§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.
I rise to Move, "That, for the remainder of the 542 session, Government business be not interrupted, except at half-past seven of the clock at an afternoon sitting, under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; and that at the conclusion of Government business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put." I have a very modest and uninteresting statement to make in defence of the Resolution. The Resolution is brought forward at a considerably later period than has been customary in my Parliamentary experience. I do not wish to deal with matters in a controversial spirit, and I am not going to review the general course of the session. I will only remind hon. Members that in this session, and in this session alone We have gone from beginning to end of it without interfering with the rights of private Members. It is quite true, of course, that these rights were largely curtailed by the alteration of the rules in a previous session, but I think it will be admitted that private Members now know where they are, and that the privileges they have are far greater then they formerly possessed. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] That is a matter to he dealt with, not by jeering, but by simple arithmetic. Let hon. Gem lemon look at the records to previous years and they will find that Government after Government have taken away the time of private Members. Hon. Members may prefer a nominal right which they never had to the real right they are allowed to exercise. I can only point out that before Easter they had two evenings secured to them every week, and one evening weekly between Easter and Whitsuntide, besides the Fridays which were given up to Private Bill legislation. That has never happened before in my memory, or in the memory of anyone whose recollection extends back twenty years, and I think it is a matter for congratulation.
There is still—although I hope this session is rapidly nearing its end—a certain amount of public business which must be got through. There are certain administrative Bills that have to be passed in ordern that the work of the country may be carried on—Bills which are necessary for the ordinary administration of public affairs. 543 Among those Bills I would mention one to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the necessary borrowings in order to carry on public works already sanctioned, and to complete operations which the contractors have already begun. There is also the Cunard agreement, the principle of which has been discussed in a previous session and the substance agreed to, and which only requires the House to carry out its public obligations. There is another Bill which I do not think will raise any opposition on either side—the Wireless Telegraphy Bill. It is in charge of the Post Office, but the most important part of its substance deals with an important problem of national defence. Supposing we were—which Heaven forbid—involved in any foreign difficulty, it might be a serious matter if we lacked control over wireless telegraphy in this country. I hope I may count on the House in helping us to pass a measure that really is, I think, of great importance to national interests. Then there is the Irish Development Giant, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Public Works (Loans) Bill, the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, which have to be annually passed, and the Post Office Sites Bill, which ought to be dealt with without difficulty. I have been somewhat alarmed by the point raised by the hon. Member for Halifax, but I hope he will not stand in the way of this Bill becoming law.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I was not aware that the Bill raised constitutional points of magnitude. Then there is a small local Bill which the Local Government Board desire to pass—the Poor Law Authorities Bill—which deals with the amalgamation of two parishes. It is purely local in its character, although technically it is a general Bill. I hope I may add to the list the Southwark and Birmingham Bishoprics Bill, which ought to be regarded as in the nature of an administrative measure. I come now to measures which involve policy. There is the Defaulting Authorities Bill—a small Bill embodied in a single clause.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
It has, of course, controversial points, but it is not inaptly described as a small Bill. There, is also in this category the Shop Hours Bill and the Anglo-French Agreement, on all of which I understand there is general agreement. There is a small Indian Council's Bill, to enable the Viceroy to add to the number of members of the India Council, That is the only way to meet the burdens of administrative duties, which in India, as in other countries, tend to increase. We are extremely desirous it should pass, lest the health of our public servants should break down. Then there is the Irish Land Bill, and a small Public Health Bill which is necessary to enable us to carry out treaty obligations in connection with sanitary matters. That exhausts the Bills that must be dealt with before the end of the session. I now come to the Bills which I think should be at once dropped. We propose to drop the Port of London Bill, the Aliens Bill, the Valuation Bill, the Butter Bill, the Fisheries Bill, the Penal Servitude Bill, the Lunacy Bill, and the Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I gather whence that cry emanated, perhaps in another year the hon. Member will help us to pass the Bill.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
