Sitting of 20 February 1902

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

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First
  572
  Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—

  Barking Gas Bill.

  North Warwickshire Water Bill.

  West Ham Gas Bill.

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

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

  WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION WATER BILL (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK (ABONDONMENT BILL).
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Ings; East Ardsley; Ashmore Park; Barrow Hematite; Barnsley Main; Rotherham Main (No. 2); Garswood Hall; Billinge; Haydock; Aspatria; Highly; and Cresswellin Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Granton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Teynham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MIDWIFE'S BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Edgbaston, and Winson Green (two); to lie upon the Table.

  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Ings; East Ardsley; Ashmore Park; Barrow Hematite; Barnsley Main; Corton-

  573
  wood; Rotherham Main (No. 2); Garswood Hall; Aspatria; and, Cresswellin Collieries; to lie upon the Table.

  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Patrick Paisley; and, Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, etc.
  LOCAL TAXATION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented of Report on Valuation in Ireland by His Majesty's Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of Local Taxation [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ELECTORS, ETC.) (UNITED KINGDOM).
  Returns presented by, relative thereto [Address 17th January; Sir Charles Dilke]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 70.]
  BREWERS' LICENCES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 18th February: Mr. Austen Chamberlain]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 71.]
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 574 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Conditions of Contract with M. Bergl and Company for meat supply to troops in South Africa [by Command]; to lie upon, the Table.
(3.35.) QUESTIONS.

  Remounts—Military Court of Inquiry—Attendance of Civil Witnesses.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: I beg to ask the
  574
  Secretary of State for War whether the Court of Inquiry promised Major-General Truman can compel other than military witnesses to attend; and if other than military witnesses cannot be compelled to attend; whether the Government can see their way to appoint some other tribunal than that proposed, so that a complete investigation can be made into the charges alleged against Major-General Truman.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): There is no power to compel civilian witnesses to attend the Court of Inquiry. As I have already explained to the House, a Military Court of inquiry is the proper and legal way of dealing with an officer in General Truman's position. I have no doubt that they will elicit the facts, and every facility will be given them for so doing.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the civilian witnesses are not necessary in order to clear up the charges made against General Truman?
  MR. BRODRICKsaid he had no doubt that civilian witnesses would be called. It was only a question of compelling the civilian witnesses who might be recalcitrant.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Surely Court - martials have no power to call for the attendance of civilian witnesses?
  [No answer was given.]

  Scope of the Inquiry.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Inquiry into the conduct of business by the Remounts Department will be confined to the responsibility of General Truman, or will be so extended as to examine into the alleged connection of a former officer of that department with Members of the firm of Houlder Brothers, and with the proprietary of ships specially built for Government transport contract work, and afterwards included in the Houlder line.
  MR. BRODRICK: As I have already stated, the Inquiry will be confined to the responsibility of General Truman.
  MR. YOXALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the case of another officer of the Remount Department which I submitted to him the other day?
  MR. BRODRICK: It is not the responsibility of the other officers that the Court is to inquire into; it is the responsibility of General Truman, and until that has been before the Court it is impossible for me to inquire into the case of other officers.

  Mr. Brodrick and General Truman.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state how long ago it is since he brought to the notice of the Commander-in-Chief certain circumstances in connection with General Truman's control of the Remount Department, which caused him to have doubts as to the capacity of General Truman to fill that post.
  MR. BRODRICK: I trust my right hon. friend will not think me guilty of any discourtesy if I say that I must reserve any further expression of my opinion until the Court of Inquiry on General Truman has reported, and I must therefore decline to answer this Question or any others on the same subject.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has already made a statement upon this subject? I put this question on the Paper in fairness to General Truman.
  MR. BRODRICK: Unfortunately, a statement unauthorized by General Truman was communicated in another place, which gave some account of the circumstances which preceded the appointment of this Court of Inquiry. Then it became my duty, having previously refused to give any information, in fairness to General Truman, to give as correct an account as I could of what had taken place. I carefully avoided
  576
  giving details which would in any way come before the Court of Inquiry, and I must adhere to that view.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman has already stated in the House of Commons that some time ago he had grave doubts as to the capacity of General Truman? Upon that I wish to ask a Question, which seems to me to be only fair in the interests of General Truman—how long ago is it since he entertained those doubts?
  * MR. SPEAKER: That is the very Question on the Paper to which the right hon. Gentleman has refused to give any further answer.

  Remount Department—Re-organisation.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, seeing that the Remount Department is now responsible for the purchase of about 20,000 horses a month, whereas prior to the war it was responsible for fewer than 3,000 horses a year, whether he can state what re-organisation in the way of expansion has taken place in the Department since the outbreak of the war, to enable it to cope with the increased demand made upon it.
  MR. BRODRICK: As I have already stated, the Remount Staff at Headquarters has been gradually increased from two officers and five clerks in 1899, to five officers and nine clerks at the present date. In England nine buyers are employed against two formerly, and abroad thirteen buyers against none formerly. If further assistance had been needed, it would have been given.

  Horse Transport Rates.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the rate per head for animals transported to South Africa, under contracts made by the Remount Department, includes the first cost of fitting up stalls; and what proportion this cost bore to the total rate per head.
  MR. BRODRICK: The rate per head under Charters made by the Remount Department included first cost of fitting up stalls. I am afraid it is not possible

  577
  to calculate the proportion mentioned in I the second paragraph, as the cost of fittings would vary at every port, according to the country in which the vessel was fitted.
  MR. CAINE: May I ask, for the information of the House, if fodder is included in these freight rates?
  MR. BRODRICK: In some cases it is.

  Horse Freight Charged by Messrs. Houlder.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state the rate per horse paid to Messrs. Houlder Brothers for freight of horses from Australian to South African ports in 1900 and 1901, at a time when other shipowners and contractors were carrying horses from Australian to South African ports for £8 per horse.
  MR. BRODRICK: The rates paid for Houlder's ships from Australia were £16 and £18 in 1900, and £18 in 1901. These rates usually included two ports in Queensland and New South Wales. The information at my disposal does not bear out the statement that other contractors were shipping horses from Australia to South African ports at £8 a head, and I shall be very glad if the hon. Member will furnish me with the information on which this statement was based.
  MR. CHARLES ALLEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office paid Messrs. Houlder Brothers £14 5s. 3d. freight per horse on the average from the River Plate to South Africa.
  MR. BRODRICK: May I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Northampton in reply to a similar question put by him on the 11th February.†

  Unbroken Horses from Queensland.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware of the circumstances under
  † See preceding Volume, page 987.
  578
  which horses, not broken in, and too light and small for cavalry and mounted infantry use, were purchased by remount officers at Bowen, Queensland, at about £13 per horse. Whether these purchases were made from a firm or company in which Mr. Bergl, the present Army contractor for meat, and Messrs. Houlder Brothers, his guarantors, were associated. And, was the transport of the horses in question, from Queensland to South Africa, given to Messrs. Houlder Brothers.
  MR. BRODRICK: No unbroken horses have been purchased in Australia. Mr. Bergl offered horses to Colonel Hunt, but the offer was not accepted.

  Mr. Bergl's Meat Contract.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the first two cargoes of meat supplied by Mr. Bergl under the new Army Contract were purchased in British Colonies but were shipped from the River Plate; and, was the transport of this meat or any of it, entrusted to Messrs. Houlder Brothers.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware of any such purchases having been made. The earliest supplies under the new contract do not commence until the 1st April next.

  Sugar Contract for South Africa.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether a case of the supplying and shipping to the troops in South Africa of sugar unfit for use was brought to the notice of the War Office in June, 1901; and what steps, if any, were taken in connection with the matter.
  MR. BRODRICK: An allegation of this nature was made, but on inquiry proved to be without foundation.

  Government Contracts—Current Rates of Wages.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention was called, in October, 1900, to the fact that a firm at Bristol holding contracts from the War Office and Admiralty was not paying the

  579
  current rate of wages in the locality; and whether he can state what steps, if any, were taken in connection with the matter, and with what result.
  MR. BRODRICK: My attention was called to this case. An official was sent to investigate the case. The firm stated in defence that they used machinery to a larger extent than usual, and that therefore skilled labour was not so essential. The War Office considered that the wages clause had been infringed, and warned the firm that very serious notice would be taken of any future infringement of the clause. A second case having arisen in 1901, the firm was struck off the list for six months.

  Army Canteens and the Co-operative Principle.
  MR. HARWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, in re-arranging the canteen system, he will consider the advisability of giving the Army the benefits of the principle of co-operation.
  MR. BRODRICK: This will be included in the scope of the inquiries of the Committee.

  Boer Exiles and Refugees.
  MR. HUMPHREYS - OWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, on or about the 11th of September, 1901, 34 British subjects were deported by the military authorities to Port Alfred from their own homes in Cape Colony, and whether among them was the Hon. M. J. Pretorius, a Member of the Upper House of the Parliament of Cape Colony; whether these persons have been tried for, or charged with, any and what offence; whether they are still detained at Port Alfred, and, if so, by whose order and in what custody; and can he explain what is the distinction between the terms exiles and refugees applied to the persons stated on p. 184 of Cd. 819, to be detained in the camp at Port Elizabeth.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no information as to the first part of this
  580
  Question. As regards the last paragraph, certain families were removed from the Orange River Colony because they had treacherously fired on our troops, the women boasting that they had assisted in killing eleven of our men. I understand that these persons are classed as exiles, as it would not be possible to allow them at present to return to Orange River Colony.
  MR. HUMPHREYS - OWEN: What is the distinction between exiles and refugees?
  MR. BRODRICK: I believe there is no difference in their treatment, but one class may be allowed to go back probably before the other would be allowed to go back.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what is the reason for making a difference in the class?
  MR. BRODRICK: It is certainly desirable, when one class of persons will not be allowed, when the war is over, to go back without some consideration, that they should not be placed in the same class as the others.
  MR. HUMPHREYS - OWEN: Then, does "exile" mean that the person who is so called will not be allowed to return home after the war?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Extra Pay of Troops serving on the Low Veldt.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any representations have been received from South Africa as to increased pay to troops serving in the Low Veldt (viz. the valleys of the Elandspruit and Crocodile, including the posts from Watersvalonder to Koomatiport and Barberton) on account of the bad climate.
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir. Certain representations have been received, and have been referred to Lord Kitchener for further consideration, as, on the

  581
  facts adduced, there would not appear sufficient grounds for giving extra remuneration to the troops at these stations.

  Army Nurses and War Medals.
  MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether women who were employed in the Army Nursing Service in South Africa by the Military Authorities, and whose work has been commended by the principal medical officer on the spot, are allowed to receive the medal if they do not hold a three years hospital certificate.
  MR. BRODRICK: The South African War Medal is given to all Nurses and Nursing sisters who served in South Africa from 11th October, 1899, but the term "Nurses and Nursing Sisters," is held to apply only to those specially appointed as such, and to the Staff of any Local Charitable Institution in South Africa, duly recognised by the Military Authorities there and utilized by them for the reception and care of the sick and wounded.

  Discharged Soldiers on the Irish Poor Rates.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the fact that a number of persons discharged from the Army by reason of ill-health are now a burden on the rates in Ireland, any assistance to such persons by way of pension or otherwise will be granted in cases where their state of health is the consequence of or arose during their military service.
  MR. BRODRICK: The case of every soldier discharged on account of ill-health is considered by the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, and a pension is awarded if the circumstances and length of service warrant the award.

  Admiralty Contract Delays.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can say what has been the cause of the delay in the commission of the "Vengeance" and "Aboukir" of the July, 1897, programme.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The "Vengeance" was delivered ten months after the contract date. The delay in delivery was due to some extent to difficulties arising from the engineers' dispute, but principally to an accident to the dock sill at Barrow, whereby the ship was detained several months after she was practically ready for delivery. The "Aboukir" was delivered eight months after the contract date. The delay was due to late delivery of the armour to the contractors. No further delay in respect of armour is anticipated.

  Engineer Officers in the Navy.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether in the water-tube boiler inquiry the necessity for carrying engineer officers on board men-of-war having water-tube boilers was considered and regard had to the Report of Admiral Melville, Engineer-in-Chief of the United States Navy, as to the effect on machinery of war ships of the substitution of less completely trained men for engineer officers in the United States Fleet; whether it is intended to improve the status of engineer officers in His Majesty's Navy, and to increase the number of all ranks and ratings in the engineer branch of the Navy.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The question of the training of officers and men of the Engineer branch of the Navy is one that is continually receiving the careful attention of the Board of Admiralty, and the Report of the Engineer in-Chief of the United States Navy has been considered in common with other information bearing upon this important subject. As regards the latter part of the right hon. Baronet's Question, provision has been made in the Estimates for the forthcoming year for a considerable addition to the number of Chief Inspectors and Inspectors of Machinery, thus increasing the prospects of promotion to the higher ranks of the Engineer branch, and the numbers of all ranks and ratings will be increased from time to time as required by the growth of the Fleet.

  British Subjects in Chili.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Secretary of State has received any communication from His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Valparaiso concerning the arrest as an Argentine spy and the detention in solitary confinement of Mr. Marshall Patterson, a British subject resident in Valparaiso; is he aware that Mr. Patterson's innocence has been established, and that all reparation or compensation has been refused by the Chilian Government; and, seeing that other instances of similar treatment of British subjects are frequent in Chili, will he take the opportunity of this case of Mr. Patterson to secure not only proper compensation but some better protection for the increasing number of British subjects residing in Chili and other South American Republics.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE, Rochester): A despatch has been received from His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Santiago to the effect that Messrs. Patterson and Paine, two British subjects staying at a hotel in Valparaiso, were arrested by the Chilian Authorities on suspicion of being Argentine spies. They were imprisoned for one day and were released as soon as there innocence was recognised. Messrs. Patterson and Paine have put forward claims for compensation, but His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires has not yet presented them to the Chilian Government, as there is no evidence at present to show that the authorities acted beyond their powers in the matter. A further report will be called for and on its receipt the question of demanding compensation will be considered. The statement that other instances of similar treatment of British subjects are frequent in Chili is not in accordance with our information.
  MR. CAINE: Is the noble Lord aware that the gentlemen in question were in the employ of a well-known firm in Valparaiso, and had been resident there 47 years.
  *LORD CRANBORNE: I was not aware of that.

  Anglo-Japanese Treaty—Germany and Shantung.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been made by England and Japan to the German Government with a view to the evacuation of the Chinese Province of Shantung in accordance with the terms of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 30th January, 1902.
  LORD CRANBORNE: No such representations have been made.

  Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs at Newchwang.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the terms of the agreement between Great Britain and Japan, signed on 30th January, he will consider the advisability of taking any steps to effect the restoration of the Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs House at Newchwang, since 4th August, 1900, administered by Russian authorities under the Russian flag, to the administration of the Chinese Government.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The Russian Government have stated that their administration of the Newchwang Customs is temporary and provisional, and that they intend to restore them to the Chinese Administration as soon as circumstances permit. We have not the smallest reason to question the good faith of this intimation, and there is therefore no justification for the assumption upon which the hon. Member's Question is apparently founded. I trust the hon. Gentleman and the House will not think me discourteous if I decline, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to be drawn into any announcement, in connection with the Anglo-Japanese Agreement, as to the action which we may or May not take in order to give effect to it.
  MR. NORMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether I should be in order in protesting against this "assumption" with regard to my Question? My Question was a bona fide one asking for information. There was no assumption underlying my Question.

  Dominica—Telephonic Extension.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government is about to construct a telephone system in the island of Dominica; and, in that event, will the cost of establishing the telephone system be met out of the Imperial grant of £15,000 for roads, or out of what other fund.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): Approval has been given to a proposal for the connection of the towns of Roseau and Portsmouth on the west side of Dominica by a telephone line, at an estimated cost not exceeding £650, to be paid from the general revenues of the island.

  Licensing Laws—Ante-1869 Beerhouses.
  Mr. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he can see his way to introduce into this Bill for the Amendment of the Licensing Laws, a provision for bringing under the jurisdiction of the justices the ante-1869 beerhouses, of which the Royal Commission reported in 1899 that in many instances they stand in urgent need of reform.
  THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): No, Sir, I think not. I am not prepared to disagree with the Royal Commission on this point, but it has to be remembered that the Majority Report coupled their recommendation for dealing in the way indicated with the ante-1869 beerhouses, with a statement that the legal right and Parliamentary title enjoyed by these houses would render compensation necessary if the renewal of a license was refused upon any ground other than the four settled in 1869. It is my object at present, in the interests of obtaining some measure of licensing reform, to keep my Bill free from the difficulties and controversies which, as I am sure my right hon. friend will agree, are involved in his suggestion.

  Board of Trade—Labour Department.
  MR. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether any complaints have
  586
  been made to him of partiality in the constitution and administration of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): Vague general charges of the kind referred to in the Question have been made, but they are not of a kind which call for any action.

  Proposed Gold Assay at Sheffield.
  MR SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to a Resolution recently passed by the City Council of Sheffield in favour of the establishment of a Gold Assay at Sheffield; and whether he will introduce a Bill to give effect to such Resolution.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, sir, the Resolution referred to was forwarded to me and I informed the City Council that I was not myself prepared to propose legislation, but that any Bill on the subject that might be introduced by a private Member would receive my careful consideration. I would suggest that those who are interested in the subject might consider whether the matter is not one to be dealt with by a local rather than by a Public Bill.

  Great Central Railway—Workmen's Trains.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether it has been brought to his notice that the Great Central Railway Company, which has occupied a portion of the Dorset Square Ward of East Marylebone, gives practically no facilities to the public in the matter of workmen's trains; whether he will draw the attention of the directors of this company to the provisions of the Cheap Trains Act of 1883, with a view to improving the service of workmen's trains.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If the hon. Member's Question refers to a lack of workmen's trains into and out of London, over the Great Central

  587
  Railway Company's lines, I would point out that that Company's nearest station to London appears to be Calvert in Bucks, a distance of 49 miles from the Company's London terminus. I have no evidence of a need of workmen's trains between these points. The provision of workmen's trains by the Company in the Manchester and Sheffield districts is shown in detail in a return presented to the House in the course of 1900.

  Light Vessels and Wireless Telegraphy.
  MR. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state why such a delay has taken place in providing the light vessels with the necessary apparatus for wireless telegraphy, and whether the Elder Brethren of the Trinity Corporation are rendering all the assistance in their power to carry the matter out, or whether the delay is caused by any other Government Department.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The question of providing light vessels with the necessary apparatus for wireless telegraphy has been mixed up with that of systematising such means of telegraphy for general signalling purposes. Difficulties have arisen hitherto which I hope may soon be removed.

  Contracts for Lighthouse Apparatus.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the lighthouse authorities and the Board of Trade have granted a monopoly for certain lighthouse apparatus to a certain firm; if so, will he explain the nature of that monopoly, stating to what firm it was granted, and on what grounds; whether the apparatus required for the alterations at Howth Bailey was purchased from that firm, and whether apparatus of a similar kind have been ordered from the same firm for other lighthouses.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board of Trade in 1898 gave their sanction to a contract entered nto by the three lighthouse authorities with Messrs. Chance
  588
  Brothers and Company, Limited, under which that firm agreed to supply certain forms of optical apparatus at scheduled prices for a term of five years. The reasons given for the contract were that some of the apparatus required could not be supplied by any other firm in the United Kingdom, and that it was important in the interests of the lighthouse service that this special manufacture, for which there is a very limited demand, should not be allowed to die out. The apparatus at Howth Bailey and some other lighthouses have been purchased from the same firm under the contract.
  In reply to a further Question,
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid this was a Birmingham firm.

  Central London Railway.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has control over the arrangements made for the safety of passengers on the Central London Railway, especially in the case of a train breaking down in the tube at some distance from a station.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The line in question was duly inspected by the Officers of the Board of Trade before it was brought into use. The Board have no control over the arrangements for working the traffic.

  Nurses in Workhouse Infirmaries.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Committee appointed by the Local Government Board to inquire into the reasons of the difficulty in obtaining nurses for infirmaries or sick wards of workhouses under the control of the master and matron, has commenced its inquiry; and, if so, what evidence does it intend to take; where is the inquiry being, or to be, held, and what opportunities will be given to medical officers, superintendent nurses, and others interested, to give evidence.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): The Committee have commenced their inquiry, and are sitting

  589
  twice a week at the Offices of the Local Government Board. It rests with the Committee to determine what evidence they will take, but arrangements have already been made for hearing the evidence of certain Poor Law Officers and Guardians, of representatives of various Poor Law and Nursing Associations, and of other persons interested. It is open to any person desirous of being heard by the Committee to communicate with the Secretary on the subject. Such person should state his qualifications and the nature of the evidence he would be prepared to give.

  Guiltcross Union.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, in reference to his final statement in the House of Commons last session that he had decided to dissolve Guiltcross Union, why the Order has not yet been issued, and when it may be expected; whether he can explain why letters asking for information for the guidance of the Guardians concerned in making their arrangements have not been answered; and whether he is aware that the delay and uncertainty as to the nature of the Order are inconveniencing the unions concerned.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I informed the Guardians of the Guiltcross and other Unions concerned last year that the dissolution of the Guiltcross Union would take place at Lady Day next. An Order will shortly be issued accordingly. There has been difficulty in determining as to how the parishes comprised in the Guiltcross Union should be distributed, but the Guardians have now been informed of my decision in the matter.

  Manchester Postmen's Christmas Overtime Pay.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will explain why the Manchester postmen have not yet been paid for overtime worked in excess of eight hours on the last Bank Holiday, 26th December, and excess time worked on 27th December, due to Christmas pressure,
  590
  and why the Manchester sub-office postmen at Wallington, Wilmslow, Flixton, Pendlebury, and other sub-offices, have not yet been paid for overtime worked during the pressure of Christmas, and will he say when payment will be made?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): Instructions have already been given for the Manchester Town Postmen to be paid for extra duty performed on 26th and 27th of December, and payment will be made this week. The sub-office Postmen will be paid as soon as the check upon their claims for extra duty has been completed, and the bulk of the claims will probably be paid either this or next week. The checking of a large number of claims of this kind involves numerous inquiries, which necessarily occupy considerable time. No complaint has reached the Postmaster General on the subject from the staff concerned.

  Income Tax Rebates.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHN STONE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any steps have been taken to enable claims for repayment of Income Tax to be dealt with more expeditiously than they were last year; and if surveyors' clerks, of approved service and competence, will be allowed in future to compete for vacant posts in the Claims Branch of the Inland Revenue Department.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Every effort is made by the Revenue Officials to deal as expeditiously as possible with claims for repayment of Income Tax; and an increase in the staff of the Claims Branch was sanctioned by the Treasury not long ago. Vacant posts in the Claims Branch are filled by Clerks of the Second Division; and it is open to any surveyor's clerk who fulfils the conditions of age, etc., laid down by the Civil Service Commissioners, to compete in the examination for Second Division Clerkships.

  Parliament Buildings—Accommodation for Members.
  MR. HARWOOD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he can

  591
  state when the Members of this House are likely to enter upon the benefits of the promised added accommodation.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to a ful answer I gave on the 27th of January on this subject, upon a question by the hon. Member for North Lambeth.† I can only say that I am anxious to carry out more of the recommendations of the Select Committee of last session, directly funds are available. I would, however, remind the House that the proposed new Rule now under consideration would, if passed, have an important influence upon the question.

  Education—Non-Public Elementary Evening Schools.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state how many non-public elementary evening schools have been recognised, and whether they receive their grants from Whitehall or South Kensington.
  THE VICE - PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): The number of evening schools which have been opened under Articles 1-20 of the Evening Schools Minute is 5,712. The grants will be paid by the Board of Education.

  County Councils and Day and Evening Schools.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state how many day schools and how many evening schools have been sanctioned by County Councils under the Act of 1901, and whether he will grant a Return of the terms and conditions upon which permission to continue those schools has been granted.
  SIR J. GORST: The Board of Education have no such information in their possession. The Board of Education have only required a certificate from
  † See (4) Debates, ci., 966.
  592
  a School Board counter signed by an officer of the local Authority. No information respecting the conditions has been required, and it is therefore impossible to give the Return asked for.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman obtain the information?
  SIR J. GORST: It would be a very expensive business. Inquiries would have to be made from local bodies throughout the Kingdom and they might refuse to give the information.

  St. Thomas' and Francis Street Schools, Farnworth.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON,: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the parents of children attending St. Thomas' School, Farnworth, have applied for free places and have been directed to St. John's School, which is further from their homes and through dangerous thoroughfares; whether he is aware that the parents of other children attending Francis Street School, Farnworth, were refused free places in that School, and directed to apply at St. Thomas' School, although other children attending St. Thomas' School had been directed to apply elsewhere; whether he can ascertain the reason of this treatment of parents who desire free education for their children; and whether, in view of these difficulties at Farnworth, the Board of Education will order a School Board to be set up under the provisions of the Free Education Act of 1891.
  SIR J. GORST: The St. Thomas and Francis Street Schools have a right to charge fees, and the Board of Education, therefore, cannot require these Schools to admit children free. The Board have, However, found free places for all applicants. Should any reasonable objection be made to the places found, the Board would make further inquiry.

  Irish Census.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the cause of the delay in the publication of a detailed Irish Census.
  *MR. NANNETTI: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this Question I would like to know if the delay, if any, is not caused by the exceptionally heavy alterations made in the proofs by the Census Office.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The delay has been caused, I am informed, by the failure of the contracting firm of printers in Dublin to supply revised proofs in proper time. Had it not been for this failure, a larger number of county books would have been published than at the corresponding date in connection with the Census of 1891. Representations have already been made to the Stationery Office in the matter, and further representations were made yesterday.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the published statement that the Census for several counties is completed, and that the delay is not due to the Census Department? Will he make inquiry?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have not seen the statement. I have given the House all the information in my power.
  *MR. NANNETTIwas putting a Question about 144 pages of foolscap matter supplied each week by this firm, and also as to the heavy alterations on same, when
  *MR. SPEAKERcalled him to order, and said these were details which did not arise out of the Question.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Grievances.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say when the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the alleged grievances of the Royal Irish Constabulary will be laid upon the Table.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Government has not seen its way to include any sum in the Estimates for the next financial year, in pursuance of the Committee's requirements. The presentation of the Report has, accordingly, been deferred.

