon sitting is not disposed of at Eight of the clock, the sitting shall be suspended till Nine of the clock. At One of the clock at the evening sitting.'"—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Standing Orders."
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he thought it would be most convenient if they were to consider for a short time the bearing of this proposition on Bills and Motions. The Question which he put to the right hon. Gentleman a short time previously with regard to private business had considerable bearing upon what he was about to say. The proposal with regard to everything in fact, except Private Members' Bills, Government business, and votes of

  373
  censure by the Opposition, amounted to this, that in future the non-official Members would have to depend on evening sittings.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And Fridays.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I said except Bills. Continuing, the right hon. Baronet said they ought to consider what was being taken away from the House as a whole, and what was being offered to it instead. This Motion proposed to take away all Tuesday, a day which, in late years, had been enjoyed by private Members, and in lieu thereof it was proposed to relegate unofficial Members to the evening sittings, which might begin somewhere about 10 o'clock. There was no certainty whatever that they would commence at 10 o'clock, for the First Lord, when he introduced his scheme to the House, announced that private business was to go over to the evening sittings, and to be taken up to 10 o'clock and then adjourned. That was the original statement of the right hon. Gentleman, as it was understood by Members of the House and by the Press.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, 10 o'clock was the time after which it could not be taken.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman would refer to the report of his speech and the comments upon it he would find that he was most certainly understood as saying that private business would be taken up till 10 o'clock.1 The matter was now left absolutely vague. All the House knew was that the Chairman of Committees was to have power to place private business where he pleased. With the known objection of Parliamentary Agents to taking private business on Mondays, he could not but fear that the two days most frequently taken would be the two days allocated to the House as a whole from 9 o'clock. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR dissented.] Would the right hon. Gentleman give the House any certainty on the point by giving even one day at 9 o'clock of which they could be sure?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had more than once explained his view to
  374
  the House. Opposed private business was to be taken at the evening sitting. There were four evening sittings in the week.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: One is for Supply.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR (continuing)said the Government did not think it right that the distribution of private Bills as between the various evenings should be left to the promoters, and the idea was that the Chairman of Committees should distribute them as evenly as possible.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that what independent Members in all parts of the House were anxious for was certainty as to some occasions, however few, in the course of the session upon which they would be able to obtain the decision of the House in regard to questions in which they were interested. Not only might private business be put down for 9 o'clock, but Motions for adjournment were liable to be taken at that hour. Therefore, when private Members had on the Paper Resolutions which excited strong feeling, Motions for adjournment might, and probably would be, made for the very purpose of defeating the ballot, and bringing forward casual as against fixed subjects. In such a case, the Member who had by the fortune of the ballot obtained priority, and very likely represented the wishes of a large number of Members of the House, if he had to bring his Motion on at some late hour, would not obtain the closure from the Chair, because the question would not have been sufficiently discussed. It would only require one Member opposed to the Motion to make a long speech, to render it impossible for the decision of the House to be obtained. On one occasion, when proposing to take the time of private Members on Tuesdays, the First Lord of the Treasury expressed his belief that he had never brought forward a Motion on a Tuesday. But, as he (the speaker) stated at the time, that was not so. Not only the First Lord, but all the Gentlemen at present holding a leading position in the House, had found it necessary to bring forward Motions on Tuesdays. The

  375
  present and late Leaders of the Opposition, when unofficial Members, had brought forward such Motions, and the Leader of the House himself on one occasion not only brought forward but succeeded in virtually carrying a Motion. It was true the House was counted out on that night, but not until the right hon. Gentleman had obtained his way; and he scored an immense success. All these distinguished Gentlemen had found it necessary from time to time to bring questions to the judgment of the House, independently of the Government and independently of votes of censure by the regular Opposition; and it was essential that the House should insist on that opportunity being in some form preserved.
  This protest was not the ordinary shriek of the victims, to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded. There were many Members who had not often brought forward such Motions, but had co-operated with others in doing so. They were now pleading, not for the right of old Members, who could look after themselves. The House was kind to old Members, and such had no difficulty in making their views heard. But it was necessary to plead, not only for young Members, but for those who would in future become Members. Preparations were being made in the country for the representation in the House of practically new interests; but it would be a delusion for the representatives of those interests to expect to bring before Parliament the questions to which they attached the deepest importance, because, under this rule, they would have no opportunity of submitting them to the judgment of the House. Trade unions were of opinion that they had lost some of the Parliamentary rights which a Conservative Administration had formerely given them, and they were making large sacrifices of time and money for the purpose—and he believed they would attain their end—of being more largely represented in the next Parliament than they were in the present—and not by men who put trade unionism before all things, but by men like the hon. Member for Morpeth, who, besides being trade unionists, were statesmen. If these men came to the House in large numbers at the next election, and were
  376
  given no opportunity of bringing the questions in which they were interested before the House, more would have been done to destroy Parliamentary Government in this country than had been done for a long time past.
  False notions were prevalent in the House as to the use unofficial Members had made of their time. It had been said that private Members counted out one another. He had investigated the use made by unofficial Members of their time for a considerable number of sessions past. He would not go over the whole period, but simply take the last two, sessions as an example. Even reduced as private Members' time had been under the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman, and cut down to a greater extent than ever before, with the exception of a single year, there were in each of these sessions six full nights, besides a considerable number of occasional opportunities, on which a large number of questions were brought to the test of the judgment of the House, divisions in most instances being taken. Last year ten questions were brought to the judgment of the House on those six evenings, and there was not a single "count." In the previous year there-were three "counts," but they did not take place until several questions had been decided by the House. There were eleven questions brought to the decision of the House in that year, making twenty-one in the two years. The right hon. Gentleman had occasionally said that private Members did not make the best use of their time, but he had never helped them to the adoption of any of those schemes—and under these Rules they were impossible of adoption —by which the best use could be made, of the time. But putting that aside, and admitting that unofficial Members in all parts of the House would have to cooperate far more closely than they had hitherto done—and he was glad to see signs of that co-operation even in the discussion of these Rules—he yet contended that the opportunities of the past had not been marked by the failure the right hon. Gentleman appeared to think, but that they had been of important assistance-in the direction of Parliament. As he had already said, there had been three

  377
  "counts" out of twelve full nights during the last two years. One was at half-past seven after one decision had been taken; one was at half-past eight after two decisions, and the third was at 8.50 after four questions had been decided by the House, so that Members on that occasion were able to go to bed with clear consciences. Questions brought forward in this way had been hampered in a manner unknown until quite recently. Formerly, it was a point of honour with Governments not to count out the House in unofficial Members' time, and they were always represented by at least three or four of their Members when a "count" did take place. But during the last three years, he regretted to say the custom had arisen of every single Member of the Government leaving the House, of the Government Whips themselves actively promoting "counts," and practically insisting on their Members not coming into the House. That, he thought, was almost a conspiracy against the rights of unofficial Members.
  This was not a question which affected Radicals in particular. It was a curious fact, but he was glad it was so, that the new generation of Conservative Members were making large use of unofficial Members' time. Of the twenty-one questions to which he had referred, four in each year were submitted by Conservative Members. The Irish Members, notwithstanding their great success in the ballot, had only two Resolutions in 1900 and three in 1901. There were three Motions by Liberal Members above the gangway in 1900, and one in 1901; there was one Welsh Motion in each year; there was one from the Radicals below the gangway in 1900, and none in 1901; and one Socialist Resolution was very properly brought to the test of a division in 1901. The Leader of the House was under the delusion that private Members could obtain the opportunities they desired in Supply, and had constantly suggested that the new Supply Rule afforded means for obtaining a decision of the House on matters of this kind. Of the twenty-one questions dealt with in the last two years, there was probably not a single one, with the exception of some Irish matters, which could have been brought to a decision in Supply. One of the Motions brought
  378
  forward by Conservative Members—that by the hon. Member for Hythe on the subject of cable communications—appeared at first sight capable of being so dealt with; but when even that was examined it would be found there was not a Vote in Supply to which the hon. Member's arguments or conclusions would have applied. Supply all orded no opportunity for bringing these questions to the test of a. division.
  It was essential, however, to the efficiency of the House and the reputation of Parliament in the country—in the future even more than in the past—that unofficial Members of all shades of opinion should be able to take the judgment of the house on questions without either the Government inviting them to do so or by a vote of censure from the Front Opposition Bench. If no certainty such as he had urged were given, the regular Opposition would be forced more and more by the pressure of their supporters to bring forward unsatisfactory votes of censure, which might help the Government but did not help the country. The tendency was to place more pressure upon the Address, and although the Amendments might not concern non-party matters technically, they were votes of censure on the Government, and hon. Members opposite were obliged to resist them He did not know what course the right hon. Gentleman would take with regard to these matters; but he did not think it was possible that he could defend his proposals as they stood and leave them as they were. The Government seemed to think that all the advances made in the country—all the thought on labour questions and Conservative democracy in this country—could be sufficiently dealt with by magazine articles rather than by bringing such questions before this House. There were many such questions which must be discussed in this House. By the change of the hours on Tuesday, there was also a loss, of the opportunity for a certain number of very good Bills upon which the judgment of the House had been obtained on Tuesdays. By these proposals this opportunity would be gone. Such Bills would now be relegated to the Friday only, and on that day dealt with in the way in which patents were dealt with in a.

  379
  country he had heard of, where all patents offered to the Government were referred to a Committee of Inventors; the result of this was that the inventors generally agreed that the particular inventor was a lunatic and his patent was a fraud. It was now suggested that those Bills should be dealt with by those who were generally interested in them. That was not at all satisfactory, and they would have to deal with the subject later on. They would have to deal carefully with the subject of the time-table, and they were convinced that the Rule as to adjournments was unfair. They also felt sure that the right of the unofficial ruler to submit questions to the judgment of the House was impossible under these rules.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid that in this proposal, two entirely different questions had been raised. The first question was whether they should alter their long established practice of sitting on Wednesdays for private business; and the second was the question of the afternoon and evening sittings. Those two matters hung together to some extent, but he thought they were entirely different subjects and should be dealt with separately. He was sorry that the Government had not adopted a different way of putting this question before the House. As the Motion stood, if they desired to raise those questions separately they could have suggested that after "Tuesday" Wednesday should be inserted in the present Standing Order, and subsequently they would have come to the other, which was an entirely different point, by leaving out the words "and Friday at Three of the clock." By that means they could have taken the two questions separately, and hon. Members on the Government side would have been able to exercise a free judgment on each matter as it came before the House. He did not desire to enter upon a discussion of the question at that moment. Personally, he felt very strongly upon the question, and he experienced very considerable difficulty in knowing how he was to vote upon the Motion as it was at present before the House. While he agreed with the Government as to the time of the sittings of the House, he did not agree with their change from Wednesday to Friday.
  380
  Before they started upon that somewhat conflicting debate, it was desirable that they should obtain some clear idea as to how the House might express its opinion without committing itself to an adverse vote upon the whole matter before them.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand the hon. Member's point to be this: That the question as to whether we shall substitute Friday for Wednesday is a question quite isolated from the question of the remaining days of the week, which we shall divide into afternoon and evening sittings; and the hon. Member would like to have those debated separately. His suggestion, I understand, is that we should put the word "Wednesday" alone.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: My suggestion is to insert "Wednesday" before "Thursday" in the Standing Order.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The House has already embarked upon the particular question of the distribution of the time and the want of facilities which the distribution gives to private Members, and I do not think that the general discussion of this question ought to be in any way burked. But surely my hon. friend will have a full opportunity of raising the question of Wednesday and Friday on his own Amendment or on those similar to his own on the Paper, and I should have thought that would have satisfied him and would have been convenient to the House.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he quite saw the point which the First Lord of the Treasury had put forward, but at the same time, owing to the manner in which the Standing Order was proposed to be amended, it would follow that those who voted for these words being left out would, by implication, support the words that were afterwards to be inserted, which included Wednesday, on account of the peculiar way in which the words had been taken out.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, no.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, in consideration of his approval of the time of the sittings, he should give his support to the proposal that the words may be left in in order that the sittings of the House should be arrived at afterwards. He thought every hon. Member who did not like the Wednesday change might support the rule in that broad way, reserving the actual question of the Wednesday and Friday change for the general debate upon the Amendments.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked what arrangements were going to be made for the Private Bill Committees and the Grand Committees under this new Rule. The work of the Committee of Selection was not very easy now, when the Members had to come at twelve, but if they were forced to attend at eleven o'clock in the morning, the work of the Committee of Selection would become well nigh impossible. The change from three to two would be a crushing disability to men of affairs. They wanted to consider the convenience of those men who were of great value to their debates. Lawyers, merchants, doctors, and others, whose time was very valuable in the morning, would find it impossible to get down to the House by two o'clock. But if, in addition to this, they had to come down at eleven to attend Private Bill Committees, their work would be very hard indeed. Then again, what about the Grand Committees, upon which Ministers often sat? Ministers ought to be employed in the forenoon upon the business of the nation, and if they attended Grand Committees they would have to neglect the affairs of the nation. As to the dinner hour, he had already spoken of the absurdity of attempting to drive down to Kensington to dine and return to the House in an hour. He was sure that that arrangement would only produce dyspepsia, bad health, and bad tempers. They all knew what the morning sittings would be, and there would be very little continuity in the business. The result of the break in the continuity of the business would be that the Members
  382
  who went away in the dinner hour would, in many cases, not return, and he pitied the poor Whips. They understood that private business was to come on Friday and overlap the opportunities of private Members. Now he had been in charge of private business in the House for many years, and he knew that, as time went on, it would increase in complexity, and if private Members were deprived of one opportunity, they would take another. If they could not talk at the proper time, they would take advantage of Motions for adjournment and private business in order to bring their own questions forward. He should be greatly obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would explain to them what arrangements were to be made under the new dispensation for Private Bill Committees and Grand Committees
  Mr. BARTLEYasked whether the suggestion now before them was going to increase the businesslike capacity of the House. No doubt the proposed arrangement would be a convenient one for many Committee of. Supply would be on Thursday, and they would go away on that day. Possibly they would run away before the end of the Wednesday sittings, and some might forget to come back quite in time on Monday. The system of taking a week-end had become enormously fashionable, and it was a very pleasant one, but was it really business-like arrangement? Was it making the business of the country the prime duty of this assembly? He must candidly say that he did not think it was. It seemed to him that no one in arranging his own private business would put four consecutive long days together, each to twelve or one o'clock, with only an interval of an hour for dinner. The present arrangement for Wednesday seemed to him a reasonable one both, for the staff, and, what was of perhaps more importance, for the Members themselves. To sit from two to eight o'clock would be a very long time without a break. It was an hour longer, than at present, and was, it seemed to him, no improvement. There was a proposal that the Chairman should be, allowed to leave occasionally, but they had never yet established that, and it was hardly a reform which could be considered,

  383
  a real practical reform of the procedure of the House of Commons. The proposal to adjourn for dinner was a very pleasant one to many Members, He lived in Victoria Street, and it would be extremely comfortable for him to go home to dinner, but although he had been in the House for nearly eighteen years he had always made it a rule to dine here, because if he did go home he did not like to turn out again. But years were rolling over him, and if he were compelled to go home for dinner he might have a difficulty in coming back. A private Members' night might possibly be too much even for him.
  He fully agreed that some change was necessary, but looking to the number of hours this change would give, he really could not see that the Government would get a very great advantage out of it. He had never known the Government, when it had the whole time of the House, to have morning sittings. If it were true that when the Government had the whole time of Parliament at its disposal it had never adopted morning sittings, in what possible way could it be necessary to adopt them now for the sake of getting business through? He thought there was a grave objection to meeting so early as two o'clock. There was the question raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member opposite about Committees, which was a very important one. It must be remembered that Private Bill Committees were part and parcel of the whole system of administration in this Rouse, and a very important part. It was a very trying thing for a man to be here at eleven o'clock on these committees, but if it were to be made a regular thing to come at that hour it would be still more difficult for hon. Members to attend the Committees. He supposed he was old-fashioned, but he did not wish to see the House full of simply professional politicians. He wished to see men of all classes and of all occupations—successful men in business and in the professions. After all, these were the men who had made and were making the country great, and for whom they ought to have respect in their arrangements. It had been asked how were they to get through the enormous quantity of business which had to be done. He thought sometimes they tried to do too much
  384
  business. If they would confine themselves to the business of Supply, and one or two measures that were wanted, and do that properly and efficiently, they might get on better than they did. He agreed with the hon. Baronet opposite that private or unofficial Members, by bringing forward Resolutions and having them debated, were ventilating subjects which were of interest to the public outside if they were good; they ultimately led to legislation. With regard to the changes of hours, although they would be extremely comfortable for him personally, he could not think that they would tend to the better carrying out of the business of the House. He, therefore, with regard to these particular changes, regretted that they had not his support.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that the rule now under consideration involved a constitutional change, and in his opinion it struck at the efficiency of Parliament as a whole. Except in the case of a few who had been brought into contact with the machinery of the House in various ways, hon. Members found it necessary to be here for two or three sessions before they were able to grasp the manner and method whereby they could make any position for themselves in the House, or do what their constituents sent them here to do. The Labour Members had been sent here by certain sections of the community throughout the country, and, up to the present, they had been unable to bring prominently before this assembly the grievances under which their class laboured. It would take them some sessions before they could get into touch with other Members, in order to press forward the questions they had at heart. In the event of a dissolution taking place before these Members had been able to do anything for their constituents, the result would be disastrous, not only to them, but to the particular trade or section of the community that sent them to Parliament. The result would be to crush out of public life all those Labour Members, who, it would be admitted, had been admirable Members of the House. It had been said that those Members would find a means in Committee of Supply of dealing with those questions which they desired to

  385
  bring forward. He maintained it could not be done in that way, but if it could be done in Committee of Supply, it would be done most ineffectively, and if done, it would rob those Members who desired to bring forward other matters in Committee of Supply of their opportunity. Therefore, no matter which course was taken, private Members would lose. It seemed to him, looking at it with comparatively limited experience, that in drawing up this particular Rule there had been a conspiracy, on the part of the official Members generally, to kill the private Member, or, at any rate, to ruin him, so far as his efficiency in the House was concerned. The ballot, which was one great protection of the private Member, would become practically a myth, because, when the time came, he would, in all probability, be robbed of his opportunity. It had been said that the Chairman was to be the arbiter of what was of value and what was not. The effect of this Rule would be to crush the private Member between the upper and the nether millstone. It could not be denied that the pressure of work during four successive days would be found in the first place very irksome to the higher officials in the House. It would become a drudgery to the employees of the House and on the working private Members, who desire to forward any particular matters of moment, who would be obliged to attend here the entire day in order to take their share in the work of the House, and to whom the remainder of the night would be occupied in futile and ineffective attempts to gain some hearing for the subjects which they had at heart. The only class of Members to whom this Rule would be of any value were those for whom least consideration ought to be given, either by the House, the constituencies, or the public at large. He meant those Members who were able to come there and take as small a share in the business of the House as they chose; and who could afford to go away when they pleased, especially for the week-end. But should-other Members of the House be penalised for the benefit of those who took the least interest in the business of the House I He hoped the Leader of the House would take this question of
  386
  substituting Fridays for Wednesdays into his serious consideration, for he was convinced that it would benefit no one except the Governmental section of the House and those Members who took a very small part in the real business of the House, while it would be of enormous disadvantage to and a strain upon the officials of the House, and upon the gentlemen of the Press, and therefore to the public at large.
  MR. LOWEsaid he did not wish to speak on this question in any spirit of hostility to the proposals of the Government. In fact, he considered that it should not be treated as in any sense a Party question, because what they wanted to arrive at was, what would be most convenient to the majority of Members on both sides of the House; and in matters of this kind they should be left perfectly free to express their own opinions. At any rate, when a change of this magnitude was proposed, an appropriate opportunity should be afforded to review the whole position in regard to the sittings of the House, and to consider whether the hours during which they had been in the habit of sitting, even with the modifications now proposed, were those most likely to be conducive to the convenience of the general body of Members, and to the efficient conduct of business. He had no hesitation in saying that the vast majority of people outside who were in the habit of watching their proceedings were filled with amazement at the late hours which they persisted in keeping, and at the unseasonable times at which they elected to transact a good deal of the most important part of their business. They could not account for it, and could not fathom the reasons which impelled them to such a course. They simply regarded hon. Members with a sort of amused toleration—as a kind of peculiar people who were a law unto themselves, and who held different views on these subjects from those held by the generality of mankind. After having carefully examined the proposals of the Government he confessed he had utterly failed to discover how they were likely to bring about any material improvement in this respect. Although they were to be allowed an hour instead of half an hour for dinner, they would have to

  387
  come down an hour earlier in the afternoon. In fact, it was worse than that, because under the present system Questions were taken first, after private business. These usually took at least an hour, and therefore it was unnecessary for hon. Members, unless they had Questions to put to Ministers, to come down until half-past four o'clock. Under the suggested arrangement, however, Government business would generally be taken at half-past two, which would mean that they should have to come down two hours earlier than at present, whilst it seemed to him that it would still be necessary for them to sit very late on most nights in the week, especially after the Government had appropriated the time of the House for their own business. Then the substitution of Friday for Wednesday as the day for an early sitting, by causing them to sit late for four consecutive nights, would make these late sittings even more trying than they were at present. The changes proposed might, to some extent, relieve those Members who were not in the habit of attending the sittings of the House regularly, but it appeared to him that these were the Members whom it was least necessary for them to consider, for whatever changes might be made; it was not at all probable that they would attend any more regularly. Nor could he see that these proposed changes would to any material extent relieve Mr. Speaker, the officials of the House, the members of the Government, or those Members of the House who wished to follow and take an intelligent interest in the whole of their proceedings.
  Since he became a Member of the House, four years ago, several things in connection with their procedure had impressed themselves very forcibly upon his mind. In the first place, he thought they had been in the habit of transacting a good deal of the most important part of their business at most inconvenient, unsuitable and unseasonable hours; often turning night into day; assigning the first place and the best hours of a sitting to comparatively unimportant business; and relegating the considerations of high matters of State to the small hours of the morning. And he had also thought that whether their business was important or the reverse they had taken about six times as long
  388
  to transact it as any other business or legislative Assembly in the world, not excluding that much abused body, the House of Lords, would take to transact precisely the same amount of business, and with no better results. It seemed to him that it was not only or even mainly a question of the convenience of Members. It was simply a perversion of terms, and a misuse of the English language, to say that hon. Members were idle, slothful, and lazy, just because they wished to restore their mental balance by going away for the week-ends; or because they did not wish to spend 10 hours at a stretch in an unhealthy atmosphere, listening to long-winded orations on subjects with which they were already perfectly familiar, without any sufficient interval for rest or refreshment. His opinion was, that the sooner they recognised the fact that Members of Parliament were after all only human beings, and not mere cast-iron machines, the better it would be for all concerned.
  But the point he wished to make was, that if they expected hon. Members to work at unseasonable times or for an excessive number of hours without a sufficient interval in which to recuperate their powers, it followed as a matter of course that they would not get from them the best work of which they were capable, and that the business of the, nation would necessarily and inevitably suffer in consequence. They knew perfectly well that, for most business purposes, a man was at his best in the early part of the day; but except on Wednesdays, when, usually, comparatively unimportant subjects were discussed, that was the very part of the day when the House of Commons scorned to sit at all. Why should they, in their corporate capacity, act in a different manner in regard to the transaction of their business and the management of their affairs to that which each of them would adopt individually if they were dealing with their own private concerns; and why should they set at nought and ignore the very salutary custom which prevailed amongst all business and professional men, indeed amongst all sane individuals who could control their own actions, all over the world, namely, to do the most arduous and