There is a Naval Prize Bill—a Bill which ought to be on the Statute-book, but I am afraid there is little chance of passing it during the present session—the Barracks Sites Bill, Solicitors Bill, Police (Superannuation) Bill, Duke of York's School Bill, Married Women's Property Bill, Prisons (Scotland) Bill, Charitable Loans (Ireland) Bill, and the Crown Lands Bill. I am told by the Secretary for Scotland that the Prisons (Scotland) Bill may be allowed to pass unopposed, and I shall, therefore, be delighted to transfer it from the condemned list to the one which is to receive, I hope, more fortunate treatment. There is the Local Authorities (Treasury Powers) Bill, which would, I 545 fear, take up more time than the House has at its disposal. There remains the Scottish Education Bill. That Bill has caused me a deal of anxiety. I had hoped at one time that it was a Bill which was not only in its main principles satisfactory to the people of Scotland, and to the Members representing that country on both sides, but that in its details it would not excite any prolonged discussion in the House. The discussions we have had upon it were interrupted on one or two occasions by an adjournment Motion or some other device familiar to Members, and therefore my hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland has not had all the chances ho hoped for in dealing with the measure. We have now got to a period of the session in which, if there be any discussion required on the Bill, it seems to be impossible either to find the time in this House or to give in another place the opportunity of discussing a measure which seems to be peculiarly within its functions to deal with at a convenient season. I have made it my business to find out whether the treatment of the Bill will be of a smaller volume and take less time. I regret to say that all the omens are unfavourable, and I do not think it possible for us to proceed with the Bill this session. I have however, taken to heart the commentary made on the conduct of business in respect of that Bill by the right, hon. Gentleman opposite at an earlier period of the session. The Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for East Fife, I think, complained that this Bill had not been sent to a Grand Committee instead of the Aliens Bill. It is probably indubitable that we can early next session deal with the subject in detail, and I shall then propose that it be referred to a Grand Committee. Experience shows that when a subject is threshed out in Grand Committee it takes less time on Report. Though, to my regret, I see no hope of proceeding with the Bill this session, I trust that without any long delay its successor in title may be made the law of the land. That completes the list of the Bills we propose to drop. In this list of Bills there are certain measures that we had hoped to pass, but we frankly acknowledge that they cannot be passed unless we have authentic reason 546 to know that they will not excite discussion.
Then there are Bills which we hope to pass as uncontroversial. These are the the Alkali, etc., Works Bill and the False Statements (Companies) Bill. The last-named is demanded, but if it requires discussion it must be postponed. There is also the Light Railways Bill. The War Office are anxious to have a Bill dealing with some points in the constitution of the Army Council, but there are the Seamen's and Soldiers' False Characters Bill, the Naval and Military Medals Bill, and the Reserve Forces Bill, about which the Secretary of State for War may be able to give more information than I have. Next there comes the Dogs Bill. I have received a hint by one of those subtle connections between Bills dealing with apparently different subjects that the feeling aroused by the Dogs Bill has some indirect reference to the Butter Bill. I do not know whether that is so, but if it be so, it is possible, now that the Butter Bill is condemned, that the dogs may receive more favour at our hands.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Another Bill is the County Courts Bill, in the progress of which my hon. friend the Member for South Islington takes an interest. There was a private Bill last year dealing with County Courts. It was not a Government Bill in its original shape. I do not know that it received much favour from the Law Officers of the Crown. It went to another place, and was there amended, hut without a subsidiary Bill it was, in the opinion of those competent to judge, not a really workable measure. The date upon which it should come into operation was postponed until January, 1905. It is not convenient to have another Act coming into operation shorn of some of the provisions necessary to make it a workable measure. But if it cannot be passed without any expenditure of time I shall not press it on the House. I do not know whether the Secretary for Scotland is sanguine about the Reformatory and Industrial Schools (Scotland) 547 Bill; but that, again, may probably receive the approval of the Scotch Members and without commentary it can pass. It remains now to deal with whales. I do not mean the portion of the United Kingdom, but the inhabitants of the deep—w-h-a-l-e-s. I understand that there is a Scotch Bill which has been passed in the Lords dealing with these interesting denizens of the deep, and I am told that it is uncontroversial and accepted by every one. I am not competent to explain its provisions, but it belongs to that class which by consent may pass, but without consent cannot pass. This, then, is the analysis of the contents of the obligatory list, and the House will feel that the time is quite adequate to deal with it without serious inconvenience and without throwing any undue burden on the patience of hon. Members. Its fulfilment does not rest wholly with the Government, but I do not see why we should not adjourn at the end of next week or shortly afterwards. I hope that the Supplementary Estimates will be taken to-day.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
The Constabulary (Ireland) Bill is not one which I have down on my list, but I will endeavour to make myself acquainted with its position.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Motion made, and Question proposed, 'That, for the remainder of the session, Government Business be not interrupted, except at half-past Seven of the clock at an Afternoon Sitting, under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; and that at the conclusion of Government Business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put."—(Mr. A J. Balfour.)