  Irish Agricultural Leaflets.
  MR. BLAKE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many different leaflets, and what numbers of each, have been issued by the Irish Board of Agriculture on agricultural subjects since its formation; and what is the total cost of these issues.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Nineteen leaflets, embracing a circulation of 748,000 copies. I have forwarded to the hon. Member a statement showing the number of copies of each leaflet distributed, and will endeavour to ascertain the cost through the Stationery Office.

  Belfast Municipal Technical School.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Municipal Technical School of Belfast, which was opened only a few months ago, and is still conducting its classes in temporary premises, has upwards of 100 teachers and assistant teachers and about 3,000 students, and, seeing that Belfast, although it is the industrial centre of Ireland, is unprovided with a college of science for the training of teachers of applied science, whether he will advocate the transfer to Belfast of the Royal College of Science at present situate in Dublin, or whether he will take steps to introduce a Bill to establish in Belfast for the industrial population of Ulster a college of science fully equipped and endowed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Government is extremely gratified at the energy displayed by Belfast in the furtherance of technical instruction, and more especially to learn from the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction that the scheme adopted in Belfast is a distinct success. The suggestion that the Royal College of Science in Dublin should be transferred to Belfast, is not, however, practicable or desirable. That College is a national Institution, serving the needs of the whole country, throughout which, exclusive of Belfast, there are 454 schools and classes working in connection with the Department's schemes of Technical Instruction.

  United Irish League—Skreen and Dromard Branch.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of the United Irish League, in the Skreen district, against the Protestant farmers; whether he is aware that a Resolution was passed by the Skreen and Dromard Branch of the United Irish League, denouncing all farmers who join with a non-leaguer in ploughing, harrowing, and such work, and that the Reverend Dudley Fletcher, Rector of Lissadell, County Sligo, has been denounced by the Magherow Branch of the United Irish League, and his removal from the district demanded; and, will he state what steps the Government are taking to protect Mr. Fletcher and the Protestant farmers from the League?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Resolutions directed against persons who do not join the United Irish League have been published in a newspaper called the Sligo Champion, and are there stated to have been passed by branches of that body. They are of a reprehensible character. The fullest protection will be given to all persons subjected to intimidation.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the League affords protection to Protestants and Catholics alike?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Irish County Court Reform.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if it is the intention of the Government to bring in, during this session of Parliament, a measure dealing with reform of the County Courts in Ireland, containing provisions similar to those of the Bill introduced by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in last session, and especially dealing with the issuing of decrees in undefended cases without waiting for the quarterly sittings of the courts.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): It is the intention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to introduce into
  596
  the House of Lords this session a Bill dealing with this matter, substantially identical with that introduced last year.

  Kilmacthomas Labourers' Cottage Scheme.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the inspector of the Local Government Board, who held the recent inquiry under the Labourers' Acts for the Kilmacthomas rural district, gave as his reason for the rejection of the application of James Flynn for a house and plot that Flynn was a returned American with money, and that he doubted his being an agricultural labourer; is he aware that James Flynn gave evidence at the inquiry that he has been an agricultural labourer since his return from America, though he brought a little money home; and, seeing that this was uncontradicted, can he explain why this application has been rejected.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The application was not for a house and plot, but for an additional half - acre; otherwise the reasons given, by the inspector for rejecting the application are correct. Flynn's evidence was vague and contradictory.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Maurice Walsh was an applicant for an additional half-acre at the recent inquiry under the Labourers' Acts for Kilmacthomas Rural District, and that the occupier was willing to give the land on condition that the applicant should surrender a certain outhouse he has occupied for a number of years and claims as his property. Can he explain why the inspector declined to recommend the application, and, will the Local Government Board decide on the application irrespective of the dispute between the occupier and the applicant?
  MR. WYNDHAM: In addition to the question of title involved, it appears that Walsh has not tilled for three years the half-acre plot already allotted to him. The Provisional Order having been issued, the case cannot now be re-opened.
  MR. O'SHEE: Was there any reasonable ground for the refusal?
  MR. WYNDHAM:Yes, I should think the failure to till for three years the plot he already held constituted a reasonable ground.

  Sergeant Taylor, R.I.C.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether Sergeant Taylor, Royal Irish Constabulary, who has been recently removed from Ardrahan Police Station, in the Counnty Galway, was removed at his own request; if not, can he state what were the grounds of his removal; and has the sergeant asked for a police inquiry into any allegations made against him.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The sergeant was not transferred at his own request nor has he asked for any inquiry. The transfer was made on disciplinary grounds.

  Macrcoom Labourers' Cottage Scheme.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the last improvement scheme, under the Labourers' (Ireland) Acts, formulated by the Macroom Rural District Council, an agricultural labourer, named Timothy Murphy, applied for a cottage and plot on the holding of Cornelius Dineen, in the electoral division of Magourney; and that the application was passed at the inquiry held by the Local Government Board Inspector, but subsequently rejected; will he state whether a special inspector was sent from Dublin to inquire into the grounds for rejection; and, seeing that the holding on which the cottage was to be erected contained 48 acres and had no labourers' dwelling built on it, will he explain on what grounds Timothy Murphy's application was refused.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Inspector recommended the application subject to inspection of the site. The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative. Two inspections were made by the same Inspector who reported that water was not procurable within a reasonable dis-
  598
  tance, and that the site was marked on a holding too small as compared with others in the district. It also appears that the applicant works, not on the land of Mr. Dineen, but on that of another farmer who occupies 200 acres on which there are only two labourers' cottages.

  Swinford Guardians—Midwives' Fees.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Resolution in reference to the salaries of midwives of dispensing districts passed by the Swinford Board of Guardians on 29th October, 1901, and forwarded to the Local Government Board; can he explain why no reply to this Resolution has been given by the Local Government Board, and whether in that connection his attention has been drawn to the recent decision of the King's Bench that midwives must be included under the term "officers" in the Medical Charities Act.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Local Government Board was not in a position to reply sooner to the Resolution, as the matter was under consideration. The recent decision of the King's Bench defined midwives to be officers under the Medical Charities Act, but this in itself does not entitle the Guardians to recoupment of any portion of their salaries.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to request the Local Government Board to acknowledge communications of this kind without delay?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Carndonagh Postal Service.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a memorial has been received by the Post Office authorities from the merchants and other residents of the town of Carndonagh, County Donegal, complaining of the inconvenience arising from the changes lately introduced by the Post Office Authorities in the carriage of the mails from Londonderry to Carndonagh; and, seeing that the memorialists have requested the Post Office to arrange for

  599
  the despatch of a local mail by the 4.30 train from Londonderry, whether the authorities have taken any steps to comply with the wishes of the people of the district as shown in the memorial.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has received the Memorial referred to by the hon. Member, and has given instructions for the request ndicated in the Question to be complied with.

  Donegal and Londonderry Union Boundaries.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Local Government Board have received Resolutions from amongst other public bodies, the Innishowen Rural District Council protesting against the appointment of Mr. Richard Kelly as inspector to hold the inquiry into the proposed change of union boundaries in Counties Donegal and Londonderry; and seeing that these public bodies have asked the Local Government Board to appoint as inspector for the holding of the said inquiry a barrister unconnected with said counties, whether the Local Government Board purpose acceding to the wishes of the districts concerned as expressed in the said Resolutions.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The inquiry will not be held until the autumn. That being so it would be premature to make any definite selection of an inspector to hold it.

  Thurles Labourers' Cottage Scheme.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the application of James Kinnane which came before the inspector at the recent inquiry under the Labourers Acts for Thurles Rural District; and whether, seeing that there is no provision in the Labourers Acts requiring the assent of the occupier or owner to the application, the Board will now recommend the inclusion of this case in the Provisional Order.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This application was excluded from the Provisional Order because the consent of the occupying owner had not been obtained. Had it been included without his consent, the case would doubtless have been rejected by the Privy Council on appeal. Under the circumstances the Board, in my opinion, acted properly.

  Intimidation of Irish Loyalists.
  MR. HOULT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that for some time past in County Sligo and other parts of Ireland loyal inhabitants have been subject to terrorism and intimidation; and, if so, will he take steps to maintain order in this part of Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In certain parts of Ireland, which I have referred to as disturbed areas, illegitimate, and, in some cases, illegal pressure has been directed against individuals. Prosecutions have been instituted where there is evidence of illegality. Protection is afforded to all who are subjected to intimidation.
  CAPTAIN DONELANWho decided the question of illegality in these cases?
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is done by due process of law.

  Londonderry Land Commission Court.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the chief Land Commission Court at its sittings last week in the city of Londonderry was comprised only of two members; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction of the tenants interested in the cases heard, both with regard to the decisions and composition of the Court, arrangements will be made to have three Commissioners in future at the hearing of appeals in that district, and that one of the three will be Mr. Commissioner O'Brien.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I understand that the Judical Commissioner was unavoidably absent from these Sittings owing to family bereavement. Mr. Commissioner O'Brien attends Sittings of the Appeal Court in rotation with the other two non-legal members of the Commission.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is a Court of two Commissioners competent to sit?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir, under circumstances which, as in the present case, are contemplated by statute.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Then why should the country have to pay for three?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Private Bill Procedure Committee.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, in view of the importance to Wales of the matters to be inquired into, he will take steps to secure an adequate representation of Welsh interests upon the proposed Committee on Private Bill Procedure.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, K): I think there is no doubt that when the names are selected for this Committee due care will be taken by the responsible authorities for the proper representation of all the various interests concerned.

  Proposed Committees on Local Loans and Housing of the Working Classes.
  MR. HAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state the cause of the delay in appointing the Select Committee promised by the Government on the second day of the session to inquire into the desirability of extending the period for the repayment of loans made to local authorities in relation to the Housing of the Working Classes and otherwise.
  MR. HAY: I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state the cause of the delay in appointing the Select Committee promised by the Government on the second day of the session to inquire into the Standing Orders of this House relating to the clauses in Private Bills affecting the Housing of the Working Classes and other matters.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that proceedings are in progress to constitute both the Commitees to which my hon. friend refers.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I hope the Committees will be appointed promptly, having regard to the fact that when the pledge was given the general impression was that the matter would be taken in hand at once.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope there will be no long delay.

  London Water Bill.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can now state on what day the London Water Bill will be taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board proposes to proceed with the Second Reading of the London Water Bill on Thursday next.

  The Navy Estimates.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he propose to continue the discussion of the Navy Estimates on Monday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, I am informed there is little chance of finishing the Estimates to-morrow night, and if that is so, they will be continued on Monday.

  New Procedure Rules.
  MR. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will be willing to consider such rearrangement of the business of the House under the new Standing Orders as will enable Government business to be taken at the proposed sitting on Fridays, and Private Members' Bills now set down for Wednesdays to be taken at one of the proposed afternoon sittings instead of at the proposed sitting on Fridays.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend has introduced the question whether or not Private Members' Bills should be taken on Friday as distinct from the question, with which it is closely allied, whether the Friday sitting should begin at twelve o'clock and end at six o'clock, or whether it should be a double sitting, beginning at two o'clock and ending at

  603
  midnight. As regards the first of these questions—namely, the propriety of having a twelve o'clock sitting on Friday, the Government holds the strongest view, which I shall explain and justify in the course of the debate. The question whether Friday—if there be a twelve o'clock sitting on Friday—should be devoted to private business is a matter, I admit, of secondary importance. I think the hon. Member will find that the general view of the House is that, according to our immemorial traditions, the sittings beginning at twelve o'clock should be devoted to Private Members' Bills. I am disposed to concur in that view.

  ARRANGEMENT OF THE ORDER PAPER.
  Mr. DILLONsaid he wished to raise a question or order as to the making up of the Notice Paper. It would be seen that the First Lord of the Treasury had withdrawn part of his Amendment to Standing Order No. 21, but the earlier part of the Amendment which was still on the Paper was unaltered. Now his point was a very simple one, i.e., that the earlier part of the Amendment was precisely the same as that of which notice of withdrawal was given. But all the Amendments to the Amendment of the First Lord had been swept away, although some of them applied to the first four lines as well as to the part of the Amendment which had been withdrawn.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I was asked as to that at the time. I directed that all the Amendments to the Government Amendment should be taken off the Paper because the original Amendment itself had been withdrawn, but it is competent, of course, for any hon. Member that intends to propose an Amendment to the new Amendment to put it down.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERasked the First Lord if he would reprint for the convenience of Members the document which he circulated to the House containing his explanation of the New Rules, showing the existing Standing Orders and the proposed alterations, and, secondly, would
  604
  he reprint the Orders which had been amended, or new ones which had been passed in the course of the present debates.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think with regard to the second Question, they are circulated with the Votes, and as to the first I believe the Paper is still to be obtained at the Vote Office.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: No. I may point out, too, that the original proposals of the right hon. Gentleman have been somewhat altered by himself, so that it would be very convenient if he would let us have a new Paper.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that is reasonable.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman print on the White Paper the Standing Order as it now stands with the proposed alteration in italics? That would do away with the necessity for an hon. Gentleman to examine both the White and the Blue Papers.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: And may I suggest that the Orders and Amendments might be printed in a separate Paper. It would be very convenient to hon. Members.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will see how far I can meet the wishes of the hon. Members.

NEW PROCEDURE RULES.
  SIXTH DAY'S DEBATE.

    STANDING ORDER No. 1 (SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE).
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [18th February] to Amendment proposed to Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House):—
    And which Amendment was, after the last Amendment—
    "To insert the words Wednesday and Thursday at Two of the clock for an Afternoon Sitting, and at Nine of the clock for an Evening Sitting. If the business appointed for an Afternoon Sitting is not disposed of at Eight of the clock, the Sitting shall be suspended till Nine of the clock. At One of the clock at the Evening Sitting.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    And the Amendment to the proposed Amendment was—
    "To leave out the words 'Wednesday and.'"—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)
    Question again proposed, "That the word 'Wednesday' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    MR. DILLONsaid the object of the hon. Member for the Ashford Division of Kent was to preserve the present arrangement, and to prevent any interference with the Wednesday sittings. The Government's method of conducting the debate was extraordinary. At the opening of the discussion on Tuesday it was generally agreed that the question was whether Private Members' Bills were to be taken on Wednesdays or Fridays. But a few minutes before midnight the First Lord interrupted to point out that the Amendment did not decide what business should be taken on Friday, but only whether Friday or Wednesday was to be the day of a 12 o'clock sitting. What was the object of allowing the debate to go on for seven or eight hours on a misunderstanding?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I deprecated discussing Friday at all in the preliminary discussion. As to the accusation that I have decided that the House is only debating on this question the hours of the Friday sitting, that decision is a question of order over which I have absolutely no control whatever.
    MR. DILLONsaid that the whole character of the debate would have been substantially altered, for every speech was delivered on the assumption that, if the 12 o'clock sitting were changed from Wednesday to Friday, private Bills now taken on Wednesday would in future be taken on Friday. In his opening statement the right hon. Gentleman had made that very plain. What were the words he used? He said the scheme would work automatically. The Monday morning and evening sittings would belong to the Government; on Tuesday the Government would have the morning sittings, and private Members the evening one; on Friday the same arrangement would
    606
    obtain, while on Thursday the afternoon and evening would be devoted to Supply. Friday was to take the place now held by Wednesdays—Wednesday would, in fact, be transferred bodily to Friday.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is the plan of the Government. But this question is in two parts; and I cannot compel the House to discuss the two parts together.
    MR. DILLONrejoined that that was what the House had been doing all through. It was impossible to discuss them separately. The whole attitude of the House to the Friday sitting might be changed if it were decided that Government business would be taken on Fridays. The Government ought to say what they meant to do. That was only a reasonable question to put to the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That depends on the House.
    MR. DILLON: Does it? Will the right hon. Gentleman leave it to the House to decides.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The House always decides.
    MR. DILLONsaid that that was hardly a fair answer. The decision depended not upon the House but upon the Government, unless the right hon. Gentleman would leave the question open. The House was entitled to know what the intentions of the Government were. If this change were agreed to, what was to be the Government programme with regard to Fridays? That was an all-important question. If the right hon. Gentleman would give the House leave to vote freely in the matter, well and good, the House would decide the question; but they knew that the contrary would be the case, for according to the information he had received the Government Whips were putting more and more pressure on hon. Gentlemen in order to get the rules through in the shape in which the Government had submitted them. He ventured to assert that he was neither unreasonable, fractious, nor obstructive in insisting on having from the Government

    607
    a plain statement as to what business would be taken if the House sat at noon on Fridays. So far as he was concerned he preferred the present arrangement. All the arguments up to the present time had been that the Wednesday to Friday change would facilitate Private Members' Bills, but if the Government were now going to make an attempt to get the Friday first and then shove the private Members on to an afternoon sitting on some other day and give Friday to Supply that would alter the attitude and the votes of many hon. Members. It was unreasonable to demand this now before the House knew exactly what the change involved.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Surely we have a right to know from the Leader of the House where we stand in this matter. The proposal is to alter the situation of Wednesday, and up to this time Wednesday has been appropriated to Private Members' Bills. Before this question is decided we ought to know what is to be substituted for Private Members' Bills for we have no information upon that subject.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am doing my best to make it clear. We have told the House over and over again what our plan is. Our plan is that Private Members' Bills should be taken on Friday, but it is perfectly impossible and out of order, and out of the power of the Government to decide by this vote whether that plan is to be carried into effect completely or not. I explained the plan of the Government in the original speech I made.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Do I understand that the Government take their stand on their proposal that the time on Friday should be devoted to Private Members' Bills at a morning sitting, and to take Wednesday, which arises on this Amendment, for a morning and evening sitting to be devoted to Government business? Am I to understand that there is no alteration in the views of the Government upon that subject, and that that is the plan to which they intend to adhere? Am I right in that assumption?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is our plan.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Then that alters the whole thing. We ought to have a clear understanding, and I must say that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman on the evening of the last discussion, and even to day, was very ambiguous. From the expression he has used he seems to still consider it a very doubtful matter what to do with Friday. I think we are entitled to know, if we give up Wednesday what private Members are to have, if they do not have Friday. The right hon. Gentleman says this may be decided when we come to Friday, but I contend that it ought to be decided before. We cannot really deal with this question of Wednesday, unless we have some tolerable certainty as to what will be substituted. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman, as he has put it as a questionable matter, if the House decides upon the Friday under those circumstances what will he do with Wednesday, and what substitute will be given, because we may have disposed of all the time beforehand. Supposing the House determines that Government business shall be taken on Friday there will be no time to substitute for that taken away from private Members on Wednesday. For my own part, I strongly adhere to the existing plan of the Wednesday. I think it is a very good thing to have a rest in the middle of the week, rather than have this change. I have a very strong opinion that the result of this Friday sitting will mean the loss of Friday altogether, and it will be regarded outside as a matter of giving less attention and less time to the work of the House of Commons, and as sacrificing business to private holidays. Therefore, so far from impressing the country with the idea that what we desire is to do more work, the impression produced will be exactly the opposite, for when they see that the House of Commons practically does not sit for any useful purpose on Fridays, as it used to sit before, they will think that we have been sacrificing the efficiency of the House of Commons to the convenience of hon. Members opposite. For these reasons I shall vote for the adherence to Wednesday as before.
    MR. WHITMOREsaid the answers given by the right hon. Gentleman had placed him in a con-

    609
    siderable difficulty. He was greatly opposed to the idea of having Private Members' Bills taken at a morning sitting on Friday, because he was convinced that nothing but harm could result from that proposal. It was very easy to argue that the Second Readings would not be conclusive, but he felt that all hon. Members ought to do what they could to prevent the House of Commons obtaining still more the character of a mere academic debating society that it had at present. He was prepared to vote against the allocating of morning sittings on Fridays to Private Members' Bills. But he did not attach the same importance to there being a morning sitting on Friday and no evening sitting. He gathered that the Government had decided to make it a Government question whether they should have a morning sitting and an adjournment on Friday, but he earnestly asked the First Lord of the Treasury not to put any sort of pressure upon his supporters with regard to the taking of the morning sitting on Friday for Private Members' Bills. All that was fundamental in the new Rules he would Support, but the proposal before the House was a matter upon which each hon. Member was competent to form a sound judgment. The Government were under the impression that this proposal would be generally popular and attractive, and he did not blame them for adopting that supposition. When he first heard of it he thought himself that it seemed to be very attractive. Many other hon. Members had said that while at first they thought this change was a delightful proposal, the more they considered it the more they came to the conclusion that it would be derogatory to the efficiency of the House. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not think that he had the least desire to embarrass the Government, for that was the last thing he had in his mind. He understood the main purpose of the scheme was to increase the security and certainty of Government business, and, if possible, prevent private Members time from being gradually filched by the Government as had been the case in the past. To achieve those objects he would give the Government scheme as a whole his hearty support. He did, however, ask
    610
    the First Lord of the Treasury to respect the deep and conscientious convictions of hon. Members when they said that if the Government were going to take Friday morning sittings for Private Members' Bills they would be doing something which might be very mischievous, and which would impair the popular credit of the House of Commons.
    MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid if the First Lord of the Treasury would adopt the suggestion which had been made the Government would actually gain time, for they would be getting five and a half hours of Government time on Friday, whilst private Members would be sacrificing a certain amount of time in order to obtain an efficient debate upon an earlier day in the week. If private business commenced at two o'clock and the Government plan was adhered to, then under their proposal they would have four hours fifty minutes as against the five and a half hours which was suggested by the hon. Member opposite. If the suggestion of the hon. Member for Norwich was met, that the Government business should commence at three o'clock, the Government would have five and a half hours on Friday instead of a shorter period on an earlier day in the week. He thought that was an argument which the Government ought to consider.
    (4.45.) SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid the strain of the work of the House was very great, particularly on the older Members. He asked whether the Government thought they would be able to get their supporters to come down to the House four nights running. They came on Monday and Tuesday, and when they got a holiday on Wednesday they were prepared to come on Thursday and Friday. While a loyal supporter of the Government, he could not help feeling that they should not insist on this proposal.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the Government had put forward these proposals professedly with a view to the convenience of the House, and undoubtedly the House itself should be left free to decide on a matter relat-

    611
    ing to its own convenience, and the performance of the work for which they were sent there. But the Government were going to put on Party pressure and employ the Party Whips in the matter, so that instead of consulting the convenience of the House they were, when it came to a division, going to consult their own convenience. It was not fair to him who certainly exercised a certain independence, and it was not fair to hon. Members behind who usually exercised less independence. He was not sure that this might not have an effect contrary to that which was expected, because hon Members were apt to resent this sort of dictation in a matter where they ought to be left free. When this proposal was made it was held forth that Members would probably be able to go away on Thursday and stay until Monday, certainly to go away from Friday until Monday. But he was glad to see that many hon. Members had come to the conclusion that although their own interests were worth something, they had higher and more imperative interests. They had to consult the interests of the country which they were sent here to look after. The more this proposal was looked at, the less it was liked. The more Members looked at it, the less disposed they were to sacrifice the business of the House to their own personal convenience. It was creditable that in spite of the tempting bait held out to them, there should be such a strong expression of opinion on both sides. This Wednesday question was, in his opinion, one with the Friday question, and it was for that reason that he put down an Amendment, which, however, he did not now intend to move. He asked the House to observe what the result would be if the proposed Rule were adopted. All those Members who did not feel so stron a sense of duty as to be obliged to remain on Friday would have gone away, and the House would be peopled by Members who wished to pass certain Bills, possibly by different sections of Members, each of which wished to pass their own Bill. He thought there would be a system of log-rolling, and one Member would say to another, "If you attend on my Friday to pass the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, I will attend
    612
    on your Friday to pass the Taxation of Land Values Bill." The Members who were interested in Supply alone would be away, and the zealots would be in full and uncontrolled possession of the House. They would have the most extraordinary Bills brought forward on Friday. By having these Bills on Wednesday, a counter - balance of attendance was secured, for Wednesday coming between two working days was not sufficient to tempt Members away to the country. The result was that they had a much more representative attendance in the House than they otherwise would have. But if they put work down for Friday, they would have none of that counterbalance which he had mentioned. He might be allowed to say that he was one of those who did not wholly neglect their business in this House, and that he undertook a considerable share of the work which preceded the meeting of the House. His case was this: Wednesday was invaluable to every Member of this House. On Monday and Tuesday they were engaged perhaps in strenuous work and strenuous speech in this House, possibly in the Committee stages of most important measures. Then came Wednesday, and they immediately had a feeling of relief. They were able to overlook the work done on Monday and Tuesday, and perhaps some of that done in the preceding week. It was the day when new ideas occurred to them in regard to measures, and they were able in that way sometimes to remove opposition and to arrange compromises. Wednesday, for the same reason, was invaluable to the Government when they were endeavouring to pass a difficult and contentious measure. The right hon. Gentleman knew that in passing a contentious measure, difficulties constantly arose, which required to be dealt with there and then if it was to go through. Wednesday was exactly the day when the ingenious compromise occurred to Ministers which enabled them to get their measures through. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT nodded assent.] He was glad the right hon. Gentleman opposite nodded assent, for nobody had ever had a more difficult Bill to pass through the House, a proposal which he brought forward being