  389
  important part of their work in the early part of the day, when they were fresh, vigorous and alert? He himself did not see why they should not hold morning sittings, just as they did at present on Wednesdays, on every week day except Saturday. That would be something like a genuine relief not only to Members of the House, but even more to Mr. Speaker, to members of the Government, and to the over-worked officials of the House; and yet it would leave Ministers free for an hour or two both in the morning and in the evening to attend at the offices of their Departments and transact such business as that they had to do there. He was quite aware that whenever this suggestion was put forward, many of the older Members shook their heads and said that it would never do. But what he could never get to know was why it would not do. Except for the old-fashioned, high-and-dry Tory objection to any change whatsoever, the only objections he had ever heard raised to such a course being adopted were two—firstly, that it would interfere with the attendance of business and professional men who had their own affairs to look after, and could only come to the House after their personal work was done; and, secondly, that it would interfere with the work of the Committees of the House. But he respectfully submitted that neither of those objections, when they came to be examined otherwise than superficially, would hold water for a moment. In most foreign Legislatures far more work was delegated to Committees than in this House. On a reference to the Return, with which they had been favoured as to the customs which prevail elsewhere, it would be found that the House of Commons differed from all foreign Legislative Assemblies in respect to the length and lateness of their sittings. He believed he was correct in saying that there was not another Parliament in the whole of the civilised world which transacted the most important part of its business in the latter part of the day when every one is tired, except on very rare occasions, and cases of great emergency. It might be said that in most foreign countries Members were paid, that they had the professional politician, and things were done in
  390
  a very different way. The English thought themselves very superior people—possibly they were—but human nature was pretty much the same all the world over, and he believed that exhaustion, fatigue, and mental prostration from excessive hours of labour were just as likely to overtake an English Member who was not paid, as a French, German, or American Senator who was paid. They could not expect the average man, just because he happened to be a Member of Parliament, to be moulded differently and to have greater powers of endurance than all other people, and surely if Members were not paid they were entitled to even more consideration than Members who were paid.
  Nor did he believe that the shortening of the hours and assimilating them to those of other business and Legislative Assemblies would have the effect of depriving the House of Commons of the services of business and professional men. He thought that they would continue to come just as much as they do now on Wednesdays when anything of importance necessitated their attendance. But however that might be, things had come to a pretty pass if a rich and powerful country like Great Britain could not command the services of a sufficient number of men, able and willing to transact the business of the nation, without having recourse to men, jaded, weary, and worn, who had spent their best energies over their private concerns and could only give to the nation of their second best, after their own work was finished. He did not wish for a moment to disparage the services of that class of Members. On the contrary, he considered them most valuable and advantageous in every way. And as he had said he believed that many of them would—even at some personal sacrifice—continue to attend on all essential occasions, even if they did have morning sittings. Even if they did not, their advice and assistance could always be obtained whenever any expert opinion was required on matters before the House. And there would, in such a case, be this distinct gain both to them and to us, that it would no longer be "advice gratis," which many people think is not worth very much. But his contention was, and he thought it could not readily be answered—

  391
  That if the sittings were altered so as to bring them within reasonable and respectable hours, it would not only improve the quality, character, and capacity of existing Members, but it would largely add to and increase the number of suitable and well qualified men who would be willing to serve their country in the capacity of Members of this House. Then, as regards Committees, he did not see why such a change need impair their usefulness and efficiency, or in any way interfere with those functions which they now exercised with so much advantage to the State. Some of these Committees already sat, to a certain extent, whilst the House was sitting, and it seemed to him that was a difficulty which could readily be got over if a few business men were to meet round a Table and devote themselves to the task of finding a solution. At all events, it was quite certain that Members could not be in two places at once. But as most of these Committees were composed of an equal number of Members from both sides of the House, it seemed to him that not very much harm would be done if they did occasionally miss a few divisions while attending to the work on which they were engaged, which most people would think was at least as profitable a way of spending their time as tramping through the Division Lobbies. If, however, the sittings of the House were held earlier, they would get through the work so much more rapidly and thoroughly, that it would soon be found quite unnecessary to sit every day in the week any more than Foreign parliaments found it necessary to do so; and in that case it would be quite possible for Committees to sit when the House itself was not sitting, or it might be arranged that they should sit at a different period of the year altogether.
  He was sadly afraid that he would not be successful in persuading the House, and, least of all, the members of the Government, to adopt such a drastic change as that which he had suggested on the present occasion. But, nevertheless, he was glad to have had an opportunity of laying his views on this subject—which he held very strongly—before the House, and he was much obliged for the patience
  392
  with which they had listened to him, and in conclusion he would only say that he hoped and believed that the time would come, and that before so very many more years had passed over their heads, when the change he advocated would be adopted, because he was convinced that it was in accordance with the dictates of reason and common sense, and that it would be most advantageous to them all in conducting the business of the nation.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I cordially agree with one remark which fell from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and that was that the discussion of this Rule in particular should be left to what I may call the unbiassed judgment of the House, and that no influence should be exercised to procure its decision in a specific direction. Yet I venture to say with reference to the picture the hon. Gentleman has dawn of a reformed House of Commons enjoying itself with Wednesday sittings every day of the week, with the attendance which Wednesdays secure, and with the admirable legislation of which Wednesday legislation is a type, that if the unbiassed judgment of the House were left to deal with that question, the hon. Gentleman will find himself in a very small minority. I would like to say a few words on the questions that may be raised in the discussion of this Rule. With reference to the point raised by an hon. Gentleman opposite, who said that he was prepared to agree with some portions of the Rule and prepared to disagree with others, it did seem, at first sight, that we should have been precluded from discussing all the branches of this Rule, and that we would find ourselves in some difficulty when we came to divide upon it; but the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House seems to free us from the difficulty; and we shall be able, while necessarily surveying all the points as they arise, to have our individual opinion on each point separately.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean raised one of the most important points which could come before us with

  393
  reference to any alteration of our procedure, and that is the position of the unofficial Members. He attached great importance to the unofficial Members and their Motions, and he seemed to think that the proposed alteration of the Rule would deprive unofficial Members of what they at present possess and would reduce their opportunities for discussing legislation. I do not quite read the proposals of the Government in that light. I think they form a sort of contract between the Government and the House of Commons for securing that a larger portion of time should be placed at the disposal of unofficial Members. [An HON. MEMBER: Oh!] I am expressing my own opinion, and not the opinion of anyone else; and the way I read the Rule is that the grabbing and grasping of the time of unofficial Members, which sometimes takes place very early in the session, is to come to an end; that unofficial Members are to have the time of the House left to them during certain periods of the session, without its being infringed upon by the inexorable demands of Supply, and that they are to have certain nights absolutely secured to them. I would wish to mention, however, that the right hon. Gentleman omitted one point, namely, the importance of a different mode of allocating the time given.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I did say that on what was called the Second Reading Debate, and I alleged that it was a ground for having the Committee which the Leader of the Opposition asked for, because without that Committee it could not be raised.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLER: I had not the pleasure of hearing that speech. I entertain a strong opinion that the plan which Mr. Courtney suggested years ago with reference to allocating the time of unofficial Members would prevent these counts out which necessarily arise from insignificant matters being brought before the House. I should like to correct the right hon. Baronet on one point. He asserted that it was a modern practice for the Government tellers to assist in a count
  394
  out. I was never counted out except once, and that was at the instigation of a Government of which the right hon. Baronet formed part. I do not think we can dispose of this question satisfactorily until we have some mode of allocating private Member's time. As to the question whether the Wednesday sitting should be changed to Friday, or should remain as it is, there is a good deal to be said for the change and against it. I can see that a holiday at the end of the week, which would practically be a holiday of three days, and not of two days, would be agreeable to a large number of Members; but, while I agree that we are hound to consider the convenience of Members, we are bound to consider first the discharge of the business of the House, and I do not think that the substitution of Friday for Wednesday would be in favour of the effective transaction of business. Supply is to be taken on Thursday, and an evening sitting on Thursday for Supply I do not think will have any more attraction than an evening sitting on Friday now has. The practice will very soon be adopted. It will become a habit of the House to practically adjourn at the close of the morning sitting on Thursday. Friday will become a dies non. I do not think that the House as a whole can afford to convey to the public the impression that the first instinct of Members is to seek opportunities for holidays instead of devoting themselves to public business. I think that the Wednesday sitting is a break in the week which is appreciated, not only by the Speaker and the officials, but by hon. Members. As far as the convenience of Members is concerned, and you cannot disregard their convenience altogether in this matter, Wednesday has become an accepted break in the week, and a great many engagements of a social and political and public character will be greatly interfered with, if that day is taken away from us.
  Then, with reference to the change of hours, I am glad to hear that question raised at last, and I am impelled to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is to become of Committees if this change takes place. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has

  395
  made a suggestion with reference to the Committee work of the House. Who is to do the Committee work, and when is it to be done? The hon. Member who has just sat down spoke rather disparagingly of Committee work.
  MR. LOWE: No, no, not at all!
  * SIR HENRY FOWLER: I acquit the hon. Member of any intention, but that was certainly the impression he created.
  MR. LOWE: On the contrary, I said that service on the Committees of this House was of great advantage to the nation.
  * Sin HENRY FOWLER: The House must recollect that a Private Bill Committee is a judicial body, and Members are not allowed to leave it without the consent of the House, and that if a Member is absent he is reported to the House, and before now in a case of that kind, the House has used its punitive powers. If the House is to meet at 2 o'clock, at what hour are the Committees to begin work? When the alteration of the meeting hour of the House from 4 o'clock to 3 o'clock was made, it produced a great deal of inconvenience and dissatisfaction. I believe they now meet at 11.30. You cannot ask hon. Members to conic here before 11.30. [A VOICE: "Yes. 11 o'clock.") Can you ask them to come before 11 o'clock? You must remember that if you cut the hours of these Committees short a considerable amount of extra expense will be inflicted upon promoters of Bills. Then, as to Grand Committees. There is a tendency now to send a great deal of legislation to Grand Committees which are specially prohibited from sitting while the House is sitting, and only once or twice has that prohibition been removed by special permission. You cannot be in two places at once, and you have not provided for that in any way; you ought to give a chance to a Member sitting on a Grand Committee or attending the Sittings of this House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There cannot be any important business until 2.30, and if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Rules he will see that a Grand Committee can sit after the House sits, but not while important business is going on.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLER: But the most important business of the day is to begin at 2.30. Members of Private Bill Committees and other Committees have a right to come to the House when important business is being discussed. When we come to discuss the question in detail, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make some concession to the House on this matter. I think there may be time to allow some margin with reference to Committee work with regard to the suspension of the sitting. One hon. Member objected very much to this adjournment between the morning and evening sittings, and what he said was perfectly true. Nevertheless, we have to look the fact in the face that, at the present time, call it what you will, there is a dinner hour now, and no one would submit to sitting for eight or nine hours at any occupation without having a reasonable and proper interval for refreshment. I am of opinion that it is best that a time should be allotted for that; and whether the hour the right hon. Gentleman has allotted, or whether the proposal of Mr. W. H. Smith when he occupied the position of the right hon. Gentleman in this House, I need not trouble myself now to consider, but I think you must in sonic way provide for a suspension of the sitting of the House for a reasonable time in order that hon. Members may refresh themselves.
  With regard to the change of Wednesday to Friday, I feel there are insuperable difficulties in the way of this change, and there is great difficulty in making our sittings commence at so early an hour as two o'clock. A difficulty will also arise as to the allocation of the time from 7.15 to 8 o'clock, and also in the arrangement of private business. As regards private business, I do not think the proposed remedy of the right hon. Gentleman is sufficient for the purpose, even when the Chairman of Committees

  397
  is given the power of fairly dividing the work among all the days of the week. I think it certainly should be put out of the power of any Parliamentary Agent to dictate to the House what it should do with its time, but the remedy proposed will not deal with that question. I think there will have to be much more consideration and a great deal of devolution with regard to private business. The experiment which has been tried with so much success in Scotland must be tried elsewhere. That is not within the limits but I do not think you will be able to take up private business in the evening without great inconvenience to the House and those who introduce measures to the House. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, on files questions which concern our convenience, leave the House at liberty to form it, own opinion, although the House will give the greatest possible weight to his opinion. I, therefore, appeal to not to make this a Party question, but allow it to be decided by the House itself.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the House would allow me at this stage to say just a few words. If this debate is continued, not, I hope, for very long, we shall have all the questions touched on by the right hon. Gentleman cropping up again, so, perhaps, I had better answer them at once. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down appealed to me not to make Government proposals a question for a Government division. That is a very difficult doctrine to maintain. We have to consider this matter as a whole, and, in so considering it, it would be quite inconsistent with our procedure if those responsible for the Government plan did not take the further responsibility of carrying it with all the authority which all Governments exercise in the conduct of public affairs. We must exercise that authority. I do not think that touches the merits of the question, and. it is on the merits that I propose, for a very few moments, to detain the House. The right hon. Gentleman is, I think, not counted as one generally hostile to the procedure suggested in these Rules, although he has severely criticised some of our proposals. I will
  398
  not say anything as to that, part of his speech in which he dealt with the question of Wednesday and Friday sittings, as that will be dealt with at a later stage, and it is independent of the question of morning and evening sittings. Let me deal first with the general objection to any alteration of the times of the business of this House. Whatever you do, whatever device the wit of man can contrive, it will undoubtedly be open to objections of genuine force. I do not for one instant suggest to the House that the plan we have proposed is a perfect plan, or that a scheme has been devised by which everybody's convenience may be met, by which no single interest either in or out of the House may be injured, which shall at once give the Government all the time they want for legislation, and at the same time give private Members all the time they want for their resolutions, give private Bills a place in the very heart of the Parliamentary day, give every Member ample time for his dinner, and yet not ask him to come down until four or five o'clock in the afternoon. This plan, like every other, calls for sacrifices from some people. All we claim for it is that by it we add to the general convenience of Members without materially injuring the great interests committed to us. Let me prove that general proposition by dealing with the subject of Committers—private Bill Committees and Grand Committees. As regards Grand Committees, I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite has not made himself acquainted with one of the proposed Standing Orders appearing later on the Paper, by which the existing Binds within which Grand Committees may sit are curtailed by half-an-hour. At present, Grand Committees may not sit beyond three o'clock without special leave of the House. Under the Standing Order that we propose, that hour is to be altered to 2.30. Therefore, Standing Committees may sit while some of our proceedings are going on, but they will be released at the hour public business begins. No doubt that will, to some extent, curtail the hours of their activity, but I do not think it will seriously impair their efficiency.
  DR. FARQUH ARSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the hour at which

  399
  the Committees will commence their sittings?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not a question of our Rules. That point is not laid down by the Rules now; it is a matter for the Committees themselves. I will pass from the Grand Committees to the Private Bill Committees. Let the House remember that the existing system requires or enables Private Bill Committees to sit while the House is engaged in public controversial work. I believe that these Committees now habitually sit until four o'clock, and I see no reason why — at all events, it is a matter for them to decide—they should not sit, perhaps not until four, but until the House had begun its public work. That is the practice already, and I see no reason why that practice should not continue. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that, while he praised, and praised justly, the Scottish system, and while he desired to see that system extended to England and Ireland—a view with which in its general terms I heartily agree—that system requires Members of both Houses to be completely away from the controversial work of Parliament.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLER: Not during the session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly. That system requires a certain number of Members of this House to be away altogether. That being our existing system, and that being the system the right hon. Gentleman desires to see extended, do not let us be too fastidious or too particular about the fact, which is undoubtedly true, that the sittings of Private Bill Committees will overlap the general sittings of the House.
  Having made that defence of the proposal against the right hon. Gentleman's attack, let me repeat in his presence—as I think I said to the House when he unfortunately was away on account of illness—that I do not think the existing system of dealing with private business is either good or should be indefinitely continued. I do not see why we should wait to reform our general procedure until we have got a perfect system for dealing with
  400
  private Bills, but I think that these new Rules offer an occasion which ought not to be lost of appointing a Committee, as we propose to do, to consider the whole question of how private Bills may best be dealt with by this House. As I said in answer to a question from an hon. friend of mine the other day, I think that Committee will have, among other topics, to consider how far the system which is working so admirably in Scotland may receive a yet further extension.
  I omitted to say just now that not only do the sittings of Private Bill Committees overlap the sittings of the House, but the Committees also sit on Wednesdays; that is to say, they sit on Wednesday through more than two-thirds of the whole sitting of the House. I think, therefore, I am justified in dismissing as insufficient—I do not say as wholly without foundation — the arguments the right hon. Gentleman has brought against the scheme.
  Then my hon. friend the Member for North Islington attacked, but in very moderate terms, the general allocation of business. He stated that so far as he could see, the Government would get very little advantage out of it. I entirely agree, if by the Government he meant the progress of Government Bills. I do not see why that progress should be much more rapid under this plan than under the existing system; at all events, I do not think the gain to Government is very great. But these Rules, and, in particular, the Rule we are now discussing, were not devised to give the Government more time than they already get or take —I will come to the question of taking presently—but to allocate that time in a manner more convenient to the general body of unofficial Members of the House, and to make our proceedings secure and certain so far as concerns the hour at which Government business should come on. I have been reproached with having promised the House that these Rules would give security as regards the time private Members' business would come on at the evening sitting, whereas, evidently, there is no such security. If this House is to have any elasticity in its procedure at all, that elasticity must be granted at the expense of somebody, and I frankly admit that by these Rules we get that necessary elasticity at the

  401
  cost of the evening sittings, and not of the afternoon sittings, which are the kernel of the day, and which are always Government sittings—if you call Supply Government business. I quite admit that these Rules are intended to make, and will succeed in making, the business to be taken at those sittings absolutely secure. And what an advantage that will be! It is not the mere advantage of the Government having more hours in the session. The advantage is not so much to members of the Government as to all Members of the House who want to take part in what is and, after all, ought to be, the main business of the legislative session. Is that a small boon? Is that a boon which ought to be lightly thrown aside?
  Then my hon. friend went on to say that while this plan did not give any special facilities to the Government, it did make a much more convenient arrangement of work for most private Members, him elf included. He admitted the arrangement was convenient, but he said it was not specially business-like. I do not admit this distinction between what is convenient and what is businesslike. There are circumstances in which the two may be at odds or antagonistic, but, depend upon it, no hours which are really inconvenient are really businesslike. That may be laid down with certainty. The House may be obliged in order to do its business to sit at very inconvenient hours, but the more we make the hours of sitting convenient to Members of the House, surely the more business-like will be the arrangement under which this assembly does its work.
  I will not say anything about the interesting speech of my hon. friend the Member for the Edgbaston Division. He has a plan of his own, which is almost as far removed from the Government plan as it is from the plan under which the House has hitherto worked. He desires to have five days in the week on which the Wednesday Rule shall prevail, and have no evening sittings at all. That, no doubt, is a plan which has charms, but it is not I a plan the Government could ask the House to accept, and I do not think it is necessary that I should do more than thus briefly allude to the scheme the hen. Member has endeavoured to lay before the House.
  402
  I will pass to the criticisms of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, who initiated this debate. Some of them I have already dealt with. He thought there was great uncertainty as to the method by which Private Bills would be dealt with under the plan of the Government. I really think my opening statement has not had full justice done to it. After hearing that statement, as I thought, so strangely represented by the right hon. Baronet, I consulted Hansard, and I find that, as there reported—though the report has not been corrected or touched by me, or, indeed, by anybody else—it quite accurately represents what I intended to convey to the House, and it certainly is not at all consistent with the views the right hon. Baronet put before us. Our views about the time to be given to controversial Private Bills are quite settled. We think that such Bills as cannot be finished before 2.25, should, in the main, be taken in the evening sittings; as between the evening sittings we desire that the most impartial distribution should take place under the auspices of the Chairman of Committees. We see no reason why Government time should be sacrificed to private Members, or private Members' time to the Government, or Supply to either, but we think all four evenings should be treated on an equality, whether they belong to the Government, or are devoted to Supply, or are in charge of private Members. I thought, and still think, that that is a practical, convenient, and possible scheme.
  The right hon. Baronet went on to complain that this Rule greatly limited the opportunities the House now has for discussing and voting upon those private Members' Resolutions to which he attaches such supreme importance, and he seemed to think that I am an enemy of those Resolutions. I do not know on what statement of mine he founds that belief. For my part, I am perfectly ready to admit that they are of value, that many interesting discussions take place upon them, and that, in some respects, they are a very welcome interlude to the prolonged debates which the House insists on having in regard to the details of Government measures. It is an interlude, however, of which Members did not always