    613
    discussed for three months. Wednesday was what sailors called a "stand easy," but under the proposed arrangement there were to be two sittings that day. The more he looked at the new Rules, the more he was convinced that the present rules were the right ones, and that the present allocation of time was right. An adequate attendance was secured in the House on Wednesday to deal with the revolutionary proposals sometimes made from both sides of the House. He earnestly trusted that the Government would reconsider and abandon the proposal for altering the character of Wednesday.
    MR. TENNANTsaid he was afraid the hon. Member for King's Lynn had thrown out some temptation to the Government to adhere to the proposal, because if he was deprived of Wednesday he would not have so much time for composing the strenuous speeches to which he had alluded. According to the hon. Member for Thirsk, who introduced this Rule, a large number of Members would go home or to business on Friday. The Leader of the House and the Colonial Secretary thought this would make the House more attractive to Gentlemen who had limited time. That was their reason for proposing the Rule. But if they made this change, questions of great importance would be debated in an attenuated House without sufficient logic and argument, and carried by small majorities, by no means representative of the House. Under such circumstances, the House would do nothing but lose in dignity.
    MR. MACARTNEYasked the Leader of the House not to yield to the request of the hon. Member for King's Lynn and others in regard to the removal of what they called the pressure of the Government. If Government pressure was taken off on this particular point, it would be most unfair to a great number of Members on this side of the House who had supported the proposals of the Government on other particulars, though their predilections might not be in favour of them. This weighed with him more than any other proposal made by the Government. He had been in the House on probably more Wednesdays during the last six-
    614
    teen years than most other Members; and he thought that the hon. Members for Ashford and Chelsea had on these occasions been conspicuous by their absence. It was notorious that the Wednesday Houses were extremely thin; and there was no reason to suppose that there would not be an adequate number of Members to debate any subjects coming on on Fridays. It was perfectly absurd to suppose that the mere transfer of private Members' business from Wednesday to Friday would work such a transformation that Private Members' Bills would be placed at a disadvantage. It had been urged by some Members that the Wednesday morning sitting was a great relief; but it would be nothing to the relief gained by having a reasonable dinner hour on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. He agreed with the First Lord of the Treasury that what was most convenient for the majority of the House tended to the advantage of public business. He had been sent there either to support the Government or the Opposition, and he was sure that nine Members out of ten had not been sent there to listen to or discuss Private Bills. He had spent many weary hours in opposing on Wednesdays legislation of a character which he thought extremely dangerous; and he supposed that in future he would have to do the same on Fridays. He would point out that all the dangers alleged to attach to the change of days were merely hypothetical; and he hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would adhere to the proposals he had put before the House, and that he would not yield to the demand made by the hon. Member for Chelsea to take off the pressure upon his followers.
    SIR FREDERICK MILNERsaid he could conscientiously give the proposals of the Government his hearty support, and for two reasons. First, because he thought they conformed to the general opinion of the majority of the House; and second, because he believed the change in both the hours and the days would tend to the efficiency of the House. Moreover, he frankly expressed his approval of the proposals for a more or less selfish reason, because, being a domestic man, he looked forward to spending four

    615
    nights a week in the bosom of his family. Having settled days and hours for it, the work of the nation would be more efficiently discharged, because hitherto they had never known when to come down to the House, and tim was wasted by private business and Questions. A good deal had been said as to the new Rules depriving private Members of their opportunities of bringing in Bills, but during the twenty years he had been in the House, while the procedure had sometimes prevented private Members from accomplishing much useful work, it had also prevented them from doing a good deal of mischief. The hon. Member for Chelsea had said it would probably be better to give private Members another day than Friday, but he himself felt that if there was any important Bill on, there would be quite a large attendance of Members on that day. The Leader of the Opposition, with very bad taste, as he thought, insinuated that the chief part of these new Rules had been brought in for the benefit and convenience of what he called the "smart set" in the House. That example of bad taste had, he was glad to say, not been followed. The Government had consulted the convenience of the whole House, and not any particular section of it; and the fact that the hon. Member for Leicester was one of the warmest advocates of the proposal was the best answer to the Leader of the Opposition.
    SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid that he was not a supporter of the Government. He, however, claimed to be loyal to his constituency, and, through them, to the public advantage. He might point out that if this Rule could be shown to afford more time to the Government for the transaction of public business, he should have felt inclined to support it. He wanted no repetition of the monstrous thing which happened last year, when no fewer than 70 Votes were passed in Supply without discussion. He did not believe that a single hour would be gained by the Rule, and he could not, therefore, support it.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERscarcely thought that his right hon. friend who addressed the House a few moments before had helped the Government very much in this matter, when he put it that this was very largely a
    616
    question of personal convenience and not a matter which, in the first instance, affected non-official Members. His right hon. friend had pressed the Leader of the House to use all his personal influence in forcing the House to a conclusion. Now, he thought the Leader of the House had been most considerate on that point, and had used no language which indicated any desire to bring undue pressure to bear on his supporters. Personally he thought it was his duty to exercise his individual judgment whatever his right hon. friend or his colleagues might think or do. At the same time he must differ from his right hon. friend with regret. He was, however, not sure that if all his right hon. friends his colleagues were polled individually on the matter there would be a consensus of opinion upon it. This was obviously a question which hon. Members must decide for themselves, and anyone with a spark of spirit in him would decide it for himself. He did not want to go over the ground as to the substitution of Friday for Wednesday for private Members business, but he thought that many considerations had been somewhat obscured in the discussion. The Friday sitting, as had been pointed out, would be very frequently taken in hand by the log-rollers of whom the hon. Member for King's Lynn had spoken. He thought, moreover, that four consecutive long nights would not redound to the output of useful work. Each night would be divided amongst different classes of business, and the system would be entirely changed. It would not be denied that the break in the week, which had become a matter of habit, was useful, and had better not be interfered with. It was impossible not to consider the allocation of the time of the House when discussing the question of the change from Wednesday to Friday, but he would not be in order in dealing with that in detail. His right hon. friend had, however, thrown out a hint that perhaps some other arrangement might be made for the business of unofficial Members, and he thought they ought to know what that arrangement was. The only practical question before the House was whether they were to give up Wednesday to the Government and whether Private Members' Bills should be taken on Friday. They should exercise their own individual judgment on it, and whatever

    617
    might be thought on a particular Bench, he hoped the House of Commons would decide the matter for itself.
    MR. MELLORsaid the question was not in any sense political, and he hoped it would also be regarded as a non-Party one. As his hon. friend had said, their duty as Members of Parliament was to make their Rules efficient in order that they might be able to carry on the business of the House of Commons to the satisfaction of the public. The reason why a good many Members were naturally unwilling to agree to the proposed change was that they thought that the Government had already a very large share of the time of the House, and were, therefore, unwilling that anything should be done to limit the time which was now given to private Members for their Bills. He agreed that Friday would probably produce a thin House, and that it was very undesirable that these Bills should be relegated to such a House, as private Members would not have a fair chance of pressing their measures in a full House or of having a thorough and satisfactory discussion. He thought it would be difficult to have a satisfactory House on Friday. Up to 1880 the first Question put on Friday by the Speaker was, "That I do now leave the Chair," and on that Question private Members had a right to move Amendments similar to the present Tuesday Motions. It was found that private Members could not keep a satisfactory House on that day, and at times that they could not keep a House at all. An appeal was made to Mr. Gladstone, who was then Prime Minister, and he was asked whether the Government would keep a House on Friday. Mr. Gladstone said he thought it ought to be regarded as a Government day, and since then a House had been kept. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Antrim said that there was now an insufficient attendance on Wednesday, but if that were the case on Wednesday, which was between two full days, what would be the case on Friday? He put it to the Leader of the House that it was not desirable that the Government should do anything that would look like taking away important time from private
    618
    Members, unless they were absolutely driven to it by some sudden and great emergency. There was another consideration why the House should retain Wednesday as it was, and that was that it was a most important break in the middle of the week. It was all very well to say that Members were only thinking of their own convenience. That was not the case on one side or the other. When he was Chairman of Committees he had a great deal of experience of morning and evening sittings, and he could assure the House that the break on Wednesday was of much importance to the House. It was of importance to hon. Members who attended to their duties, and was most important to the Chair and the officers of the House. In considering these questions, they ought never to put out of consideration the position of the Chair and the Officers of the House. The Speaker and Chairman had his mind constantly at a stretch, and he was really afraid that if they compelled either the Speaker or the Chairman to sit four nights in succession with four morning sittings, they would be casting an amount of labour on the Chair, which would cause a very considerable amount of fatigue.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would not be for more than three days.
    *MR. MELLOR: It is not the actual amount of time, but the time coming together.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman said four days. It would be only three days.
    *MR. MELLOR: There will be Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Thursday will be for Supply.
    *MR. MELLORsaid that he, as Chairman of Committees, had sat four days a week, and after Whitsuntide, when the Government took the time of the House and when an important Bill was in Committee, the Chairman would probably have to sit four days a week. Therefore, he thought that was a very unreasonable amount of labour to put on the Chair

    619
    without a sufficient break in the middle of the week. If the Government had made up their minds to meet at twelve o'clock on Friday, he would suggest that the House should also meet at twelve o'clock on Wednesday. The Wednesday adjournment was so important that he hoped the House would not give it up, and he thought that very little harm would be done by meeting at noon on Wednesday as well as on Friday.
    MR. RANDLESsaid that much had been said about preserving the rights of private Members, but as far as he could judge the sense of the constituencies now was, and increasingly so, that the private Member was doing the best service to his constituency, for he supported the party he was sent to support, and used such influence as was at his disposal to further the needs and objects, he was elected principally to serve. Speaking with little experience, the proposed change from Wednesday to Friday appeared to him to be eminently sensible. It appealed to him as being a businesslike proposal, and as one calculated to secure the better transaction of the important business which came before that assembly. The private convenience of individual Members was perhaps a minor argument, but it certainly was a convenience, that Members who were engaged in various public and private occupations at a distance from London should be able to get into the country on Friday night or Saturday morning, and to come into contact with their constituents during the progress of the session. While it might be inconvenient to some extent to hon. Members engaged in London, still the maximum convenience of the House should be considered with a view to the efficient discharge of the duties they had to perform. It was not conducive to the public interest that important estimates involving considerable expenditure should be considered at the fag end of the week. It was said that there would be a thin House on Friday for the consideration of the academic and obstruse questions brought forward by private Members; but a thin House was more favourable to a private Member than a full House if he wished to bring in a
    620
    revolutionary measure, as there would be less opposition to cope with. He thought the term of membership would not be entirely futile for he supported the Government in proposals which were introduced, he believed, for the general convenience of the House.
    SIR HENRY FOWLER: I should like to interpose a word or two before the Leader of the House gives his opinion. I venture to suggest that there are two questions in this substitution of Friday for Wednesday, and that we cannot look at the question as a whole without having regard to both these considerations. The first consideration is the efficiency of the conduct of the business of the House, and the best mode of discharging that branch of our work, and the second is the convenience of the Members themselves. The first question we have to consider is, what will best promote the work of the House and the discharge of business, and I think we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman why the experience of fifty years is to be put on one side. If a system which, during the last half a century, has worked satisfactorily alike to the Government and unofficial Members is to be interfered with, what are we to gain by it? I have no sympathy with the opinions expressed in this debate as to the Wednesday sittings of the House being devoted to fanatics and faddists. If by that it is meant that there is to be no legislation at all by unofficial Members, that all legislation is to be confined to the Government, and that no unofficial Member may bring in a Bill at all, say so plainly, and let it be understood by the Members of this House and their constituents. But the history of the last fifty years disproves the force of that argument. Many of the most useful measures on the Statute - book have been introduced on their first initiation by private Members on a Wednesday. Some of the measures brought in on a Wednesday are among the most valuable on the Statute-book. Some of them have been discussed, though it was known they could not pass all their stages in the House, and public opinion has been educated

    621
    and convinced. It will be a great loss to the country if these debates are done away with. Some one spoke in very contemptuous terms of yesterday's debate, but I think that debate was a credit to both sides of the House. The House approached the subject of the debate in a manner in which they ought to approach a great and difficult question, and a subject which some day or other some Government will have to take up. But it is asked: "Why should not this be done on a Friday?" Why not! For the simple reason that you will not get on Friday afternoon the same interest, the same debate, the same power, and the same effect on public opinion that you would have on Wednesday afternoon. We must look at these Rules as a whole, and the effect of this change is—it is a part of a scheme to enable Members to leave for the country or elsewhere to attend to other matters which, no doubt, are very important. No one can doubt but that the Friday sitting will be very attenuated; that the efforts of the Whips will be unable to keep a House, and that that day may be wiped out, as a day for public business, altogether.
    The right hon. Gentleman may, in the debate, give us some reason how public business will be best promoted by the change. It cannot be Government business. No Government business is introduced on Wednesday. I should have thought the Government were not indisposed to recognise the importance of Wednesday. It is a day when Cabinets meet, and when that Front Bench is deserted by the Government; it is the day that members of the Government devote to their Departmental duties, and that is a matter which is worthy of consideration. When are the members of the Government going to attend to their Departments if the House is to sit on Wednesday I afternoons, and they are not to have the relief they ought to have? Then it is said that what tends most to the convenience of private Members tends most to the convenience of the House, but who is the best judge of the convenience of the Members? Opinions differ on this matter; there are some who think the convenience of Members will be served by the change from Wednesday to the Friday, and others who object to that change also on the ground of con-
    622
    venience. It is not a question for the Government, but a question on which the House itself is the best judge, the true judge, and the only judge. If the right hon. Gentleman had said, "I believe this change to be absolutely essential to carry on the business of the the country; I cannot carry on the business of the country with reference to Supply or legislation or administration unless we get rid of Wednesday and take the business we generally take on Wednesday on a Friday," then I think he would be quite justified in making this question what Mr. Gladstone used to call a vital question. But I cannot conceive a right hon. Gentleman in his position, having, as he says, the confidence of the country, resigning if the House does not give him this Wednesday. Mr. Gladstone had a strong majority in 1881, but he did not believe it to be necessary for the large changes he made to force his opinion on the House. I remember that there were several revolts on that side of the House in 1881, and that Mr. Gladstone gave way when he saw a matter was not received with favour. Mr. Smith did the same thing, and modified his arrangements when he saw that the general sense of the House was the other way. I do not say that the general sense of the House may not be convinced by the right hon. Gentleman's argument. What I say is that it is not fair that he should make this question a vital question and not allow the House to have its own opinion on the matter. What is convenient to "A" is not convenient to "B." How the division will go I do not know. I know a great many Members on that side will vote in favour of the Government, and that a great many of the leading Members on this side will vote against the right hon. Gentleman's proposals; but however that may be, this question ought to be decided by the House itself, uninfluenced in any way except by argument, and in my opinion the House of Commons ought to be allowed a free and independent judgment in the matter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is a question upon which the Government take a strong view; it is a question to which we have given most careful consideration, and we do

    623
    not think, as the right hon. Gentleman appears to suppose, that the only consideration which we ought to take account of is the desire of this Member or of that Member to work on Friday, or the desire of this Member or that Member to have a holiday on Wednesday. Those are very important considerations, but they are not the sole considerations which suggested themselves to the Government in making this change, and before I sit down I shall explain to the House why it is we attach such importance to this discussion.
    Before I come to that, let me deal with one objection not referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, but referred to at some length by other speakers—the hon. Member for King's Lynn, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet, and others — the argument that it would throw an undue burden, firstly, on the House at large; secondly, on the officers of the House; and thirdly, on the Ministers, by depriving them of that repose which is given by the short sitting on the Wednesday. I think there is some weight in that argument, but that weight is notably diminished by a circumstance which has not been referred to in any single one of the speeches we have heard—namely, that under these Rules there will be rest given by the interval for dinner on each one of the four days. [A Voice: "One hour."] No, not one hour; on the contrary, frequently more than that to the various speakers; certainly more than that to the Chairman of Committees and to Mr. Speaker, who will have to sit only three days in the week. Therefore, so far as the most important persons are concerned, the Rule provides for that. There are circumstances — not very common circumstances—under which the Chairman of Committees may be in the Chair on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, but he has now got a Deputy Assistant, and there will be this lengthened interval, so I think the weight of the argument can be very easily exaggerated, while no attempt has been made to give weight to the considerations on the other side.
    Now, I pass from the relatively insignificant, but by no means negligeable, factor in the consideration of this question. If I truly interpret the
    624
    sense of the majority of those who have spoken against this change, it is a fear, and, as I venture to think, a fantastic fear, that has been raised in their bosoms, that Fridays will be handed over to faddists, philanthropists, and revolutionists. I shall have something to say on that point later. But I may here interpolate an observation—though it would be out of order to dwell at length on the matter—which I think ought to be made before we go to a division. I understand that the terrors of these friends of mine are augmented by a proposed Rule standing on the Paper by which practically there may be settled in one debate, not only whether a Bill shall be read a second time, but also whether it shall go to a Grand Committee. Within the last few days I have had the advantage of hearing representations made by gentlemen intimately acquainted with the working of Grand Committees—far more intimately acquainted with their working than I can profess to be. These gentlemen, some of whom have been Chairmen of Grand Committees, have represented to me that such a change as is proposed, would, by increasing the number of Bills sent up, threaten with destruction the whole machinery of these Grand Committees. They have quite convinced me. ["Oh, oh!"] Those are the representations made to me; I do not wish to pursue the point, as it is really out of order at present, but, at all events, they have convinced me that that change cannot and ought not to be considered alone, and that before adopting it the whole machinery of the Grand Committees, the method by which Bills are sent, and the kind of Bills that ought to be sent to them, should have the most careful consideration of a Committee of this House. Under these circumstances, with such authority against them, the Government do not propose to press that Rule any further on the consideration of the House.
    MR. DILLON: The one good Rule gone!
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry not to have the favour of the Hon. Member for East Mayo in this proposal, but the good fortune of getting him to agree with me on any aspect of

    625
    any question is of such rare occurrence that I cannot profess to have any very bitter disppointment at finding myself, even on this occasion, in opposition to him.
    Now, Sir, what is the argumentative basis of almost every oration which we have heard in connection with this subject? It is that the difficulty of inducing Members of this House to attend on Friday—even on Friday afternoon—is so great that we cannot ask them to undergo the sacrifice. Let us suppose that to be true—although I think I can show it is untrue—what then becomes of the work of Supply? I am really astounded at the view which has been taken in this discussion as to the relative value and importance of private Members' legislation and the work of Supply. As far as the Government is concerned, undoubtedly the work of Supply is absolutely necessary, because if the Government is beaten or frequently beaten in Supply, it is clearly impossible for them any longer to hold office. Very well. So far as the Government is concerned, Supply is no doubt vital. But as regards the rest of the House, when did Supply sink to this small and insignificant place among the matters that we have to discuss? When we come to the Supply Rule we shall hear speeches of a very different tenour. We shall then be told that Supply is the very root and basis of our whole system; the most important thing we have to discuss; the only means of bringing a recalcitrant Government to its senses; the only method by which the the attention of the country can be called to grave scandals and abuses. No doubt my hon. friend the Member of King's Lynn, who has been foremost in denouncing this as he has been in denouncing every other suggestion—
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman must really forgive me interrupting him; I not only have not denounced every proposal of the Government, but, on the contrary, I supported one the other night.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then I express fervent gratitude for a rare favour. But I was thinking, when I made that
    626
    observation, of the original speech of the hon. Member on these Rules, in which he did not point out one single merit which these Rules possessed, but rather urged that there was not a single demerit which changes could possibly possess of which these Rules did not show flagrant and striking examples. Under these circumstances, I think I was justified in saying that my hon. friend took a leading part in the opposition of these Rules. But that is a parenthesis. Those who have taken a leading part against these Rules, when we come to the proposals which regard Supply, will, say that Supply is the one thing of importance; the one way of controlling the Government; the one way of introducing order into our finances, and a far more important subject of discussion than any mere proposals of a legislative kind for which the Government make themselves responsible. Mark you, the argument is that Members cannot be got to attend on Friday mornings. I can tell the House that the difficulty is not to get Members to attend on Friday morning, but to get them to attend on Friday evening, and it is on Friday evenings, if we take the advice of these supporters of Supply, we are to consider the finances of the country week by week, and month by month. There may be dangers in the scant attendance of Members on Fridays under the Rule we propose, but what are they compared with the dangers we shall run if Supply is discussed in an utterly insufficient House, or if chance divisions are taken by which the opinion of the House is not properly represented? That argument will make clear why I drew the distinction, so much objected to by the Member for East Mayo, between the proposal for having a morning sitting on Friday, and, the proposal to have a sitting devoted to private Members' legislation. I think we ought to have that sitting devoted to private Members. That is the plan of the Government. But it is far more fundmental in our view that we should not have a Friday evening sitting, in which the House has no representative force; in such circumstances, for no purpose whatever, least of all for the purpose of conducting the financial

    627
    business of the country, is it proper we should be asked to meet. This consideration ought to be present to the minds of all who talk of the credit of the House. Speaker after speaker has told us that the credit of the House will be sacrificed if there is not a large attendance at half-past five in the afternoon to vote for or against some Private Bill. Is not the credit of the House as much involved in having a large attendance at half-past nine on Friday evenings if at the time we are asked to consider Supply? I think that is more important. But I do not think there will be any difficulty at all on important Bills, in getting Members to attend and take their fair share in the work at half-past five. Everybody acquainted with the working of the House knows perfectly well the difficulty of inducing Members to come back at 9 o'clock to sit through the not always very attractive or businesslike discussions that are forced upon us in Supply. That difficulty may be, and indeed is, almost insuperable.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, in the speech he has just delivered, said that this Wednesday Rule has worked for fifty years with perfect satisfaction to the House, to successive Governments, and to the country; and he asks what change there is in the circumstances in which we now meet, which justify or necessitate this alteration. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman. There is—and it is folly to shut our eyes to it—an immense change in the habits of the people with regard to what are now called "week-ends," of which the influence is, must be, and ought to be, felt in this House. I am told on all hands that in all industries, in all classes, right through the whole community, the enormous increase of the facilities of locomotion has made a change in the habits of the people—and in our own habits, too, who are representative of the people—which it would be folly on the part of this House to ignore. I think, on the whole, the change is a good one, but I will not argue the question. We have to take things as we find them, and whereas it may have been, and indeed was, perfectly suitable to the habits of this House in
    628
    former days to sit on Friday night up to twelve or one or two o'clock, I think it is perfectly unsuitable to the modern conditions under which we live. If anybody doubts the value or force of that argument, I would ask him to consider who it is that helps to carry on the necessary business of the country late on Friday nights. I am not going to do anything so invidious—I was going to say discourteous—as to mention names, but I would ask all the Gentlemen who have spoken against this Rule— with the exception, I must say, of my hon. friend the Member for Peckham—to consider what assistance they have given to the passage of Supply late on Friday nights. Are they among the Members upon whom the Government can count to sacrifice their convenience and come down to sit through the tedious debates on Supply? I do not know, but I am pretty certain that a conscientious examination of their own records will convince my hon. friends, with the exception I have mentioned, that, at all events, whoever is to carry on the work of Supply on Friday nights, they are not to be counted among them.
    That, it will be observed, is of vital importance when I come to deal with the appeal so freely made from both sides of the House to leave this an open question. On what is the appeal based to allow Members to vote as they feel disposed upon this question? It is based on the plausible argument that, whereas this arrangement is intended to suit the convenience of Members of the House, it is the Members of the House whose convenience is consulted who ought to decide, and that every man should be left with perfect security to say what will or will not suit his convenience. But the House is not voting on the convenience of all the Members of the House. What we are going to vote upon is this—whether those who do not mean to attend on Friday are going to compel those who, under pressure, would attend on Friday, to do so; and I do not see why that subject should be left open. It is a subject of far wider and of more far-reaching effect than the convenience of Mr. A, Mr. B, or Mr. C; and for these reasons the Government are clearly of opinion that, by the conditions under which we now carry on our work, there ought not to be an evening sitting on Friday. There are great advan-

    629
    tages in having even for a morning sitting private Bill legislation on a Friday rather than Supply. Private Bill legislation is known throughout the whole of our work practically from the first week of the session. Any Member can look ahead at the list of Bills and see what are the controversial measures which affect his constituency, and he can make his arrangements a month or even four months ahead if he pleases. With Supply, however, the case is different. Divisions come on at an uncertain period, and no human being can tell a week ahead what will be the subject of discussion or what form it will take. Though we regard it as relatively of secondary importance that there should be a twelve o'clock sitting on Friday, we do not think on the whole that that will be the most convenient arrangement for the House and for the country. I think we have a right—and I think the House will feel that I have endeavoured to make out a case—to look at this matter from all sides. Having done so, and having told the House that this is really no mere passing fancy of the Government, but a maturely considered change, I think that may appeal, and I am sure that I shall not appeal in vain, to the loyal support of those who habitually help us.
    MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he was very sorry to hear what had just fallen from the Leader of the House, for he had declared distinctly that this matter must be considered as a Government question. He ventured to suggest that this was a matter which ought to be left to the free and unfettered vote and decision of every hon. Member of the House. It was not in any shape or form a question of the Government against the Opposition, and it was not of a Party character. The change from Wednesday to Friday and the reverse was not a matter which would expedite Government business, and it would in no way assist Government legislation. On the contrary, it would retard it. The other changes which had been proposed were in quite a different category. His objection to the whole of these changes was that they were conceived not in the interests of those hon. Members who desired to take part in the debates, but in the interests of those who
    630
    only wished to put in an appearance from time to time to rush into the "aye" or "no" Lobby, entirely ignorant of what they were voting for, and did not care so long as they voted in the Government Lobby. The Rule under discussion was not only unpopular on the Opposition side, but also on the Government side, and the First Lord of the Treasury dare not take off the Government pressure, or the Vote would go against him. An hon. Member opposite had told him that he did not like this Rule, and it was more like bullying them to cram this Rule down their throats in this way. The right hon. Gentleman would get his Rule through much easier if he would leave it to the unfettered judgment of the House. If it was left an open question as to whether hon. Members preferred this change or the old Wednesday arrangement, then the decision would be whatever was the most convenient to the majority of the House. He hoped the debate on this point would not close without further discussion. It had been said that the Government could not afford to leave this to the judgment of the House, because it would form a very awkward precedent, but he ventured to say that that was a very unworthy argument to put forward.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not an argument which I used.
    MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid that argument had been used by hon. Members opposite. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, even at the eleventh hour, to consider this point. It would facilitate matters, create a good impression, and tend to discourage discussion upon other Rules, if the right hon. Gentleman would come forward and make this concession for the individual comfort and convenience of the House.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I ask the permission of the House to say a word or two in support of that chorus—I might say consensus—of opinion on the part of the more experienced hon. Members of this House who are altogether opposed, it appears from the debate, to relegating Fridays to the business of private Members. I think it must be admitted by all who have listened to this debate that the

    631
    hon. Member for East Mayo was more than justified in his contention at the commencement of this debate that Wednesdays and Fridays must be discussed together. There is no doubt that they are inseparable, and I am bound to say that that is what I always understood it to be from the first. We know now perfectly clearly where we stand.
    In the first place I should like to say a word or two in reply to my right hon. friend. He expressed his unbounded surprise that in all the speeches which had been made, and which objected to the undue work which would be thrown both upon the Members and the Officials of the House by continuous four-day sittings, nothing had been said with regard to the great relief they would enjoy by the adjournment for dinner. But, after all, what does that amount to? The House is to adjourn from eight until nine. It is the practice of the Speaker or the Chairman now to leave the House for half an hour, so that what it comes to is that they are to half an hour additional leisure in return for the four continuous days.
    MR. DILLON: And to meet an hour earlier.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I do not think that argument is worth a great deal in support of the proposal. My right hon. friend rather turned into ridicule the "fantastic terrors" on the part of a great many of his hon. friends with regard to the kind of Bills that may be scrambled through the House of Commons on Friday afternoon. Surely my right hon. friend must remember the character of a great many of the Bills that come before us on Wednesday. Are there not such things as Irish Bills put forward of an extreme character, and which have by the fortune of the ballot until the present Session obtained some of the first places and some of the best days? Is there not a reasonable dread on the part of some Members, at all events, as to the character of these Bills and the possibility of their receiving the imprimatur of the House of Commons? That is a possibility which, under this Rule, if it be adopted according to the plan of the Government, will be a matter of far too constant occurrence. What was the basis of all the speeches made against this proposal?
    632
    The basis of them was the difficulty of getting a sufficient attendance to form a House on Friday afternoons, and yet it is to those afternoons that we are desirous that the great question of Supply should be left. There is a great difference between a Friday afternoon devoted to Government business and a Friday afternoon devoted to private Bills. Has any Government coming from either side of the House ever yet had any difficulty in keeping a House for the Supply that is necessary for the government of the country? That is the most far-fetched idea. I have ever heard. If the Government is unable to keep a House to support its own business, I should be afraid, myself, that the days of that Government would be very nearly done. Besides, it seems to me that Friday evenings are not liable to this great difficulty and danger. There is the simplest and easiest way in the world of avoiding it. It has already been partly suggested by my hon. friend the Member for the Sowerby Division. It is perfectly possible on Fridays to sit from twelve to seven, or from two to, eight, for the purpose of transacting the business of the Government dealing with questions of Supply. In that way there would be no difficulty whatever I venture to think, in saving the credit of the House of Commons which my right hon. friend seemed to think is greatly in danger. In regard to the question of week-ends, he says there has been a great change in the habits of the people of England in the matter of taking a holiday on the Saturday and Sunday. I am not prepared to deny that that is the case. I am glad if it is the case. The more holidays they get, so far as I am concerned, the better. But that is not the kind of week-end that affects the House of Commons. A weekend here means a week-end for the purpose of going to some agreeable party. [Cries of "No."] Surely that is what usually happens at the week-end which hon. Members of this House like. A great many people elsewhere like to enjoy an agreeable party from Saturday to Monday at no great distance from London. That is generally accepted, so far as I understand it, by the term week-end. With all the respect in the world, I do not think by itself that is at

    633
    all a sufficient reason for making a complete change in the Rules and practice of the House of Commons.
    In dealing with the various appeals made to him to leave this an open question, my right hon. friend seemed to think that the grounds on which those appeals were made were totally inadequate. I should like to put the appeal on a different ground, which, I think, is worthy of the consideration of any Leader of the House of Commons, however powerful or however great his majority may be. This matter, which is not, strictly speaking, a Government question, ought not, in my humble opinion, to be made a Government question. As far as my recollection goes, this is the first time it has been made a Government question, although there have been numerous occasions on which the Rules of the House have been amended. I think it is well to remember that the pressure may be too great, and that it may produce a strain on the loyalty of supporters at last. The Leader of the House should remember that the House is easily and readily led, but that it is a very bad place to try to drive. I confess that in the first instance I was led to look upon this Rule with great favour, and no doubt the temptation to do so was exceedingly great. My right hon. friend the Member for South Antrim has no fear as to the keeping of a full House for any purpose whatever on Friday. Let me say, with great respect, how it strikes me. It is quite true, as my right hon. friend points out, that the attendance at Supply Committees has never been very strict or very close. You will have Thursday for Supply, Friday for private Members' Bills, and Saturday and Sunday two open days. Is it possible to doubt that a very large number of Members of the House will avail themselves of the opportunity of taking a holiday for these two days? You will have Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday when they will probably attend to public business. I say that the House will be put in the position of enjoying a holiday for practically four days out of the seven. It seems to me that there will be a less attendance for private Members' business, unless the Government undertake to keep a House than there has ever been before. One section
    634
    of the House, no doubt, will always be in attendance. These are the men who hold extreme opinions. I cannot say, with my experience of the House, that the fears which have been expressed to night by a great many of my hon. friends are unreasonable, or that they have been very much exaggerated, namely, that if Fridays are relegated to private Members there will be a danger of a great many Bills of an extreme character being brought forward, and for the passing of which those who are keenly interested in them will make any sacrifice to make a House when the great majority of Members are away. In all probability a great many of these bills will be rushed through. Even then they will have received, so far as the mind of the country is concerned, the approval and sport of the majority of the House of Commons, and that in itself would be an extremely unfortunate thing. My hon. friend the Member for Chelsea has pointed out quite truly that such bills might meet with a very different fate in another place. I say it is most undesirable to place more responsibility, especially responsibility of this kind, upon the House of Lords, than rests upon them at the present time. I would join in the appeal to my right hon. friend with regard to this particular Rule to let it be known among his followers and supporters that, be their opinions what they may, they will be at liberty, it without any charge of disloyalty to their Leaders, to act on their opinions and vote as they see fit.
    MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid he had at the first the greatest objection to the proposed change, but the First Lord had taken the House into his confidence. The difficulty which his right hon. friend had indicated was one which rested on an assumption which he was not quite sure his right hon. friend had a right to make, and he therefore rose for the purpose of asking him whether, supposing the House persisted in adhering to its present practice of sitting on Friday evening, it necessarily followed that the business to be taken on Friday sittings. and therefore on Friday evenings, would continue as at present to be the business

    635
    of Supply. If he did not say that, then he thought it was incumbent upon those of his hon. friends who objected to the proposed change to say they were prepared to attend the House for the Second Reading of important Bills, and to remain until twelve o'clock for issues of the first magnitude. If the House was good enough to sit at all on Friday evenings, it was good enough to decide an issue of first rate importance.
    SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he wished to join in the appeal which had been made to the Leader of the House. This was not a Party question, and it should be decided by Members of the House irrespective of Party. He could not conceive why Party issues should be involved in a matter which was for the convenience of the House. He asked the Leader of the House to make this an open question, not that he thought it would make much difference in the result, but that it would make a wonderful difference in the respect with which the Rules would be viewed. The present Rules had had a sanction which they never would have obtained if they had been passed under Party pressure. As to the Amendment immediately before the House, speaking from the point of view with reference to the work of the House, he really considered, although the change would be for his own personal convenience, that if they were to have four working days, one after the other, there would be too heavy a strain on Members, and the result would be that the work would be done less efficiently. It would be also a severe strain on the officials of the House, who were obliged to be there. That meant that for the morning sitting there would be six hours of continuous work, and the free interval of an hour was not sufficient for recuperative purposes. Then succeeded the evening sitting from nine to one o'clock in the morning, which was a strain on the occupant of the Chair and on the other officials to which they ought not to be subjected, and which would not be compensated for by the half-day at the week end. It would make the labour more tedious and monotonous and do away with the
    636
    benefit received from the Wednesday break under the present system. What they wanted in the House of Commons was not only men of leisure, but men engaged in business and professional pursuits, who would feel it almost impossible to enter Parliament if they had to come there for four days in the week at two o'clock in the afternoon. As to the Fridays, he thought the dangers conjured up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, were by no means imaginary. He himself could foresee the danger of certain faddists, sitting on both sides of the House, who were desirous of pushing through Bills and getting a Second Reading for these, which weight probably bring about many business difficulties in the future. He did not see how these Rules would be any great advantage to the business powers of the House; but they would be a great disadvantage to a class of men from whom it was most desirable to recruit new Members, and certainly they would not add to the comfort and satisfaction of the best Members of the House of Commons.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had referred to the number of hon. Members who did not attend the House during Supply nights on Friday. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman could include him in that category, for he always made it a point to be present when Supply came on. But if they were to make Friday a dies non, so to speak, or for the consideration of Private Members Bills only, and took Supply on Thursday, he could not see why the difficulty of securing the attendance of Members would not recur. He ventured to ask, was it to be publicly stated that the reason the Government were making this alteration in the Rules of the House was that they could not get a sufficient number of Members of the House of Commons to attend to their duty? If that were so, he was afraid this House would fall even lower than it was alleged in some quarters, to have done in public estimation. If the Government would only look for it, it was just possible that they might find some other cause why Members did not attend on Supply nights.

    637
    As an independent Member, he must say that it seemed to indicate a want of confidence in the Government. [Cries from the Ministerial benches of "No, no."] Well, if hon. Members did not attend to carry out the work of the Government, it suggested to his mind that that might be a reflection of the laxity of the Government itself, which had spread to their former supporters. He asked what would be the effect of these changes on the country? He did not hesitate to say that they would not tend to raise the feeling of the country in favour of the House. Thirty or forty years ago there was a great movement on behalf of a Saturday half-holiday for the working classes, with which most of them sympathised. Well, the House of Commons had a full Saturday holiday, and were they to say to the country that this House, which only sat six months in the year, could not meet for more than four days in the week to carry on the business of this great Empire? This was not altogether a question of the convenience of Members. He objected to the proposal, because he was certain it would make the country feel that they had been neglecting their duty; and it would not strengthen the opinion of the contituencies in the House of Commons. He was all for a long day on Monday and Tuesday, a break on Wednesday, and a long day again on Thursday and Friday, and if hon. Members did not attend on Friday for Supply, then the Government and the Government Whips were not doing their duty. There were a number of Members who were very rarely seen on these Benches. Why should they not take their turn of duty? This House had stood many centuries, and he hoped that they would not do something which would degrade themselves in the eyes of the public; and that it should not go forth that they were so fond of pleasure that they could not attend to their duty.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that the First Lord of the Treasury declared that he disagreed from the hon. Member for East Mayo. Now, he generally agreed with the hon. Member for East Mayo, and disagreed from the First Lord; but in this particular instance he agreed with the First Lord and entirely disagreed from the hon. Mem-
    638
    ber for East Mayo. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton had said that the First Lord of the Treasury had stated that if these proposals were thrown out he would resign.
    SIR HENRY FOWLER: I distinctly stated that the First Lord did not say that.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, if he said so, he would have voted against the right hon. Gentleman, because they might then look for a superior Government. He rose because he heard the right hon. Gentleman attack hon. Gentlemen on his own side so cruelly when they took an independent view and did not agree with him, that he felt impelled to come forward in their defence. One right hon. Gentleman had said the opinion of this country was strongly against it—not only of this country, but the whole of the colonies would rise against them—because they chose to take their holiday on Friday instead of Wednesday. It was absurd. And where did the right hon. Member for Sleaford get his idea that a week-end meant a very agreeable party? He might go to an agreeable party, but another hon. Member on that side had said he did not want an agreeable party, he wished to devote his mind to his business, which he (Mr. Labouchere) believed was in Liverpool. Another gentleman had said he wanted to go to the bosom of his family—he did not want an agreeable party. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton had stated that he was against the change because he approved so much of Wednesday sittings, because, although the Bills might not pass, they were educational, and people would attend and listen. He had not noticed that the right hon. Gentleman ever profited by the educational aspirations. There was no doubt that this week-end was of great advantage to the private Members. If hon. Gentlemen who came forward with Bills could not find forty Members to give up a holiday in order to support and pass measures which they considered important, the sooner they gave up business the better. What went on on Wednesdays was a perfect delusion. How many Members attended for this educational process? About thirty, each of whom, instead of taking

    639
    advantage of the educational opportunity, kept jumping up and endeavouring to educate the rest, and that went on until 4 o'clock, when other Members came and the Bill was lost on a division. Everybody knew that even in Supply, if there was a Motion to be made on Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair, there was the greatest difficulty to keep a House, and some important Vote had to be put down immediately after it in order to ensure a House being kept. It was not the business of the Government to keep a House for private Members; they had to keep a House for their own purposes, and he supposed they would do so. Hon. Gentlemen had got up and said they would not be affected, that they would be always here every day, but they were afraid others might yield to the temptation. If they did, then let them go, but he did not think imputations of this sort should be thrown at hon. Members of the House. What the Rule did was to give those who liked to attend the business of the House on Friday an opportunity to leave at 5.30. It was not intended that hon. Members should leave on Friday morning or Thursday night. He was very glad the right hon. Gentleman had stood firm. He did not think it desirable as a rule that great pressure should be put on Members, but if hon. Gentlemen opposite thought the pressure was too great, why did they yield? He did not yield to pressure; he adopted his own views and voted accordingly. It was simply pitiable to see hon. Gentlemen almost whimpering to the Government and saying,
    "Do not press me; if you do, I shall vote for you, but I shall have to vote against my convictions." He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would carry this very useful and very convenient Rule.
    MAJOR RASCHcongratulated the Government upon the special recruit they had obtained from the other side of the House. If anything would have induced him to vote against the Government, it was the speech which the hon. Member for King's Lynn had made when he said that it was on Wednesday that be formulated the conundrums which he put to the Government on the following Thursday. He thanked the Government for the concession they had made. He never had a Bill before the House on a Wednesday, and never expected to have one, and the only use he could see in a private Member's Bill was that it gave him an opportunity of getting in his division by voting against it at 5.30. The substitution of Friday for Wednesday certainly did give Members a chance of spending a happy day among their constituents, but they were prepared to sacrifice all that. The reason which induced him to support the Government on this particular issue was that this Rule gave the Government four clear days' to carry on the work of the country, and that was what the constituencies wanted.
    (6.55.) Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 263; Noes, 166. (Division List No. 38.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex.F.

    Bigwood, James

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bill, Charles

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Aird, Sir John

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith.

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

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

    Arrol, Sir William

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Chapman, Edward

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Charrington, Spencer

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Bull, William James

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

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

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

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

    Butcher, John George

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Balfour,Kenneth R.(Christch.)

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Colomb,SirJohn Charles Ready

    Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

    Campbell, Rt. Hn.J.A(Glasgow

    Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Carlile, William Walter

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Bignold, Arthur

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir E. H.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Rankin, Sir James

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

    Reid,Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

    Cust, Henry John C.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Dalkeith. Earl of

    Keswick, William

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Renwick, George

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Knowles, Lees

    Ridley,Hn.M. W.(Stalybridge)

    Dickinson. Robert Edmund

    Labouchere, Henry

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

    Law, Andrew Bonar

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Rutherford, John

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lawson, John Grant

    Sackville Col. S. G. (Stopford-

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col.Ed.J.

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.)

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Leveson-Gower, Fredck, N.S.

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Finch, Gorge H.

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

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

    Shaw-Stewart,M. H.(Renfrew)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Fison, Frederick William

    Lowe, Francis William

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. Algernon

    Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

    Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Macartney,Rt Hn. W.G. Ellison

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

    Flower, Ernest

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks)

    Forster, Henry William

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Spear, John Ward

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

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Stanley,Hn.Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Galloway William Johnson

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

    Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

    Gardner. Ernest

    M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Garfit William

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Stewart,Sir Mark J.M'Taggart

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Gore, HnG. R.C. Ormsby-(Salop

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

    Gorst, Rt. Hon.Sir John Eldon

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Thomas,Alfred (Glamorgan,E.)

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Thomas David Alf. (Merthyr)

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Milner, Rt. Hon.Sir Frederick G

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury

    Mitchell, William

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Greene, Sir EW (B'ryS. Edm'nds

    Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

    Tritton Charles Ernest

    Gretton, John

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    More, Robt.Jasper (Shropshire)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Grey Sir Edward (Berwick)

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Groves, James Grimble

    Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford

    Warde, Col. C. E.

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Murray, Rt Hn. AGraham (Bute

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Webb, Col. William George

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Myers, William Henry

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

    Harwood, George

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u-Lyne)

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Parker, Gilbert

    Williams. Col. R. (Dorset)

    Heath, James (Statfords, N. W.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Pease, Herbert Pike (D'rlington

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Higginbottom, S. W.

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

    Wilson A Stanley (York, E.R.

    Hobhouse, Henry (Soerset, E.

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Penn, John

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Hope, J.F (Sheffield, Brightside)

    Percy, Earl

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

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

    Wylie, Alexander

    Hoult, Joseph

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    TELLERS FOR TIIE AYES—

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Purvis, Robert

    Sir William Walrond and

    Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

    Randles, John S.

    Mr Anstruther.

    642

    643

    NOES.

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

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Doherty, William

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

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

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

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

    Ambrose, Robert

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    O'Malley, William

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Hammond, John

    O'Mara, James

    Asher, Alexander

    Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    O'Shee, James John

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Hrbt. Henry

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Henderson, Alexander

    Pickard, Benjamin

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Holland, William Henry

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Blake, Edward

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Boland, John

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Price, Robert John

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Rea, Russell

    Bowles,T. Gibson(King's Lynn)

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Reddy, M.

    Brigg, John

    Joicey, Sir James

    Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

    Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

    Jones, David Brymnor(Swansea

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Joyce, Michael

    Roche, John

    Burns, John

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

    Runciman, Walter

    Caldwell, James

    Kennedy, Patrick James

    Russell, T. W.

    Cameron, Robert

    Kinloch, SirJohnGeorge Smyth

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Kitson, Sir James

    Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lambert, George

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Leese,Sir Joseph F(Accrington

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

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

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lloyd-George, David

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Craig, Robert Hunter

    Lowther, Rt. Hon. James(Kent

    Spencer, Rt H.C. R. (Northants

    Crean, Eugene

    Lundon, W.

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Cremer, William Randal

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Crombie, John William

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Cullinan, J.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Tennant, Harold John

    Dalziel, James Henry

    M'Crae, George

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    M'Fadden, Edward

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

    Delany, William

    M'Govern, T.

    Tomikinson, James

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Dillon, John

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Wallace, Robert

    Donelan, Captain A.

    M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

    Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

    Doogan, P. C.

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Emmott, Alfred

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Murphy, John

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ (Manc'r

    Norman, Henry

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

    Ffrench, Peter

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

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

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

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

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

    Mr. Laurence Hardy and

    Gilhooly, James

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

    Mr. Vicary Gibbs.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Connor, T. P (Liverpoll

    MR. DILLONsaid he desired to move an Amendment which stood in the name of two hon. Gentlemen, neither of whom happened to be present at the moment. It was an Amendment which he strongly supported and which he thought would receive a very large support from all sides of the House. The Rules were put forward by the Government, on the whole, as a measure of relief to the Members of the House, and they heard a great
    644
    deal from the Leader of the House of the enormous advantages expected to be derived from the dinner hour, but he found that the Rules did not give any relief whatever to the workers in the House, though they would give relief to the "dinner brigade." The active Members of the House, the ordinary working Members of the House would be subjected to an intolerable strain. It was proposed that they should meet at two instead of three. When he first

    645
    entered the House they met at four, and after long discussions the hour was put back to three on the understanding that the Twelve o'Clock Rule should be more strictly adhered to, and that the House should not be subjected to late sittings. But what had been the result? They had never had such late sittings as they had had during the last three years. The Government now proposed to call on Members to meet at two o'clock, thereby adding one hour per day to the length of the sitting on four days a week. In compensation for that, they offered the House the dinner hour. But what did the dinner hour amount to? To the working Members of the House, who really attended closely to the business, it really meant an extra half hour, to obtain which t hey were to meet an hour earlier. To such Members the dinner hour was a mockery, a delusion, and a snare, and would be no re ief whatever. Those who desired to be present all the time the House was sitting would be no better able to go out to dinner and get back again at nine o'clock than they were at present. The working Members would have to take advantage of the "cheap dinner" provided in the House, which, naturally, anybody from Birmingham despised. The proposed dinner hour was an indulgence only if taken in conjunction with the provision that the House should not be counted between nine and ten o'clock. That provision was a clear indication that the Government would not expect their supporters back before ten o'clock. A. large body of Members never seriously attempted to follow the business of the House, but to those who really did their duty the present hours were more than sufficient, and this proposed change was a very serious one for them. When Grand Committees and Private Bill Committees were sitting, the strain already was too great; with this additional strain spread over the whole session it would be intolerable, and the result would be that the number of those who did not attempt to follow the business of the House would be largely increased. From one point of view he could understand the desire of Ministers to make this alteration, because the larger the body of Members who took no interest in the proceedings, the easier the work of the Ministers. All that was necessary was for the Whips to say as the Members
    646
    came in which way they should vote, and, of course, the business went through more rapidly, and the Ministers were less troubled. But that was not an object in pursuit of which the Rules of the House ought to be altered. It was not sufficient justification of such a change simply to say it was brought in with the view of making the House more attractive to Members of a particular type. For these reasons he strongly opposed the proposal of the Government, and begged to move.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
    "To leave out the word 'Two,' and insert the word 'Three.'"—(Mr. Dillion.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Two' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that while, as the House knew, he was not in the least enamoured of these proposed new Rules, and considered their general effect would be most mischievous, he felt bound to say that he should be entirely in favour of the particular proposal before the House, if it were unconnected with anything else. The House met at too late an hour, and he thought the time had arrived when they should go back in some degree, to the better customs of their ancestors, who used to meet at half past seven in the morning. He did not propose they should meet so early as that, but it certainly would be a considerable advantage to meet at two o'clock instead of at three. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to indicate an intention, which, however, was not given effect to in the Rule, enabling the House to rise at twelve or one o'clock. If that had been carried out, it, to his mind, would have been an additional reason for meeting somewhat earlier. But there were all sorts of business which might come in, and prevent Members going home even at one o'clock, One tenth of the last session was spent in sitting after midnight, and that was a circumstance to be taken into account, when considering a proposal to meet earlier in the day. Would the Government give any assurance that they would not take after twelve o'clock, for instance, the Budget, a Report of Committee of Ways and Means, Bills originating in Committee of Ways and Means, or measures in pursuance of Standing

    647
    Orders? It was possible to take all these matters after midnight, and Members might be kept in the House all night. In any case, he was certainly a strong advocate of meeting at two o'clock. The only argument he had heard urged against the proposal was that it would be inconvenient for certain gentlemen engaged in other avocations to attend at the earlier hour. But, after all, they were not asked to meet very early. There was probably not a business in the world that commenced so late as two o'clock, and it was not creditable that those who professed to give themselves to the important business of the State and the Empire, should treat that business with less respect and go to it at a less early hour than was the case with their own private business concerns. He observed, that the proposal to meet at two o'clock was coupled—inseparably coupled, as he thought—with the proposal to interrupt the proceedings of the House between eight and nine o'clock. That really meant from 7.15 to ten o'clock, because between nine and ten o'clock Members were not to be allowed to call attention to the fact of there not being quorum present and therefore many Members would not trouble to return until the later hour, while those who had no questions on the paper would leave the House at 7.15. Consequently, for the major part of the House, it practically meant an interruption of business, not for one hour, but for three hours.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member says these proposals are inseparably connected, but I do not think he can at present discuss the subject of a subsequent Amendment. The question before the House is that "Three" be substituted for "Two."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it was somewhat difficult to discuss the one point without having the other in mind, but, of course, in deference to the ruling of the Speaker, he would confine himself to the two o'clock portion of the proposal. The hon. Member for East Mayo had an objection to the Rule the exact effect of which, however, he did not quite gather.
    MR. DILLONsaid he objected to the proposal because it added an hour
    648
    to the day, without making any concession or giving any compensating advantage.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that was a line of argument he was going to take, but he could not at present pursue it to the full extent. His view was that if they had compensation of any sort, it would be an enormous advantage to begin the sitting an hour earlier. But it had to be remembered that three o'clock instead of four o'clock was agreed to on conditions, although those conditions had never been observed, and, if there was to be a further raising of the hour, that also should be on conditions. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to think unreasonable those who, while agreeing with him in thinking two o'clock a better hour for meeting than three o'clock, yet coupled with that a desire for greater security than they at present had, that they should not continually be called upon to discuss, after twelve or one o'clock, Government business, from which they could not get away. With that proviso, he was strongly in favour of commencing business an hour earlier than was at present the case.
    *(7.30.) SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member at East Mayo, and the hon. Member for King's Lynn, it was impossible for them to vote upon the proposition as if it stood by itself. He agreed with the hon. Member for King's Lynn in the desire to see the House meet an hour earlier, but this matter in their minds and in their votes was inseparably connected with the other question which had been mentioned. As a point of order no doubt the ruling was right that the matters were not connected, but they must be connected in their minds. The case of the business man was bound up in what was going to happen to the questions. If they knew that the Government were going to give way with respect to questions that would affect the votes of business men and lawyers upon this point of two o'clock or three o'clock. He did not know whether he should be in order in asking that question, but he thought that