  403
  show themselves very appreciative, for the number of counts out on these occasions in the last ten years is really much greater than any human being would guess from the two years which the right hon. Baronet has selected as giving a fair specimen of what happened.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: There was not one last year.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There was not a single count out last year, and an average taken over last year and the preceding year presents a very imperfect view of the way in which hon. Members use these opportunities. I value them myself, but I do not value so greatly what the right hon. Gentleman calls the decision which the House takes upon them. The debates are very often interesting, but I do not think that the division shows the real estimation in which the House holds the Resolution, and we shall never get that until such Resolutions are brought forward in the form of a Bill or some measure in charge of the Government, in some form in which hon. Members think it would be likely to pass into law. Therefore, I think the opinion of the House on these abstract Resolutions is of very small value and, within my own recollection, I know a case in which right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when Members of the Government—and when the right hon. Gentleman himself was the Leader, on the very morrow of the House having passed a Resolution upon a subject—paid no attention to it whatever on behalf of the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: No, no!] I am sorry if I am misrepresenting the historical sequence of events. Now is it a fact that these abstract Resolutions are receiving very hard measures at our hands? I think not. It is perfectly true that under the Standing Orders as they lie on the Table private Members have the whole of Tuesday in every week for the discussion of these abstract Resolutions, but surely the experience of even the youngest Member of this House, to say nothing of the older Members, would show that, as a matter of fact, every Government in turn trespasses and trenches upon the time given to these Resolutions. The hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn, and other ardent supporters of the rights of private
  404
  Members, must take facts as they find them. It is not because of any aversion to the work of private Members that their time is taken, but it is because in no other way can the legislative business of the House be carried on. Our view is that, once for all, we should regulate this division of time between the Government and private Members, and we ought not to leave it to these constantly recurring Motions for taking the time of the House, but private Members ought to have some certainty as to what days of the week are to be devoted to work other than Government work. That certainty is given by these Resolutions. By this allocation of time we shall have one day a week in which hon. Members will not be prevented from bringing on a Resolution by lengthy private business or by Motions for adjournment.
  MR. LABOUCIIERE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will contend that a Motion for adjournment is not Government business, but it is nevertheless due to the laches of the Government and actually is Government business.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member says that the adjournment of the House is Government business. Really, I do not quite see how after such a statement we can argue together. If 40 Members rise in their places in this House and say that a certain matter is a matter of emergency as against something put forward by the Government of the day, that is, in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, to be labelled Government business. I need not argue that question any further. I say that there is no business which is more private business than adjournments, and an adjournment which can only be brought on by 40 Members has probably more backbone in it than the abstract Resolution in favour of which the hon. Gentleman speaks. I still consider that if 40 Members choose to move the adjournment, that is emphatically private business, and we really ought to confine these Resolutions to private Members' days. I do not, however, propose that, and I should be very much surprised if we do not find that there are a great

  405
  many more matters of urgent public importance started on those days on which the Government have evening sittings than on those days which the private Members have set apart for their business. Time alone will decide whether I am right or wrong, but I think my prophecy will not be found to be wrong. I do claim to have shown to the House, leaving the Friday and Wednesday question on one side, that this arrangement is not open to every objection which has been taken against it. It does not give everything which each of us desire, but I do think that it gives more than any other rival plan can give, and I know it gives more than the plan upon which the House now tries to carry on its business.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very adequate statement as to the operation of these rules. I cannot, however, myself understand how he considers that any considerable advantage is going to be gained by the Government in the conduct of public business. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that this new Rule will not give more time to the Government, and that is exactly what appeared to me, for I do not think it will give any more time to the Government. If that is so, then I do not quite understand what the object is in making this change. You may make this change to obtain a better distribution of the time, but, in my opinion, you will have less time for the Government than they have at present, and they will have that time in a very inconvenient form, because, practically speaking, in order to secure what is called dinner you give up two hours of the day, and in order to recoup those two hours you call upon the House to meet an hour earlier. I think everybody must feel that, to a great number of hon. Members, to meet an hour earlier is a very great inconvenience, and that inconvenience applies to those who attend Committees, and to everybody who have their own private affairs to look after, and to whom coming an hour earlier is certainly an inconvenience. And all this inconvenience is incurred in order that we may have these two hours for dinner. But we do not dine here under the existing system, for a large number of hon. Members go away to dine. I am
  406
  not sure that this plan of supposing that we are going away at 8 o'clock and coming back at 9 is going to be more convenient than the present system. Why is it when the right hon. Gentleman wants to get through the business of the House that he does not have a morning sitting? Why does he not have a continuous sitting of the House in order to get through the business? I cannot understand how he considers that he is going to get more working time for the House of Commons by this new arrangement. He is certainly not going to get more time for the Government, but is he going to give more time to the unofficial Member? As was pointed out by my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, everybody knows that the time that will be available to unofficial Members will he less under this plan than it is under the existing system. He is left out of consideration upon this question of the time available for business.
  Then there is the important question we shall have to consider presently of the change from Wednesday to Friday. In my opinion, by this plan you are going to lose at least one day out of the seven in the work of the House of Commons. I believe that will be the result of this change. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton that this is a great blot upon the proposals of the Government. I believe that Friday will be a wasted day, and that will he the inevitable consequence of this change. I entirely agree with my right hon. friend the Member for East Wolverhampton that hon. Members will go away, to a great extent, upon the Thursday. That will be an absolute loss to the working time of the House. Looking at the whole of this plan, though I agree that there may be some advantageous readjustments of the manner in which the business has been arranged, yet the plan proposed by the Government I think is one which will not add to the working time of the House of Commons, but will diminish the working time of the Government, and will also diminish the opportunities which the unofficial Members would otherwise have had at their disposal. So far from believing that this plan is going to raise the reputation of the House of Commons as a working Assembly, in my opinion the existing plan, with all its defects, is better than the plan the Government now

  407
  propose. Therefore, I for one will vote for not altering the present system, imperfect as it is, as I see no advantage but considerable inconvenience and loss of time, in the plan proposed by the Government.
  SIR, SAMUEL HOAREsaid he was sure the uppermost feeling of all Members was not merely to make Rules for their own convenience but for the better carrying out of the business of the House. He attached the greatest importance to the proposed interval between the two sittings of the House. He believed strongly that it would facilitate business, and that to many of those who were hardest worked in the House it would be a great convenience and relief. He spoke of those who sat on Committees, and especially Private Bill Committees. Many hon. Members knew from experience how great was the effort to come down and deal with a difficult and contentious bill in Committee when a number of witnesses and a great many learned counsel were taking part in the discussion, and then to be obliged to stay in the House until one o'clock in the morning or sometimes later. They were expected on the following day to undertake their onerous and responsible duties again at eleven or a quarter past eleven. This was no new question, although some hon. Members spoke of it as a novel idea on the part of the Leader of the House. In 1848 a Committee reported that it was undesirable that hon. Members, having had to attend to the trying work of Committees, should be forced to sit here without an interval till late at night. In 1857 Sir Erskine May suggested before a Committee that it would be desirable to have morning sittings two days in the week. The 1886 Committee, which was the last important Committee, made a Report on the subject. He felt that the Leader of the House could not possibly have avoided bringing forward these matters, because they were distinctly in accordance with the suggestion of a great number of that Committee.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire was most
  408
  anxious that before considering these proposals they should be discussed by a Committee. The questions had already been fully discussed by Committees. In 1886 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was a member of the Committee, and their recommendations were almost exactly the same as those now proposed by the Leader of the House with respect to the hours of meeting and the interval. The opinion of a large number of that Committee was that the interval should be from seven to nine. Now the proposal was that, it should be from eight to nine. He expected that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire would have said a kindly word for his own recommendations, but his attitude now proved that those who took part in the deliberations of Committees could not be depended upon when they came to talk about them in the House. He believed that two o'clock was a good time for the fleeting of the House, although he realised fully the great difficulties that would be entailed upon professional men and others. The question had been started as to how the Committees were to work under the circumstances, and he appealed to the Leader of the House to consider this point. He saw that there would be considerable difficulty in carrying on the work of Private Bill Committees upstairs if Members were liable at half past two to be called away for Government business, or to an important division. When intricate questions were being argued by counsel, it was unsatisfactory both for them and those who had to adjudicate on the case that Members of Committees should be called away to divisions. His right hon. friend said that Members could pair, but there were many occasions when they wished to record their votes. When presiding over a Committee and Members said they must go and vote or ask Questions, he had never ventured to influence them in any way whatever. They were asked why Private Bill Committees should not meet earlier. They met at eleven, but earlier was impossible if Members were in the House until one o'clock or later. He asked the Leader of the House to consider whether

  409
  it was not possible to modify the proposal just a little in order to get over the inconvenience to Members of Committees. Would it not be possible, if the House met at two o'clock, to arrange that Government business should not begin until three? There would thus be half an hour for private business and half an hour for Questions. He also suggested that Government business should be carried on to half past seven instead of a quarter past seven. If these suggestions were adopted, the arrangement would conduce to the convenience of Members, and the advantage of the business of the country.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid that, having had for many years a somewhat extra share in the Committee business of this House, he desired to say a few words on the subject under discussion. He was obliged to His Majesty's Government for attempting to ease the way in which the business of the House could he conducted; and he would take up the points at present in debate one by one. He could not imagine a more inconvenient proceeding than beginning business at two o'clock. First of all every Member had his letters to attend to, and with the increase of the number of voters in every constituency the amount of a Member's correspondence had enormously increased. Then, nothing would tend more to poor wishy-washy speeches in the House than to deprive hon. Members of those opportunities of preparing their deliverances, which they would not have if they had to go down to Committees at 11 o'clock and afterwards to sit in the House till 12 or one o'clock next morning. And all this was to be done without Wednesday as a resting day! As regarded Private Bill Committees, he confessed that when a division of considerable importance was coming on before the House, it was very difficult to induce the Members of these Committees to attend steadily to their work. If they went down to the House to vote it was almost impossible to get them quickly together again. Even if they did come back as soon as possible it involved never less than the loss of 20 minutes. He had sat on many Committees before which 12 and 14
  410
  Counsel were engaged at high fees, but when the Members of Committees left the room to go down stairs to vote, business was interrupted and Bills which ought to have gone through in a day were often carried over two or three days, to the great expense of both promoters and opponents of the measure. Owing to the hurry of the times and the increasing numbers of engagements which hon. Members had and the necessity of getting through the business of the House, Grand Committees were created. Now of all the institutions of the House he most disliked Grand Committees. The Private Bill Committee was an institution belonging to Parliament; it was a Committee of its Members to examine private Bills judicially, but a Grand Committee was a Select Committee composed of those in favour of the measure and those against it and they merely sat as partisans not as judges. If they were going to force more business on Grand Committees, there would be more trouble with the Private Bill Committees. Again, Members of Select Committees were not obliged to attend all its meetings, and they would prefer to go down to the House when important business was before it. He was sure that, if the business of the House were to be well done, instead of decreasing the time before the House met it should be increased.
  Then, it they were going to have a full dinner hour emptying the House, what was to become of the dinner hour speeches? At present the dinner hour was the only chance of a good number of the junior Members giving voice to their views, and getting them reported. Moreover, if hon. Members went home to dinner they would not come back in such weather as we have had lately, and the House would be badly attended. In regard to Fridays and Wednesdays he entirely agreed with his two right hon. friends below him. In this they were going to work Members on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays for Government business, and he was very sure that on Thursday night there would be a very poor attendance, and also perhaps on the Monday night. The debating and listening power of the House would likewise be greatly les-

  411
  sened. This Amendment had been brought in with the best possible intentions, but he trusted that the head of His Majesty's Government would think more seriously about the effect it would have on the working powers of the House, and the ability of Members to discharge their duties, especially as regards Select Committees, and those on private Bills.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that the House found itself face to face with the fact that there was a contest for the time of the House between the Government and private Members. The scheme of these Rules recognised that there were favourable and unfavourable times for debate; and that there were subjects of greater and less importance to be debated. The present system lent itself too much to enable certain Members to take up the time of the House with the less important subjects at the most favourable times in order to gain notoriety. A definite adjournment for dinner would save the House from the undignified failure to keep a quorum, and from unexpected divisions being taken which did not reflect the real opinion of the House. He did not believe that private Members motions would suffer under the proposed new Rule; in fact, he thought that the Rule would be a benefit rather to private Members. The most serious part was the private Bill legislation, but he thought they would find that any evils which arose would work their own cure. Some hon. Members seem to think that the Standing Committee was a sort of Paradise for their particular proposals, and he did not think that they would show the same anxiety to seek opportunities of getting their Bills before Standing Committees if they found that owing to this probable overloading of Standing Committees their Bills never found their way downstairs again. There were many grave difficulties in the way, and he was glad that the Government proposed to relegate the questions to a Committee to consider it in all its possible bearings. After all, he did not think the change from public business at 3.30 to 2.30 was a very serious step, for there were provincial as well as
  412
  metropolitan business men who were entitled to be considered. He would not, discuss the question of Wednesday and Friday at present, but as regarded the convenience of the metropolitan business men, he did not think that ought to be taken so much into account. He supported this Resolution with a reservation, as to the proposal to substitute Friday for Wednesday, although he did not share the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean as to the dreadful things which would happen if these rules were passed.
  MR. BROADHURST: thought it was not at all creditable to His Majesty's Government that while they were discussing the very central part of this new system there was only present one representative of the Government and there was not a single Cabinet Minister present. They appeared to have abandoned all interest in the Rules, and perhaps they had retired to an early dinner. He was not at all sure that he would not be justified in moving the adjournment of the debate in order that some Member of the Government should be induced to attend. [AN HON. MEMBER: Move it.] He scarcely felt justified in moving the adjournment, although he thought he had ample grounds for calling attention to this contempt and indifference for the progress of this great sessional measure. He was not at all depreciating the importance of his hon. friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board, who was present as the representative of the Government.
  With regard to the proposed change from Wednesday to Friday, he regarded it as the most important and the most sensible part of the whole Rules. Much as he disliked the new Rules, he would vote for many of them in return for the Wednesday change. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had been informed that the Government were likely to be beaten in the division upon this question of. Wednesday, but they should not be beaten if he could help it. He would whip up and canvass and do his utmost to secure the right hon. Gentleman a majority upon this question. [AN HON. MEMBER: Why?] Because he believed that it was a sensible change. It would accord general convenience to the greatest

  413
  number of hon. Members of the House, and he believed it would act largely to the interests of the public service. As a rule hon. Members did not attend now in large numbers until about five o'clock, and so they had an enormous length of absence from the House, which they did not seem to have acknowledged in the debate. Under the change, all hon. Members would have more chance of leisure. A great deal had been said about this being a week-end convenience. In his opinion the week-ends were an enormous convenience to poor hon. Members of this House, who had not palaces at their disposal within a few miles of the House of Commons. He had a week-end every week, but he did not take it so much for pleasure as for economy, It was cheaper for him to take his week-end at his own cottage than to remain in an expensive place like London, and that was why he considered that the change would be good for all parties, and would be more economical for the poorer hon. Members of the House.
  To those who lived in London the advantage would not be so considerable, but they had also to consider the class of men to whom the right hon. Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield referred just now. What about a great number of the hon. Members of the House who leave their businesses for five days in the week in charge of managers, and neglect their businesses as far as their personal superintendence was concerned, and who at present could not return until midday on Saturdays? That class of men had a right to be considered in the rearrangement of the machinery of the House of Commons. He regretted that any inconvenience would be caused to his professional friends, and he knew what a great deprivation this change would be to them. But even they had their consolation, which was very considerable and substantial, and many other hon. Members would like to suffer the same deprivation with the same result. He thought hon. Members would be able to get on with the business for the extra hour in the afternoon, while the professional class were pursuing their daily avocation for their own sustenance and profit.
  414
  There was another reason why it would be an advantage. Thursday was generally looked upon as the most important day of the week, and it was the best Government day of the week. Under the new system, Supply would be taken on Thursday instead of Friday. They had been voting between £130,000,000 and £160,000,000 a year during the last two or three sessions, and the greater part of this money had been voted on a Friday, but under these new Rules it would be voted on the best day in the week, when a larger number of right hon. Members would be in attendance. Surely the expenditure of these vast sums of money should be the principal consideration of the House. If the new Rule relegated that great expenditure to the principal day of the week, it would be doing a great public service to the consideration of the finances of the country, and they would have much better debates. It was well known that under present conditions a large number of hon. Members left London on Friday mornings, and vast sums of money were consequently voted in a very thin House. He considered that the change from Wednesday to Friday would prove the most serviceable of any of the new Rules which the right hon. Gentleman had proposed.
  With regard to the dinner hour, he entirely disagreed with the Government, and he had put down an Amendment. He believed that the dinner hour would be mainly a waste of time. He was a Member of the House when morning sittings were invented and first applied, and he could safely say that they were dismal failures. One of the greatest difficulties at the evening sittings was to secure a sufficient number of hon. Members to make up a quorum of 40, and it was the custom on such occasions to look from a great distance to see if there was a light in the Tower to know whether there had been a count out or not. When the House met it lingered on until 10 or 10.30. There was no efficiency in the House of Commons on the day of the morning sitting between 9 and 11.30, yet the right hon. Gentlemen proposed to cut into two parts what otherwise would be a useful legislative day. Nobody ever came down to these evening sittings unless they were inter-

  415
  ested in the subject under consideration. The adjournment at 7 o'clock was very useful to those who lived within a two mile radius of the House, but to the working Members it was a delusion and a snare; it was an hour or two thrown away, and only tempted them to spend what they could ill afford.
  Another subject he wished to allude to was the 1 o'clock in the morning arrangement. He did not know whether a frequent continuation of the sitting to 1 o'clock was contemplated, but his opinion was that if they sat an hour earlier they ought to adjourn an hour earlier, and on that question he should divide the House. To do good work one must be in good health and in a good state of preservation, which could not be the case if the sittings were continued after midnight. He did not know whether Mr. Speaker would be able to put the Question in such a way that hon. Members could vote on the Wednesday and Friday question, apart from the other portions of the Rule, or whether the Rule would have to be put as a whole. If it was put as a whole, he should vote against it, but if it was divided so that the change of Wednesday to Friday could be voted upon, he should vote for the change. But the whole discussion had shown the wisdom of the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition in favour of a Committee being appointed to consider the whole of the Rules. They ought to consider the whole scheme of Parliamentary work which was necessitated by new developments and by modern requirements, which were not experienced in years past. If these alterations were made they would have to pass a measure for the payment of Members, otherwise the representation in Parliament would be restricted to wealthy men only, and in order to bring Parliament up to date there would have to be further Amendments in the Rules in a very few years. For these reasons, he wished the Leader of the House had consented to relegate the whole subject to a Committee of experienced Members, so that the House might be advised upon the whole question.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid the hon. Member who had
  416
  just sat down had complained of the expense which would be entailed on certain Members by the adjournment from 8 to 9 o'clock; but there was no obligation for those Members to leave the House, where a cheap and excellent feed was provided if people wished to remain, and they had every convenience in the precincts of the House after dinner. A great fear had been expressed that business and professional men would be inconvenienced by the new rules, and, as all classes were expressing their opinion on this matter, he would like to put in a word for another deserving class. There were many simple country gentlemen who would like to go to their homes in the country from Friday to Monday, and attend to the business from which they had been withdrawn for the rest of the week. They had no particular anxiety, they did not ask anything from the Government, and were only anxious to support the Government because they had confidence in it. To that class of men this alteration would be of the greatest possible advantage, as it would enable them to leave London on Friday afternoon for their homes, where they could remain until Monday afternoon. It must be remembered that their domestic occupations were of some importance to them, and their only object in coming to Parliament at all was, because they thought their doing so would benefit their constituents. As he believed the proposal now before the House would be of great advantage to that deserving class of Members, he should support it.
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that as junior Whip he felt that these Rules, so far as they affected private or unofficial Members' legislation, would not work satisfactorily. Bills would not be dealt with satisfactorily, Small Bills, which the House might think it desirable to oppose, would not be stopped from passing, while others which the House might like to see passed would be hotly opposed. It would be almost impossible to bring Members up to the House to discuss private Bills on a Friday, and therefore, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this question.

  417
  If the right hon. Gentleman adhered to the Friday being given up to a morning sitting, he would ask him whether he could not see his way to allowing unofficial Members to have Wednesday instead of Friday and that the Government should take the morning sitting on Friday for Government business. If the Government took the morning sitting he was satisfied that Membres would come down to the House without any great strain being put upon the Whips. Unless the suggestion which had been made with regard to important Questions being put down at the commencement of the sitting on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, was carried out, Members, in his opinion, would lose the very great power they had at the present time of moving the adjournment of the House on matters of urgent public importance. As matters stood at present, these motions were usually made on account of unsatisfactory answers being given by Ministers. In that way unofficial Members would retain this power and privilege which in the past had never been abused. During the last 19 sessions the average number of Motions for adjournment were six per session, the greatest number for one session being 20, the least number being two. In the last seven sessions the average number has been five per session. It could not be contended therefore that this privilege had been abused in the past, and the House ought not to allow it to be taken away.
  SIR W. HART DYKEsaid there was one important matter he would like to mention. His right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury had promised that a Committee should be appointed to consider the arrangements for Private Bill Committees, but in his opinion, whatever the ability of the Committee might be, it could not by any possibility prolong the time to be allocated to Private Bill Committees on any day, and it might result in the fact that their decision might seriously upset the proposals now before the House, by either breaking into the time of the Government, on the one hand, or the time of private business on the other.
  418
  Whilst in the main in favour of the proposal of the sitting commencing and ending at given hours, he did not agree with the time at which it was proposed to commence. Moreover, he believed the arrangement would ultimately prove to be to the disadvantage rather than the advantage of the Government business, as a definite hour for the conclusion of business always afforded greater facilities and temptation for obstruction. The scheme, however, was an experiment, and it ought to have a fair trial, because it was essentially a business proposal in itself. The proposed arrangement with regard to Questions to Ministers would cause a difficulty in reference to Private Bill Committees. The only way out of the dilemma to which he had referred would be to grant a longer time than at present proposed for the asking of Questions. He thoroughly agreed with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Norwich, that a good half-hour should be given. Whether the Questions remaining over should be dealt with by being printed with the answers in the Votes next day, or whether there should be a small Committee of the House to sift Questions, in the same way as there was a Committee to deal with petitions—whatever scheme was adopted—that would take them more than half-way out of the dilemma, by causing the public business to commence at 3 o'clock instead of 2.30. The Private Bill business was of vital importance to the constituencies, involving as it did the spending of millions of money. It needed no Committee of Inquiry to declare that it was impossible for these Committees to sit for any length of time coincidently with the sitting of the House. As illustrating the absurdity of the position, in which Private Bill Committees might be placed, he would remind the House of what had happened and would very likely happen again. Take the case of a Committee with a large group of Bilk to deal with. One of the measures might have passed the Committee, and be down for Third Reading, with the result that the Chairman might be dragged from the Chair while counsel was addressing him on another Bill, in order to be in the House to defend the Third Reading of that measure. Numerous