    649
    they ought to know something of the intentions of the Government on this matter. If the Government were going to make a concession upon this question of questions, he thought they would do well to announce it now, for that would facilitate their proceedings. He knew it was not in order to discuss it now, but, nevertheless, it was in all their minds.
    MR. BRYCE: As has been pointed out by the last speaker, it is extremely difficult to discuss this question by itself because it is bound up not only with the question of the time at which Questions are to be taken, but also with the evening sitting.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I did not intend by my ruling that the other question could not be referred to, but the hon. Member who was addressing the House when I gave my ruling was proceeding to argue upon the question of the desirability of a long dinner hour, and I ruled that that was not in order.
    MR. BRYCE: Perhaps it is more convenient that those who entertain objections to two fixed periods which will tend to waste time, should reserve their criticisms for another Amendment. It would be an advantage to have an additional hour, but I think it will be felt that we shall not really gain that additional hour as an effective hour for the purpose of business, because there are in this House many hon. Members, and there will continue to be many hon. Members, who cannot give their whole time to the business of the House. Ours is one of the few Chambers where Members are not paid, and if these business men and lawyers are obliged to come down as early as two o'clock or half past two, it will be impossible for many of them to continue as Members of the House. What will happen will be that hon. Members who are so pressed by work will not come down at that hour, but will continue to come at the usual hour that business men and professional, and members of that class can come down. They will come about four o'clock. We know that many hon. Members are seldom seen
    650
    here before four o'clock, and many of those who come at four are amongst the most useful Members. This Rule will certainly detract from the interest in that part of the debate which takes place between two and half-past four if many of our most useful Members are absent. I think under this proposal the first hour will tend to become what the hours between eight and half-past nine are now, that is one of the dullest portions of the debate, when those hon. Members who are contented with small audiences are tempted to make their speeches. Supposing an important division is ready to be taken shortly after the House has met? Neither Party will be anxious unless they feel themselves in superior numbers to take a division, and they will endeavour to wait until four or half-past four until hon. Members come in larger numbers, and therefore time may be lost by one side or the other wanting to put off a division because their men have not come up. At present Question time brings a large number of hon. Members down to the House, and therefore they are present for the business which follows Questions. If Questions are not put at the beginning of the business, then the attendance will be slack for the first hour or first hour and a half. I am sure that those who have had experience in those things in this House will agree with me that much time is lost in this way, for it is not really so much the length of the speeches that wastes the time, but it is the motive which one side or the other has in keeping a division back to suit their own convenience. I am afraid that this slack attendance will not only make the debate uninteresting, but it will cause the loss of profitable time by the postponement of divisions. If some of our most valuable hon. Members leave the House in consequence of this change, it will be a very great loss to us. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said that one of the objects of these changes was to make the House more attractive, and surely one of the ways to do this is to make the sittings convenient to this class of men, for if lawyers find that they are not able to take their proper share in the business, there will be less and less willingness to come into the House. While wishing to look at this matter quite dispassionately, and with no other object

    651
    except to get the most out of the time of the House, I am inclined to the conclusion that we shall gain very little in time by these Rules, and we shall certainly lose by the absence of hon. Gentlemen who are at present a valuable element in the House.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I entirely agree with what fell from the hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, who has stated exactly what was in my own mind, namely, that this question does not stand and cannot stand by any means alone. It is, in fact, one of the most important of all the Rules which have been submitted to the consideration of the House, because there are so many other important questions involved, including some of the greatest difficulties which we feel hang altogether upon the passing of this particular proposal. I put down this Amendment not so much because I had any particular objection to the hour of meeting, but in order to raise the whole question, and to ascertain as far as possible what concessions with regard to other questions the Government would be prepared to make. Nearly all the most controversial questions depend upon this particular Rule. There is the question of the men of business, the difficulties of Committees, and the still greater difficulty that under the Rules as they are now proposed not one single question, however important, can be put at the commencement of business even by the Leader of the Opposition. There is also the difficulty as to the moving of adjournments, and it is the latter question to which I frankly own that, in the interests of the rights and liberties of the House of Commons, I attach the most importance. It is obvious that if an Amendment such as I have put on the Paper were to be carried, all those difficulties to which attention has so frequently been called would disappear. As to meeting at two o'clock, I have no special objection, but I do think that on many grounds it would be extremely inconvenient. It would be inconvenient to men of business, and I think it would be extremely inconvenient to hon. Gentlemen on Committees upstairs; and it would be rather unfair, because
    652
    many of them are in the habit of taking a very useful and active part in the debates of this House. What I really want is to endeavour to elicit from His Majesty's Government some information as to what course they propose to take with regard to these other questions to which I have referred. It may be that those questions are not strictly within the limits of this particular Amendment, but I cannot imagine that there is anything which would prevent the Government from telling us whether they do or do not intend to make any concessions whatever with regard to the particular Questions to which I have referred. Unless we can hear something front the Government upon these points, like the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, I feel that we shall be placed in an entirely false position and be driven to vote against something which we do not want to oppose in the hope of getting rid of these difficulties which we feel upon another question. I do ask my right hon. friend whether he is not able to tell the House of Commons something with regard to the intentions of the Government as to questions in which it is perfectly certain that a number of hon. Members upon both sides of the House are deeply interested.
    MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEcalled attention to the omission of the following words at page 3 of the Blue Paper which were inserted some days ago—
    "Immediately after the interruption of business at an afternoon sitting Questions shall be taken, and no other business shall be taken after Questions."
    These words had apparently been omitted on account of some alteration the Government proposed to make in connection with this Rule. He thought that before proceeding to consider the question now before the House they should have some explanation from the Government.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURThe hon. Gentleman has asked me why these words which are on page 3 of the Blue Paper have been omitted. It was because they were unnecessary, and because, if introduced there, the whole subject of Questions would be raised before we had

    653
    reached the Rule about Questions. I think that would be very inconven ent. I assure the House that I recognise the great interest and anxiety felt in all parts of the House as to the way in which questions should be dealt with. I do not in the least wish to minimise it, nor do I wish to say that we are unalterably attached to the plan we have laid down in the Blue Paper in number 7. It appears to me to be quite impossible to state and improper that the Government should ask what alterations will be made until we have had an opportunity of hearing the matter debated. In the second place, if modifications prove to be necessary—I am by no means sure that they are—we cannot say what they will be until we hear what the Members of the House have to say. I acknowledge the friendly language of the appeal of my right hon. friend, but I think it is entirely premature. How can the Government lay down any final and unalterable scheme in regard to Rules not now before us until we have heard what the House has to say upon those Rules? No one by voting for the proposal that the House should meet at two o'clock commits himself to the proposal as to the hour at which Questions should he taken. I do not think the Government ought to be pressed for any further statement now. I am quite sure that when the subject of Questions comes up there will be a great deal said on both sides of the House well worth listening to. All I can say is that the Government will listen. I hope that with this general explanation of the policy of the Government we may be allowed to decide whether or not the House should meet at two o'clock.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he was afraid that what the right hon. Gentleman called a general explanation of the policy of the Government left the House in greater doubt than before as to what the intentions of the Government were. The right hon. Gentleman had declined to give any indication whatever about questions because he considered it more convenient to leave that over until the Rule dealing with questions came on. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman was following the most convenient course on the one which was most likely
    654
    to promote the rapid and smooth passing of the Rules. In his opinion the consideration of Questions dominated to a large extent the question which was now before the House. It was impossible to separate them. They were asked to meet at two instead of three o'clock. There were very many Members who were opposed to the extra hour's work, but who would be inclined to agree to the proposal if they had some assurance that the extra hour would be given up to the asking of questions at the commencement of the sitting. He did not know what was in the mind of the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman said he would listen to the arguments about Questions, but if he had any real intention whatever of making a concession on the subject of questions he ought to make up his mind what he was going to do and announce it an once. He was taking a course which was prolonging unnecessarily the proceedings on other matters. It was possible if they knew now what the right hon. Gentleman intended to do in the nature of compromise, and that a considerable portion of the hour would be given to Questions, this discussion would end at once. But the final determination of the Government was to be put off, for he did not know how many days, while in the meantime they would be discussing other subjects the decision of which largely turned upon the consideration of Questions. While he agreed with the speech of the hon. Member for King's Lynn in favour of the earlier meeting of the House he could not vote for him, his objection being that they were adding an hour to the working hours of the House. He looked at this question from the point of view of one who would be condemned to be here from the me ting of the House at two until the rising at one. These hours were oppressive and too long, and no adequate consideration had been given to induce Members to agree to the additional hour. He was rather sorry that the hon. Member for Kilkenny did not move the Amendment he had on the Paper, proposing that they should met at ten. It was a little extreme, but it would have raised the broad question as to whether this Parliament was to remain almost the only legislative chamber in the world which did not meet at a

    655
    reasonable hour for the transaction of business. It was absurd to take into consideration business men who spent the early part of the day in their offices and the law courts. The question should be considered apart altogether from the convenience of particular people in the House. His opinion was that they should meet at eleven and have a short adjournment for luncheon and then adjourn for the night at the dinner hour.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid they ought to have some idea of the reason which had induced the right hon. Gentleman to omit the words which were on the Blue Paper. The Leader of the House had talked about the Rule which stopped opposed business at midnight, but one of the great difficulties which hon. Members had to contend with was that they never knew when their business would terminate. The Motion suspending the twelve o'clock Rule had been put down with dangerous regularity, and one of the evils they had to complain of for some time was that they had no assurance when the business would terminate. His right hon. friend undertook to relieve them in a great measure from this difficulty, but, at the same time, he saw nothing in the Rules to prevent him from sweeping all the arrangements to the wind and keeping the House sitting until an unearthly hour in the morning. If the right hon. Gentleman could give an assurance that opposed business would always, and under all conditions, terminate at twelve o'clock it might certainly induce the House more readily to meet at two in the afternoon.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I said was that there was no alteration. That surely is perfectly clear, and perfectly Parliamentary.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid that when his right hon. friend mentioned this subject before, he said he thought it would be inconvenient to discuss this branch of the subject.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend is entirely mistaken.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid that at any rate they had had the right hon. Gentleman's last words.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURWhat do you mean by "last words?"
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid that when his right hon. friend put down certain words on the Blue Paper it was pointed out that some of those words did not appear on the White Paper, and it was supposed that his right hon. friend contemplated some alteration. When his right hon. friend rose to correct his remarks he certainly did leave the impression that his mind had already been made up; but he thought his right hon. friend was quite prepared to give full weight to all the arguments which could be used against this proposal. He would point out that until they knew at what hour their labours were to cease, it would be impossible for the House to come to a decision on the question now before it.
    MR. COGHILLsaid he was sure they were all willing to come down to the House at two o'clock if they were certain they would get away soon. There was a distinct understanding in 1897, when they were asked to meet at three o'clock instead of four, that they would get away midnight, except in very exceptional circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman, in the very able speech he made in introducing the new Rules, told the House that his main object was to secure certainty in the conduct of business; but he had not yet told them at what hour they were going to get to bed. There was a certainty that if the House sat after twelve o'clock there would be recurring scenes.
    MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid that those who were anxious to terminate the proceedings at an earlier hour must be prepared to meet an hour earlier. There was no doubt that meeting at two o'clock would put not only members of Private Bill Committees but the Counsel engaged in them, in a very awkward position. If it could be assured that sufficient time would be given to the private business and Questions

    657
    after two o'clock, and that the services of Members in Government debate were not required until after three o'clock, that would ease off the opposition to the Rule.
    MR. CREANsaid it was necessary to give the House some liberty in dealing with these new Rules; but it seemed to be the intention of the Government to make them more rigid to suit their Party purposes. Every Rule which had been adopted was under the forced pressure of the Government. The Government Whips had actually committed a technical assault on their supporters to prevent them exercising their independent judgment on matters of great importance. That was worse than so-called offences for which Irish Members had been imprisoned in Ireland. He contended that the Leader of the House was not taking steps to frame Rules of procedure which would be loyally obeyed with the sanction of the whole House. No regulation had ever been passed hitherto which was so adverse to the instincts of this House. He had sat for eleven years in Parliament, and during that time he had never seen anything that called for the sweeping alterations in the Rules of procedure which were now being made.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not confining himself to the question before the House.
    MR. CREANsaid he believed that dining was in the thought of the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters all the time. There was a saying that Englishmen lived to dine, but that Irishmen ate to live. He thought that hon. Members should apply themselves to practical work, and not try to convenience either the diners or the idlers. Irish Members would attend at nine o'clock in the morning if necessary, but the hours of their labour should not be added to. The interval for dinner would not in any way convenience the Irish Members; they would have to remain on the Benches from the Meeting of the House until one o'clock next morning, and therefore, the Rules ought not to be made more drastic for them than they were. If they were given more facilities for the transaction of Irish business, the Irish Members would be
    658
    satisfied to sit after twelve o'clock; but the determination to limit the time to be given to questions was not a satisfactory way of transacting the business of Parliament. The Government had already too much time, and if they wanted money they took away the time of private Members without even offering an excuse. It was more or less the fault of hon. Members themselves. If the supporters of the Government stood solid they would be able to make their views felt. It might be said that hon. Members on that side were unreasonable, and that if a concession were granted it would be made the ground for demanding another; but that could not be the case with reference to hon. Members opposite. The iteration was a most drastic one.
    *MR. SPEAKER: That is not the question before the House.
    MR. CREANsaid that the majority o the speeches which had been delivered were in favour of the Amendment, and against the proposed alteration. Why then should not Members be allowed to register their views without any interference. If the Government Whips called on their staunch supporters, many of whom had not heard the arguments, to vote for the alteration, reason and sense would be voted down. He hoped, however, that the Amendment would be supported, and that more hours would not be added to their labours while the universal world was trying to reduce the hours of labour. [8.20.]
    MR. JORDANsaid he agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet had said upon this question. He could not see how they could discuss the hour at which they should meet unless they knew the hour at which they were going to cease the business of the House. There was great difficulty in discussing the one question without the other.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hour of ceasing the business cannot be discussed in detail now, although the hon. Member may refer to it. The question of what hour the House shall rise is a matter which may be dealt with on other Amendments.
    MR. JORDANresuming said that if they did not get any answer to the question as to when the business of the house would cease, he could not see what compensation the House or the country was going to get by meeting earlier, and also continuing to transact their business as late as usual. If they got some equivalent he should have little objection to the change, but he objected being brought down to the House an hour earlier unless they were able to get away earlier. If this change was proposed for clearing off arrears of work, there would be no objection to the alteration, but so far as he could see it, was not for this purpose at all but more to increase the time for additional relaxation of certain hon. Members rather than to perform any legislative work for the country. He had no objection whatever to two o'clock sittings, if the House rose an hour earlier and they were able to get away at eleven o'clock. There was an Amendment on the Paper to make the hour of rising eleven o'clock, and he intended to vote for it. His objection was not to the early sitting but to the fact that the hour was not early enough. He would prefer to commence business at ten, eleven, or twelve in the morning, if they were able to get compensation for it, by getting away at seven, eight, or nine o'clock in the evening, when they would be able to get to bed at the proper time of the night for human beings to rest. To Irish Members of Parliament this was a question a vital importance. They came a long way and they were sent from Ireland to do the special business for which they were elected. It made no difference how early they met, and he had no objection whatever to meeting at two o'clock. He had no axe to grind in the House of Commons or in the City of London, and a great many of his colleagues were similarly circumstanced.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must remind the hon. Member that these matters are not relevant to the question as to whether three o'clock should be substituted for two o'clock.
    MR. JORDANsaid it was not fair for hon. Gentlemen living in London to arrange matters simply to accommodate themselves, and then compel other hon.
    660
    Members to accept what suited the convenience only of hon. Members opposite. It would be a great boon to be able to get home about two hours earlier, and he did not think they were demanding too much in asking the Government to consider this question. He thought the question of the Questions should be reconsidered, and they ought to begin the real business of the country at three o'clock. He supported the view that unless they got some compensation for the extra hour which was asked for, they should still continue to meet at three o'clock.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid the hon. Member for King's Lynn had spoken of the advantage early sittings would be to the House, and he had also intimated his intention of voting in favour of this Amendment. The Irish Members were also in favour of earlier sittings, but not until they knew whether they were going to get some compensation in return. They all listened to the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury, hoping that he would have set their minds at rest, and have made them feel that while meeting earlier they would be able to get home sooner, but the right hon. Gentleman did not satisfy them either upon that point, or upon the subject of Questions. Earlier sittings, beginning at two and ending at twelve o'clock, or some other uncertain hour of the morning, pressed very severely on the Irish Members, who were sent to the House to perform a definite duty. The Trish Members were always in attendance when the House met, and they remained until the House rose They did not belong to the privileged section referred to by the Colonial Secretary, who would leave the House at 7.15, and return at ten o'clock. Irish Members were compelled to remain and take cheap dinners in the House. For these reasons they objected to this two o'clock Rule, because they considered they would be adding another hour to their day's work. In the session of 1900, the House sat for 949 hours, and 41 of those were after twelve o'clock at night. In 1901 the House sat 1,072 hours, and the number of hours which they sat after twelve o'clock rose to 95, or more than double. In granting this concession to the Ministry they wire entitled to ask whether the Government would be inclined to lessen that 95 hours which last year they had to sit after twelve

    661
    O'clock, or whether the Government would be inclined to increase it. That demand had been made from both sides of the House, and it had been made in the friendliest manner possible. They were told that the question at issue was whether or not it would be better for the proper discharge of public business that the House should meet at two o'clock instead of three o'clock, and upon that issue the House was to divide on this Amendment. If they could get a guarantee that instead of the House rising at twelve it would in future rise at eleven, he did not think they would Live any objection whatever to the Amendment. They had not got any such guarantee and as long as ministers refused to satisfy them on this point they ought to refuse to accept the proposal of the Government. This was not merely a question of meeting earlier but it was also a question as to whether they were going to get some compensation by rising earlier.
    *SPEAKER: Order, order! I must remind the hon. Member that there is a Standing Order against tediously repeating the self-same arguments which have already been addressed to the House, and he is not in order in doing so.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid he would bow to Mr. Speaker's ruling, and urged his friends to oppose the proposal of the Government.
    MR. POWERsaid he had taken some interest in the proposal now before the House, and he candidly confessed that he could see no case for it. If the House were left to its own free will on these Amendments the majorities would not be as they had been. He remembered well when it was proposed to meet at three instead of four o'clock. Objections came from all sides and it was only by a compromise that the change was adopted. Mr. Smith only succeeded in passing the Rule by offering as a quid pro quo that they should get away at twelve o'clock. That agreement had been more honoured in the breach than in the observance, it was true; but now that a still earlier hour of meeting was proposed they were
    662
    offered no quid pro quo whatever. The hon. Member for East Somerset had referred to the inconvenience which, it was said, would occur in connection with Private Bills, if the House met at two o'clock. He quite agreed that they should not be dictated to in this matter by th epromoters of Private Bills or by lawyers who earned large fees for appearing in the cases. But they must remember that a great deal of public interest centred round Private Bill legislation, the localities having to pay enormous expenses for witnesses and counsel. They should take into consideration the localities which had to "pay the piper," and if the House met at two o'clock that kind of business would be dislocated with the result, he believed, that the expenses to localities would be greater. That was certainly an aspect which should not be lost sight of. When they considered what the Government had already done in practically reducing thenumberof working days to three it was natural that they must increase the working hours of those days. In view of the mental labours they had to undergo, he thought if there were any labourers in the country who should clamour for an eight-hours day they were the Members of this legislative assembly. If the Government showed a little more tact in the conduct of business they would get through their work much more rapidly, and, he believed, they would find, too, that an eight-hours working day was sufficient. The present sittings of the House were prolonged enough, and, apart from what could be said on behalf of hon. Members, they should not overtax the occupa is of the Chair and the officials of the House.
    MR. BULLsaid he was a new member of the House. Before be entered Parliament he heard a great deal about the waste of time that went on, and he understood that all parties were agreed that some alteration should be made with the view of the business of the country being carried on in a more businesslike way. He was, therefore, very greatly surprised to find that a great deal of opposition had been shown to the new Rules on both sides of the House. He was surprised that instead of the Government proposals being

    663
    received with favour, there seemed to be an almost unanimous opinion that the Rules should remain as they were. As one who had had experience of public business on the London County Council, he thought that an immense amount of time was wasted at present. The other evening he had seen a Member whose time was so unoccupied that he was knitting a pair of stockings in the smoking-room. He thought that was a curious occupation for a Member of that House. He supported the Rule, because he believed it would have a good effect.
    MR. W. O'MALLEYsaid the proposal of the Government to call the House to sit an hour earlier than at present, would not tend to bring business men and lawyers down to the House. He would support the Amendment which would allow the Rules to remain as they were.
    MR. DUKEsaid he did not feel himself at liberty to allow this question to go to a division, without saying something on a matter which had been discussed by many Members from the point of view of its personal consequences to a class of members of whom he was one. In approaching this question from the point of view of a member of the Bar, one felt that one must tread very lightly in this House; but in the Second Reading debate of the new Rules, the views of the members of the Bar were a good deal canvassed. It was assumed that members of the Bar had a wicked interest in the Rules of the House being adjusted to suit their pecuniary profit and their personal concerns. He entirely repudiated that suggestion. A member of the Bar who was a Member of this House, owed it to the House and to his constituents that he should render the services asked of him, or surrender his position. For himself, if the Rules of the House madeit impossible for him to render service in the House, he would cheerfully resign the trust reposed in him. He was not conscious of any pecuniary interest in being present there, except the pecuniary interest which represented a pecuniary loss. An observation had come from the other side of the House, and had been echoed on his own
    664
    side, that members of the Bar entered Parliament for the purpose of gaining a seat on the Bench, or a County Court Judgeship, and that their services might be very well dispensed with. For himself, he believed members of the Bar came there with a desire to render some public service, which they were capable of doing from their special training; and the constituencies who had sent them there were perhaps the best judges of their fitness for service in the House.
    When he came to the question of the House meeting at two o'clock, a change which did require a sacrifice, he desired to know what business men who were willing to make that sacrifice were going to get in exchange, and whether what the House was going to get in return for what was expected from Members who came there to discharge their Parliamentary duty at the expense of their ordinary business career, was adequate to that sacrifice. He had spoken to some members of his own profession, and asked what they were going to do about the Two o'Clock Rule, and the answer was that they could not stay in the House. That was a self-respecting answer; and he believed it was the inevitable answer not only of many Members of the Bar in active practice, but of many business men in the City of London. He believed that the whole country recognised, and that Members of all classes recognised, that this was a serious question for the House, whether hon. Members, professional or business men, were able to come there and take their due part in the deliberations of the House. He did not mean, to come merely to take part in divisions. When he came to the House that day, he had a strong conviction against the expediency of transferring the Wednesday half holiday to Friday; but he had been convinced by the speech of the Leader of the House that there were good reasons of public policy for taking the half holiday on Friday instead of Wednesday. Interested as he was in the question now raised, he had discussed it not only with lawyers in practice, but with business men in the City, directors and the like, who told him that they could not come to the House at two o'clock, and that it was impossible that they should take any interest in the House until after four o'clock. He was satisfied that the Leader of the House desired that this should be an efficient House—[Mr. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!]—and that hon.

    665
    Members should come there at a time when public affairs were being decided, not by vote, but to take part in debate or listen when opinion was being moulded. Again he asked, what were they going to get in exchange for the sacrifices demanded of them? For himself he valued his seat in the House so much that he would make any sacrifice, consistent with propriety and nearer duty, to retain it; but there were those who could not make the needful sacrifices. What was the return for the required sacrifice? The suggestion which had been made on all sides up to the present time was, that it was to be a return of increased ease and leisure to the more fortunate Members of the community. He hoped for very different results. So far as he was concerned, he knew that his constituents regarded a reform of the procedure of the House as one of the most vital public questions of the day.
    He was not at liberty to refer to the matter as to what was to be done with regard to Questions. If he knew that the old form of the constitutional proceedings of the House was to be preserved to the extent that this House was to keep its hand on Governments— not only this Government, but Governments on both sides, that would go far to satisfy him. If the most wholesome discipline of Questions were taken as the first business of the House, the grand inquest of the nation, he should feel much better content to make the sacrifices which attendance at the House in the early afternoon would require, but at present they had no information on that topic. He wanted to know, before he voted on this question of yielding additional hours, what he was doing by that vote—whether he was giving up one of the rights which he regarded as essential in the maintenance of a constitutional control over the Government; whether he was, in the first place, giving up that control, and in the second place, supplying additional opportunities of ease to hon. Gentlemen who had had very little consideration for the feeling of business men in this House, but whom he would be only glad to see taking the part in the affairs of the House which he believed every one who was sent to the
    666
    House ought to take to the fullest measure of his ability. He did not wish to say any more upon the matter, but it was one which came home to business men in the House, because they knew the sacrifices involved; it came home to him because he could not see at the moment the effect of these sacrifices, for which he should vote if he was bidden to do so by his Leader. [Opposition cries of "Oh, oh."] Yes, because he deferred to the judgment of his leaders in this House. He felt a certain sense of responsibility in this matter, which was better justified by protesting on the floor of the House, in the presence of his leaders, than by voting against them. Loyalty required that course.["Oh!"] Well, he thought that loyalty was still the same whether it won or lost the game—
    "True as the dial to the sun,
    Although it he not shone upon."
    And for his part, if his right hon. friend came to the conclusion that the public interest required that these sacrifices should be made, and that the Members to whom he had referred should be coaxed to attend this House from two till seven by a promise of unlimited indulgence after seven, then, reluctant as he might be, dissatisfied as he might be, he would support those conclusions which he knew had not been lightly arrived at. And, although he might not conciliate the approval of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he would know that those who had sent him here had the confidence which he ought to have in his leaders, and would ratify his action. But before he voted on this matter, which, as he understood it effected a revolution in the House, effected a complete change from henceforward, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to give some satisfaction to the House, as soon as he was able. first of all as to the "Questions," and then as to whether the practical suspension of the proceedings of the House from seven o'clock to ten, which cut out from the time of the House three hours in exchange for the additional hour at the beginning, was also of the essence of these proceedings, and was a matter involving the confidence and loyalty of supporters of the Government upon the proposal before the House.
    MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid the hon. Member for Plymouth had addressed to the House a powerful and lucid argument against the Amendment which was proposed, but he had addressed that argument to the House with chains upon his wrists. His intelligence, his convictions, and his arguments were all against the proposal, but the hon. Gentleman had informed them that, although his intelligence and argument were against the Motion, so closely was he bound with Party fetters that his vote would be recorded in its favour. He sympathised with the hon. and learned Gentleman. As a member of the same profession, he shared his anxiety that, before the House insisted on a change which would vitally affect those belonging to the profession of the law, as well as the large body of business men who were engaged in serving the country in this Assembly, the true result of this alteration of their procedure should be present to their minds. It was not a question whether business men should make large personal sacrifices in order to serve their constituents in Parliament that could be no problem for the consideration of the legal members of this Assembly. Every sacrifice demanded by the duty imposed on them by this House was a sacred obligation. The question they had to discuss was, whether the sacrifice which was demanded was justified by the reasons which had been placed before them in order to support the proposition which they were invited to support. That depended largely on the whole scope of the proposal, its motives, and the grounds on which it was supported. They were told they were to meet at two, in order that the most serious business of the day should be taken at 2.30. Questions which, curiously enough, were looked upon as a matter of subsidiary importance, and Motions for the adjournment of the House on questions of grave and urgent public importance, were to be postponed to some more casual and convenient period in the course of the evening. The result was that instead of the most important and urgent 1, business of the day being taken at 4.30 as at present, it would be taken at 2.30. The result of such a change would be that many persons engaged in professions
    668
    or business, who found it impossible to attend the House before four, would be called upon to surrender their professional engagements in order that things might be made pleasanter for men of leisure, who had no such professional calling, who desired to spend an hour with their friends or in their home during the dinner hour.
    He would venture to submit a few reasons for coming to the conclusion that the argument in its favour did not justify the change. He made no apology for alluding to his own profession, for the relation between the administration and the framing of laws had been historic and traditional. In the first place, such a change would banish from the House Members having personal affairs which engaged their attention until four or five o'clock in the afternoon; they would banish, or tend to banish, from the House Members of the legal profession, whose intimate relationship between the practice of the law and the framing of the law was historic and traditional. They had already banished from the executive Government of the nation men engaged in the legal profession. Time was when the law officers of the Crown were engaged in daily practice in the Courts of this country. Alterations in the Rules had put an end to that, and now it was sought to banish lawyers from the deliberations of the House in framing the laws which they would be called upon to administer, and in connection with the administration of which they would be engaged in the Courts of Justice until four. This was a matter of serious importance. Some of the more sanguine members of the profession said they would manage to accommodate their engagements to the exigencies of the new situation. It might be that the other House, in its judicial capacity, would be in session until four o'clock; the Privy Council might be sitting until that hour. It might be that every Court would remain in session until that hour, and those who were practising before those tribunals would find it impossible to reconcile their engagements in the Courts to the duties they owed to their constituents. He had been told by his friends that nobody would

    669
    expect Members of the legal profession to come to the House until it was convenient, that Members could easily pair till four or five o'clock, that the Government would not mind, and that constituents would be none the wiser in regard to their absence; but that was a counsel of indifference, which, if instilled widely among a section of the House, would lead to neglect of Parliamentary duty and an indifference to Parliamentary engagements which would not be salutary or according to the Parliamentary traditions of this country. The hon. Member for Stretford had said he would find no difficulty in being present if the House met at two o'clock. The hon. and learned Member for Stretford was one of those supporters of the Government whose sacrifice for Party knew no limit. He was prepared to kiss the rod which chastened him. Those who were in the House during the discussion of the Home Rule Bill would remember that in the early hours of the afternoon most critical conflicts took place, from which it was impossible to be absent. Members were drawn from the Law Courts by importunate Whips. The Government of that day had not the opulent majority which the present Government was fortunate enough to command, and what would happen now if the House sat at two o'clock when at 2.30 important questions were under discussion, might be left to the imagination of those hon. Members who had some experience of the struggles they passed through then. They would lose the Law Officers of the Crown, and the ex-Law Officers, who were expected to keep the Law Officers in order. The Attorney-General was engaged at the Courts of Justice during the day, spreading the revenue net with the view of securing prizes for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Solicitor General was occupied prose-outing criminals at the Old Bailey. Those Courts sat until four o'clock Then how did they expect them to be here? That was a matter of some importance, because even in his short experience the position of Law Officers of the Crown had materially altered. In former days the Law Officers were not expected to conduct through a Committee of this House or a Grand
    670
    Committee a great measure of the Government. Nowadays no measure of first class importance was conducted, either in the House or in Grand Committee, without the active co-Operation of the Law Officers of the Crown.
    It might be said that he had exaggerated the importance of this question as it affected the legal profession. The First Lord of the Treasury attached little importance to the value of lawyers in the discussions of the House, and the presence of lawyers in the large and important offices in the Government was smaller than in any Government that had preceded it for the last half century. In every democratic country in the world members of the legal profession had occupied a very high position in connection with the administration of public business. In the United States, France, and our colonies, lawyers had proved themselves to be men skilled in affairs as well as in their own profession, and competent to conduct the affairs of State. That fact should not be without its influence on the consideration of the question when the House was imposing burdens on members of the Bar who were also members of the House. The hon. Member for King's Lynn said that lawyers who came to this House brought their fagged brains to the consideration of the questions which presented themselves for discussion. That was true to a certain extent. But let the House remember the value which earlier Parliaments attached to the services of lawyers—the services of men like Mansfield, Erskine, Brougham, Hominy, Follet, Lyndhurst, Cairns, and Sel-borne. These lawyers were brilliant Parliamentarians, and at the some time ornaments in our Courts of Law. If the Government, by their proposal, tended to make difficult the presence of members of the legal profession in the House, they would largely affect disadvantageously the constitution of its membership. Some consideration for the hours which were fixed for the administration of law ought to influence the Assembly which had the framing of the laws these men were called upon to administer. It was true that lawyers would still form a part of the House. It would keep the academic lawyer, the

    671
    professorial lawyer, the man whose knowledge smelt of the lamp. It would also keep the lawyer who had retired from practice, or from whom the practice of his profession had retired. There were very few instances on record of lawyers voluntarily relinquishing large practices. That of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, who executed that act of self-abnegation, was one of the few instances in one's own generation. The legal guidance the House would receive, would be not from men in active contact with professional interests or practising in the Courts of Law, but from men who, while they sought to guide the opinion of the house in regard to the views held by the legal profession, would, in point of fact, mislead the House by indicating views not largely held by those engaged in the Courts of Law. The hon. Member opposite had said they would not shut out lawyers. He quite agreed. They would not shut out the lawyers at present in the House. Those already there would make any sacrifices the occasion might require; they were prepared to submit themselves, as was every other section of the House, to the opinion of the House as a whole, and he believed the House would act fairly. He was satisfied that the House would not sacrifice the material interests of one section of its Members from mere considerations of ease and convenience. He did not believe that the material interests of either his own profession or any other would be sacrificed in order to allow a convenient dinner hour to those fortunate Members who followed no calling whatever. He was satisfied that lawyers would remain in the House, because, as was once said in this Assembly—
    "Show me the path of ambition, and I will show you the path men will follow,"
    and to the House from every calling, every rank, and every section of society, men would come to the service of their country in the highest vocation that any man could be invited to adopt. But the question the House had to consider was whether it was right or fair to cast upon them a serious material burden, unless the objects in view so far facilitated the discharge of public business that the sacrifice could be properly demanded.
    The question was much wider than at first sight appeared. It affected the relations between the poorer and the richer Members
    672
    of the House. The advantages possessed by wealth in connection with the service of the people in Parliament were enormous. All Members knew how advantageous it was to have command of a long purse in seeking a seat; they knew how advantageous it was to have command of financial resources in keeping a seat; the poorer Members knew how much they had to fight against in maintaining their hold on public confidence when pitted, against those fortunate people whose opulence relieved them of the necessity of engaging in any professional or other pursuit than that of serving the people in the House of Commons. This proposal would add to the advantages of wealth, and increase the disadvantages which attended the poorer Members of the House. There were many Members, not only in his own profession, but also in others, who were able to serve their constituents in the House only by engaging in some calling. Why should the difficulties of their position be increased? There was one alternative, viz., payment of Members. Was that an alternative the House desired? It was impossible to resist the logic of the speech of the hon. Member behind him, who had declared they ought to meet at eleven o'clock in the morning to be a purely business chamber, to devote those hours during which their faculties were most awake to the discharge of the business of the country. That argument had induced every other assembly in, the world to adopt hours of meeting arranged on that principle, but with the concomitant that, if they called upon members of the community to serve the community by devoting the whole of their day to that service, their maintenance must be provided for while they were so engaged. If those who served the people were not to be allowed to maintain themselves while engaged in that service, then the argument that out of public funds must their maintenance be provided was irresistible. Was the House prepared to accept the alternative? It was an alternative from which, he believed, the House shrank, and from which he shrank. It was because he shrank from that alternative that he asked the House not to destroy one of the means by which it was possible for a man to serve his country in the House of Commons, and, at the same

    673
    time, honourably to maintain himself while rendering that service. They must be told, "Oh, well, you must get over it as best von can; you must accommodate your engagements in the best way you are able." He supposed they would try, but, unless the call was an imperative call, unless the sacrifice was urgently demanded, not by the convenience of the more fortunate Members of the House, but by the necessities of public business, it was a sacrifice which was not justified, and for which no sufficient reason had been urged by those who supported the proposal. For these reasons he asked the House to vote against the Amendment.
    MR. RENSHAWsaid the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth had claimed to express the views not only of Members of the legal profession, but also of business men, But the House should remember that there were business men and business men. There were business men in the House who had business in the City of London, but there were a still larger number who had no business at all in the City of London. The men who had their business in London made a smaller sacrifice in meeting at the hour proposed than any other class of business men in the House of Commons, and they had not in this respect a first claim for consideration. The hon. and learned Member for South Leeds had endeavoured to show that meeting at two instead of at three o'clock would affect some Members of the legal profession. He had not himself noticed, however, that the Members of the profession were often in their places at the beginning of public business now. To the class of Members who did an enormous amount of useful work on the Grand Committees and the Private Bills Committees this change of hours and the rest between seven and nine o'clock would be an inestimable boon. Such Members not infrequently came down to the House at eleven o'clock, sat on a Committee until three or four o'clock, and then remained in the House until after midnight. Such a strain was almost intolerable. An eight-hours day was sometimes spoken about, but these Members worked thirteen hours a day, and that during the hottest and most sultry period of the session. In the name of those who bad had to dis-
    674
    charge the duty of sitting on Committees —in which he had not been associated with many members of the legal profession —he claimed that this alteration would be of inestimable use and benefit. The hon. Member for Plymouth had asked in whose interest the change was to be made, and had suggested it was merely to meet the convenience of those who wanted more ease and leisure. He did not believe it for a moment. The Leader of the House made it perfectly clear in his opening statement, when introducing the proposals, that he believed it would be an enormous convenience to all sections of the House, and especially to those engaged in professions or otherwise, if they knew every day, and particularly in the afternoon, what the precise business was the House would take up. To know definitely that at half-past two, or whatever time was fixed, the House would proceed to the important public business of the day, would enable Members to make their arrangements for the day on a much more businesslike foundation and with greater certainty than was possible at present. Frequently Members gave up important engagements in order to attend the House at a certain hour, only to find on their arrival that some totally different, irrelevant, and uninteresting subject was being discussed instead of the important business they had expected. For his part, he heartily supported the proposal, believing it would conduce to the comfort and convenience of Members, and would make it possible for them to discharge their duties in a more business-like manner, and with more satisfaction to their constituents and greater benefit to the State.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that while, on the one hand, he thought this proposal a step in the right direction, on the other hand, he thought it would not lead ultimately to the efficiency of what he might call the efficient Members of the House. He did not quite share the point of view of the hon. and learned Members who had made such powerful and interesting appeals on behalf of their profession. It was most important to have a certain number of legal gentlemen as Members of the House, but it was too much to ask that the convenience of the

    675
    House, its efficiency, and its service to the country, should be sacrificed to meet the needs of one particular profession. Nor could he agree with the contention that the proposed change would exclude from the House a large number of important business men. His experience of this class of men was that they generally worked one hour a day. He was inclined to lay down as an axiom that any man who worked more than one hour per day was not a great business man, because genius consisted in working very little yourself and getting other people to work for you. The hon. Gentle-man who had just spoken talked about the inconvenience of coming down to the House at a certain hour, and hon. Members who supported that view were apparently under the impression that the only business men in the House were those who were doing business in the City of London. The majority of hon. Members of this House were business men from the provinces whose convenience was just as important as those at work in London. He was in favour of the House meeting at an earlier hour, and he thought they should meet at twelve o'clock. At present, in his opinion, the one businesslike sitting of the week was the Wednesday sitting. On Wednesdays they had four or five hours discussion, the closure, and a division; with the result that they had short and relevant speeches, and everybody went away about 5.30 satisfied that the subject had been fairly discussed, and hon. Members went in pursuit of those pleasures which London afforded more especially to country Members. He could not agree with some of the statements which had been made as to the danger of having professional politicians in the House, and he did not know any phrase which had been more ridiculously abused. What was the First Lord of the Treasury but a professional politician? He was not an admirer of the Colonial Secretary, but in this respect his career was worthy of respect, admiration, and imitation, because when he did resolve to devote himself to politics he put business aside and gave the whole of his time to his country. That was what they must come to. What was Bismarck but a professional politician, and what was Count von Bulow? Nothing could be more absurd
    676
    than the cry that this nation was best served by the men who gave nothing but the dregs of their lives to politics. If the Government had proposed twelve o'clock, with as hort interval for lunch and a sitting ending at seven o'clock, he would have been heartily with them, and he would have done everything he could to support them. The present proposal was that they should begin at two o'clock, go on till eight, and resume at nine o'clock. No doubt they were all ready to say they were willing to die for their country, but he believed many of them would stop at home after 7.15 and would not turn up again. If those Rules were simply to enable the idle Members to be more idle, then they were bad ones, but if they were calculated to make the efficient Members more efficient workers, then they were good Ru es.
    He thought the First Lord was treating, not only his political opponents, but some of his political friends rather badly by not stating what the Government intended to do with regard to the most important subject of Questions. He was sure that a large number of hon. Members would be influenced considerably in the view they would take of the Rules by the consideration whether they could, as an hon. and learned Member had said, secure the fundamental right of keeping the Government under the vigilant eye of the representatives of the people. At 7.15 they knew what would happen. The idle Members would then leave and not one of them would return until ten o'clock. By a proceeding of almost superhuman ingenuity and perversity the First Lord had so arranged the evening sitting as to make it imperative that the working Members should be here and almost compulsory that the idle Members should stop away. From nine to eleven o'clock they could not have a count or a division. A count might bring a certain number of hon. Members to the floor of the House, but the absence of a division would ensure the absence of a large number from 7.15 to ten, and any hon. Member who did not take an active interest in the business might stop away; and in his opinion those who stayed away till ten o'clock would be likely to stay away for the remainder of the evening. This new Rule was a premium on idleness

    677
    for the benefit of the idle Members. What would happen? The serious worker would come down to the House and take his share in the work while the idle, ornamental, social Member who did not want to come down would stay away. Parliamentary life had been described as "Loafing tempered by divisions." The serious and efficient Member must conic down to the House at night and what was the result? He came to the House an hour earlier and stayed just as late as usual. The hour of closing would remain practically the same. Therefore, they would have an hour added at the beginning of the sitting which would not be taken off at the end. That was not adding to the efficiency of the method of conducting business. They were to meet at two and rise practically at one o'clock in the morning, with the result that a large number of hon. Members would come to Grand Committees at eleven or twelve in the morning, and stay at the House until one o'clock on the following morning. Did they think hon. Members would continue to do that for any lengthened period? Any man who lived at a distance from the House would continue to dine in the House just as much as in the past and the net result of the proposal of the Government would be that they would add one hour to the labours of the active and useful Members of the House during each Parliamentary day and give three hours more idleness to the idle Members.
    The charge made against the right hon. Gentleman of having thought too much of the convenience of hon. Members was an argument which he thought had been pushed too far. Political life was a hard thing under the best circumstances, but it was made unnecessarily hard when men had to stop nine or ten hours in an atmosphere which he might fairly describe as rather trying and tiring. What would happen under the new Rules They would stop at the House from two o'clock until one in the morning. He did not object to working hard for his political opinions, and he did not think any man could be doing better than giving his time to the service of his country. What happened now? Ministers of the Crown representing nearly all the great Departments, except the Foreign
    678
    Office, had to give attendance in this House. He remembered when the present Chief Secretary for Ireland was Under Secretary for War. They all knew with what conspicuous ability he was able to defend even the indefensible during his period of office. The right hon. Gentleman was in the House nearly every night of the week attending to the work of his Department, and he was scarcely ever allowed to leave till half-past twelve. After such labour as that he could not have the energy and spirit requisite to go down next day to the War Office to conduct the business arising in connection with the great war. The leading political disease of this country was that the Government was conducted by tired Parliamentarians who brought to the day's work the fatigues of the long nights spent in the House of Commons. Would these Rules remedy that? They would aggravate it. He warned the Leader of the House that instead of increasing the efficiency of the class to which he belonged—in some respects the most important class in this assembly—he was doing his best to make them less effective by adding to the hours of the workers and to the leisure of the idlers.
    AIR. ELLIOTsaid that what they had to consider was whether it would be for the business advantage of the House of Commons that they should sit at two instead of three o'clock. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division spoke of the desirableness of the House being constituted of professional politicians. He agreed with him so far. It was most desirable that a large number of Members who had devoted themselves to the business of the country should be considered professional politicians. He entirely disagreed with the hon. Member in thinking that it was desirable that the bulk of the House of Commons should be composed of those who had no other business or interest than politics. It was extremely desirable that there should be men following different professions and business in the House. The House ought not to be a collection of experts, however skilled. The proposal of the Government had been criticised as

    679
    though they constituted a revolutionary programme. He held that they were distinguished for their moderation. The alterations were very slight and he should have been prepared to welcome them if they had gone further. Some hon. Members objected the House sitting earlier, and others to the House sitting later. There was an indisposition also to put a check on the sacred privilege of examining and cross-examining Ministers, and to check obstruction. But these discussions were almost thrown away if Members did not admit that there was necessity for some remedy and that the business arrangements of the House were not what they ought to be. He was sure that the great bulk of Members felt that strongly. The proposal that they should meet at two o'clock was an extremely valuable and modest one, and he hoped the Leader of the House would not allow it to be whittled away.
    SIR HARRY BULLARDsaid that as a business man he held that they should do their business in this House in business hours, and two o'clock was a very adequate and proper hour at which to meet. It was all very well for the Member for South Leeds to plead almost in forma pauperis that Members of the legal profession would not be able to get to Parliament at two o'clock. If they wanted the services of the hon. and learned Member tomorrow he would not take less than fifty guineas, and he must say the hon. Member was worth it. He also should like to find a job in the morning if he could. In
    the morning he attended one or two boards of directors, but he forbade them from meeting in the afternoon. He was once put on a Committee which considered an Irish Bill. He paid great attention to it. The Bill, it was said cost —5 per minute. The Committee met at eleven and it sat nine or ten times. The twelve o'clock Rule being suspended, the House sat sometimes till he was obliged to go home with the milk. He did not feel particularly fresh when he came down to the Committee at eleven o'clock. He hoped some scheme would be devised by which this would be altered. He supported the proposal to meet at two o'clock. If they sat at twelve o'clock he should be very glad to come and do his duty.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid he was prepared to attend the sittings at whatever time might be necessary. He desired to know, however, whether, in the event of the House agreeing to meet at two o'clock, the First Lord of the Treasury would consent to Questions being taken at 2.25 and Government business commencing at three. He also suggested that, in that event, the House should adjourn from 7.30 until nine for dinner.
    (10.58) Question put
    The House divided:—Ayes, 256; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 39.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood,Capt. Sir Alex.F.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Bignold, Arthur

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Allen,CharlesP.(Glouc.,Stroud

    Bigwood, James

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Bill, Charles

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Chamberlain,J. Austen (Worc'r

    Arrol, Sir William

    Bond, Edward

    Chapman, Edward

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Charrington, Spencer

    Bagot,Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Bowles,T. Gibson (King's Lynn

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

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

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

    Bull, William James

    Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Carlile, William Walter

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Beach,Rt. Hn.SirMichaelHicks

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Cremer, William Randal

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

    Purvis, Robert

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Kennaway,Rt. Hn.Sir John H.

    Pym, C. Guy

    Cross,Herb. Shepherd (Bolton.

    Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

    Randles, John S.

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

    Rankin, Sir James

    Cust, Henry John C.

    Keswick, William

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Knowles, Lees

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Davenport, William Bromley-

    Labouchere, Henry

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

    Lambert, George

    Renwick, George

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

    Ridley, Hn. Chas. (Stalybridge

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

    Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas. Thomson

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lawson, John Grant

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Doxford,Sir William Theodore

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Leese, Sir JosephF (Accrington

    Russell, T. W.

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Rutherford, John

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

    Leveson-Gower, Fred'rick N.S.

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Sandys, Lieut. -Col. Thos.Myles

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Long, Col.Charles W. (Evesham

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ. (M'nc'r

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

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lough, Thomas

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

    Finch, George H.

    Lowe, Francis William

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

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lowther, Rt. Hn. James(Kent)

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

    Lucas,Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew

    Flower, Ernest

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

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Forster, Henry William

    Macdona John Cumming

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Foster,Sir Michael(Lond. Univ.

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.

    Foster,PhilipS. (Warwick,S.W

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

    Fuller, J. M. F.

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

    Spear, John Ward

    Galloway, William Johnson

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

    Stanley, Hn.Arthur (Ormskirk

    Gardner, Ernest

    M'Crae, George

    Stanley,Edward Jas. (Somerset

    Gladstone,Rt. Hn. Herbt. John

    M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Stewart,Sir Mark J. M'T'ggart

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

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Gordon, Maj. Evans- (T.Hmlts

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

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

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

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

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan,E.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Green, Wilford D (Wednesb'ry

    Mitchell, William

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Greene,SirE. W. (B'ry S'Ed'nds

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Gretton, John

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Groves, James Grimble

    Morgan, David J (W'lthamst'w

    Warde, Colonel C.E.

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Morgan,Hn.Fred.(Monm'thsh.

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney

    Hambro, Charles Erie

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Webb, Colonel William George

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'd'nde'ry

    Morton,Arthur H.A. (Deptford

    Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts

    Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashf'rd

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Muntz, Philip A.

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Murray,RtHn.A.Gr'ham(Bute

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Myers, William Henry

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Heath,James (Staffords.N.W.)

    Nicholson, William Graham

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

    Henderson, Alexander

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Higginbottom, S. W.

    Parkes Ebenezer

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

    Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington

    Wodehouse,Rt. Hn E. R. (Bath

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Hope,J.F. (Sheffield,Brightside

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Wylie, Alexander

    Hoult, Joseph

    Percy, Earl

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Price, Robert John

    Sir William Walrond and

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Mr. Anstruther.

    682

    683

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.

    Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Gordon, Sir W. Brampton

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

    Ambrosh, Robert

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    O'Kelly,James Roscommon, N

    Asher, Alexander

    Hammond, John

    O'Malley, William

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    O'Mara, James

    Asquith,Rt Hon. Herb. Henry

    Hayne,Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.

    Holland, William Henry

    O'Shee, James John

    Blake, Edward

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Pease, J.A. (Saffron Waldon)

    Roland, John

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Rea, Russell

    Brigg, John

    Joicey, Sir James

    Reddy, M

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

    Redmond,John E. (Waterford

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

    Caldwell, James

    Joyce, Michael

    Roche, John

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Samuel, S.M. (Whitechapel)

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Kennedy. Patrick James

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Kitson, Sir James

    Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Layand-Barratt, Francis

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Lundon, W.

    Spencer, Rt Hon. C.R. (N. Hants

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Crean, Eugene

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Cullinan, J.

    M'Govern, T.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Dalziel, James Henry

    M'Hugh Patrick A.

    Thompson,Dr.E.C (Monaghn N

    Delany, William

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Tomkinson, James

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North

    Walton, John Lawson(.Leeds S

    Dillon, John

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Murphy, John

    Whitley, J.H. (Halifax.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

    Fenwick, Charles

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

    Wilson, John (Durham Mid.)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

    Sir Thomas Esmonde and

    Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, N

    Capt. Donelan.