  419
  other instances might be quoted, and he earnestly begged the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider whether it would not be worth while to remodel his proposal with regard to questions in the direction which had been indicated.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend has gone into the subject of Questions, which I think is not absolutely germane to our present discussion.
  *SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEpointed out that he advocated a longer period being given to Questions at the commencement of the sitting, in order to relieve the Private Bill Committees.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must be excused at the present stage going into that no doubt very difficult portion of the whole matter. My right hon. friend threw out the suggestion that there should be a Committee of this House to sift the Questions. I believe there is a suggestion of that kind by another hon. Member on the Paper, and if any scheme of that sort could be devised that would be acceptable to the House, it would be a great advantage.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he had heard only one speech seriously addressed to the House against the proposed Wednesday and Friday change, and that was by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton. The first argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that Members would find it difficult to fulfil their social and political engagements if the change were made. Why should they find it difficult? Surely they might arrange for their social and political engagements on Fridays as well as on Wednesdays. The second argument of the right hon. Gentlemen was that if the change were made Members would not attend on the Friday, and if they could keep away on the Friday, they would not come on the Thursday. But it was not the duty of the House to take Members into custody in order to bring them to its deliberations. If Members liked to stay away, let them do so, and settle the matter with their constituents. There had been a
  420
  great deal of humbug in the debate. He had always understood that Gentlemen in the position of the First Lord considered the best Members of the Party were those who never spoke, never opposed the Government, stayed away as much as possible and always paired with a Member on the Opposition side of the House. One of the junior Liberal Whips had stated that this rule was entirely against private Members, but in that he was altogether mistaken. About twelve years ago, when Mr. W. H. Smith took the time of the House to make some changes in the rules, he himself put down an Amendment to the same effect as the present proposal. Mr. Smith approved of it, and said he would vote for it. When the day came to move it, however, he had changed his mind, and gave as his reason that the Whips objected to it, because it would be so enormously to the advantage of private Members and so harmful to the Government. That showed that even junior Whips might totally disagree as to the effect of a particular Motion. In fact, the proposal was so much to the advantage of private Members, that he was rather surprised the First Lord was in favour of it. The right hon. Gentleman probably considered that the private Bills would have no more practical effect than the abstract Resolutions which were moved —that the Bills would not go on further —and in all probability in a short time that would be the general view.
  Then, objection had been urged to the House meeting at two o'clock. Personally, he did not care whether it met at two, one, or twelve o'clock, but they were always told that the lawyers and business men would not be able to attend. He respected the lawyers too much to say there were too many of them in the House, but Members might depend upon it that, with the number of positions open to lawyers, there would always be enough lawyers in the House, whatever rules were adopted. As for the business men, those who lived in London had an advantage over those from the provinces, inasmuch as they were able to give, at any rate, a portion of their time every day to business affairs. Doubtless the House would be told what an enormous advantage it was to have these business men, and they would be warned against the professional politician. But experience had led him rather to

  421
  doubt the advantage of having business men. Business men were uncommonly sharp, and generally had an axe of their own to grind. If a constituency selected a politician as its representative, he would probably represent it, whereas a business man would be popping in and out, looking more after his own concerns than those of the constituency.
  His objection to the Rule was that the right hon. Gentleman had not been quite fair in the allocation of the time. The Government took four days in the week, and secured perfect certainty in regard to its business at the expense of private Members. Government business was to occupy the morning sitting, controversial private Bills being thrown over to nine o'clock. As the House knew, private business, particularly with regard to London Bills, frequently went on for two or three hours, so that a Member who by ballot had secured the day for a Motion might find himself unable to bring on his Resolution at all. The right hon. Gentleman had denied that Motions for adjournment were Government business. He might as well say that speeches delivered by the Opposition on a Government Bill were not Government business, because it was not the business of the Government to oppose its own Bill. The adjournment was usually moved because the Government had done something it ought not to have done, or had left undone something it ought to have done, and it was certainly not, in the ordinary sense of the word, the private business of private Members. The Tuesday Motions of private Members were most useful. The old process was that an opinion was created in the country on some particular matter. When that opinion acquired a certain force, a Motion on the subject was brought forward in the House, and generally lost again and again. But the number in favour of the Motion would gradually increase, until the matter was brought within the range of practical politics, and finally adopted by the Government of the day. It was really rather hard on private Members that they should not have even one safe day, while the Government insisted on four. If the Right hon. Gentleman would only make such a concession that private Members had
  422
  one safe day—they did not ask it for all the session, but, say, to Whitsuntide—he did not believe there would be any strong opposition to the rest of the Rule, but it was necessary the right hon. Gentleman should remember that the sole business of the House of Commons was not to pass measures proposed by the Government, but that it had also to be, to a large extent, a place of discussion, and a safety valve for the whole country.
  COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid that, generally speaking, he thought the new rules were very well adapted to the more rapid despatch of business, but there were one or two points of detail on which he differed from the First Lord. It was of vital importance that the time of the sittings of Grand Committees, and Committees on Private Bills, should be made to fit in with the time at which public business in the House itself was to commence.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURreminded the hon. Member that by a later Amendment it was provided that the Grand Committees should not sit later than 2.30, before which time no public business would be taken in the House.
  COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid that was quite satisfactory as far as it went, but it did not meet the point with regard to Private Bill Committees, which, perhaps, was more important. With regard to the Wednesday to Friday change, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would keep an open mind, and ultimately alter his view. At present, Wednesday came as a rest, with two heavy days before and two heavy days after it. That rest was of great importance to many people. It would be a great strain to go on for two nights in succession until 1 o'clock; but to sit for four nights in succession would be almost unbearable if Members did their duty. Moreover, the Rule would fall with great severity on the officials of the House, who, unlike Members, were not able to pair, but had to be in attendance right through the sitting. Another point was that business would probably go on well

  423
  enough until the end of the morning sitting on Thursday, but the evening sitting of that day would be in peril. Human nature was human nature even in Members of Parliament, and Members, instead of going away by the 6 or 7 o'clock train on Friday, would go by the corresponding train on Thursday. The Parliamentary week, then, instead of being four and a half days as at present, would be only three and a half, and the public life of the country would sustain a great injury.
  MR. J. NOLANsaid that many new Members served their apprenticeship, as it were, by addressing the House during the dinner hour. Modest and retiring Members, like himself, felt more at home in addressing a few Members than they would be with a sea of faces around them, and, taking all things into consideration, he thought the balance of opinion would be in favour of letting things remain as they were. An hon. Member on the Ministerial side of the House had offered a plea in favour of English county gentlemen when speaking of the advisability of the proposed change in regard to the Wednesday sitting. He should have been glad if the hon. Member had remembered that there were Irish and Scotch county gentlemen who might also be taken into account. To Irish and Scotch Members the change would have no advantage whatever, because in order to avail themselves of the week-end holiday at home they would have to travel something like a thousand miles in going and returning. The Leader of the House had told them that the new Rules had been framed without taking the Irish Members specially into account. On that matter he might say, like the gentlemen beyond the Tweed, "I ha'e ma doots," at least, so far as the punitive part of the business was concerned. In introducing the Rules, the Leader of the House stated that Members on both sides were invited to consider them in no Party light, but with the view of settling the question in an amicable way. He looked in vain for proof of the genuineness of that invitation. It was true that hon. and right hon. gentlemen opposite
  424
  had stated their views manfully without regard to the views expressed from the Treasury Bench. Some of them had gone further and recorded their votes against the proposals of the Government, but he had noticed that at each division, up to the present time, the Government Whips were the tellers in favour of the proposals It required no small amount of moral courage for the followers of the Government to run the gauntlet of the Whips, and vote in opposition to the proposals. He thought it would be well in future divisions to allow non-official tellers to take the place of the Government Whips so that there might be a chance of getting at the honest convictions of Members on both sides of the House. (8.8.)
  MR. FLYNNsaid it appeared to him after listening to the debate that this Rule was an illustration of how far wrong the Government and the House were going in dealing with the congestion of public business. This Rule, so far as he could see, seemed to unsettle everything and settle nothing. It disarranged the whole department of Parliamentary work known as Questions; it upset the arrangements with regard to adjournments of the House; it left important Private Bill Committees in a nebulous condition, and was a mere groping in the dark by a Minister who would not acknowledge the difficulties of the position. With the change of Wednesday to Friday he was not concerned. It might be a good thing for English Members who lived in the country and could get to their homes and have a full week-end in which to recuperate, but so far as he and many who sat with him were concerned, they were too far away from home to take advantage of it. But would anybody contend that twenty-five minutes would be sufficient time to deal with Private Bills sent down from a Committee? Certainly not, and no Committee which was to be appointed to deal with Private Bill procedure would alter matters until there was devolution both with regard to Private Bill business and other far more important business. He would not go into the subject of Questions at length, but would only say that the

  425
  attempt which was being made by the Government to relegate that important branch of Parliamentary inquiry to the fag-end of a tiring sitting was little less than a scandal. What ground was there for supposing that Questions would come on at 7.15? A division might be taken and business interrupted with constant divisions, with the result that Questions might not be reached until nearly 8 o'clock, and that most important branch of Parliamentary work would be relegated till after midnight. That would be a very disappointing result of the Rules which were alluded to a few months since with so much triumph. They were told that the House was to meet from Monday to Friday at two for a morning sitting and at nine for an evening sitting; the Rule on that point did not appear to be quite grammatical. Was there to be one sitting prolonged into the other, or were there to be two sittings? Whichever it was, it gave no rest to the active Members of the House, because Members who had Questions to put—and some of the most important questions of policy were put at Question time, and information extracted which would take hours to obtain by way of debate—would have to remain till eight at night. The hon. Member who looked on the House of Commons as a club would get away at 7.15, but those who took an interest in the affairs of Parliament generally would have to wait till eight, and would not be able to get dinner then, because between that and nine would give no time. The practical interest in the House would disappear from 7.15 to ten or eleven, and the result would be that they would not do half the business. There had been no case made out for the Rule. It would upset everything; nobody would be able to know what was going to occur, and then what would become of the dignity of the House? The whole thing would be higgledy-piggledy, each branch of Parliamentary business trying to get its fragment of time, and instead of having a condition of things where there would be some certainty about the business of this House, with the exception of a few hours devoted to Government business there would be no certainty as to the order in which the business of the House would be taken.
  426
  He approved of the early hours of sitting, but he would suggest that they should have a practical three o'clock sitting when they should at once take Questions, then proceed with the business of the House in the proper way, and have an hour for dinner. There was no abuse of the Motions to adjourn the House, and when they had occurred they had taken very little time. In his opinion the whole thing was an ill-considered attempt to deal with a condition of things which no tinkering at the Rules of the House would ever satisfactorily deal with. The situation would have to be dealt with in another manner. Looking at the Government proposals as a whole, he could find little to commend them to the House except the change of Wednesday to Friday. He would have much to say later on on the important subject of Questions, but at the present moment he would only say that it appeared to him that these rules, as a whole, put a premium on idleness, and encouraged Members in a system of giving as little time as they could to their Parliamentary duties, and encouraged them to look on Parliament more as a glorified club than as a deliberating and legislative Assembly.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid he differed entirely from the hon. Gentleman opposite as to the effect of the rules they were now considering. He just desired to draw attention to one or two points not yet raised, but before doing so he would apply to his hon. friend representing the Government not to withstand the appeal which had been made to him not to make tins a Government division. He supported that appeal, because he believed however strong the arguments were in favour of making it a Government division, equally strong arguments could be urged in the other direction. For his part, he thought that the Rules of the House were essentially for the House itself to deal with. He was aware that in this matter the Government were following the example set them by Mr. Gladstone, than whom there was no better Parliamentarian ever lived, and he was quite ready to offer the Government whatever support he could in following the example of so great a man. This rule provided for an adjournment during

  427
  the dinner hour. He was one of those who had a right to complain of this because upon the four or five occasions upon which he had addressed the House he had been confined to the dinner hour. He was bound to admit that while they could not get any alteration in the rules without sacrificing something, he thought that the least valuable time of the House was the dinner hour, and he thought they might very well dispense with it.
  With regard to the question of Wednesday being substituted for Friday, a great many of his hon. friends viewed such a change with suspicion, for they feared that it might be the means of revolutionary measures being passed. He remembered that last session there was a Bill down for the Wednesday during the Ascot meeting, a function which was attended by a great many hon. Members. The first Bill down on that day related to the education of children in Scotland, and the second was the Sparks Bill, in charge of the present Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. Two or three of his hon. friends and himself who were interested in the Sparks Bill found plenty of time to discuss adequately the Bill dealing with the education of children in Scotland, and although they challenged no division on the Second Reading of that measure he was bound to admit that they occupied a good deal of the time of the House, explaining the important provisions of that measure dealing with education in Scotland. Personally, he thought their fears would be misplaced, because, in his opinion, what ever rules might be framed for the conduct of business, it would be impossible to stifle free discussion and the ventilation of any subject which might come before the House. So long as they had that safeguard it appeared to him to matter very little whether they changed Wednesdays into Fridays or Fridays into Wednesdays. At the same time, he thought that if the Wednesday under the new Rule was to be a full sitting from 2 o'clock until midnight, and even later, a very severe physical strain would be put upon the officials of the House, and particularly upon Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker's duties were very onerous and arduous, for while other hon. Members were able to retire from the House for a change, Mr. Speaker had to sit there the whole time. There-
  428
  fore he thought the extra strain which would be put upon the officials of the House should be carefully considered. He desired to join with the hon. Baronet the Member for Norwich in his request that, instead of unopposed private business coming on at 2 o'clock, it should be postponed until 9 o'clock, and the interval between quarter past two and 3 o'clock should be devoted to the most important Questions down on the Paper. He was aware that great difficulty would be experienced in selecting the Questions to be answered during that three quarters of an hour, but he hoped that the First Lord of the Treasury would resist the suggestion that a Committee should be appointed to settle this difficulty. He could not imagine a more ungrateful or difficult task than for a Committee to decide which were the most important Questions on the Paper, for what one Member might consider important, another hon. Member would consider unimportant. Therefore he did not think such a suggestion ought to meet with favour from the House.
  As to allowing Committees on private Bills to sit after the House had commenced its business, he desired to say a word or two. It was said that Select Committees on private Bills now sat from 11.30 to 4 o'clock. He had discovered an extraordinary Standing Order which appeared to have entirely passed into disuse. He alluded to Standing Order 76, which referred to private Bills, and which instructed the Serjeant-at-Arms when the House was going to prayers, to give hon. Members notice of Committees which were sitting. He submitted that there was a very grave objection to allowing Select Committees to sit for any lengthened period after the House had commenced its labours. If hon. Members serving on private Bills had to come down to this House to attend divisions, the work could not be done effectively. The House should realise that under the rule enabling them to meet at 2 o'clock a very serious alteration would be necessary in the method by which private Bills were conducted, and he doubted very much whether they would be able to

  429
  get the Select Committee to sit any sooner than they did now, while hon. Members were detained at the House until 12 o'clock, and sometimes till a later hour. The case was infinitely stronger with regard to Grand Committees. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire asked at what hour did they propose to allow Grand Committees to sit. He believed that they could sit at whatever hour they decided, and it depended to a great extent upon the rapidity with which the Minister interested was anxious for the Bill to get through. The serious difficulty with Grand Committees was to get a quorum. He could not see how those hon. Members who took an active interest in the business before the House, and in Grand Committees upstairs, would be able to continue that work under the new arrangements, for any lengthened period. They might be able to do it at the close of the session, and in the case of non-contentious measures. Under the proposals of the Government there were going to be more and more Bills referred to Grand Committees than ever, and unless some way was found of limiting the labours of Grand Committees, it would be almost impossible for them to do their work. Those were matters of detail, but for his part he intended to support the proposals of the Government in this instance. He did hope, however, that when it came to a division upon the Wednesday or Friday question, the Government would not yield to the suggestion not to put on their own Whips, because by adhering to their Whips, they would only be following the example of Mr. Gladstone, who declared that this was the only way in which they could effect any alteration in the Standing Orders.
  MR. DILLONsaid that this was one alteration which was not directed against any particular section of the House, and which they could consider calmly. What was the ground on which it was proposed to make these changes in the time-table? He did not think the changes were calculated to substantially expedite the conduct of public business through the House. He understood that the First Lord of the Treasury did not base his
  430
  case for these Rules upon any of these considerations. He was sure that if they did not gain time by the change they would not gain inefficiency. The right hon. Gentleman based his recommendations entirely upon the convenience of hon. Members of the House, and he said his object was to make the House a more attractive place for hon. Members. He doubted whether that was a really substantial ground upon which to recommend a change of this kind. When the right hon. Gentleman talked about increasing the attractions of this House, he would ask what class of hon. Members he had in his mind? Broadly speaking there were two classes. In the first place there were the hon. Members who followed the proceedings of the House closely, and who did so under a sense of obligation to their constituencies. In the second place there was another large body of hon. Members who came down to the House from totally different motives, because they imagined it conferred certain social distinctions upon them, and their one desire from the time they took the oath, was to keep out of the House as much as they possibly could; and their one object was while retaining M. P. at the end of their names, to avoid as much as possible the tedium and boredom of this House. They took practically no interest in the proceedings, and only attended when the Whips sent for them. Were they now to be told that their procedure was to be altered without regard to the interests of the nation and the increased inefficiency of the House simply for the purpose of attracting men belonging to the second class he had mentioned? Those hon. Members to whom he alluded were not influenced by a sense of public duty. Then there were two other classes "The dinner brigade," and "The week-enders." He thought the real motive for this particular set of alterations was to be found in the difficulty which the Government Whips had experienced in inducing what he described as "the dinner brigade" to remain in the House. They had heard that certain Members of the House came there because they could get a cheap dinner and others went away because the dinner was not good enough for them. Most of the discussion was more or less of a farce in so far as it

  431
  related to the conduct of business. The whole business time-table of the House was to be altered to suit the convenience of Members and the Whips. Those were the hon. Members for whom the time-table was to be altered, and in his opinion he did not think it added to the dignity of the House and it did not strengthen the position of the House of Commons in the country that they should spend those valuable days debating alterations intended to make the House more attractive to the class of hon. Members he had described. Hon. Members had announced their horror of the professional politician, but he would ask who were the Gentlemen sitting on the Front Benches? The First Lord of the Treasury had all his life been a professional politician, and so had the Leader of the Opposition and every other right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Benches. Every man who succeeded in gaining a prominent position in this House must be a professional politician or he could not give that amount of attention which the affairs of the nation required. He did not think there was the smallest risk of the House being composed solely of professional politicians, for they were drifting entirely the other way. During the last 20 years the tendency had been in a totally different direction, and instead of having more men like John Bright and Richard Cobden the House had been swamped largely with hon. Member who regarded public affairs with contempt and who came to the House simply on account of social distinction and amusement and simply to increase their own personal importance. Therefore this danger of the House passing under the control of professional politicians was absolutely groundless.
  He did not think a sufficient case had been made out for this change. It was proposed to increase their labour one hour per day by meeting at two o'clock, but the strain which this would involve in the case of working Members would not have a compensating relief in the arrangement for the dinner-hour. The dinner-hour was a mere fraud and a delusion so far as the working Members were concerned. Care must be taken not to make the work of the House intolerable. He did his share of the work on Grand Committees, and
  432
  he could state from experience that the strain on those Members who tried to do their duty from Whitsuntide on to the rising of the House, was all but intolerable. They were completely worn out by the end of the session if they attended to business. Now, it was proposed to suit the convenience of men who never worked, and increase the normal strain by imposing an additional hour on the sitting of the House. It was perfectly manifest that the adjournment from eight to nine o'clock was of no use to anybody. It meant that those who went away for dinner would remain until ten, but the working Members were to be here when the business was resumed at nine. How would this act on the business of the House? He did not agree with what had been said as to the valuelessness of the speeches made immediately after the dinner-hour. Some of the most interesting speeches he had heard had been delivered then—sometimes more interesting than those which came from the front Benches. It was the time when young Members addressed the House, men who were the salt of the House of Commons, and who then, to use a slang expression, got their sea legs. Therefore, he thought that by adopting the proposal before the House, they would do a real injury to the debates in Parliament. What would happen at nine o'clock? The dinner brigade would not be back. They would, of course, not come back till ten, because they had notice that the Government did not want them as the House could not be counted out before that hour. Between nine and ten o'clock it would be essential to the existence of the Government to prevent a division, and if the Irish Members would not do the talking, it would be necessary to have a set of men behind the Front Bench to do it. To base their rules on such a system as that, was to degrade the House of Commons, because they would be deliberately setting up a system of imposition and hypocrisy by pretending to do business when they were doing no business, but simply marking time.
  This Rule as proposed, or as modified in the course of the discussion, instead of improving would greatly worsen the

  433
  position of private Members, because, while the Government would always have certainty as to their business, private Members would be left in absolute uncertainty whether they would have any chance at all. The Leader of the House had set up the extraordinary doctrine that the business of Supply was private Members' business, or tantamount to private Members' Motions, which, of course, was absurd. He protested against the proposals brought forward year after year by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, in favour of a system of allocation. If there was such a system the Irish Party would be wiped out altogether. Under present conditions they had their chance in the ballot, but he had never heard anything more monstrous and unjust than the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, whereby all hope of the minority obtaining a hearing would be wiped out. He was opposed to the whole of the alterations now proposed. They were no calculated to expedite the business of the Government; no case had been made out for them; and the long time which must be consumed in debating them, was an absolute waste of public time.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid he hoped the Government would not be beguiled into making any graceful concessions to hon. Members on their own side of the House, with reference to their proposals concerning the substitution of Friday for Wednesday as the half holiday. That proposal, it seemed to him, would promote innocent enjoyment to hon. Members on both sides of the House. They would be able to get a quiet Saturday with their constituents, or to take part in those amusements to which they were addicted; and the only thing which hon. Members would have to give up would be the Wednesday afternoons in London. There was a very great precedent from adjourning early on Friday. Sir Erskine May recorded that Mr. Speaker Onslow complained that the great grief of his life was that he could not make a House on Friday because Sir Robert Walpole would go a-hunting on Saturdays. That was the reason, and he had not heard
  434
  any better, why he was prepared to vote for that portion of the new rules of Procedure. As to the dinner hour, he agreed very much with what fell from the hon. Member for East Mayo. He had always thought that hon. Gentlemen took themselves too seriously in the matter of dinner. What the hon. Gentleman said was perfectly true; the upshot of adjourning at half past seven o'clock for dinner, would be that hon. Members would not come back at all. They were told that lawyers, business men, and company directors, could not henceforth be useful Members of the House, because they could not attend at two o'clock. They should have thought of that before. The House might very well do without them—there were quite enough lawyers and company directors in the House as it was—and he imagined that the gaiety of the House would not be eclipsed by their absence. He was glad that the Government had thought proper to curtail, if possible, the number of Questions, and the time occupied in answering them. He knew that when he was a new Member, if there was any subject in which his constituents were interested, he said to himself: "I cannot make a speech; I cannot sit silent; I will put a Question." Taking the Rules all round, he, having been in the House for seventeen years, humbly approved of them, and so long as he was there, he would do his best to support them.
  MR. TOMKINSONappealed to the Leader of the House to allow the question of the change of day and hours to be an open one. They had special justification for that concession in the speech of the Colonial Secretary, in which he reviewed and defended the action of the Government from beginning to end. That right hon. Gentlemen had laid down the indisputable proposition that such changes should be made, if possible, for the convenience of the whole House; that the convenience of the majority must prevail, and that the minority must give way. And the right hon. Gentleman added that the convenience of the majority would be found in the votes recorded. He maintained that, unless those words were unreal, this question should be

  435
  allowed to be open, and that unless the division was absolutely free from all party lines, the decision would not express the honest opinion of the House.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid that having been ten years in the House, and a very constant attendant, he entirely supported the new rules. He did not think the Government need feel in the least disappointed by the discussion. The objections to the new rules were self-destructive. At the present moment the Government got absolutely insufficient time, while private Members had more time than they wanted. Although under the new Rules private Members would in theory have much less time than now, they would, with certainty, have as much or more time. He was not one of those who advocated that they should arrange their rules for the benefit or convenience of Members, but if they made their rules more convenient to Members they would despatch their business better. He did not see how hon. Members could be subjected to greater inconvenience than at present; and it would be far better for the Speaker, the officials of the House, and the Members generally, that the dinner should be for a definite and fixed time, and that they should have two sittings each day instead of one. As to the change from Wednesday to Friday, he was not an advocate in the least of the days being so arranged that hon. Members might take their holidays at their ease. It had been said that hon. Members would go away from Thursday to Monday to enjoy themselves; but he pointed out that Members in business could not take two clear holidays, and that there were Members who took an active part in their home affairs as members of County Councils and District Councils. They were told that they did not want to have only politicians in the House. He quite subscribed to that, but against that there was the advantage of these people going away if they wished. There was only one serious point, and that was the question of the Committees. He fully agreed that they should not curtail the hours the Committees sat, and also that a
  436
  Member hould not be required to sit on a Committee when the House was sitting. But if Standing Committees met at eleven and sat till 2.30 they would sit for half an hour longer than they sat at present, and they would not sit when important business was being transacted in this House. Private Bill Committees sat now until long after the meeting of the House, and he saw no reason why they should not continue to do so. He supported in the main the proposals of the Government.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSexpressed the opinion that the Leader of the House had acted wisely in refusing to allow a division to take place on this question on other than Party lines. As he looked at the matter, it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman having proposed rules for, as he thought, the convenience of the House, to force them through with all his power. He did not oppose this Rule in any spirit of determined hostility, but he would like to say just a few words upon it. The change from Wednesday to Friday was opposed by many of the supporters of the Government, because they thought it was absolutely necessary when private legislation was being dealt with that there should be a representative House. When Supply was being discussed, if a Member could not be in his place he could always find another Member who would call attention to that matter which he considered of public importance. It was not a question, then, of how many Members were in the House, but whether a particular point was raised; but when a private Bill was being dealt with, then it was a matter of counting hands in the lobby. He had some little delicacy in dealing with the question of the 2 o'clock sitting, owing to the fact that that hour of meeting was so extremely inconvenient to himself. He thought, however, that the hour between two and three was eminently a business hour for the discussion of business questions, though there was no doubt it was very inconvenient. The hon. Member for Northampton said that business men came down to the House with axes to grind, but in his opinion a business man would be a perfect fool to come down to the House with the idea of making

  437
  money there. He did not think such a reflection upon business men was justified. The point which he did not think the House quite realised was that the House met when its Committees met, and the Committees sat at 11.30 o'clock. He would ask the House to consider whether a 2 o'clock sitting had not the serious disadvantage that Members would be detained upstairs upon important Private Bills, which they could not leave, when they ought to be taking part in the deliberations of the House. He quite recognised that the right hon. Gentleman had dealt very fairly by the House in the allocation of opposed Private Bills to the evening sitting, but there was a serious danger in taking opposed Private Bills at 9 o'clock. All through these Rules there seemed to be a tendency to place opposed private business down for a time when there would be a disposition on the part of a large number of Members to withdraw from the debate. He had seen Railway Bills, which some of them thought proper to be passed, hotly opposed, whilst County Council and other Bills which they thought should be opposed had passed in consequence of this tendency. Was 9 o'clock the time of night when it was to the interest of the House to see such business undertaken? He appealed to his right hon. friend to consider the argument of the Member for Norwich, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and Members of his own Party, who had impressed upon him the importance that the early business of the House should not be of a controversial character necessitating Members being in their places at 2 o'clock. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would do well to consider whether he was not able to meet those who were his most ardent supporters. If he could show some consideration in this matter to Members of his own side, the right hon. Gentleman would find the passage of the Rules through the House would be much eased, and if some alteration could be made in the new Rule which automatically referred to Grand Committee Bills taken in the House on Friday, the opposition to the change from Wednesday to Friday would be much lessened. In the matter
  438
  of this change he was not biased, because if made it would be infinitely to his own convenience, but he was frightened—and he was not the only one who was frightened—at the alterations the right hon. Gentleman was making, and he urged him to relieve hon. Members of their fears in that matter.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I venture to make an appeal at this stage. I do not want to unduly press the House in this matter, but every argument that can possibly be adduced for and against the Rule has been used over and over again, and every argument will find its proper place at a later stage when the Amendments to the Rule come to be considered. I therefore desire to impress upon the House the propriety of coming to a decision without further delay on the question before it.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid he did not want the week-end spoken of by the first Lord. He could not go hunting or golfing. He had to do his duty to his constituency, and he protested against the changes proposed to be made. The right hon. Gentleman had appealed to the House in this matter, but he had hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have shown some consideration for Members like himself upon whom the Rule would so hardly press. With regard to the change from Wednesday to Friday, Members in his position viewed with alarm any such change. They naturally desired to be constant in their attendance. When they were elected they understood that on Wednesday when the House was sitting they had a chance of recuperating their waning energies. But under the Rule proposed by the right hon. Gentleman Friday was going to be substituted for Wednesday, with the result that there would be no break, and with the result than an hon. Member who wished to do his duty to his constituency and the House would have to come down at 11 o'clock in the morning for Committee work, and would then have to stop here until 1 o'clock on the following morning in order to get his questions asked. Consequently he viewed with alarm the proposals of the

  439
  Government, which would compel him to give his attendance for such long hours, and thought they had a right to ask the Government to consider all the Members of the House in a matter of this kind. The early rising on Wednesday was of immense advantage to hardworking Members to rest from the effects of their early attendance on Committees and at late sittings in the House.
  MR. CHAPLINappealed to his right hon. friend, as one of the oldest Members of this House, upon what he regarded as the most important of all the Rules now under consideration. It was upon the acceptance of this Rule that the larger part of the scheme of his right hon. friend depended—by far the most controversial part of it. All the Questions relating to private business, to the work of Committees, to the proposals with regard to Questions, to Motions for the adjournment of the House, almost entirely vanished if this Rule was passed, and, therefore, he wish to intervene for a few moments. He desired most emphatically to re-echo what was said by one of the Members for Birmingham, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, and by the hon. Member for St. Albans, each of whom pointed out that this Question above all other questions ought not to be treated as a Party question, and that as much freedom and liberty should be left to every hon. Member of this House as it was possible to leave. Changes in the Rules of Procedure stood upon a totally different footing to all other changes ever made by any Government of the House; those changes affected every Member of the House of Commons in their daily work in the House, and they had as much right to form their own opinion and act upon it when any change in procedure occurred as any Member sitting on the Government Bench. Indeed, when they had to consider questions of this nature, it was only because of the exceptional privileges which the Government possessed, and must necessarily possess, in having the control of the time of the House, that they moved these Rules at all. If it was not that private Members had never
  440
  been able to have an opportunity of moving Rules of their own, they would of course have had their share in making proposals for a change in procedure just as much as the Government. Therefore it was that he rather differed from his hon. friend the Member for St. Albans, and thought that questions of this nature should be left open to Members themselves to say how they should be dealt with, and if there should be a difference of opinion on this question between the Government and their supporters that ought not to be treated as disloyalty by the Government. There was another reason which ought to be borne in mind, which was that if any changes in the Rules were to be really effective they ought, as far as possible, to be Rules adopted by the general agreement of the House.
  Having said that, he would like to say one or two words on the merits of the proposals. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton had adduced arguments against the proposals of the Government as they affected private Bills, which he thought were insufficient arguments, but the answers made to those arguments by his right hon. friend did not seem to him altogether sufficient. He did not see at present how the difficulties with regard to the work of the Committees were to be got over. Great objections had been pointed out tonight so far as the Committees were concerned which, it might be, could be remedied when the Rules came to be discussed in detail, but which, in his opinion, had not been got over yet. He might say, with regard to private business, he did not now know what the proposal was; whether it was to be referred to a Private Bill Committee, or whether it was to be taken on all the evenings of the week. But there was a much more important subject, which was the question when "Questions" were going to be put.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil), on a point of order submitted that to discuss the subject of Questions was now not in order.
  *MR. SPEAKER: To a limited extent Questions can be discussed under this Motion. There are no doubt times when

  441
  they may be properly discussed in detail, but the question when they are to be taken can be discussed now.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am much obliged for your ruling Sir, upon a ruling which, I believe from my experience, to have been one of the most uncalled-for interruptions that has ever been made in this House. The right hon. Gentleman continued: With regard to the great majority of questions, he entirely agreed with the Government. In fact, he thought the proposal might go even further, and postpone some Questions altogether. But, on the other hand, there were some Questions which it was essential should be put at the commencement of public business, viz., Questions on matters of transcendental importance with regard to which there ought to be no delay. The right hon. Gentleman had himself admitted that this was a real difficulty, but that, unless the double sitting were given up altogether, he could see no way in which it could be arranged better. If that was so, much as he desired to see the great bulk of Questions postponed altogether, it would be the lesser of two evils to give up the double sitting.
  As to the question of Motions for adjournment, the right hon. Gentleman had completely recognised that they were a necessary safety valve. Nobody in the House would deny that circumstances constantly occurred, no matter where a Liberal or a Conservative Government was in power, in regard to which it was necessary that Members should have the power of moving the adjournment. If that point was conceded, the power ought to be effective. Under the present proposal that would not be the case. What was the great virtue of the power to move the adjournment? Under the existing rules, that power was always affective because, if the Motion were carried, the Government would lose a day and be placed in a position of extreme difficulty. But suppose Motions for adjournment were relegated to the evening sitting; first would come private business, then the Motion for adjournment. That Motion might be discussed for an hour or an hour and a half, and what then would be the position of the Government? The amount of time left
  442
  for the transaction of other business would be so small that the Government would say, "Let them have the adjournment; what do we care? we will go home." Under such circumstances, the weapon of Moving the adjournment would be utterly useless. Another aspect of the matter was with regard to moving the adjournment in consequence of an unsatisfactory reply to a Question. A great many Questions might not be answered until 12 o'clock. The adjournment could not be moved until next day. Meantime, down would go a blocking Motion, and it would be impossible to move the adjournment. If the Government admitted, as they had done, that the power of moving the adjournment was a great safety valve and ought to be effective, he contended the present proposals failed altogether.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Government had never contemplated the possibility of a Motion for adjournment being stopped by a blocking Motion. If it were found to be possible, they would have to provide a Rule to prevent it.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that gave away the whole case. His right hon. friend admitted that such Motions might be moved.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I do not think they could be.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Why?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Because I do not think so.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he was afraid his right hon. friend and he must agree to differ on that matter. It was quite within the bounds of possibility that an occasion would arise, at no distant date, when he would be able to give his right hon. friend a practical illustration by putting down a blocking Motion to a Motion for adjournment of which he disapproved. He was not dealing with this question from the point of view of the present Government alone. With his knowledge of and long acquaintance with his old colleagues and friends on the Treasury Bench he did not for a moment contemplate

  443
  that they would do anything of which he greatly disapproved, but no Government remained in office for ever, and a time would come when the present majority, or at all events hon. Gentlemen younger than himself, would be confronted by a Radical Government anxious to make up for lost time. It was with the greatest respect he ventured, therefore, to offer these words of counsel and warning to his hon. friends around him. Nobody in the world would be more sorry than himself to interfere with the comfort or convenience of any Member of the House, and, although he had doubts as to its expediency, he was anxious to make this concession with regard to the evening sitting. His support to the proposal will greatly depend on the answers he received from
  the Government to the questions he was about to put. What concessions were the Government prepared to make with regard to the right of asking Questions? What concessions were they prepared to make with regard to the right of Moving the adjournment at the commencement of public business? He was convinced that, in the interests of the House of Commons itself, and, above all, in accordance with the rights, privileges, and duties of private Members, some concessions on those points ought to be made.
  (10.42.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 112; Noes, 230. (Division List, No. 36.)

  AYES.

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

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Doherty, William

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

  Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud

  Hammond, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Ambrose, Robert

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Malley, William

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Harwood, George

  O'Mara, James

  Barry, E. (Cork S.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  O'Shee, James John

  Blake, Edward

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Boland, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Price, Robert John

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Rea, Russell

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Joyce, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Langley, Batty

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Burns, John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roche, John

  Caldwell, James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Runciman, Walter

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Levy, Maurice

  Russell, T. W.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Crean, Eugene

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cremer, William Randal

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.)

  M'Govern, T.

  Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N

  Dillon, John

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Tomkinson, James

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murphy, John

  Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Edwards, Frank

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

  Young, Samuel

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tip'er'ry Mid.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Lough and Mr. M'Kenna.

  Field, William

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

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arrol, Sir William

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Pryce-Jones, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Purvis, Robert

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Randles, John S.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick George

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hay, Hon Claude George

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bigwood, James

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Henderson, Alexander

  Renwick, George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Higginbottom, S W.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Bull, William James

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edwd. H.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hoult, Joseph

  Round, James

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

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Rutherford, John

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

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Chapman, Edward

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.)

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

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Keswick, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

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

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Smith, H. C. (Northmb, Tynsde.(

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesh'm

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

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

  Stanley, Edward Jas (Somerset)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stock, James Henry

  Denny, Colonel

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stroyan, John

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Tomlinson, W. Edwd. Murray

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinbro', W.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Warde, Col. C. E.

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Finch, George H.

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Webb, Col. William George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Fison, Frederick William

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Mitchell, William

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Flower, Ernest

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Forster, Henry William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell Birm.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

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

  Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Lincoln

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Parker, Gilbert

  Wodehouse, Rt Hon. E. R (Bath)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wylie, Alexander

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

  Penn, John

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

  Percy, Earl

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Gretton, John

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Groves, James Grimble

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Sir William Walrond and

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Question proposed, "That the words 'Wednesday and Thursday at Two of the clock for an Afternoon Sitting, and at Nine of the clock for an Evening Sitting; if the business appointed for an Afternoon Sitting is not disposed of at Eight of the Clock, the Sitting shall be suspended till Nine of the clock; at One of the clock at the Evening Sitting,' be there inserted."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. CHAPLINasked if the First Lord of the Treasury had any reply to the questions he had put and the appeal he had made as to whether the Government had any proposals to make with regard to concessions with reference to Questions being asked at the commencement of public business, and any concessions with regard to the moving of adjournments upon questions of great importance at the commencement of public business.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What is the question?
  MR. CHAPLINsaid his question was whether his right hon. friend had any reply to make to the appeal which he made just now as to whether the Government were prepared to make any concessions upon Questions, and also upon the question of the adjournments.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think my right hon. friend is a little premature. We have had a general discussion, in which I think most of the arguments on both sides have been put forward. We are now about to proceed to various Amendments which raise in turn the question of Wednesday and Friday and other questions connected with this Rule. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. friend will have patience until we concentrate ourselves upon the special Amendments before the House, and I do not think the Government should make any statement until the specific Amendments are raised.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he asked the question because he stated in the observations he made that his support to the proposals of the Government would depend upon the answer he received. It was perfectly competent for the First Lord of the Treasury to have made the
  448
  answer before the Question was put just now.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he hoped that the Government would not be so anxious to press for the whole of their plan, and they might perhaps allow the House itself to decide upon a matter which, to some extent, was a private Member's question, which did not form part of their general plan, and, so far as he knew, had not been a matter which had given rise to any practical difficulty in connection with their business in the past. When they arrived at the period of the session when the 12 o'clock rule was suspended, the Wednesday interval was an extremely critical thing to everybody, and more especially to the officials of the House. He hoped that, as a Conservative, he would not be considered disloyal in raising this matter. In his opinion, they ought to have very strong reasons for making such a material change in the old custom of the House. As he understood from the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury, the real advantage which the right hon. Gentleman expected from this change was that business men would be able to get away in order to transact their business on days which the Government consider were the most convenient days in the week, so far as business men were concerned. An argument put forward by the hon. Member for Tunbridge was that hon. Members would be able to get to County, District and Parish Council meetings by means of this transference of the day. It seemed to him, however, that this argument was hardly to the point, because he did not think that Saturday was the day usually devoted to the sittings of local bodies. There was something to be said for the argument in connection with Wednesday engagements, in the country. In many parts of the country Wednesday was the only evening when hon. Members could make engagements which were convenient to their constituents. It was an early closing day, and it was the evening when Members were most free from attendance in the House. It was a great convenience to have Wednesday evening free to go away from this Assembly. These were only minor points. The real issue to be considered in connection with this,

  449
  change was the effect it would have on the business of the House. It seemed to him that the Government in introducing this proposal had laid down that it was their desire to have the great legislative work of the nation done on four days of the week, and that the fifth should be given to private Members. They rather forgot what the position of private Members was at present in connection with the introduction of their Bills. The tendency was to bring forward Bills for discussion on Wednesday by the aid of groups of Members, and very often important measures were brought forward for discussion on Wednesday in the fate of which great interest was taken by the constituencies. It would be a distinct disadvantage to bring forward such Bills at the end of the week. It was not wise to remove the consideration of these Bills from the middle of the week, when they were, so to speak, under the eye of the Government, to the end of the week, when almost an encouragement was given to Members to go away. The general impression in the country was that they were ready to discuss on Friday a large number of measures which they did not believe were going further. That would in no wise add to the dignity of this Assembly. These new Rules went further than anything they had known before. By one of the new Rules, private Bills might, on mere notice being given, pass to a Standing Committee for consideration. He asked the House to consider how this would operate in the case of very debatable measures like the Eight Hours Bill or the Old Age Pensions Bill. If the Eight Hours Bill were taken on a Friday, it might pass the Second Reading, and be sent to a Grand Committee. Having been relieved from these earlier stages, the Government might take up the Bill, carry it through the report stage, and the Third Reading might be passed by a very small majority, and the Bill might eventually become law in consequence of this particular procedure. It would be very much safer in this matter to adhere to the old traditions of the House. There was another contingency which might arise if this new Rule were passed. They would find much greater difficulty than at present in getting a House for a Saturday sitting,
  450
  which was sometimes necessary. Many of them held strong opinions on the danger of this change, and thought the Government should leave them free to decide for themselves upon it. He begged to move his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out the words 'Wednesday and'."—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Wednesday' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid the reason which had led the Government to make this proposal arose out of the difficulty which was found in making a House on Friday evening. He asked the official Members how they were going to get a House on Friday, when they had told their own supporters that they might very well stay away on that day. In the main he was a supporter of the Rules proposed by the Government. He would suggest, however, that Wednesday sittings should be left as they were, while on Fridays they should have morning sittings, and also evening sittings, subject to certain conditions.
  MR. LOUGHsaid his sympathies were divided with regard to this Amendment. He agreed with the First Lord of the Treasury that the Friday sitting should be short, although his reference to the getting of fresh air on the evening of that day was a little highly pitched. At the same time, while he was with the Leader of the House in regard to Friday, he could not help feeling that the sitting on Wednesday should not be made a late sitting, and that private Bills should be taken in the middle, rather than at the end of the week. He believed as much business would be done in the House in three long and two short days, as under the present procedure, especially when they began business an hour earlier. There was no Assembly in the world which sat so many hours per week as this House.
  MR. BANBURYsaid he had been a loyal and consistent supporter of the Government, and therefore it was in no carping or hostile spirit that he ventured to support the Amendment moved by

  451
  the hon. Member for Ashford. There were several reasons which suggested themselves to him as to the disadvantages of making the alterations proposed by the new Rule. The first was that those Members who came down regularly to the House and stopped there till the adjournment, would have to sit for four consecutive days till late at night. He knew it was an advantage to Members to be able to go to bed on Wednesdays at 10 o'clock. Suppose the 12 o'clock Rule was suspended, and hon. Members were sitting on a Committee upstairs beginning at 11 in the morning, or that they had other work to do, the four consecutive late nights would be a very great hardship. As to what would happen on Friday—Thursday would be Supply night, which was not of very great interest to many Members, and the temptation would be for them to go away on Thursday morning, they would not return on Friday, and the consequence would be that Members interested in a Bill would come there on Friday, and that Bill might pass a Second Reading, leading the country to believe that the principle of the Bill had been approved of by the House. He had read every private Bill introduced for the last eight years, and he could say that he did not think that would be to the advantage of the country. While sitting four days consecutively would be a very great strain, he could not conceive what advantage would be gained except by certain Gentlemen who had business in the country, and as Saturday was a bad day for business, they would go away from Thursday to Monday, including the greater part of Monday. He ventured to assert that the House ought not to give encouragement to Members to go away for so long, when it was their duty to be there.
  Sin BRAMPTON GURDONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House ought to consider the interests of some classes of Members as well as those he had consulted. He was a farmer, and wanted to go down to look after his farm on a Friday and Saturday, and he could do that because Friday was a supply day at present. But if private Members, business was to be taken on Friday it would be quite impossible
  452
  for an agricultural Member to go away on that day, because there was always an Agricultural Bill or a Temperance Bill to be discussed. He quite agreed that having four nights running late sittings would be much too great a strain on Mr. Speaker, the Officials, and on Members, more especially those on the Treasury Benches, and that it would not at all conduce to efficiency. He hoped this matter would be left an open question at the division, since it did not concern the constituencies, but the convenience of Members and the efficiency of the House.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON, Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)said that in the course of the debate they had heard some very strange contradictions of opinion. The early part of the proceedings was occupied with the argument originated by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, who said that private Members would have no opportunity of discussing private business.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: As regards resolutions
  MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid that it might have been some other hon. Member who argued that the substitution of Friday for Wednesday as private Members' day would kill the private Member, but on the other hand others maintained that it would give undesirable facilities to the private Member to pass his Bills. He should be very sorry to think that the latter would be the case. Under the proposed Rule the private Member would have as good opportunity, and no more, of passing legislation as at present. His hon. friend the Member for Ashford division asked what was the inconvenience of an evening sitting on Friday. There must be some inconvenience because of the difficulty to get hon. Members to sit on Friday. He must confess, as being a Northern Member, that it was often inconvenient for him to sit on a Friday. If they had a high sense of duty which compelled them to be there when the House was sitting, they could not see their homes from the beginning to