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

    MR. JOSEPH N. PEASEsaid he had been asked by his hon. friend the Member for East Northamptonshire to move the Amendment standing in his name.
    MR. DILLONsaid there was a previous Amendment on the Paper.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is extremely difficult to know precisely the order of the Amendments, because their position is misdescribed on the Paper, but it seems to me that the hon. Member for Leicester has precedence.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid he wished to leave out all the words after "clock," which were "for an afternoon sitting, and at nine of the clock for an evening sitting." He would not pursue the subject
    684
    at any great length, because he had argued against it on the Second Reading debate. His object was to prevent the adjournment of the House at a quarter past seven for the purpose of meeting again at nine o'clock. He considered that that would not conduce to the transaction of the business of the House, and that it would be a waste of time. It would be cutting the sitting into two pieces, which would have to be stitched together again at great trouble at nine o'clock. Hon. Members who had had experience of morning sittings during the last twenty years knew perfectly well the difficulty of making a House at nine o'clock. He appealed to the Government to consider the reasonableness of his proposal. If the House met at two o'clock and had no interval, it could adjourn not later than 11 o'clock at night. That would not reduce the number of working hours, but it would do more to conduce to the health and welfare of Members than an adjournment from a

    685
    quarter past seven to nine o'clock could possibly do. He could not imagine anything more wasteful of Parliamentary time than the system of adjourning for dinner. Every hon. Member could dine adequately and well without the adjournment. Hon. Members now found no difficulty in dining under the present system. The speaker went out for half an hour, and when he returned business went on in the ordinary way; but if the House were to be formally adjourned they would have to make a House again at nine o'clock and recommence Parliamentary work in the same way as at two o'clock. He could not imagine what could have possessed the Government to have suggested such an alteration. Whatever work had to be done should be done continuously until it was finished, and then hon. Members would be free to go to their homes, and they would have a much better chance of getting a good night's rest. For these reasons he proposed his Amendment, and he hoped the Leader of the House would give some consideration to other hon. Members than those who were concerned in dining out. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would consider the general convenience, health, and welfare of hon. Members. He begged to move.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
    "To leave out the words 'for an Afternoon Sitting, and at Nine of the clock for an Evening Sitting.'"—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it will be necessary for me to detain the House by any arguments on this subject. One of the main objects in meeting at two o'clock is in order to give us scope for that very interval which the hon. Member desires to destroy. I defended that course at great length in introducing these proposals. I think the idea of meeting at two o'clock and asking hon. Members and the Speaker and the officers of the House to sit continuously until twelve o'clock—
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid the adjournment would be at eleven o'clock. That was part of his scheme.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not part of the Amendment put from the Chair. It may be that the hon. Member had it in his mind, and that the Amendment before the House is a preface to the other.
    MR. BROADHURST: Decidedly.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I grant that; but it is not mentioned in the Amendment. I think the House will certainly be very reluctant to accept an Amendment which, however early it might send the hon. Member to bed, would have the effect of depriving most Members of the House of their dinner.
    MR. DILLONsaid he was astonished at the tone of the Leader of the House in dealing with the Amendment, which was really one of the most important on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be under the impression that no one's convenience was to be consulted except the convenience of gentlemen who desired to go home to dinner, and the convenience of gentlemen who despised cheap dinners. He held that the convenience and health of the majority of hon. Members would be far better consulted by allowing them to go home to bed earlier. That would be better, also, for the convenience of the Government, as they would find out by experience. He believed nothing could be more obstructive than the proposed adjournment for dinner. The plan of interrupting business in the middle of a sitting, of changing the business in the course of the night, of resuming under unfavourable conditions, was as an obstructive arrangement as Parliamentary ingenuity could devise. He believed that the Government would be consulting their own interest better by accepting the Amendment. His hone friends had always said that if the Government would promise to adjourn earlier they would not oppose a two o'clock sitting; but

    687
    they objected to be forced to sit earlier and not get any advantage later in the night. He did not know if hon. Members had practically considered how the proposals of the Government would work out. The House would resume at nine o'clock. The Government had indicated what they expected, as regarded the attendance of their own supporters, by the proviso that the House could not be counted out until ten o'clock. If the Government intended to bring back their supporters at nine o'clock, they would not have put in that proviso. What would happen between nine o'clock and ten o'clock? On many nights the Government would be afraid to allow a division, and the result would be that they would have two or three Government blockers whose duty it would be to talk against time during that hour. That would be degradation of the House of Commons, and he could not imagine an arrangement more calculated to turn the proceedings of the House into ridicule and to obstruct the conduct of public business. They had witnessed similar incidents last session when even the Leader of the House himself and other Front Bench men had to get up and talk against time in the most amusing manner he had ever heard. He contended, therefore, that in providing an adjournment for dinner the Government were simply attempting to meet the case of those of their supporters who were denounced in The Times newspaper Member, a letter signed by a Unionist Member, in which it was stated that a large section of the Unionist Party were in the habit of coming in at the front door and leaving through secret passages, leaving the Whips under the impression that they had a certain number of supporters in the House when actually they had not. That was the real secret and explanation of the proposal of the Government, and it ought to be made perfectly clear to the House and the country. It was not made in the interests of public business, or of the majority of the House, or for the purposes of giving necessary relaxation. It was made simply and solely for the, purpose of extricating the Whips of the Tory Party from an insuperable difficulty, which, in spite of their immense majority, brought
    688
    them last session to the verge of disaster. The House of Commons should not be treated as a social club, or as a kind of step ladder for climbing into the drawing-rooms of London. He trusted hon. Members who took a serious interest in the business of the House would resist the proposal, and would make it clear to the House and the country what was the real explanation of the suggestion.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be under the impression that the House, having agreed to meet at two o'clock, has thereby settled the question of the dinner hour. It is, however, an entirely different proposition, although it is quite true that one may be adapted to the other. I am entirely opposed to the interruption of the sitting, and I have heard no answer whatever from the right hon. Gentleman, or from anyone else, to the very significant fact I have stated before, that there is no case of a Government, when it gets command of the whole time of the House, ever having a morning sitting at all. Why is that? When the Government at the end of July or the beginning of August takes the whole time of the House with a view to getting through their business with the greatest speed; they would have morning sittings, for morning sittings were a good way of accomplishing that object. But they did not; on the contrary, the House is kept sitting four days in the week, without morning sittings, in order that the Government might get on with their business. Therefore this proposal is a direct inducement to the waste of time, and it is very easy to see how it arises. Supposing half-a-dozen or a dozen Members of the House desire, out of pure mischief or for any other reason, to obstruct the progress of business, the prospect of a whole session of days going on till twelve o'clock would be more than they could face; but if there is to be an interruption at seven o'clock, and if they are to have a breathing time until ten o'clock, for that is practically what it comes to, they will take fresh heart and do their best to obstruct until a quarter past seven. It is an elementary axiom of Parliamentary tactics that you encourage obstruction

    689
    by breaking up your business, and that you prevent obstruction by having a solid mass of business before the House.
    There is another aspect of the arrangement. The Government under it will have practically three hours of immunity from attack and danger. There will be from a quarter past seven until eight o'clock, from eight o'clock to nine o'clock, when the House will not exist, and from nine o'clock to ten o'clock, when the House cannot be counted. During that period the Government are freed from any danger or attack. I am arguing from the point of view of the interest of Members, but the Government are also sacrificing the interests of public business for the comfort and convenience of some of their supporters. I quite admit that the great majority of hon. Members, so far as their own personal comfort is concerned, like a dinner hour; but that is no reason why we should adopt it, if it is not favourable to the progress of business. All the most experienced men I have consulted are agreed—and it is also the experience of every Government within my memory—in confirming my view that the way to get on with business is to have no dinner hour. [An HON. MEMBER: And no dinner.] The hon. Member is thinking of his dinner; but he does not come here to eat dinners, he comes here to make speeches. The great object is to transact the work of the House, and in my opinion this is not the way to get on with it. It is said that we have an interruption of half an hour now. Yes, but that comes at irregular times, it cannot be counted on, and when we resume, we resume with the same business, and really the constitution of the House is not altered at all. But this is another system altogether. We are to have one kind of business before the interval and another kind of business afterwards, and that, as I said before, is a very patent way of giving opportunities for obstruction, and yet it is put forward in the interests of public business. What is the cause of our spending so much time and taking so much pains over Amendments of this kind except to accelerate public business. I deny altogether that we are called upon to make this change for the mere comfort and convenience of Members; and,
    690
    as I have said before, in my opinion a dinner hour is the very best way of accomplishing the retardation of business rather than its acceleration.
    MR. SWIFTMACNEILLsaid that nothing that that dinner-gong statesman, the First Lord of the Treasury, had done had so degraded the House of Commons as that proposal. It was not proper to adjourn public business in order to dine conveniently. They came to the House to discuss public business and not to dine. The first mention he had found of the dinner hour question in the Parliamentary records was in the days of Speaker Lenthall. Speaker Lenthall saw a great number of Members crowding out of the House at the dinner hour, and he rebuked them for gratifying their own selfish inclinations, and referred to them as "unworthy to be Members of this great and wise Assembly of Parliament, who would so run forth for their dinners." He had some delicacy in referring to that, as he had the honour to be a most unworthy descendant of Speaker Lenthall, Irish of the Irish though he was. The proposal of the Government would not convenience Members who devoted their time to the work of the House. It would have no effect whatever on the Irish Members, as they would have to stay in the House, and they would probably be asking Questions when other hon. gentlemen were dining. Not since the time when Nero fiddled while Rome was burning had there been such an example of supineness and inducement to material comfort as that now supplied by a gentleman who owed everything to the House of Commons, the debasement of which he was today engaged in securing.
    MR. M'KENNAadmitted that in a limited sense these Rules were popular, and would facilitate important business. That they were popular had been indicated by the speeches delivered during the last fortnight by gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, and they would certainly facilitate the important business of dining. A direct challenge had been

    691
    put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman had declared that what was practically a three hours interruption, must of necessity lead, not to the facilitation, but the obstruction of business. To that statement no answer had been given, for the simple reason that no answer could be given. Let the House, at any rate, be frank in discussing these proposals. It should not be allowed to go forth that these proposals were for the purpose of enabling the Government to introduce legislation for the benefit of the working classes. They were purely and simply for the personal convenience of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If the business of the House was interrupted from seven to ten o'clock, it would practically mean that they would devote only the hours between 2.30 and seven o'clock to public business, and, as a consequence, the House would be able to do less in the future than it had done in the past. The Rules, so far from facilitating the discharge of public business, would prove to be the most obstructive measure ever introduced into the House to impede the passage of legislation, and he should therefore support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicester.
    MR. CREANsaid that for the one hour they were to meet earlier, the House was to waste three hours between seven and ten o'clock. It would be more than ever difficult to transact business after ten o'clock, because Members who spent three hours in dining, would come back, not to speak with any reason or sense on the subject of discussion, but simply to shout, in very thick voices, "'Vide! 'Vide! 'Vide!" That might be an amusement to hon.
    692
    Members who indulged in the practice, but it was not amusing to those who attended the House to transact the business of Parliament. The First Lord was very ill-advised in considering the convenience of Members who rendered him no assistance except in the division lobby. If the speeches of such Members on the platform were only as brilliant as those they made in the House, there would be fewer Gentlemen returned to shout "'Vide! 'Vide!" and more to transact the business of the country. The proposal was made in the interest not of the "cheap diners." but of members of West End clubs. It did not, however, add either to the efficiency of Members of Parliament or to the dignity of the House, to give men too much time to fritter away in playing "ping-pong" or dining. To adjourn the House for three hours in the middle of the sitting would tend neither to give more time for the discharge of public business nor to making the working of the Assembly more efficient. The proper way to secure those ends was to make the sessions longer and the sittings continuous. No business man would dream of suspending business for three hours in the middle of his day in order to go and dine. Nationalist Members did not come to the House for the pupose of dining, but to represent their constituents. Those constituents had faith in their representatives, and those representatives would do the work to the best of their ability. But the Government did not believe they had the faith of their followers, and therefore they had to pet and pamper them in every possible way. The Members who ought really to be considered were not the sloths and sluggards, but those who really did the work of the House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 211; Noes 106. (Division List No. 40).

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edwd.Algernon

    Macartney,RtHn.W.G.Ellison

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Forster, Henry William

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Foster,PhilipS.(WarwickS.W.

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Arnold-Foster, Hugh O.

    Galloway, William Johnson

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

    Arrol, Sir William

    Gardner, Ernest

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

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Gibbs, Hon.Vicary (St. Albans

    M 'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Bagot, Capt.Josceline FitzRoy

    Godson, Sir Augustus Freder'k

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Baird, John George Alexander

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

    Martin,Richard Biddulph

    Balfour, Rt. Hon.A.J. (Mancr

    Gordon,Maj.Evans-(TrHamlts

    Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriesshr

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Gore,Hn.G.R.C.Ormsby-(Sal'p

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

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

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

    Gorst, Rt.Hon.Sir John Eldon

    Milner, Rt. Hon.Sir Fredk. G.

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Goulding,Edward Alfred

    Mitchell, William

    Beach, Rt.Hon.Sir Michael H.

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Montagu,Hon. J. Scott(Hants

    Bignold, Arthur

    Green, Walford D. (Wednsbry)

    More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire

    Blundell, Col. Henry

    Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. E'd's

    Morgan,David J. (Walth'mstow

    Bond, Edward

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Morgan,Hn.Fred.(Monm'thsh.

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Gretton, John

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Groves, James Grimble

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

    Bull, William James

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Carlile, William Walter

    Hamilton, Marq.of (Londndry

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

    Carson,Rt. Hon. Sir Edwd. H.

    Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashfd)

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Nicholson, Wm. Graham

    Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshre

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor).

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington

    Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.J. (Birm

    Heath, James (Statfords N.W.

    Peel, Hn.Wm.Robt. Wellesley

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worcr.

    Henderson, Alexander

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Chapman, Edward

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Plummer, Walter R

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hope,J.F (Sheffield, Brightside

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Hoult, Joseph

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Clive, Capt. Percy A.

    Howard, John (Kent,Favershm

    Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hozier, Hon. James HnryCeeil

    Purvis, Robert

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Randles, John S.

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Rankin, Sir James

    Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

    Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North).

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col.W.(Salop)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Keswick, William

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Cross, Herbt. Shepherd(Bolton

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Renwick, George

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Knowles, Lees

    Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge

    Cust, Henry John C.

    Lambton,Hon.Frederick Wm.

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thompson

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Law, Andrew Bonar

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lawrence, Joseph(Monmouth)

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Davenport, William Bromley-

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Royds, Clement Molyneaux

    Dewar, T.R.(T. Hamlets St. Geo

    Lawson, John Grant

    Rutherford, John

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Farehm

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

    Leveson-Gower, FrederickN. S.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Seeley, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Dunning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Seeley, Maj.J.E.B.(Isle of W.)

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

    Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S

    Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew)

    Fergusson,Rt.Hon.SirJ.(Mane

    Lowe, Francis William

    Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

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

    Finch, George H.

    Lucas,Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Spear, John Ward

    Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

    Walker, Col. Wm. Hall

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

    Stanley, Edward Jas (Somerset

    Warde, Colonel C.E.

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Wason, John C. (Orkney)

    Wylie, Alexander

    Strutt, Hon.. Charles Hedley

    Webb, Col. Wm. George

    Wyndham, Rt.Hon.George

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

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

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Sir. Wm. Walrond and

    Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

    Wilson, A. Stanley(York,E.R

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Wilson, John Glasgow

    NOES.

    Ahraham, William (Cork, N.E.

    Joicey, Sir James

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

    O'Shee, James John

    Ambrose, Robert

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Asher, Alexander

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Power (Patrick Joseph)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S)

    Joyce, Michael

    Price, Robert John

    Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Rea, Russell

    Blake, Edward

    Kennedy, Patrick James

    Reddy, M.

    Boland, John

    Kitson, Sir James

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Lambert, George

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Brigg, John

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

    Roche, John

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Caldwell, James

    Landon, W.

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    MacDonnell. Dr. Mark A.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cogan, Denis J.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    M`Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Crene, Eugene

    M'Crae, George

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Cremer, William Randal

    M`Govern, T.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Cullinan, J.

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Delany, William

    M' Kenna, Reginald

    Thompson,Dr E. C.M'n'ghan, N

    Dillon, John

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Tomlinson, James

    Donelan, Capt. A.

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Murphy, John

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Ffrench, Peter

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, George

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Norman, Henry

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, M.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

    Woodhouse,SirJ.T. (Hudrfield

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

    Young, Samuel

    Hammond, John

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Hayne, Hon. C. Seale-

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Holland, William Henry

    O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

    Mr. Broadhurst and Mr.

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    O'Malley, William

    Lough.

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    O'Mara, James

    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    (12.12.) Question put according "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The Housing Divided:—Ayes, 212; Noes, 105. (Division List No. 41).

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood,Capt. Sir A. F.

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Cavendish,V.C. W. (Derbyshire

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Bignold, Arthur

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

    Arrol, Sir William

    Bond, Edward

    Chapman, Edward

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Charrington, Spencer

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St John

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

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

    Bull, William James

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Balfour,Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds

    Carlile, William Walter

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edwd. H.

    Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Purvis, Robert

    Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)

    Randles, John S.

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

    Rankin, Sir James

    Cust, Henry John C.

    Keswick, William

    Rasch, Major Frederic Came

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Rateliff, R. F.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Knowles, Lees

    Remnant, James Faninharson

    Davenport, William Bromley-

    Lambton, Hon. FrederickWm.

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

    Law, Andrew Bonar

    Renwick, George

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

    Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Ritchie,Rt.Hn. Chas.Thomson

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

    Lawson, John Grant

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Rutherford, John

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Leveson-Gower,Frederick N.S.

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Fellowes, Hon Ailwyn Edward

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Sasscon, Sir Edward Albert

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Finch, George H.

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

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lowe, Francis William

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

    Fitzroy,Hon.Edward Algernon

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

    Shaw-Stewart,M. H. (Renfrew

    Forster, Henry William

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Smith, A. H. (Hertford, East)

    Foster,Philip S (Warwick,S.W

    Macartney,Rt.Hn. WG. Ellison

    Smith,H.C.(Nort'mb.Tyneside

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

    Gardner, Ernest

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Spear, John Ward

    Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St Albans)

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hu. Herb. John

    M'Arthur. William (Cornwall)

    Stanley, Edwd. Jas. (Somerset

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

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

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

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

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Gordon,Maj Evans-(TrH'ml'ts

    M'Killop, James (Stirliiigshire)

    Start, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Gore,HnG.R.C.Ormsby-(Salop

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Maxwell, WJ.H(Dumfriesshire

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Valentia, Viscount

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Green, Walford D.(Wednesb'ry

    Mitchell, William

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Greene,SirE.W (B'rySEdm'nds

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)

    Webb, Colonel William George

    Gretton, John

    More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Welby, Sir CharlesG.E.(Notts.

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Groves, James Grimble

    Morgan,Hn.Fred. (Monm'thsh.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Morrison, James Archibald

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

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

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashfo'd

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Muntz, Philip A.

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

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

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

    Wylie, Alexander

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

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

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Henderson, Alexander

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Pease,HerbertPike (Darlington

    Sir William Walrond and

    Hope,J.F. (Shetlield,Brightside

    Peel,Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

    Mr. Anstruther

    Hoult, Joseph

    Pemberton. John S. G.

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Brigg, John

    Crean, Eugene

    Ambrose Robert

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Cremer, William Randal

    Asher, Alexander

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Cullinan, J.

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Caldwell, James

    Delany, William

    Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Dillon, John

    Blake, Edward

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Boland, John

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Doogan, P. C.

    698

    699

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    M'Govern, T.

    Roche, John

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Russell, T. W.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Gilhooly, James

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Murphy, John

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Hammond, John

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Holland, William Henry

    Norman, Henry

    Sullivan, Donal

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

    Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Thompson,Dr.E.C.(M'n'gh'n'N

    Joicey, Sir James

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

    Tomkinson, James

    Jones, David Brymnor(Swansea

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

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Jones,William(Carnarvonshire

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

    Jordan, Jeremiah

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

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    O'Malley, William

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Kennedy, Patrick James

    O'Mara, James

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Kitson, Sir James

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

    Lambert, George

    O'Shee, lames John

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Woodhouse, Sir T.T.(H'dd'rsf'd

    Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Young, Samuel

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Price, Robert John

    Lough, Thomas

    Rea, Russell

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    London, W.

    Reddy, M.

    Mr. Broadhurst and Sir

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    Brampton Gurdon.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    M'Crae, George

    Roberts, john H. (Denbighs.)

    Question again proposed.
    Debate arising;
    And, it being after midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

    VACCINATION.
    Return ordered, "showing in respect of each Poor Law Union in England and Wales—(1) the number of Certificates of Conscientious Objection under Section 2 of The Vaccination Act, 1898, received by the Vaccination Officers, which were dated between the 1st day of January and the 31st day of December in each of the years 1900 and 1901; and (2) the number of Certificates of successful Primary Vaccination received by the Vaccination Officers during each of those years." —(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
    LOCAL AUTHORITIES—OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION.
    Bill to enable Local Authorities to adopt the provisions of The Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hay, Mr. James Bailey, Mr. Galloway, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Sir Seymour King, Sir Blundell Maple, Captain Norton, Major Rasch, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Sinclair, Mr. Wranklyn, and Mr. Freeman Thomas.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES—OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
    To enable Local Authorities to adopt the provisions of The Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896," Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]
    Adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

EARL OF SEFTON.
  EARL OF DARNLEY.
  Ordered and Directed, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, that Certificates be sent by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, stating that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom has reported to the House of Lords that the right of the Earl of Sefton and of the Earl of Darnley to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of him the said Lord Chancellor; and that the House of Lords has ordered such reports to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland; And it is hereby also Ordered that the said Reports of the said Lord Chancellor be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
  PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
    KING'S ROAD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    A petition of Messrs. Broughton, Nocton and Broughton of 12, Great Marlborough Street, London, solicitors, praying for leave to present a petition of Robert John Pettiward and others, 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 Monday next, in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.
    WEARDALE AND SHILDON DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
    Read 2a (according to order).
    GREAT NORTHERN AND STRAND RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Read 2a (according to order).

    MENAI BRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
    Standing Order No. 92, considered (according to order) and dispensed with,
    550
    with respect to a Petition of the Hon. Claud Hamilton Vivian; leave given to present the said Petition.

    LONDON UNITED ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Standing Order No. 92. considered (according to order), and dispensed with with respect to a Petition of the Urban District Council of Barnes; leave given to present the said Petition.
    NORTH-WEST LONDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA (MEAT CONTRACTS).
    Conditions of contract with M. Bergl and Co., for meat supply to troops in South Africa.
    ARMY (RECRUITING).
    Annual Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting for the year 1901.
    TRADE REPORTS.
    Miscellaneous Series: No. 574. Report on Prussian railways.

    LOCAL TAXATION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
    Report on valuation in Ireland by His Majesty's Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of local taxation.
    Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS, 1853 TO 1891 (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
    Licence granted by His Majesty to Marion Edith Morrell a convict now, under detention in Aylesbury Prison,

    551
    permitting the said Marion Edith Morrell to be at large on condition that she enter the Elizabeth Fry Refuge, Hackney, London, E.

    POLLING DISTRICT (COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON).
    Order made by the County Council of Northampton altering certain polling districts in the Southern and Mid-Parliamentary Divisions.
    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    CREMATION BILL [H.L.]
    Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
    PROTECTION OF INNKEEPERS BILL [H.L.]
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read, and discharged.

    Australian Commonwealth Legislation affecting South Sea Islanders.
    LORD LAMINGTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of His Majesty's Government had been directed to the Pacific Island Labourers Act of the Commonwealth of Australia, wherein (1) power was given to deport Islanders who came to Australia under the laws of the Colony of Queensland, which sanctioned their permanent residence in that Colony if so inclined; and (2) which provided no obligation to return these Islanders to their proper villages on their respective Islands, or to ensure their safety on their landing there. For a number of years South Sea Islanders had been imported into Queensland for the purpose of working the sugar fields. They were usually engaged for a period of three years, and then returned to their homes; but under the Act of 1884 the number of men imported was allowed to increase so long as they engaged in certain branches of tropical agriculture. The Pacific Island Labourers Act, recently passed by the Government of the Commonwealth, gave power to deport these Islanders to the Islands from which they originally came. He thought
    552
    it was exceedingly hard that these men, having acquired certain habits of civilisation, and, in many cases, property in Australia, should be compelled against their will to leave what was practically their home without any compensation. Unless they were taken back to the exact locality on the Islands from which they came, these people were almost certain to be killed and possibly eaten. No other race, not even the Chinese, would be treated as the Pacific Islanders were to be under this Act. The Queensland Act of 1880 contained a clause which made it compulsory that they should be returned to the villages on their respective islands from which they came, but there was no such provision in the new Act. When this serious defect was pointed out, Mr Barton stated that the Pacific Islanders Labourers Act ran with the Queensland Act, or, rather, that it did not in any way repeal the Queensland Act. That might be so, but it was not to be supposed, now that the traffic was to be stopped, that the Queensland Government would take any further interest in carrying out the provisions of the Queensland Act. The principle laid down by the Secretary of State in reference to another Act recently passed was that distinction of race or colour should be no disqualification. But here a cruel disqualification was being inflicted on men who had been working for years in the interests of the development of the Colony, and who were to be forcibly deprived of their present means of existence without compensation. Some guarantee for their proper protection on their return ought to be given. He hoped that representations on the subject would be made to the Commonwealth Government.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, this being a very important Act, I need hardly say that the matter has been considered by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but I do not gather that the noble Lord desires that the Secretary of State should take any action in regard to it. The subject is one which is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is one which affects them entirely, and they

    553
    must be left to deal with it in their own way. The noble Lord has suggested that a very serious evil may happen to these labourers when they return to their own country—that, instead of being received with acclamation, their fellow-countrymen will, I think the noble Lord went so far as to say, kill them and probably proceed to eat them. That is certainly a very alarming outlook, but I trust that the noble Lord's fears are somewhat exaggerated. Although as I read the Act, there is nothing in it which provides for the repatriation of these labourers to their own particular villages, the attention of the Commonwealth Government will be called to the matter and a hope expressed that every care will be taken, as I am sure the Commonwealth Government would desire, to see that when these men are sent back, they are sent back to their own villages, and under such conditions that they may be expected to be willingly received there. The great majority of these men are not British subjects, and they are really living in a state of barbarism. You can hardly expect that the Commonwealth Government should open its shores freely to people who are in a state of barbarism or, at any rate, semi-barbarism; and I think the noble Lord will admit that it is entirely within the right of the Commonwealth Government to exclude these men if they think fit. I have no doubt that the Colony of Queensland may consider it a great hardship that these men are not allowed to come and work in the sugar fields, but that is a matter of internal administration in which, I am sure, the noble Lord, with his knowledge and experience of Australia, would not think it would be proper for His Majesty's Government to interfere.
    LORD LAMINGTONsaid that, as the Act stood at present, there was no security that the Islanders would be returned to their respective villages. All he asked was that a clause should be inserted to this effect similar to the clause in the Queensland Act of 1880.
    *THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Secretary of State will draw the
    554
    attention of the Commonwealth Government to the point which the noble Lord has raised.
    LORD LAMINGTONalso asked the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether any communication had been received from the Lieutenant-Governor or Government of Queensland referring to the Pacific Island Labourers Act of the Commonwealth of Australia.
    *THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Nothing has been received except the document with which, probably, the noble Lord is familiar—namely, the representation or petition of the Prime Minister of Queensland to the Senate of the Commonwealth. I can lay that on the Table of the House, if it is desired, although it has been already published.

    New Guinea.
    LORD LAMINGTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he could give the House any information respecting the future administration of British New Guinea.
    *THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Commonwealth Government have agreed to assume the responsibility for, and accept the government of, British New Guinea in lieu of Queensland, and have agreed to set aside a sum of £20,000 a year for the purpose of supplementing the local revenue. The exact details of the transfer have not yet been arranged, and, when completed, will be presented to Parliament.