  453
  the end of the Session. The Government had been asked to apply no pressure whatever upon their followers to support their proposal. But surely the Government was in the end responsible for the conduct of the business of the House. If the business did not go well, or got into confusion, it was the Government which would be found fault with and would be called to account. Earlier in the day, it was argued that there should be no break in the sitting by adjourning for dinner, because continuous sittings were so much better for business; but now it was argued that we should have a break in the week on Wednesday, because it was very good for business; but what was good in the one case, was surely good in the other. He hoped hon. Members would really think of the convenience of those who had to be continually present. It would be an immense boon to them to have at the end of the week a reasonable period of leisure. If they were going to have holidays, let them have fair and equal holidays, and not holidays which could only be enjoyed by hon. Members who could not be persuaded to attend on, Fridays at all. The Wednesday night being a full night, would, it was said, be a great strain on the officials; but the great strain would really be on the members of the Government. That surely was a matter which might be considered by the supporters of the Government.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid that the argument of his hon. friend seemed to him to be no conclusive answer to the speech of his hon. friend the Member for the Ashford division. His argument divided itself into two branches, one having reference to public business, and the other to the convenience of Members. The convenience of Members occupied the larger part of his hon. Friend's discourse, but it was possible to carry that too far, as the convenience of Members would be very elastic at the end of the week. As a very old Member of the House, he had heard for the first time that the abolition of the break in the middle of the week would be for the benefit of Members and officials. During the half century he had known the House he had always heard the very
  454
  reverse. While he had every desire to support the Government in carrying rules for making the House more efficient, and remedying certain abuses which had arisen, he did not for a moment believe that the Government were prepared to insist on every part of their proposals as obligatory on hon. Members, who, generally speaking, supported them. It was obvious that a change proposed apparently for the convenience of hon. Members should be left to hon. Members to decide; and therefore he thought they should speak for themselves. He himself did not think the rule would be for the convenience of hon. Members, and from that point of view he was certainly unfavourable to the change, but he did not think that the convenience of hon. Members was the main point to be considered. The country was not in favour of having a quantity of half-digested legislation slipping through on Fridays, and being referred to a Committee of the House, pr a Standing Committee, when many hon. Members would not be present, and when the debate would be of tessellated character, partly on the Bill and partly on the question whether it should be referred to a Committee. To a great extent Colonial Bills were placed upon the Statute Book with great ease. They were very numerous and ill digested, and many of them had to be amended or repealed, or if not, they would inflict considerable injury. Legislation, no doubt, led to many abuses being remedied, but why should they rush to the other extreme? He was opposed to that particular change, and he hoped it would be reconsidered.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A sort of instinct, which has survived a long Parliamentary career, leads me to have the utmost reluctance to repeat anything I have already said. Sometimes I am obliged to do so, but it always goes against the grain with me. Therefore, I do not propose to keep the attention of the House long, because I have already, in the initial debate, stated my view on this question. I have never heard an answer to what I then said, which was that the presumption is that a Member of Parliament is available in London. Much has been said about Members

  455
  from distant parts of the country having engagements there, and that we must adjust our business to suit their convenience; but I place against that the fact I have stated that when a man becomes a candidate and is elected to this House, it is surely the presumption that he should keep himself available if he is required. Therefore I do not attach much importance to that argument; but I do attach great importance to the argument that the change of life on Wednesday is an immense relief to the Members and officials of the House. It is enough to state that fact. I need not dwell upon it. The hon. Gentleman opposite and some other hon. Gentlemen are alarmed at the prospect of Bills slipping through on Friday which they think may be of a most dangerous kind. Some of them are dangerous and some are not, like all other sublunary affairs; but I do agree that the change would have the tendency to reduce the action of the House on the Second Reading of private Members' Bills to a very hap-hazard proceeding—it would be dependent on the state of the weather, and on the condition of the soil for certain avocations which take hon. Members to the country, and other things which ought not to interfere with or influence our proceedings. I do not think, even from the point of view of the regular and decent consideration of private Members' Bills, that Friday is at all as suitable a day as Wednesday. I am not, as I said, going to dwell on what I have already laid down, but I am going to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject, namely, that he should allow the House to judge for itself. Words have been quoted which fell from the Colonial Secretary almost implying an obligation, amounting certainly to an understanding, that such would be the case. It is in accordance with common sense. I do not go so far as to say that the whole of these Rules of Procedure should all be treated by the Government as matters beyond the ordinary restrictions which govern our divisions, but what is the case here? The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government have nothing to gain by it; that the Government do not require it; and that it is purely for the convenience and satisfaction of Members. It is sup-
  456
  posed that it will add to the attractiveness of the House, and that it turns, not on the necessity of public business, but on the convenience of Members. Let, then, Members judge. I think the right hon. Gentleman might very well make that concession. I do not know what the result would be. There would be a great deal of cross voting. I believe that my hon. friend the Member for Northampton would support the Government; and if that would not take away Party character from the division, I do not know what would. My hon. friend going into the Government Lobby would surely be compensation for the loss of almost any number of political followers. Let us decide the matter on that footing. In all matters which concern the convenience of Members, I do think we are entitled to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow Party considerations to be placed out of sight.
  MR. RENSHAW (Renfrew-shire, W.)said that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken as to the necessity of hon. Members being resident in London, and available to be called upon to discharge their duties in the House on Fridays, but he noticed that, in a previous speech of the right hon. Gentleman, when the question of the House meeting at 2 o'clock was being considered, he argued in exactly the opposite way, and urged the necessities and exigencies of business men in London, and said that it was undesirable that the House should meet at 2 o'clock. He was a business man himself, and represented a constituency in the same part of the country as the right hon. Gentleman did, and he ventured to say that the proposals of the Government would be a very great privilege and a very great boon to hon. Members representing distant constituencies. His hon. friend who moved the Amendment, ridiculed the idea that Saturday was an important day for business men, and suggested that hon. Members, who were anxious to have an opportunity of looking after their business on that day, were disguising under that pretence another object, possibly pleasure. He believed he was expressing the view of a considerable number of business men when he said that it was of the greatest importance that they should

  457
  be able to go away on Friday evening in order to be able to resume the trend of their business occupations. His hon. friend also claimed that Wednesday was a beneficial arrangement for many Members, because on Wednesday evenings the shops in many Southern constituencies were closed and public meetings were generally held, and hon. Members were able to attend to their constituencies in the neighbourhood of London. He would appeal to hon. Members to consider the case of Members representing remote constituencies. The discussion had turned on the subject of what was the best day for dealing with private Members Bills. He did not feel called upon to express an opinion upon that point, but he was prepared to support the proposal of the Government. It was more or less in the nature of an experiment, but it would show how far it was possible to carry on the scheme suggested, and for his part if it were found that it did not secure proper and sufficient attendance when private Members Bills were under discussion he should be glad to see the experiment tried of putting private Bills down on Monday instead of on Friday, but the Friday experiment should be tried first, and for this reason. He believed unless the Government had had their present large majority it would have been impossible for them to have carried on during the time they had been in office the work of supply on Friday night. He would appeal to hon. Members to bear in mind that the alternative for the proposal was that they would have to continue Supply on Friday night, and he should like to ask if a Government had only a majority of 30 would they still be able to keep up Supply on Friday night? He did not believe they would. [AN HON. MEMBER: It was done before.] He did not think that Supply had ever been taken on Friday night before the Rule which had been established by the First Lord of the Treasury had been passed. He was certain that if a Government were only supported by a small majority the business of Supply on Friday night would be absolutely unworkable. He was prepared to support the Government, who would also have the support of a large number of Members like himself.
  MR. SEELYsaid he hoped that the Government would stand to their opinion on this subject,
  458
  and would at all events try the plan of discussing private Members Bills on Fridays. He thought it would be obvious that hon. Members whose constituencies and businesses were distant from London would feel it a great convenience indeed to have that plan tried, and he thought it was a little hard on hon. Members, who were not so fortunate as to have constituencies and businesses in London and the surrounding counties, to try and prevent such a very small concession to the comfort and convenience of Members who came from a distance. He hoped, therefore, the Government would stand to their opinion, and give hon. Members that advantage. He had a higher opinion of the feeling of public duty on the part of hon. Members than some of his hon. friends, and he thought that they need not be afraid that there would be any difficulty, if objectionable measures were brought forward on Friday, in finding a sufficient number of Members to treat them as the country wished them to be treated. The change would also be a great advantage to Government business, because four consecutive days would be devoted to it. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said it would impose, a very considerable strain, but he was not at all sure that a certain amount of mental strain on Members of the Opposition would not sometimes be very conducive indeed to putting them in a proper frame of mind to carry on the business of the House. He saw no difficulty in altering the day if it were found to work badly, and he therefore hoped the Government would persist in their proposal.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid he would like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what was the character of the business which it was proposed to take on Fridays. If it were proposed that private Members' Bills should be taken, he wished to point out that under a subsequent rule those Bills would be able to be referred to a Grand Committee without any discussion.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The discussion of that rule is not in order.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid he was entitled to ask his right hon. friend what business he proposed to take on Fridays.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I am not exhausting my right in answering the question put by my hon. friend, I may say that the division which I hope we may take tonight cannot decide what business is to be taken on Friday, but it will decide whether or not there should be an evening sitting.
  MR. DILLONsaid that, practically speaking, the division would decide what business was to be taken on Friday, as it substituted Friday for Wednesday for the early morning sitting. That was really the issue which was being discussed. There never was a more gross waste of public time than to spend two hours in discussing the question. If that were not the issue, why did not the First Lord of the Treasury get up and tell them what the issue was? He listened with considerable interest to the appeal made by the hon. Member for the Thirsk Division to remember hon. Members whose homes were at a great distance from London, evidently admitting that the object of the proposal was to give those hon. Members a holiday on Friday; but what about the Irish Members? Surely if there were any hon. Members who were entitled to lean on that argument it, would be the Irish Members whose homes were at such a distance that they were obliged to cross the sea, sometimes a very rough and stormy sea, and after to travel great distances. The hon. Member drew a most lamentable picture of the father who did not see his family or his home from the beginning of the session until the first adjournment, but let the House think of the fate of the Irish Members. Although they had not the same inducements to reconcile them to that terrible fate that Members sitting on the Treasury Bench had, they had left their homes in Ireland, and some of them lived very uncomfortably in London in order to attend the House, and they never dreamt of seeing their homes or their families until the House adjourned. Yet they did not come
  460
  whining to the House in order that they might be able to get away and enjoy themselves in Ireland. In all the speeches which had been made in support of the alteration of the Rule, the same voice was manifested which underlay the whole of the present proposals. It was not the business of the country, it was not the duty which Members owed to their constituents, but the convenience of Members and the desire of Members to get away from the House of Commons for the week-end that was responsible. In the old and better days of the House of Commons such a plea would not have been listened to for a moment. When Mr. Gladstone led the House of Commons he would have covered with contempt and ridicule any rule or alteration based on such arguments as had been used. For his part, he was not in the slightest degree influenced by the arguments he had heard. If the alteration would facilitate the passing of private Members Bills, he would be rather inclined to support it, and he had no objection to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman as to referring such Bills to Grand Committees. He was not really very seriously concerned whether the change was made or not.
  It being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

  IMPRISONMENT OF MR. HAYDEN AND MR. JOHN O'DONNELL.
  On the Motion for the Adjournment,
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the House had been occupied for some eight hours in consulting the personal convenience of its Members, and he now wished to draw public attention, in the only way he could, to the detention from their Parliamentary duties by the Executive of two Members of the House, Mr.

  461
  Hayden and Mr. John O'Donnell. He had sought to bring the matter before the House as a matter of privilege, but the Ruling of the Chair had been against that. While hon. Members had been considering as to the proper time to adjourn for the weekend, two Members of the House, for discharging their duty to their constituents, were suffering on plank beds and on bread and water in those hells on earth, vile British dungeons, although they were guilty of no moral crime. He first wished to direct attention to the case of Mr. Hayden, at present in Castlebar Gaol, and who was sentenced by an improper tribunal to three weeks imprisonment. He might state that Mr. Hayden and Mr. O'Donnell were the only two Members of the House of Commons who in the whole history of Parliament, when convicted and sentenced and when their sentences were confirmed on appeal, had addressed the House amid enthusiastic cheers, and when they left the House for prison they did not leave it as convicted felons, but left it under circumstances of honour and glory. Every Irish Member would endorse up to the hilt whatever crime they had committed. Why were not those gentlemen expelled? The House dared not expel them, because they were not guilty of any moral crime. It was necessary that the British public should understand those matters, as every attempt was made to hush them up, just as every attempt was made to hush up British reverses in South Africa. Mr. Hayden was, for a speech delivered to his own constituents, accused of taking part in an unlawful assembly. No one knew better than the present occupant of the Chair, who was a most distinguished lawyer, that nothing was more difficult to define than an unlawful assembly, but two gentlemen who were not lawyers had to decide what was and what was not an unlawful assembly. It was a curious thing that those two resident magistrates were moved about like pawns on a chessboard to do the dirty work of the Government.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not the way in which any person
  462
  administering justice ought to be spoken of in this House. Moreover the hon. Member is not in order in reviewing the decision of the Court on the Motion for the adjournment.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he thought he was permitted to take this opportunity of commenting on the detention of those men from their Parliamentary duties.
  *MR. SPEAKER: They are detained under the judgment of the Court and that is an answer to any question of that kind. A judgment of the Court cannot be discussed.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked if he was permitted to state that he had no confidence in the Court.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That would be reviewing the decision of the Court.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid with great respect that it would be reviewing the action of the Executive, as the resident magistrates were really the puppets of the Executive.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is not a question of the action of the Executive. Whether the Executive is right or wrong in prosecuting, the Court must decide.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid in that case he could impugn the action of the Executive in putting into operation an unusual law to secure conviction of his hon. friends. He said without fear of contradiction that the Act of 1887 had been galvanised into life for the purpose of sending these two gentlemen into prison, and had been administered in a way in which it had never been administered since 1887. The operative clauses of that Act had been suspended, and when the First

  463
  Lord of the Treasury was Chief Secretary of Ireland, it was said that the right of public meeting would not be interfered with unless the meeting had been proclaimed.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now reviewing the decision of the Court by arguing that hon. Members had been charged with offences which they should not have been charged with.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he would make himself perfectly plain. He was justified in stating that an unusual exercise of a statute and an unconstitutional administration of a statute had been made by the Government. No prosecution had ever been instituted by the Government under the Coercion Act without a proclamation, and the reason of the proclamation was to give persons notice, that if they addressed the meeting under certain circumstances, they would be deprived by the Crown of the right under common law to be tried by a jury, and that they would be brought before an exceptional tribunal. There was a provision introduced into the Act of 1887, that if an unlawful assembly were held even outside the proclaimed area, the men who took part in it could still be prosecuted under the Act. If Carlow, for instance, was a proclaimed county, what could be easier than to hold a meeting outside the boundary, attended by Carlow men, and it was to avoid that evasion of the Act that, under certain circumstances, persons taking part in an illegal meeting should be prosecuted without proclamation. He wished to endorse every single word which Mr. Hayden
  464
  and Mr. O'Donnell had used, and he wished to tell the Chief Secretary that he would not be able by any process of law, legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, to muzzle the Irish representatives. It was a pretty object lesson that the House of Commons should have spent six hours in discussing the convenience of its Members, while two Irish Members were in dungeons. The Irish Members would defy the Government and give back blow for blow. The Chief Secretary was a pretty gentleman to send Irish Members to prison. He was a gentleman who was put specially on the South African Committee to be Rhodes' man. He had a letter in his hand showing that the Chief Secretary who was now prosecuting Irish Members and exercising exceptional powers against them, was selected by the man responsible for the Raid to go on the Committee. A letter was published in the Indépendence Belge on the 6th of January, 1889, from Mr. Hawkesly to Mr. Fairfield, who asked if the rumour were true that the Government had decided to appoint a Committee, and if so, would the views of the directors be considered in the selection of Members, in which case, he, Mr. Hawkesley, would suggest Mr. Carson, Q.C., Mr. Cripps, Q.C., and Mr. George Wyndham. Then there was a telegram from Mr. Hawkesley to Herr Beit, another distinguished patriot—
  "Have seen Burke, Wyndham and Fairfield. Am doing all possible to secure Wyndham as chartered nominee."
  Dr. Jameson was a first-class misdemeanant, and the Chief Secretary could not find anything wrong with Mr. Rhodes at all. He reserved his condemnation for the Irish Members, who had no money, as one of the right hon. Gentleman's

  465
  colleagues said a few nights ago. His hon. friends were excluded from the House, although the House did not dare to expel them; and Mr. Rutherford Harris, a gentleman up to the lips in the Raid, was actually invited to be a Member in the House.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to support my hon. friend. I am extremely glad that an opportunity has been given us—although a very inconvenient opportunity—of bringing to the attention of the House what appears to me to be one of the greatest outrages ever perpetrated, even by the Government of Ireland. In making use, as you are doing, of the Coercion Act, you are guilty of a breach of faith with this House, which never intended that the Act should be used for this purpose. It was intended, as was stated when it was recommended to the House, to deal with crime. Will any one say that these gentlemen have been guilty of any crime? Are you going to keep criminals as Members of this House? You know they are not criminals. When we comment on this action of the Government, remember that it is at the discretion of the Executive to use this statute or not, and that this is a new departure in the policy of governing Ireland—the opening of a new chapter, which is of far more serious import than hon. Members are probably aware—this using the Coercion Act against Members of this House, whose offence was only that they addressed peaceful meetings which were not proclaimed—this attempt on the part of the Government to strike down their political opponents. The Chief Secretary may shake his head,
  466
  but that is what they are doing, although they had the instructive experience of the past nine years, during which, according to the admission of the Chief Secretary the other day, crime had almost disappeared. I warn you of what the consequence will be. On whose head will the responsibility rest if our people are thrust back into courses which they had deserted? How can the Chief Secretary face this House in the future, if Ireland is disfigured with crime when he has had recourse to this horrible weapon, which had been laid aside by his predecessors for nine years, in order to shut the mouths of his political opponents? What we impeach to-night is not the gentlemen who formed the Court—that we can do again—but what I must call the momentous, the infamous step taken by the Government, who, without a shred of justification, revived this weapon. There are some of us who have risked our lives and our liberty to redeem our country from this horrid tradition of agrarian crime and outrages, and we have succeeded, and if you are going to throw back once again our people into paths in which they have not desired to tread, I say you will take upon you the greatest responsibility man ever incurred. When we impeached the action of the Government, on the Amendment to the Address, what did the right hon. Gentleman say? That there were only eleven men prosecuted—it was a small matter. He, too, I told him, entered upon a course upon which it would be difficult to turn. I told him that these things always began in that way. These gentlemen represented not themselves merely, because they were all nearly elected representatives, and what is the consequence? I Why this very day there are twenty-one

  467
  new prosecutions in Ireland. It was said that I and others were disturbing Mayo and Roscommon. It is not these counties only now—it is also Tipperary and Clare, and I tell you that when you wake up Tipperary and Clare, you had better look out for storms. These counties have for long years slept in peace, free from the stain of agrarain crime. You are going to stir them up and endeavour to drive them along that desperate path again. This no joking matter. You are opening a new chapter of Irish history, and I think the right hon. Gentleman who turns the first page will live to regret it. It is a nice performance as a prelude to the Coronation. Fifteen years ago, on the jubilee of the late Queen, we alone, were condemned to the perpetual slavery—for it is nothing else—slavery of living under this Coercion, and we are now told be a great nobleman that we shall get Home Rule when we are loyal. Fifteen years have passed. For nine of them the Coercion Act was laid aside, and if anything could teach wisdom to English statesman in the Government of Ireland, those nine years ought to have been sufficient. You have selected a period only three months before the Coronation for the revival of coercion in Ireland. Is not that an extraordinary state of affairs? Let me now quote from the judgment of one of the greatest authorities—whose name I shall presently give—in reference to recent proceedings in Ireland in connection with the prosecution of Mr. Hayden and Mr. O'Donnell. He said—
  "I hold that the charge was not for unlawful assembly, but for criminal acts over which the justices had no jurisdiction whatever, and for these reasons I am of opinion that
  468
  the convictions are entirely illegal and void, and ought to be quashed."
  These, Sir, are the words of Ireland's greatest lawyer, Chief Baron Palles. You have not only therefore revived the Coercion Act, but you have re-opened a chapter in Irish history.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I told the hon. Member it was not permissible to discuss the judgment of the Court. The hon. Member has read a judgment of one judge and has not referred to the others. The judgment was that the decision was legal, and the hon. Member cannot review that decision.
  MR. DILLON: I did not think, Sir, I was breaking your ruling in quoting Chief Baron Palles, but I will not refer to it further. I say that not only have you revived the Coercion Act, but you have also opened up a chapter in Irish history which, I fear, will be a sad one, and which I hope will not be a bloody one. You have put into prison Members of this House under a sentence which was never intended for such a purpose, and you are holding them in prison now, though you believe in your hearts and souls that the proceedings are illegal.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Surely it is not possible that the Gentlemen responsible for the government of Ireland are going to remain silent in this debate. I quite recognise that the opportunity is inconvenient, but we must take advantage of it. It will be in the recollection of the House that we asked the First Lord of the Treasury for an opportunity for the regular discussion of this matter, but we were

  469
  referred by him to the Vote on the Chief Secretary's salary. We pointed out the urgency of the matter, and asked him to put down the Vote for an early day. He disputed the urgency, and we are, therefore, forced to take advantage of this opportunity. The point we wish to make is that the Government, instead of proceeding by the means of the ordinary law, have proceeded against hon. Members by an exceptional statute. In England no man can be tried on a charge of unlawful assembly except by a jury, but in Ireland there is an exceptional law which enables the Executive to try men before a special tribunal for that offence. I can understand the Government saying that they had tried the experiment of putting these men on their trial before a jury and had found it impossible to get convictions, and that they had fallen back on the Coercion Act. They have done nothing of the kind. They passed by the ordinary law, and put these men on trial before special tribunals. These are tribunals consisting of men who are not even lawyers. They consist of gentlemen, generally promoted policemen and half-pay officers, who are appointed by the Government, and hold their office at the pleasure of the Government, and, therefore, the Government, not being able to say that the ordinary law has broken down, has chosen to send Members of this House before tribunals composed of men who are their deputies, servants, and agents. It is idle to contend that this is not an attack on political opponents. My hon. friend the Member for South Roscommon has been a Member of this House for a considerable time. My hon. friend
  470
  the Member for South Mayo has not been so long a Member, but no hon. Member would venture to assert that my hon. friend the Member for South Roscommon would be guilty of committing crime. He was not prosecuted as a criminal. If he were convicted of crime, then following every precedent you would be bound to expel him, but you do not intend to do anything of the kind. He is punished simply as a political opponent.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not justified in reflecting on the Court by saying he is punished as a political opponent—he has been punished under the law of the land, and by a competent Court.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I was wrong in using the word punished. I should have said he was prosecuted by the Executive as a political opponent. The Chief Secretary was challenged the other night to lay on the Table of this House the speech for which my hon. friend was prosecuted, but he refused. I wish it were possible for us to get every Member of the House to read that speech, as no one could spell out of it a single sentence in evidence of criminality. In these circumstances, is it not a scandal that a man prosecuted in that way before such a tribunal, and under an exceptional law should be treated in prison as a common criminal? To night these gentlemen are lying on plank beds, and are experiencing the same treatment as many of us on these Benches have experienced, as I experienced in 1888 when, for a speech delivered to my constituents, I was sent

  471
  to prison to lie on a plank bed. I was refused a book, I was refused even a slate to write on, I was refused all writing materials; I was refused permission to receive a letter, I was kept for twenty-two hours out of the twenty-four locked in my cell, I was dressed as a criminal, and was treated in every particular as an ordinary prisoner. It is perfectly disgraceful that that should be done in the case of a man convicted in this way, and prosecuted simply as a political opponent. And yet we found that special methods were adopted in order to prevent Dr. Jameson and his colleagues suffering in the same way. They were convicted in the ordinary way. The judge, who had the power if he chose, to make them first-class misdemeanants, did not do so, but the Government at once interfered, and the Royal clemency was invoked through the agency of the Home Secretary, and they were at once treated, not as common criminals, but as first-class misdemeanants, and were allowed to receive visits and provide their own food and furniture, whereas Irish Members prosecuted by the Executive as political opponents are sent to prison as ordinary criminals. That is a perfect scandal, and perhaps the greatest scandal of all is that those responsible for that policy should remain silent. I am perfectly sure that if hon. Members generally knew the facts they would insist on these men being treated as Dr. Jameson was, but it is impossible to get the House to listen to this question. I think the
  472
  House will recognise that my hon. friend the Member for South Donegal has done a good service in bringing this matter forward, even at such an hour.
  In conclusion, I would only ask the Government to give serious heed to the warning given by my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo. His was a serious speech coming from a man who has been through these coercion campaigns in the past, and from a man who has suffered from them. It is an instance of the light and careless way in which the peace and tranquillity of Ireland are considered that the gentleman responsible for the Irish Government should sit silent and not reply to that serious warning. The Chief Secretary has entered on a dangerous course. He has entered on a policy which, if carried out to its logical end, will be injurious to him and to his administration, and which will entail untold suffering and misery on Ireland. For my part, speaking with the serious intention of endeavouring to save my country from the terrible misery and trouble which must come upon her if this policy is pursued, and that is the only object I have in view. I conclude by entering my solemn protest against the course which the Government have taken, and against the contemptuous silence with which they have listened to the indictment.
  Adjourned at a quarter before One of the clock.

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 Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—
Hove, Worthing, and District Tramways.
And that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Weardale and Shildon District Water [H.L.].
Great Northern and Strand Railway [H.L.].
And that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:—
Hastings Harbour District Railway (Extension of Time) [H.L.].
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

RHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
TYNESIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAMROADS BILL [H.L.]
Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
HOVE, WORTHING, AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.

MENAI BRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
A petition of Messrs. Roberts & Company of York Mansion, Westminster, Parliamentary agents, praying for leave to present a petition of the Hon. Claud Hamilton Vivian, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No.
310
92 for presenting such petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and Standing Order No. 92 to be considered on Thursday next in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.

LONDON UNITED ELECTRIC RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.]
A petition of Messrs. Baker, Lees & Company, of 54 Parliament Street, Westminster, Parliamentary agents, praying for leave to present a petition of the Urban District Council of Barnes, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 92 for presenting such petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and Standing Order No. 92 to be considered on Thursday next in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.
CONSETT WATER BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order).
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CONCENTRATION CAMPS COMMITTEE.
  Report on the concentration camps in South Africa by the Committee of Ladies appointed by the Secretary of State for War, containing reports on the camps in Natal, the Orange River Colony, and Transvaal. Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NATIONAL DEBT.
  I. (Military Savings Banks).—Account of gross amount of all moneys received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of "The Fund for Military Savings Banks."

  II. (Savings Banks and Friendly Societies)—

  1. Account of the gross amount of all sums received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of banks for savings and friendly societies in Great Britain and Ireland, from their commencement at 6th August, 1817, to the 20th November, 1901, inclusive.

  311

  2. Account of the several transactions which have taken place, during the year ending 20th November, 1901, in the investment of all moneys which came into the hands of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt for savings banks and friendly societies.

  3. Account showing the aggregate amount of the liabilities of the Government to the trustees of savings banks and friendly societies respectively on 20th November, 1901, etc.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
  Account of receipts and disbursements in 1901, also a separate account of the capital of the said duchy to same date.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETTIONS.

  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of; of Chemist and Druggist Society in Ireland; Ulster Pharmaceutical Association of Belfast; Featherstone, Yorkshire, Purston Tradesmen's Association; Aston Lozell's and District Association; Manchester, Salford, and District Grocers' Association; Liverpool and District Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association; Wolverton and District Grocers' and Provision Merchants' Association; Bridlington Retail Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association; East Ham Tradesmen's Association; Milton Tradesmen's Association; Clackheaton Tradesmen's Association; Neath Grocers' Association; Glasgow and District Threshers' Trade Protection Asssociation; Nelson Tradesmen's Association; Prescott Shopkeepers' and Tradesmen's Association; Nottingham and District Butchers' Association; Hull Master Butchers' Association; Lurgan Grocers' Association in Ireland; Lincoln and District Association; Warrington and District Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association in Lancashire; Darwen Tradesmen's Association; Leeds and District
  312
  Retail Butchery Association; Leeds, Slaughter-house Owners' and Occupiers' Association; Leeds Butchers' Association General Body of Leeds Butchers in Meeting assembled; Glasgow Master Butchers' Union; Preston and District Grocers' Association; Newton and District Grocers' Association; Burnley Butchers' Association; Liverpool and District Chandlers' and Oil Dealers' Association; Stalybridge and District Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association; Mosley Tradesmen' s Association; Southampton Grocers' Association; Ossett Tradesmen's Association; Bury, Heywood, and District Hairdressers' Association; North-East Lancashire Chemists' Association; Kettering and District Grocers', Tea Dealers', and Provision Merchants' Association; Normanton Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association; Great Yarmouth Pharmaceutical Association; Folkestone Grocers' Association; Hull Chemists' Association; Wolverhampton and District Chemists' Association; Manchester Branch (No. 3) of the Incorporated Guild of Hairdressers, &c.; Ballymoney and D strict Grocers' Association; Aberdeen Pharmaceutical Association; St. Alban's Grocers' Association; Inverness Chemists' Association; Brixton and Fairfield Master Grocers' and Bakers' Association; Burley and Kirkstall Boot and Shoe Association; Clowes Grocers' Association;. Newton Ard's Grocers' Association; Lowestoft and District Grocers' Association; Campbeltown Shopkeepers' Association; Liskeard Mercantile Association; Grimsby and District Chemists' and Druggists' Association; Summercole's, Ridding's, and District Tradesmen's Association; Sheffield Pharmaceutical and Chemical Society; Glasgow and West of Scotland Pharmaceutical Association; Bradford and District Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association; Colne (Lincolnshire) Tradesmen's Association; Dewsbury and District Chemists' Association; Newcastle-upon-Tyne and District Chemists' Association; Stockton-on-Tees and Thornaby Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association; Worcester Grocers' Association; Hunslet Boot and Shoe Dealers' Association; Leigh Grocers' Association; Aberystwyth Early Closing Association; Plymouth, Devonport, Stonehouse, and District Chemists' As-

  313
  sociation; National Federation of Hairdressers; Wrexham and District Chemists' Association; Stourbridge Association; Wallasey and District Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association; Barrow and District Grocers' Association; Leicester Chemists Social Union; Sunderland and District Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association; Oxford and District Grocers' Association; Rochdale Shopkeepers' Union; Forfarshire and District Chemists' Association; East Aberdeenshire Chemists' Association; Edinburgh and Leith Shopkeepers' and Assistants' Union; Bradford and District Chemists' Association; Warwick, Leamington, Stratford-on-Avon, and District Grocers' Association; Workington and District Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association; Merthyr and Dowlais Grocers' Association; Mid-Rhondda Grocers' Association; Tunbridge Wells Tradesmen's Association; Traders and Residents of Bradford; Blackpool Tradesmen's Association; Cardiff and District Pharmaceutical Association; Swansea Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association; Blackburn and District Retail Grocers' Association; Wrexham and District Grocers', Bakers' and Provision Dealers' Association; Wellingboro' and District Grocers' Association; Traders' Defence Association of Scotland; Derby and District Chemists' Association; Medway District Master Hairdressers' Association; Reading Early Closing Association; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CREMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment. The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday next.
  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO WILD ANIMALS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the prevention of cruelty to wild animals—was presented by the Lord Bishop of Hereford; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday the 3rd of March next. (No. 20).

  BISHOPRIC OF SOUTHWARK BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to provide for the constitution of a bishopric of Southwark, and forma-
  314
  lities incidental thereto—was presented by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 21.)

  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL [H.L.] [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  *LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill with a deep feeling of responsibility, because I know the intense anxiety with which your Lordships' decision is awaited by thousands and thousands of our fellow countrymen and countrywomen who feel that on your verdict hangs the health and happiness of their lives. This is no new question. When the Bill of 1886 was before the House of Commons, the House referred it to a Select Committee. That Committee unanimously reported that the hours of labour in shops in many places were 84 per week, and that such long hours must be grievously injurious to health, especially in the case of women. They suggested the remedy comprised in the present Bill, but nothing was done. In 1893 I moved in the House of Commons:—
  "That in the opinion of this House the excessive and unnecessarily long hours of labour in shops are injurious to the comfort, health and well-being of all concerned; and that it is desirable to give to local authorities such powers as may be necessary to enable them to carry out the general wishes of the shop-keeping community with reference to the hours of closing."
  That Resolution was unanimously adopted. On it the present Bill was drafted. In 1895 it was read a second time in the House of Commons and referred to a Select Committee, which, after taking a great deal of evidence, went through the Bill carefully and approved it, but were never able to get a day for the Third Reading. In 1896 it was again read a second time without opposition and referred to the Grand Committee, on which the Government were ably represented. We accepted all the Amendments—they were not many—suggested by the Home Office, and the Bill passed through Committee with general approval. But, again, we were unable to get a day for the Third

  315
  Reading. The Bill has, therefore, the support of a unanimous Resolution of the House of Commons, and it has been twice read a second time, and passed through two Committees. Last year your Lordships appointed a Committee to inquire into the subject. The noble Marquess at the head of the Government was a member of the Committee, and I know that I am voicing the general feeling of the shop-keeping community in expressing to him their thanks for having devoted so much of his valuable time to this matter. The Committee held many sittings; they heard an immense amount of evidence, and came to a unanimous Report. They found that—
  "In many places the hours during which shops are open range as high as from 80 to 90 per week, in addition to which some time is occupied in clearing up and putting away the goods."
  They pointed out that—
  "Eighty-four hours per week of six days amount to 14 hours a day, and it is almost self-evident that such long hours, especially when the shops are crowded, ill-ventilated, and lighted by gas, must (as pointed out by the House of Commons Committee of 1886) be injurious, and often ruinous to health, especially in the case of women. We are able to appeal to the highest medical testimony as to the injury thus caused. In 1888 the Presidents of the two great medical colleges, with some of the other leaders of the medical profession—Sir James Paget, Sir Andrew Clarke, Dr. Matthew Duncan, Mr. John Marshall, Dr. Playfair, Dr. Priestly, Sir Richard Quain, Sir William Savory, Sir Samuel Wilks—called the attention of Parliament to the subject and urged the passing of the Early Closing Bill."
  Moreover, the Presidents of the two great medical colleges appeared before the Committee and gave very strong evidence. This part of the case, however, I hoped to have been able to leave to my friend Lord Lister, who speaks with such pre-eminent authority. He is, I regret to say, seriously ill, but he writes me that—
  "The measure is manifestly conceived in the best interests of the health and well-being of the community."
  It would be easy to occupy hours with harrowing details of the sufferings involved in these terribly long hours But, indeed, they are self-evident. Eighty-four hours a week are fourteen a day, and if we allow eight hours for sleep—little enough under such circumstances
  316
  —and two for dressing and undressing and going to and from the shop, not a moment is left for fresh air and exercise, for recreation or self-improvement, for seeing friends and relatives. My Lords, this is the Shopkeepers' Bill. They deplore the evil and implore you to enable them to apply a remedy. The Committee ascertained the views of over 290 Tradesmen's Associations in all parts of the country. As they state in their Report, over 290 supported this Bill, and only two opposed it. May I add that since last summer other Tradesmen's Associations have given in their adhesion, and the number is now well over 300. The working men, again, as represented by the Trades Councils, are strongly in favour of legislation on the subject. The noble Marquess himself moved on the Committee—
  "That Town Councils should be authorised to pass Provisional Orders making such regulations in respect to the closing of shops as may seem to them to be necessary for the areas under their jurisdiction; and these Provisional Orders should be submitted to Parliament in the usual manner before acquiring the force of law. Special enactments for restraining the outlay involved and providing for its discharge, may be necessary."
  This was agreed to, and we feel bound to accept such words as may be necessary to carry it into effect. We did not, however, know exactly what special enactments the noble Marquess contemplated as regards expense, and I am not sure that as a private individual I could technically have inserted them. Nor do I understand exactly how far the noble Marquess would wish that any Provisional Orders should go into details. Having, however, accepted the suggestions the noble Marquess was good enough to make in the Committee, we feel, of course, bound to do so now. As regards the Provisional Orders, I presume that a simple proviso that the resolutions of the Town Councils should require confirmation by Provisional Orders would meet the case. However, I am ready to accept any words the noble Marquess may consider necessary to carry out his suggestion, and it is only on that understanding that I ask him to support the Bill. I will only trouble your Lordships with a few words from one typical witness—Mr. Wallauer. He appeared for the London Master Bakers' Society, repre-

  317
  senting over 6,000 shops, and employing from 18,000 to 20,000 women, of whom he told us 90 per cent. are employed from 7 in the morning to 10 o'clock at night and 12 o'clock on Saturdays. That makes 92 hours a week; and, on behalf of his trade Mr. Wallauer supported this Bill which, indeed, he would have liked to see more stringent, because they see no hope of improvement by voluntary action. "The hours," he said, "are unnecessarily long and excessively cruel, and as a matter of fact, it is white slavery for the 18,000 to 20,000 females in our own trade alone."
  And yet, my Lords, my noble friend Lord Wemyss, in his usual picturesque and vigorous language, denounces the Bill as an "act of intolerable tyranny and injustice." On whom? If my noble friend was a shop assistant, and had to work for fifteen hours a day, he would regard that as the intolerable tyranny and injustice, and would welcome relief as a godsend. The other two classes concerned are the shopkeepers and the public. The shopkeepers have shown in every possible way that they are overwhelmingly and enthusiastically in favour of the Bill. It has been years before the public. Where is the evidence of any opposition? There have been great meetings in all our cities, any number of petitions in favour, but practically none against. It has been before all the Trades Councils. If they thought it would inconvenience themselves or their wives, we may be sure that we should have heard of it; but, on the contrary, they unanimously support the Bill as it is, or wish to see it strengthened. The evil, my Lords, is great and urgent; the remedy we suggest has an overwhelming and almost unanimous support from those concerned. Your Lordships appointed a strong Committee, and their Report was unanimous. They told you that—
  "The evidence has convinced us that earlier closing would be an immense, boon to the shop-keeping community, to shopkeepers and shop assistants alike, that the present hours are grievously injurious to health, especially in the case of women, and that the subject is one of urgent importance, as such serious warnings from the heads of the medical profession cannot, in our judgment, safely be disregarded."
  My Lords, I do not now ask you, of
  318
  course, to do more than assent to the general principle of the Bill, with the additional safeguard suggested by the noble Marquess. Your Lordships verdict is awaited with intense anxiety in all parts of the country in England, Scotland, and Ireland. If you reject the Bill, the sorrow and disappointment will be keen indeed; but if you pass it, you will rejoice the whole shopkeeping community, and you will lengthen, strengthen, and brighten the lives of thousands and thousands of our countrymen and countrywomen.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Avebury.)
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, notwithstanding the arguments of my noble friend and his reference to the Reports of Committees and the opinions of doctors and others in favour of his Bill, I am going to ask your Lordships to resist the Second Reading. I move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, on the ground that the compulsory regulation by Parliament, of the hours of labour of full grown men is an undue interference with individual liberty, hurtful alike to trade and industry, and a dangerous departure from sound principles in the government of a free people, and that to empower two-thirds of the tradesmen in a town to shut up the shops of the remaining one-third, as proposed by the Bill, would be an act of intolerable tyranny and injustice. This Bill is a great advance on legislation of this kind, for it asks your Lordships to limit indirectly the rights of a full grown man to labour as long as he likes. My noble friend says the Bill does not ask Parliament to do it; it is to be done by the shop-keepers themselves. But the shop-keepers could not do it if it were not for this Bill; therefore I am justified in saying that my noble friend comes to Parliament asking that power should be given to limit the hours of labour of full grown men. This is a good instance of what exceptional legislation in this country leads to. Mr. Gladstone introduced the term when he passed his Land Bill in 1870. It was an exceptional Bill to deal with an exceptional state of things, and on no

  319
  consideration were the principles of that Bill to extend beyond Ireland. But what has been the result of that exceptional legislation? It very soon crossed the sea from Ireland to the south of Scotland and settled on the crofts of Mull and of the Western Highlands—the sea by the way being only 11 miles wide there. You have had several Irish Bills since, and you have on every estate in England and Scotland the principle of the Irish Land Act in the Agricultural Holdings Act.
  To show the demoralisation of that sort of legislation, I have only to point to the fact that my noble friend Lord Balfour has received a petition from a body of crofters in South Uist who have taken a liking to adjoining farms, and who state that, if the noble Lord does not give them that to which they have taken a fancy, they will secure it by force. Therefore you see what exceptional legislation leads to. You have it now in the Bill of my noble friend. Its germ was the Factory and Workshop Act. I recollect that Act very well. It was very strongly fought for by Lord Shaftesbury, then Lord Ashley, and carried. No doubt it was right that the labour of women and young persons should be regulated by Parliament, but, in the course of the discussion, at that time the Home Secretary, Sir James Graham, who resisted the Bill in many respects, said, with regard to the question of State interference with labour, that
  "He did not think it would conduce to human happiness to impose a limit on human industry."
  I believe that to be a sound view on this question, and that even if it were necessary and desirable to control by law the labour of women and young children, it is contrary to sound principles that that interference should be extended to full grown male persons. In the Resolution which stands in my name I have said that this compulsory limit of the hours of labour of full grown men is an undue interference with individual liberty. Can any one deny that it is? I hold that in a free country a full grown man ought to be free to work for whom he likes, at what wages he likes, and as long as he likes. If the State steps in and says, directly or indirectly, that he
  320
  shall not do so, the State takes away from that man his inborn right of freedom. There can, be no doubt, that this Bill does that, and that the proposal is contrary to sound principles in the government of free men.
  I hold that instead of taking away from men their rights to freely exercise the powers nature has given them, you ought to maintain them in every possible way. I wish that great lawyer and wise man, Lord Bramwell was alive and in this House at this time. I think those who knew him would have no doubt as to the attitude which he would take up with regard to this Bill. I will read what the noble and learned Lord said in 1867, in the course of a famous trade union case—
  "The liberty of a man's mind and will to say how he shall bestow himself, his means, his talents, and his industry, is as much a subject of the law's protection as is that of his body."
  He further went on to say that he considered compulsion, as in the case of picketing, to be a criminal offence. I will not say that my noble friend is guilty of a criminal offence, but the quotation I have read shows the view which a wise lawyer took on this question. I state in the Resolution that this sort of legislation is contrary to the sound principles of government of a free people. We know that principles sometimes give way to expediency; but I do not wish to enter into that. I think any one who has been long in Parliament must have observed that up to 1870, the whole tendency was to free men from restrictions and to leave them at liberty to exercise their talents in the best possible way. But what has been the tendency since? Not to free men from restrictions but to impose upon them restrictions of every sort and kind. The State now enters into their business and trade concerns, alters, breaks, makes and forbids contracts. That is an entirely new form of legislation. Governments now take credit, not for making men safe in their person and secure in their property—the original object of government—but for the passing of Bills interfering and meddling with business and trade concerns in every possible way. I think it is an entirely mistaken view of the objects of government to imagine that Parliament was intended to be a machine, for the pur-