    Distribution of Meat Supplies to Troops in South Africa.
    LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, who I am glad to see in his place again after his recent indisposition, what the practice is with regard to the distribution of meat to the troops in South Africa; and, in particular, whether the contractors are not allowed the free use of military wagons to some extent; and, if so, to what extent.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): My Lords, I think I can best answer the noble Lord's Question by quoting the

    555
    forty-first paragraph of the contract into which we have just entered, which provides that supplies shall be delivered by the contractor at such times and places as the commanding officer may direct at his (the contractor's) own expense, and he paying all expenses connected therewith. The clause proceeds—
    "Should exceptional circumstances exist the officer commanding may consider the advisability of giving the contractor such assistance in this respect as may be in his power; but it is cleanly to be understood that such assistance will be an indulgence and not a right.'
    I can add nothing to statements already made as to the difficulties of distribution among troops in various positions in South Africa. It is not surprising that the prices were in proportion to the difficulties. As to the amount of assistance which the military authorities actually do afford as an indulgence to the contractor, I am afraid I cannot give any general information; but it is obvious that such assistance would vary according to circumstances, and that the military would do everything in their power to assist the contractor, not relieving him from responsibility in the matter.
    LORD MONKSWELL: I should like to know if the conditions mentioned are alike in the former and present contracts. The price in the former contract was defended on the ground that the unsettled state of the country entailed heavy expenses on the contractor from which the contractor will now be relieved.
    *LORD RAGLAN: I believe the former contract contained the same clause, but then the railway was subject to frequent breaks from which it does not now suffer, and the difficulties of distribution were much greater.
    LORD MONKSWELL: I am at a loss to understand what considerable expense the contractor could have been put to.
    * THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): The point made by my noble friend the Under Secretary for War was that the expenses of distribution must have been very much greater at the beginning of the war, when a large part of the country was in the hands of the enemy, than they are now, when a
    556
    large part of South Africa has been restored to something like order.
    LORD MONKSWELL: I should have thought that, under the clause giving the military authorities power to assist in the distribution of meat, they would have given more assistance when the country was disturbed than when it was not.

    SOUTH AFRICA—ARMY MEAT CONTRACTS.
    EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the contracts for supplying the Imperial troops in South Africa with meat; and also to the enormous profits derived therefrom by the contractors; and to move that all Papers (including Australian and other tenders) should be laid on the Table of the House. Since I gave notice of this Motion I have been given to understand that pourparlers have taken place between the Agents General of the Colonial States and the War Office, and that negotiations for an alteration of the terms of the contract with Mr. Bergl are in progress; and, therefore, I need not trouble your Lordships with comments on the injustice which we thought had been meted out to the Australian States by the contract. I hope and believe that that will be rectified, though I reserve to myself the perfect right of future criticism in the event of the new arrangement not appearing to be perfectly fair and just to the Australian States. I would have left that part of the subject entirely but for the observations reported to have been made by Lord Stanley in a speech at Liverpool last night. Lord Stanley criticised the remarks which I made some ten days since in your Lordships' House, when I referred to Mr. Bergl's contract. I called attention to the fact that the Australian Premiers had objected to its unjust conditions, and I will again read to the House the telegram which Mr. Seddon, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, sent to this country:
    "The action as regards this contract has caused widespread irritation, and the feeling about it is becoming intensely bitter. Every Chamber of Commerce has passed resolutions against this action, and I am informed that already a large steamer has been withdrawn from Australia in order to proceed to the Argentine for meat."

    557
    I may mention, in passing, that since I made that speech in your Lordships' House I have received a telegram from the Prime Minister of New Zealand conveying to me the thanks of the people of that country for my action in the matter. As this contract is being amended, I hope and believe that in its new shape it will redound to the credit and the business capacity of my noble friend Lord Stanley. Lord Stanley, criticising the remarks I made, is reported to have said:
    "Lord Carrington attempted to compare the prices paid for meat for the troops in south Africa with the price of meat for the Royal kitchen."
    That is perfectly true, but I understated the price. I put it at 10d. per lb.; I now find that the price paid by His Majesty's Government under the first contract was 11d. per lb. But my noble friend confuses the two contracts. The remarks I made were addressed to the former contract with the Cold Storage Company, for which the noble Lord was not responsible. Lord Stanley, continuing his remarks, said:
    "What could all this prove except at some distant period Lord Carrington was connected with the Royal Household "
    It is true that there was a proud period of three years in my life when I had the honour of serving in the office of Lord Chamberlain. Lord Stanley added:
    "Lord Carrington is at present ready to take any advantage, truthful or untruthful, to secure a Party move."
    I sincerely hope that my noble friend has been misreported, but if he has not been, then I will tell him, what I am sure I need not tell your Lordships, that in bringing this subject before the House I have been actuated by the same motive that led my noble friend Lord Tweed mouth to raise the question of remounts—a desire to perform a public dut.
    In calling attention to the meat supplies to the Imperial troops in South Africa, I have to say that the fact that the first contract, to which I shall entirely confine myself, was not open in the usual way to public competition, was the source of great expense to the taxpayers of the country. There was in South Africa an import duty of 2½d. per lb. on all imported meat when the contract was made. Sir James Sivewright, who was formerly Commissioner for Crown
    558
    Lands and Public Works, and Mr. De Graaff, who is a well-known South African, were both on the directorate of the Cold Storage Company, the Company which had the first contract granted to them by the Government. It is very important to know when this import duty was repealed, whether a rebate was paid to the British Government, and what was the amount of the rebate, and the date of payment.
    When I first called attention to this matter, I stated that the price of the meat was 10d. per lb.—it now turns out to be 11d. per lb.—and that this was a Bond Street price and equal to that paid for the baron of beef on the Royal Table at Christmas. The noble Lord the Under Secretary for War, in reply to that said:—
    "I wish to correct a misapprehension. The contract price was not only for the supply of meat; it included and the work of distribution was not an easy mat er."
    That is a self-evident proposition. But Mr. Bergl has himself stated, in the British Australasian of Feb. 13—and it was repeated in the Daily Mail and Westminster Gazette of yesterday—that the utmost that could be charged for carriage (which, of course, includes distribution) would be 2d. per lb. I stated that, with regard to distribution, no charge was made for carrying the meat on the railway, which was under military control, and the noble Lord (Lord Raglan) pointed out that there was such a thing as distribution beyond the railway. Of course, that is perfectly true. Troops were beyond the railway, and meat had to be supplied to them by means of carts or wagons. We have heard from the Under Secretary, in reply to the question of my noble friend behind me, that the contractors were indulged with the use—
    *LORD RAGLAN: What I said was that the contractors under certain circumstances might have assistance, but that it was a matter of indulgence and not a matter of right.
    EARL CARRINGTON: The contractors, at any rate, have been indulged with the assistance of military wagons, at a grateful country's expense, to take meat to the soldiers at the Front. The military

    559
    authorities had been hiring wagons, with oxen and drivers, from the Boers themselves at 30s. a day. An Army Order was suddenly issued which compelled the military authorities to hand over these wagons to the contractors, who forthwith charged an arranged price of £3 a day to the British Government whilst, however, continuing to pay the Boers 30s. a day, A calculation made by a military friend of mine on the spot—by the way he said, "For God's sake don't mention my name"—was that these contractors must have cleared a profit of at least £1 a day on each of these wagons, after leaving 10s. for deficiencies and contingencies or a total annual calculated profit of at least £3,000,000 sterling. Since a certain recent meeting at the War Office, officers in England have become extraordinarily reticent, and it is, therefore, more difficult than ever to obtain statistics. But supposing there were 10,000 waggons—1 waggon to every 25 men—then the contractors, if they were able to clear £365 a year on each waggon, would make a clear profit of £3,650,000—£650,000 more than that estimated by my anonymous military friend.
    The noble Lord who represents the War Office has told the House that the distribution in the early part of the war was more difficult than it was later, but I would remind the House that in the early part of the war the country was full of cattle. A representative of the Cold Storage Company always accompanied the columns. The cattle captured, amounting to thousands, on being brought into camp, were counted and taken over at so much by the standard weight, and were then issued to the troops at 11d. per lb. Commandeered cattle were also bought from the Boers. These were sometimes left behind and afterwards recaptured and sold to the troops, this happening over and over again. There is a story well known in South Africa of a certain prize ox which was sold and resold so often that the number of times was popularly supposed to have reached that of the extreme limit of fraternal forgiveness according to Scripture. Lord Raglan informed the House that he had no information as to the profits of the Cold Storage Company. But there has
    560
    been some more information given in the last few days by Mr. Bergl, who has told us that the price agreed to be paid by the British Government for every pound of meat delivered on the spot was lld., that the meat was bought by the contractor at 3d. and a fraction of a penny, and that the utmost cost of distribution was about 2d.; so that the total cost of every pound of meat to the Cold Storage Company was 5d., leaving them a net profit of 6d. per lb. The net profit on every sheep weighing 50lbs. was 25s. In other words, there was a net gain of 120 per cent. on the transaction. Mr. Bergl concluded by saying:
    "I should say that at the end of the first year and a half the Cold Storage Company must have made four and a half millions sterling."
    I submit that these are most prodigious profits. But that is not all. There are queer stories about profits on remounts, on clothing, provisions, wine, and hospital comforts, fodder, and other necessaries of the war. I contend that these stories ought to be sifted to the bottom. If the statements are untrue, they should be contradicted. If they are true, such a scandal ought to be stopped at once, and the offenders ought to be brought to the bar of public opinion, and, if necessary, to justice. I believe I am right in saying that in a case like this the country will not stand any secrecy, concealment, or mystery, or any scapegoats. There ought to be an immediate and open inquiry into the whole system of Government contracts. How this is to be brought about is for others to determine. All I have to do now is to move for all the Papers—and I include Papers which will give the names of the vendor or vendors, the promoter or promoters, and the subsequent shareholders in the Gold Storage Company which is alleged to have made such tremendous profits—connected with these meat contracts; and in simple justice to Australia, and for the credit of the country, I hope and believe I shall not ask in vain.
    Moved, "That a humble Address be presented to His Majesty for all Papers (including those connected with Australia) relating to the contracts for supplying the Imperial troops in South Africa with meat."—(The Earl Carrington.)
    *LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, the noble Earl commenced his speech by alluding to some remarks made by Lord Stanley at Liverpool last night. I have not read that speech, and am afraid I am not in a position to discuss the statements therein contained. Neither am I in a position to give the noble Earl the information he asks for with regard to the import duty. The noble Earl has enlarged on the profits made upon the Cold Storage Company's contract; but he must remember that this was a war contract made in South Africa by officers whose duty it is to make these contracts to the best of their ability, and to the best advantage of His Majesty's service. The noble Earl passed over the question of distribution somewhat lightly; but I must again call your Lordships' attention to the very great difficulty of distributing this enormous amount of meat over a very large country during a state of war. If it was merely a question of the carriage of so many live animals or carcases over a railway from one point to another, it would be very easy to calculate the cost; but under this contract the contractors are liable not only to carry the beasts from one place to another, but also to provide herdsmen and butchers, the appliances for killing, cutting up, and weighing, and so forth. The noble Earl alluded to the question of the cattle captured from the enemy, and especially to one celebrated prize ox which, he said, was sold to the troops even unto seventy times seven.
    *EARL CARRINGTON: I made no charge against the contractors with respect to this prize ox. All I said was that the animal was captured and recaptured over and over again, and sold and resold over and over again.
    *LORD RAGLAN: I am afraid I have no information with regard to the prize ox. I now come to the question of the profits made by the Cold Storage Company. Those profits are rapidly increasing by leaps and bounds. Ten days ago they were said to be £1,000,000. A few days later a newspaper put them down at several millions, and now the noble Earl states them to be £4,500,000.
    EARL CARRINGTON: Mr. Bergl said that. They are his figures, not mine.
    *LORD RAGLAN: I did not gather that £4,500,000 was Mr. Bergl's figures, but, whosesoever figure it is, it is a large advance on the figure first quoted. I have not seen the Company's balance sheet and so cannot make any statement on the subject. The noble Earl moves for Papers in connection with these contracts. He must be well aware that it has never been the custom to lay on the Table of either House the prices of tenders made for Government contracts. In the year 1888 the Directors of Navy and Army Contracts were directed to consult the leading commercial authorities in the country with the view to ascertaining their opinions as to the advisability of making these tenders public. They consulted 103 individual firms and 70 Chambers of Commerce, and the answers received were almost unanimously in favour of the existing practice of not making tenders public. Of the 48 replies received from Chambers of Commerce, 24 were on the side of publicity, 20 against, and four were unable to come to a decision; but the twenty which decided against publicity represented the chief manufacturing districts in the kingdom, whilst the bulk of those who favoured publicity had had little experience of Government contracts. Of the total of 112 answers received, no less than 101 were in favour of secrecy. If your Lordships will think the matter over, you will see how disadvantageous it is, from a commercial point of view, to publish tenders. In the case of the contract now being carried through, it is a particularly large and important contract, and the Company is a new Company constructed solely for the purpose of this particular contract. Therefore, the objections to publication do not apply so strongly; but it may often be the cause of great loss to a firm, and certainly of very great annoyance, when they make a quotation for ordinary purposes, to have thrown in their teeth the rate at which they had quoted to the Government under a contract for, probably, very much larger quantities.
    As to the contract under discussion, the Government took the lowest out of 65. The contract is only made for one

    563
    year, and it has been taken by a strong, competent, and financially stable body, who have deposited £200,000 as earnest of their ability to carry it out. We have, to the best of our power, safeguarded the Colonies in the matter of the meat supply, and we have arranged that the meat shall be inspected and reported upon on landing, so as to insure that the clause is, as far as possible, carried out. The noble Earl seems disposed to ask for the Colonies more than they ask for themselves. All the Colonies have asked for is that they shall receive fair treatment. I can assure your Lordships that the Government are most anxious to secure fair treatment for the Colonies, and in our opinion the contract we have made is in accordance with that feeling.
    THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I would remind the House that we are dealing, not with vague and indefinite questions, but with a matter which seriously affects the taxpayers of this country. The noble Lord the Under Secretary for War has stated that the profits made by the Cold Storage Company have been magnified. In answer to that I cannot do better than quote the words of Mr. Bergl himself, which appear in today's Daily Mail—
    "What the Cold Storage Company have made out of their contract is not for me to say. What I do say is that I, or any other man, selling and buying at the prices they did, making all allowances for carriage, must have made four and a half millions in the first year and one and a half in the last—six millions on the contract. If the Company only cleared two millions, as is said, I do not understand it; but it is not my business."
    For my part, with all due deference to the noble Lord, I would place more reliance upon the business capacity and accuracy of Mr. Bergl than upon the words put into the mouths of the Under Secretary by the War Office. A very large sum of money has admittedly been squandered, and there is no evidence to show that the present administration of affairs is any better. I insist that the country should be afforded some evidence that the money they so freely contribute to bring the war to a successful issue is properly and economically spent. The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Lord Stanley), in his speech at Liverpool, expressed the hope that the curtain would be drawn, and said there was
    564
    nothing to conceal. But, to judge from the speech of the noble Lord who represents the War Office in this House, we are to be denied any papers or information. We are told that an inquiry now would be too soon, and that we must wait until the war is over. The inevitable answer then will be that it is too late. The refusal of the Government to give the necessary information can be interpreted only in one way, and that is that they are afraid to take the public into their confidence. I hope the noble Earl will go to a division, in which case I shall certainly support him.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, there is one thing at all events in regard to which we are all agreed. That is that, after the splendid way in which the colonies have stood by us in the crisis through which we have been pa sing, no effort should be spared in order to give the representatives of colonial commerce a chance of competing on the most fair and equitable conditions for the supply of the commodities necessary for the troops in the field. I venture to think that nothing has occurred to show that such an opportunity has been denied to the colonies. The noble Earl who brought the subject before the House has again stated, upon the authority of persons who have been interviewed by representatives of the Press, that the Cold Storage Company made enormous profits out of their contract. It is, to my mind, perfectly possible that the company made very large profits indeed. But the question is not whether the company have put a large sum of money into their pockets, but whether the contract entered into with them on the part of the Government was or was not the best contract that could be made under the circumstances. With regard to that point, I still maintain that it is necessary to take into account the condition of South Africa at the time the contract was entered into. The country was extremely disturbed, the risk to the contractor was very large, and altogether it was not a transaction into which any prudent person would enter, except with the prospect of obtaining an abundant return on his investment. In the case of that contract, as well as in the case of the later contract which has been concluded with Mr. Bergl, the contractor was held bound to distribute the meat to the troops in the field. One

    565
    reason why the Cold Storage, Company made such very large profits was this—the contract provided for the distribution of both frozen and live meat, and during the long delay in the military operations at the Modder River the troops were supplied by the contractor, not with live cattle, accompanying the troops in the field, but with frozen meat, that was easily conveyed by rail. The troops, however, did not suffer by the change. I believe I am right in saying that the frozen meat was very much preferred by the troops to the meat taken from the oxen of the country, which is, I fancy, not always an easily digestible morsel. The noble Earl then referred to the 2d. per lb. import duty. The taking off of that duty did not affect this contract, for the reason that Government stores have never been subject to the duty.
    EARL CARRINGTON: That is a very satisfactory answer.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl relies for his statements on the evidence of Mr. Bergl; but, considering that Mr. Bergl is a rival meat contractor, the noble Earl might have taken that evidence with a few grains of salt. It is very like what happened here the other night when we were discussing remounts. The evidence of rival horse dealers from whom we had not purchased horses was quoted to show that the horse dealers from whom we had purchased remounts were unreliable. Fortunately I am able to produce to your Lordships evidence which I am sure the House will accept as more trustworthy. The contract with the Cold Storage Company formed the subject of examination by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, and they declared that, having regard to the difficulty of supply, and the uncertainty of events, Colonel Richardson, the officer who made the contract in South Africa, was justified in his action, and the only criticism which the Committee offered, was that it might have been better if separate contracts had been entered into for the frozen and the live meat. I maintain that, in the face of that opinion, it is unfair that the kind of charges should be made which we have heard, not for the first time, this evening. Now, I wish
    566
    to say a word with regard to the recent contract. The noble Earl stated that the War Office was about to revise the contract with Messrs. Bergl.
    EARL CARRINGTON: I said I understood, unofficially, that a meeting had been held at the War Office, at which the Agents General of all the Australian Colonies, with one exception, were present, and that as a result better arrangements were being made than those of which Mr. Seddon so justly complained.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl is correct in saying that there has been a conference, but what I wish the House to understand is that the contract with Messrs. Bergl stands, the price stands, the bargain stands. The conference was held with the object of deciding in what manner effect could be given to the provision which was not in the contract itself, but was a subsequent undertaking—namely, that the meat should, as far as possible, be obtained from the Colonies. With regard to the contract itself, which remains unaltered, I should like your Lordships to know that before it was entered into, the whole question was considered very thoroughly by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, assisted by the Quartermaster General, the Assistant Under Secretary, and the Director of Contracts, and that they took into their counsel Colonel Morgan, who was chief of the commissariat with Sir Redvers Buller's force, and who is now chief commissariat officer to Lord Kitchener. No higher authority than Colonel Morgan could have been consulted, and it was in consultation with that officer, that Messrs. Bergl's tender was accepted. The greater part of the tenders did not provide for the distribution of the meat, and these gentlemen came to the conclusion—which, I must say, seems to me to have been a common-sense one—that in all the circumstances it was infinitely better that the task of distribution should be undertaken by the contractor than by His Majesty's Government. Messrs. Bergl's contract was the lowest of those which provided for the distribution of the meat, and it was

    567
    accordingly accepted, with the condition already referred to with regard to the Colonies. It has been arranged that there shall be monthly inspections and reports at intervals, in order to secure that the provision binding the contractor to deal as far as possible with the Colonies is honourably observed. I noted with pleasure that the noble Earl did not repeat the arguments which he used the other evening to discredit Mr. Bergl as a contractor. He told us the other day that one of Mr. Bergl's employees had been fined £10 for selling, as New Zealand lamb, meat which had not its origin in that Colony. If that is to be considered sufficient reason for discarding the lowest tender for a very large contract, and preferring a more expensive tender, it seems to me that we are likely to be led into a great deal of unnecessary expense. I also noticed with pleasure that the noble Earl did not return to the attack on Mr. Bergl's guarantors, whose function it is to provide a certain sum of money as security that the contract shall be fulfilled. That money has been provided and paid.
    EARL CARRINGTON: I deny having made any attack on the guarantors. I only read their names to the House.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If the noble Earl will refer to the report of his speech, I think he will feel bound to admit that the impression it was likely to make on the House was that he desired to ridicule and vilipend everybody connected with the contract.
    EARL CARRINGTON: I certainly did not mean that.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I accept the assurance of the noble Earl, but that was the impression made upon the House by his speech. With reference to the price of the contract concluded with Mr. Bergl, I have received a piece of evidence which I must say weighs a good deal with me, and that is that the contract price for frozen meat delivered to the Admiralty at Simon's Bay is 5¾d. per lb. as compared with 5½d. for frozen meat distributed by Messrs. Bergl up country. Therefore I do not think that
    568
    on that item, at any rate, we can have made such a very bad bargain. With regard to the production of Papers, I desire to enforce what was said by my noble friend the Under Secretary. This question of the secrecy of tenders was very fully considered in 1887 by the War Office. The matter came before Mr. Stanhope, one of the fairest-minded public men who has ever served the country, and in his reply in the House of Commons Mr. Stanhope made this statement—
    "There is a good deal to be said against secrecy, and I will undertake to consider, in conjunction with the Admiralty, whether the balance of advantage on the whole lies on the side of publicity."
    After that, the question was considered by the Director-General of Army Contracts and the Director General of Navy Contracts, and they collected an immense amount of evidence from large firms, used to Government contracts, and from Chambers of Commerce. The evidence was overwhelming in the direction of establishing that it was most unfair to the trade, as well as most inconvenient to the public, that particulars of tenders of this kind should be generally made known. Among the reasons were these: It was shewn to the satisfaction of the Directors-General that the manufacturers as a rule were ready to quote to Government Departments rates lower than those which they gave to private persons, the reasons being that they desired to keep their workmen employed, the magnitude of Government orders, the security against bad debts, and the prestige of holding Government contracts. The persons who were consulted believed that, if once the habit of publishing these tenders was adopted, the effect would be to encourage cutting prices amongst the different firms, which would have the result that, after perhaps a tender had been accepted from a well-known and thoroughly trustworthy firm, another firm would come in and put in a price fractionally lower, a price which would be unremunerative, but which it would be difficult for the Government to refuse, and which at the same time might lead to its having to depend on much less reliable sources of supply. Hence we should have inferior goods sent in, a large proportion of rejections, and bad

    569
    blood and ill-feeling engendered. The two Directors summed up the result of their inquiries by saying this—
    "While admitting, therefore, the value of publicity from an abstract point of view, the conclusion arrived at, after lengthened personal experience, now strengthened and confirmed by the almost unanimous opinion of manufacturers who have the best means of judging how the publication of prices would affect them, is so strongly opposed to such a course, as being prejudicial to the interests of the country, that there can be no hesitation in recommending the continuance of the present practice of treating tenders as strictly confidential."
    In the face of an opinion of that weight, I do think that the War Office is right in refusing to lay upon the Table the whole of the Papers relating to the contracts in question. The noble Earl (Lord Portsmouth) pressed upon the Government the absolute necessity of making these various charges the subject of an immediate inquiry. I am strengthened in the belief that an immediate inquiry would be improper and inconvenient at the present time, because the noble Earl (Lord Rosebery) has intimated that the inquiry should include the question of remounts, the supply of fodder to the troops, the supply of transport, and many other things besides. This would involve not one but many inquiries, and they would be inquiries of the most momentous kind. The noble Earl (Lord Rosebery) has told us that, in his belief, the facts recently revealed suggested the conclusion that all over the world the Government was being plundered by its agents. That is a tremendous indictment. If the noble Earl had said that all over the world the agents of the Government were being plundered, the matter would have been entirely different. But the charge which is now levelled against these persons is that they are themselves corrupt. The suggestion is that at a moment of the greatest stress and difficulty in the history of this country these persons have not hesitated to avail themselves of the opportunity in order to rob their country. It is a terrible charge, and it would be an unfair thing to commence a number of inquiries raising that question in reference to a number of separate departments at a moment when obviously it would be impossible to procure the whole of the evidence which would be necessary, in order to rebut the odious
    570
    charges which would be made, and which until they were rebutted would remain in possession of the field.
    THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I would not spoil the noble Marquess's peroration, and therefore did not interrupt him. But I may say at once that I never had the slightest idea of imputing corruption to the agents of the Government abroad. If I used the word "by," I will substitute "through" at once. That was what was in my mind.
    * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: You certainly used the word "by."
    THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: If I used "by," it is not what I meant. If I said "by," I would substitute the word "through."
    EARL CARRINGTON: I must ask the permission of the House to read the following letter which I have just received from Lord Stanley—
    "I have only just seen The Times. I am certainly wrongly reported. What I said was that to make comparisons which could not be called true comparisons would seem to be only takingan unfair advantage for, I must presume, a Party advantage. I had no intention of accusing you of untruthfulness, but I held, and hold, that you cannot make a fair comparison between beef at Windsor Castle and meat supplied to troops in South Africa."
    I am extremely glad to learn that my noble friend was misreported.
    Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: This debate has confirmed me in the opinion that the noble Marquess is wrong in thinking it is not desirable that an immediate inquiry should be held into the subject of these contracts. I beg, therefore, to give notice that on Monday I shall move—
    "That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament be forthwith appointed to inquire into all contracts and purchases made by the War Office, or on its behalf, for the outfit, supply, and maintenance of our troops in South Africa."

    COMMONS ACT, 1899.
    LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, I will explain in a very few words why I have asked for this Return. Your

    571
    Lordships will recollect that in 1899 Parliament passed an Act for the better regulation of commons and open spaces. That is now two years ago, and I think we might, with advantage, have some official statistics to show whether or not the Act has been of any service to rural localities, for whose benefit it was really intended. The Return will not cost a penny, as the information is already in the possession of the Board of Agriculture. If, as I believe, the Act has been utilized by rural localities, I think the Return may induce other districts to follow the example of their neighbours and thereby enable the Act to be of greater benefit to the country.
    Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return showing in respect of each scheme approved by the Board of Agriculture for the regulation and management of any common in pursuance of the Commons Act, 1899, to the end of the year 1901—(1) the date of the approval; (2) the name of the common; (3) the district council making the scheme; (4) the county in which the common is situate; and (5) the area of the common—(The Lord Eurghclere).
    EARL HOWE: I am glad to be able to inform my noble friend that the Board of Agriculture have no objection to the granting of the Return for which he asks.
    On Question, Motion agreed to; and ordered accordingly.
    House adjourned at five minutes past Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.