  321
  pose of turning out so many Acts of Parliament a year. To conduct foreign affairs well and to leave men free and secure in this country with full liberty is the right and sound form of government.
  My noble friend referred to my Resolution as declaring that the Bill was tyrannical. What my Resolution says is that there are provisions in it which would make it tyrannical. I hold that the provision in the Bill empowering a majority of shop-keepers to appeal to the local authority to close the shops of the remaining third, involves an intolerable tyranny; and I cannot believe that your Lordships will allow this gross injustice to be perpetrated in a free country. The Bill will enable the well-to-do tradesman—the Marshalls and the Maples—to get two-thirds of the tradesmen in their district to support the closing of all shops at seven o'clock. Is there any likelihood of the local authority being any check on this sort of legislation? The people who will come to them will be a majority of two-thirds of the shop-keepers, and, as the local authority is an elected body, there is not the slightest doubt but that they will bow to the wishes of the majority. The customers of the larger shops are driving, or at the Ranelagh Club or playing ping-pong or bridge, or dining early in order to go to the play, when the customers of the smaller shopkeepers are just coming out to do their shopping. I have a letter in my hand from a hairdresser, in which he says that if the Bill passes it means ruin all round for the small tradespeople. He claims to be scheduled, as his business is necessary to the cleanliness and health of his working customers, who can only come at late hours, after their work is done. I think common sense and ordidary intelligence point in that direction. The noble Lord referred to the Committee which sat on this Bill. I have yet to learn and I have been a good many years in Parliament—that we must bow down to the opinions of the members of Committees as if they were so many popes. For myself, I claim a Scotchman's right of private judgment on such a question, and I object to have the report of a Committee thrown at my head.
  Who was the Chairman of this Committee—the judge, counsel, and jury all in one? Why, my noble friend who brings
  322
  in this Bill. I have not had the pleasure, I am happy to say, of serving on your Lordships' Committees, and I do not know whether it is the custom for a member who brings in an outrageous Bill like this to be put in the Chair of a Committee which has been called to inquire into it. But if this is the custom, then I think the sooner it is changed the better. At a public meeting, held last year in the Westminster Palace Hotel with regard to this Bill, Mr. Harris (the hon. Secretary of the Traders' Defence Association) referred in his speech to his experience the day before at a meeting of Lord Avebury's Committee. He said—
  "Lord Avebury had been very angry with him for saying that only supporters of the Bill were heard. Notwithstanding that denial, however, he still held that the proceedings had been conducted with great unfairness, and he had been only able to appear before the Committee after special pressure had been brought to bear on the Chairman; and when he did get there he was not allowed to state his views in his own way. He was limited to such questions as Lord Avebury chose to put to him, and even in answering those he was suddenly pulled up when the Chairman thought he was about to say anything injurious to the Bill. Anything more unjust than to place a man like Lord Avebury in the Chair of a Committee to inquire into Early Closing he could not conceive. It was exactly like a plaintiff in an action being allowed to place his own counsel on the Bench."
  I do not know this gentleman. This extract was sent to me, and I leave the question to be settled by my noble friend and Mr. not Mrs. Harris. Lord Peel will be glad to hear that it is the general opinion that the result of the proposed early closing will be to drive people into the public-houses.
  VISCOUNT PEEL: The general opinion is quite to the contrary.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSS: At any rate, that is the opinion so far as I can ascertain it. They will have to go somewhere, and if they cannot go into the shops, they will go into the public-houses. My noble friend has put the cart before the horse. He should first get rid of the public-houses and then pass his Bill. I earnestly hope that your Lordships will reject the measure, which is an interference with individual liberty and the right of a man to bestow his talents and his industry in the way he thinks best. I hold that life I without liberty is not worth living. The

  323
  noble Marquess at the head of the Government has said in this House that the noblest idol before which man could bow was liberty. In the name of liberty, I ask your Lordships to reject this Motion for the reasons which are tersely stated in the Resolution standing in my name on the Paper. Last year, as the final Court of Appeal, this House rescued the rights of free Englishmen to their labour from the tyranny of trades unionism, and I now appeal to your Lordships to act in a like spirit as a legislative assembly. I ask you to reject this Bill and rescue the rights of the poor man to his labour from the would-be tyranny of well-meaning but mistaken philanthropy.
  Moved, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, it is perhaps convenient that before the debate goes any further I should state what the view of the Secretary of State for the Home Department is regarding the provisions of this Bill, and what the Government propose to do with regard to the Second Reading. I listened with great interest to the speech which my noble friend made in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, and I am sure that your Lordships will heartily recognise the disinterested spirit and the humanity which he has shown in pressing this question forward. I believe it is admitted—at all events, the Committee admitted it—that it would be a very great boon if the hours of labour in shops could be shortened in the interest of the health as well as the recreation of those engaged in shops. But the question which the House has to decide is whether the provisions of this Bill are such as can be accepted to bring about this desirable state of things. I confess that I should have been glad if my noble friend had devoted more of his speech to the particular provisions of this Bill, and had not taken up the greater part of the time by pressing upon the House what I think the House fully recognises that there are evils to be remedied. I notice that in the Memorandum which my noble friend has presented to the House with the Bill, he goes in considerable length into the previous history of the measure,
  324
  mostly in the House of Commons. I conceive that the only object of a Memorandum explaining the Bill is to give an accurate account of what has taken place, and to supply a guide to, the House with regard to the provisions of the Bill before it. The complaint I have to make in this case is that the Memorandum, if not misleading, seems to give a wrong impression of what has taken place.
  It is said that all the Amendments which the Home Office suggested had been introduced. I am authorised to say that the Home Office have not given their approval to the provisions of this Bill. The Memorandum states that the House of Lords Committee of last year reported unanimously that "the evidence has convinced us that earlier closing would be an immense boon to the shop-keeping community, to shopkeepers and shop assistants alike; that the present hours are grievously injurious to health, especially in the case of women;" and that "the subject is one of urgent importance," as "such serious warnings from the heads of the medical profession cannot, in our judgment, safely be disregarded." All those paragraphs are certainly contained in the Report of the Committee, but the point which I wish to press is that you would assume, after the reference to this unanimous feeling of the Committee, that this Bill represented their recommendations. As I shall show presently, that is not the case. I do not wish to put it any stronger, but I think the statement is likely to mislead those not fully conversant with the subject.
  I should like to call the attention of the House to the later history of this measure, which was not alluded to by my noble friend. This identical Bill was brought forward in this House two years ago. On that occasion a considerable amount of discussion and criticism of the provisions of the Bill took place. It was criticised not only from the Front Government Bench, but also from the Front Bench opposite, and also by independent Members of the House. My noble friend, the Chairman of Committees, went so far as to say, alluding to the special clauses with regard to the majority necessary, the means of ascertaining

  325
  that majority and of dividing the districts, that he considered the clauses of the Bill perfectly unworkable. The result of that discussion was that this identical Bill was rejected by the House by nearly five to one. The Bill, for that session, naturally fell to the ground. My noble friend, in answering the criticisms that were made, appealed to the Government to give the Bill an opportunity of being thrashed out before a Select Committee, and he said that if these criticisms were proved to be good, then the Bill could be amended and put into workable form. Last year my noble friend himself moved for a Select Committee, which was granted by the noble Marquess, the Prime Minister, who I very much regret is not able to be in his place today. The Committee took a considerable amount of evidence, but they do not appear to have taken evidence with regard to the one class who might be supposed to be most affected by the Bill, namely, the purchasers. No doubt a large mass of evidence was brought before them on behalf of the shopkeepers and shop-assistants, but there is a clause in the Report which states that they were unable to get direct evidence from the smaller shopkeepers, and that, with regard to the public, if they had attempted to get much evidence from them, the Committee would have been obliged to sit for another session. What was the result of that Committee? A Draft Report was presented to the Committee by the noble Lord who presided. After setting forth that the Committee were satisfied that there were grievances to be remedied, and after alluding to the opinions of eminent medical men who had given evidence affirming against the evils which arose from long hours, the draft Report went on to say that the present hours were grievously injurious to health, and that, therefore, the Early Closing Bill—the Bill now before your Lordships — was recommended to the favourable consideration of the House. But on that part of the Report being put to the Committee, an Amendment was moved by Lord Salisbury to omit all reference to the Bill before the House, and to insert these words—
  "That Town Councils should be authorised to pass Provisional Orders making such regu-
  326
  lations in respect to the early closing of shops as may seem to them to be necessary for the areas under their jurisdiction; and these Provisional Orders should be submitted to Parliament in the usual manner before acquiring the force of law."
  My noble friend admitted that he would be willing to accept Amendments; but I would ask the House whether it is usual that a noble Lord who has a Bill before the House, having himself moved its reference to a Select Committee, and having acted as Chairman of that Committee, should pass by the particular recommendation of the Committee and come back to the House with the identical Bill which was practically rejected by the Committee?
  In these circumstances the Home Secretary feels that he cannot give his assent to the Second Reading of the Bill. It is very difficult to say how far Amendments could be introduced without entirely re-drafting the measure. It is possible, of course, that in some way a system of Provisional Orders might be introduced, and tacked on to the provisions at present in the Bill, so that Parliament would be given the power of saying whether or not the Provisional Orders should acquire the force of law. But there are the strongest possible criticisms on the framework of the present Bill. The Bill, for instance, refers to the Factory and Workshop Acts. In the opinion of the Home Office these matters have nothing whatever to do with the Factory and Workshop Acts. The provision to call in the police is an entirely novel one, and will be quite unworkable. The Secretary of State is not prepared to take the responsibility of moving Amendments in this Bill as it at present stands. Of course, if a measure was proposed carrying out the Report of the Committee it would be for him to consider how far he could give his support to its provision. But in this case, what the Home Office has to deal with is the Bill in its present form. I notice that the noble Earl on the Cross Benches did not move is Amendment as on the Paper but moved that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. The words in the Amendment might be said, not only to prevent the Government from dealing with this measure at all, but to assert a general principle with regard to the hours of labour which would be extremely

  327
  undesirable in an Amendment to a small measure of this sort, and which might be inconvenient in discussions in the future. I am glad, therefore, that the noble Lord has moved the rejection of the Bill in the form now before the House.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I detained your Lordships at some length on this subject when the Bill was last before the House, and I do not propose therefore to say more than a few words on this occasion. But I would point out that the Committee of which I had the honour of being a member, the Committee which has been described by the noble Earl as being under tire numbing tyranny of Lord Avebury included the Prime Minister and several others who in ordinary circumstances are regarded as being well able to take care of themselves. While I am far from claiming for those who sit on the Episcopal Bench any unique knowledge on such subjects as that treated in this Bill, I do say that it is an indisputable fact that whether we have used them or wasted them we Bishops have had better opportunities than many of your Lordships of getting into touch with those to whom such subjects are matters of daily concern I myself and my right rev. Brother the Bishop of Rochester have had the advantage of residing in the very centre of one of the poorest districts in South London, where the question of the early closing of shops may be described as a burning question, and I venture to think that if the noble Earl lived in such a district he would be converted to what I believe to be the ever-growing feeling in favour of some action being taken on the lines laid down by this Bill. It is for its principle and not for its details that we contend. The fact that the Bill is introduced by Lord Avebury, who has given 30 years special consideration to the question, shows that it is not one of those crude measures of which the Legislature is legitimately suspicious. It has, under his guidance, obtained a Second Reading twice in the House of Commons, an Assembly containing representatives eminently qualified to speak on behalf of the country on this subject. It is true that your Lordships' House rejected the Bill two years ago, but it was then opposed
  328
  by the Prime Minister, as your Lordships will see by referring to the debate, on the ground that, as the subject required more consideration, it should be referred to a Committee. That course was adopted; the Prime Minister himself sat on the Committee, and surely the Government will not now refuse to it a Second Reading, especially after the admission of Lord Belper that the evil is great and needs a remedy. It would be easy for the Government to amend the Bill subsequently so as to make it correspond more precisely with the recommendations put forward on their behalf before the Committee. My noble friend Lord Avebury has abundantly proved to your Lordships that among shopkeepers themselves there is what we may virtually call unanimity in favour of the measure. No doubt there are many individual shopkeepers among the countless thousands affected by the Bill, who object to such legislation; but, speaking generally, the shopkeepers, both large and small, have either refrained altogether front opposing the measure, or have actively co-operated for its promotion. The statement of the noble Earl who has moved the rejection of the Bill, that it is more in the interest of the large than of the small shopkeepers, is the exact contrary of the evidence taken by the Committee. I entirely agree with what was said two years ago by the Prime Minister, and repeated tonight by Lord Belper, that the real question to be considered is whether the measure is in the interest of the community at large. It was to this special point, as the members of the Select Committee will testify, that I personally directed my special efforts when we were taking evidence. If your Lordships will consider the matter you will realise that it is difficult in any accurate statistical way to obtain the opinion of small consumers on the subject; but we summoned representatives of the trade unions to see whether they considered that the families of working men would be inconvenienced by the Bill. The evidence given by these representatives of the working classes, as well as by the clergy, who are, perforce, in touch with the poor from day to day, was very definitely in favour of

  329
  the measure. Certain special trades were mentioned, the members of which would be specially inconvenienced. In particular we were told that this would be the case with cabmen and with waiters. In each case we did the best we could. We called as witnesses the chosen representatives of those classes, and their evidence was again in strong support of the Bill. I confess that I was surprised to find that the noble Earl had fallen into the rather popular error that this Bill provides that shops are to be closed at 7 o'clock. I have not the slightest anticipation that 7 o'clock will be the hour adopted; it is merely mentioned because we wished to lay down some limit beyond which, even in the most extreme case, legislation of that kind ought not to be allowed to go. I am well aware that in moving the rejection of this Bill the noble Earl on the Cross Benches is perfectly consistent, and acting in strict accordance with Isis regular attitude on all measures of this kind. Your Lordships will probably recollect the eloquent terms in winch, three years ago, he referred to the disasters which he felt confident would follow the passing of the Bill to provide seats in shops for shop assistants. I would ask the noble Earl to ascertain today what has been the result of that Act, and to judge by the conclusion he then forms what is likely to be the value of the apprehensions which he at this moment entertains with regard to this Bill. If it could be shown that the interests of the public at large or the interests of the poor consumer were sacrificed to the interests of the shop assistant, I admit that the shop assistant must go to the wall; but we find that nothing of the kind is the case, while the Bill will he of great I value to the individual shopkeepers, who in this age of competition have not the pluck or the capital necessary to enable them to face the difficulties involved in this endeavour by voluntary effort to do all that is required. They therefore ask for legislative aid so as to protect them against the mischief which can be done even by a very small minority which selfishly exists on thwarting the general wish. Such protection would be
  330
  given by this Bill, and I hope your Lordships will read it a second time.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I feel that I ought to say a few words on this subject, especially as I propose to give a different vote from that which I gave two years ago. The right rev. Prelate who has just sat down has made a most lucid statement of the position, and I entirely endorse what he said. In 1900 there was considerable doubt on this side of the House, as well as on the other, as to the course that ought to be taken. The noble Marquess at the head of the Government stated in the clearest possible language that the Bill had not been thrashed out by your Lordships as it had been in another place, and that it was not desirable to at once pass without inquiry a measure which might injuriously affect the small consumer. Since then, however, a Committee, on which the Prime Minister sat, has considered the matter and reported. As to the general form in which the Bill is brought forward, there is always the possibility of altering the form of the Bill when it is in Committee. Tonight we are only considering the Second heading. I cannot see that there is any force in the objection of Lord Belper that because this Bill does not come before the House in the form suggested by the draft Report as amended by the noble Marquess, we ought not to give it a Second Reading.
  LORD BELPER: That was supported by the unanimous vote of the Committee.
  EARL SPENCER: But the unanimous vote of the Committee was also in favour of the general principle, and of the necessity of dealing with this matter in a broad and comprehensive way. I maintain that the difference between these proposals and those which the noble Marquess introduced is a mere matter of detail; and I understand that the noble Lord who has introduced the Bill is quite willing to consider that point in Committee. I earnestly trust that your Lordships will not be persuaded by the Government to reject this measure which is evidently of the highest importance to the health of an enormous number of persons in the community. I think the right rev. Prelate entirely

  331
  disposed of the argument which the noble Earl brought forward—that the Committee only considered the large shopkeepers. In explaining the course which they took, the Committee stated—
  "We have made it our endeavour to ascertain, by the secondary or indirect evidence of those conversant with the subject, whether a reasonable curtailment of hours would inflict any serious inconvenience on any class of the community. The co-operative stores, even those which endeavour to cater for the very poor, we find invariably close early, and their representatives assured us that, this was in no way inconvenient to their customers."
  I think the Committee have very thorough investigated the matter, and it is on account of their very able Report, which the Prime Minister was a party to, that on this occasion I shall give my cordial support to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  *THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, I should not have interposed in this debate, had it not been that certain statements have been made by various speakers tins evening, in reference to what took place last year in the Committee. on the Early Closing of Shops, of which I had the honour to be a member. There seems to be a serious misconception as to the action that was taken by the noble Marquess the Prime Minister, when he moved the Amendment which has been referred to this afternoon. The Early Closing Bill which the Committee had before them was very carefully considered from all points of view, and there was a very strong feeling, which I held myself, and which, I believe, the noble Marquess and two other members of the Committee entertained, that the Bill was absolutely unworkable. We were totally opposed to local Option of any sort or kind, and we recognised that, if a majority of two-thirds was to be able to over-rule the minority, in numerous instances very hard and cruel results would ensue. Another point which the Committee gave considerable attention to was the difficulty of carrying out local option in towns where there might be two or more local authorities. Take, for instance, a street in London under two Borough Councils. You might have two-thirds of the tradesmen on one side petitioning for early closing, whereas the shopkeepers on the other
  332
  side of the street, being in another Borough, would not be in favour of it; and the question would arise, why should those on one side of the street have to close early, while those on the other were not so compelled? Naturally, those who closed early would suffer greatly by the advantage given to the shops on the other side of the street.
  Had I understood that the Early Closing Bill was going to be brought before Parliament as a Bill that had the support of the Committee of which I was a member, I should most certainly have ventured to father a Minority Report. It was not until the Prime Minister came down to the Committee and made the suggestion that Provisional Orders should be passed, bringing the question of the closing of shops under the authority of Parliament that it was possible to produce a Report that could receive the signatures of all the members of the Committee; and when I point that out to the House, I think your Lordships will recognise that the proposal that has been made by the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill this afternoon, that it should receive a Second Reading and then be amended so as to carry out the recommendations of the Committee, is practically unworkable. In my opinion, there is not one single clause of the Bill now before your Lordships which could stand if the recommendations of the Committee are to be carried out. It seems to me that the proper course to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee is to refuse a Second Reading to this Bill. The noble Lord himself, who was Chairman of the Committee, and who signed the report, knew that not one single word was said in favour of the Bill. It he had intended to introduce this Bill, and to convey to, Parliament and to the public that it was this Bill which the Committee were in favour of, he would have insisted on words being put into the Report to that effect. But the noble Lord did nothing of the kind. He accepted the noble Marquess's. Amendment, and he now collies down to the House and states that the Committee in favour of this Bill. The Government have absolutely no option but, in order to give effect to the Report of your Lordships' Committee, to negative the-Second Reading.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I intervene in this discussion simply for the purpose of asking a question. We have heard from the noble Earl who has just sat down that the noble Marquess was primarily responsible for the 14th paragraph of the Report, in which it is stated that—
  "The evidence has convinced us that earlier closing would be an immense boon to the shop-keeping community, to shopkeepers and shop assistants alike, that the present hours are grievously injurious to health, especially in the case of women, and under these circumstances we recommend that Town Councils should be authorised to pass Provisional Orders," and so forth.
  The question I desire to ask is, supposing the Bill is negatived or withdrawn, will the Government be prepared to bring in a Bill on the lines of the paragraph which was suggested by the Prime Minister?
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE): I understand the noble Earl to inquire whether the Government are prepared to bring in a Bill on this subject. I was under the impression that in one, at least, of his recent speeches the noble Earl expressed a great deal of doubt whether the Government would make effectual progress with the legislation which they had promised. It is, therefore, with surprise that I hear the suggestion that to those promised should be added another Bill which they have not announced their intention of bringing forward.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I do not remember which of the late speeches is alluded to. What I wish to know is, the Prime Minister having become personally responsible for this statement and having suggested a remedy, whether the Government are prepared to act upon them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I do not think that is the question under debate. The question is whether, a Bill having been referred to a Select Committee, having been by that Committee rejected with suggested alternatives for another form of proceeding absolutely inconsistent with every line of the Bill,
  334
  whether in these circumstances the House should be asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill which the Select Committee have absolutely refused. To do that seems to me an inconsistent course not respectful to the Committee. Those who are in favour of the object of the Bill would act more in accordance with precedent if they framed their Bill on the lines of the Committee's recommendation. I am aware that the answer was that it was difficult to do this, and so the Bill was introduced in its original form, that anybody, if they thought proper, might propose Amendments to bring it into line with the recommendations of the Committee. Those who bring forward a Bill should present it in the form in which they desire it to pass; but the cardinal principle of the Bill, the mode in which the new regulations are to be enforced, is absolutely inconsistent with the recommendations of the Committee.
  *LORD AVEBURY: I hope the House will allow me to say a few words in reply to the various points raised in the discussion. The noble Earl the Earl of Wemyss was very severe on me because I had the honour to preside over this Committee. I would point out that it was not my wish to occupy the chair, but that I was urged to take it by the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, who himself moved my appointment. The noble Earl brought forward the ease of the hairdressers. I can assure my noble friend that the hairdressers' associations throughout the country are most anxious to come under this Bill. My noble friend referred to the case of Mr. Harris. The Committee was not appointed till the end of March, and Mr. Harris was heard early in May. It was of course impossible to hear all the evidence at once. The statement read by the noble Earl is absolutely without foundation. Mr. Harris had every opportunity of laying his views before the Committee. The noble Lord who represents the Home Office seemed to imply that I was incorrect in stating that the Amendments suggested by the Home Office had been accepted, but I adhere to my statement. The Secretary of State and the Under Secretary were

  335
  both Members of the Grand Committee on Trade, and we accepted all their amendments. The noble Earl Lord Hardwicke says he is opposed to local option, but the Report to which he agreed expressly recommends that Town Councils should be authorised to pass Provisional Orders. Well, is not that local option?
  *THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: It is not local option as I understand it, because the Town Councils have to take into consideration the wishes of the whole community, and not only those of a two-thirds majority, and then can do nothing without the sanction of Parliament.
  *LORD AVEBURY: The noble Earl says that local option was rejected, but local option was expressly agreed to. Of course the Town Councils would consider the general wishes of the Community, but the provision that they should not pass an order except on the initia-
  Bill to be read 2a this day six months.
  tive of the shopkeepers is inserted to protect the small shopkeepers. In addition to the local option which was to be exercised by the Town Councils, the noble Marquess suggested an additional safeguard in the passing of a Provisional Order. On this point the supporters of the Bill think they might reasonably ask the Government to insert the exact words, for carrying out the suggestion. With the exception of this one point, the Bill is in accordance with the general recommendations of the Committee, and as we have agreed to insert any words the Government may codsider necessary to carry out Lord Salisbury's suggestion, I do not see how the Bill can logically be objected to on this score.
  Question put, "Whether the word 'now' shall stand part of the Motion."
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 26; not contents, 57.

  CONTENTS.

  Fife, D.

  Hampden, V.

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

  Ripon, M.

  Knutsford, V.

  Crofton, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Peel, V. [Teller.]

  Monkswell, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Northbourne, L.

  Crewe, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery)

  Stamford, E.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Avebury, L. [Teller.]

  Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Selborne, E.

  Lindley, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Llandaff, V.

  Newton, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Pirbright, L.

  Craven, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Belper, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Braye, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Derby, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Middleton.)

  Rowton, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Chelmsford, L.

  Shand, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Churchill, L. [Teller.]

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Forteseue, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Howe, E.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Lauderdale, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Glenesk, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Kenyon, L.

  Wimborne, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Wrottesley, L.

  Romney, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Six, to Thursday next, Eleven o clock.