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)
I have seldom listened to a statement of this kind less sensational in its character than that just made by the right, hon. Gentleman. He has accepted the situation, but still I think he was permeated by the sanguine spirit which always prevades Ministers in charge of Bills, because the list of so-called small Bills for the most part of an unknown kind, which the right hon. Gentleman thinks not beyond hope, is rather greater than it is possible to fulfil. I will venture to supplement the list which the right hon. Gentleman has read by reading a list of the Bills promised in the King's Speech. There was the Aliens Bill. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] Apparently hon. Members wish something to be said about that, and I will say it. It was a perfectly impracticable and hopeless measure. It practically put into the power of a Customs-house officer, and made it part of his duty, to tell who was respectable and who was not, who was likely to be prosperous and who was not, among all the promiscuous people landed from a ship. That was in itself enough to condemn the measure apart from the higher principles with which it dealt. The Government refused to give effect to the one provision which would have been open to no objection, and which would have a real effect in deterring the landing or in expelling undesirable characters who refuse to go. The next Bill was the Licensing Bill. That has gone to another place with all its sins and merits on its head. Let us say no more of it just now. The Valuation Bill has been much criticised and it now disappears. There is the Education (Scotland) Bill, and I regret that the House has not succeeded in passing it this year. But it was an unusually complicated and elaborate measure, and it was made more complicated when, in obedience to the suggestion of an hon. Member opposite the Government raised the thorny question of rating. That was a controversial question, the introduction of which almost brought the seeds of death with it. The right hon. Gentleman has attributed to me a preference for procedure by Grand Committee. I do not know that I ever said so, but I do say that if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he would satisfy the people of Scotland or the 549 Opposition by bringing in a Bill of this kind next year, and by sending it to an ordinary Grand Committee, he is entirely mistaken. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have great faith in his own countrymen, if then are left to themselves. But what alone would be satisfactory in regard to the reintroduction of the Scottish Education Bill would be either its full discussion in Committee of the Whole House, or its reference to a Committee almost entirely composed of Scottish Members, who would not be liable to be overruled by the votes of English, Welsh, and Irish Members. I have thought it right to say that in order to guard myself against the suggestion that I should approve the reference of the Bill another year to a mere Grand Committee. The Irish Labourers Bill is gone; the Workmen's Compensation Bill has not been introduced; the Public Health Bill is a very small measure; the Naval Prize Bill is gone with the Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill and the Sea Fisheries Bill; though the Shop Hours Bill seems to be in a hopeful condition. There remains one measure among those mentioned in the King's Speech of which nothing has been heard—the Re-election of Ministers Bill. Probably that re-election has become more doubtful than it was at the beginning of the session. I do not wonder at it. Election without the "re" seems to have no attraction for the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
The right hon. Gentleman is under a slight mistake. That Bill did not apply to this Parliament at all.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
In that case the benefit is to be postponed to the dim and distant period to which the fiscal question has been relegated. Of Bills not included in the King's Speech then are the Defaulting Education Authorities Bill, the Dogs Bill, the Penal Servitude Bill, and the Police Superannuation Bill. There is another small but at this time of the year dangerous category of Bills—namely, those dropped down suddenly not from heaven but from the Lords. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will assure the House that no controversial Bill will be sprung on the 550 House from that direction. There is not much criticism to pass on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which frankly accepts the situation. It is evident that, except for the Licensing Bill, this has been a most unfruitful session. So far as the Government are responsible for the general conduct of business, they cannot regard the future of their Bills as affording any satisfaction or credit to them: but they have the credit at least of accepting the accomplished fact, and of not attempting to force on against the obvious feeling of the House measures which would have no real chance of passing.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)
said the right hon. Gentleman took credit to himself at the beginning of his speech for not having suspended the Twelve O'clock Rule earlier in the session, but the reason that the general suspension of the Twelve O'clock Rule had been postponed so long was only because the Finance Bill, which had occupied so much of the recent time of the House, was exempt from the operation of the Rule. It was practically suspended on the Licensing Bill under the closure Resolution. The House wss now asked to sit late to pass a large number of unusually controversial Bills. The Defaulting Authorities Bill would undoubtedly cause a struggle, and that was put down for Friday's sitting, of which the termination might be Monday. The Wireless Telegraphy Bill would require long discussion, and the County Courts Bill was far from non-controversial. Its effect was to repeal to a large extent the Act of last year, which extended the jurisdiction of the County court judes over the whole country. He believed that the only objection to it arose from a feeling on the part of some of the Judges that their salaries ought to be increased on account of the additional work that would be east upon them. He certainly could not see any objection to the Bill coming into operation on 1st January next, for he believed it would work perfectly well, and the difficulty as to salaries could be provided for in the Estimates. One remarkable fact was that the session had been entirely barren of Labour legislation; for the Shop Hours Bill did not carry out the Resolution of 551 the House passed last year. It had become, in fact, a Shopkeepers Bill and not a Labour Bill. He agreed that the Aliens Bill was an utterly impracticable measure. Some hon. Members on the Conservative side imagined that it was urgently desired by the working classes, but in that they were very much mistaken. The working classes in these matters listened to the advice of two sets of men who were intellectually their leaders—Socialists of various types ranging from the extreme to the moderate, and the old trades unionists—and both those classes were entirely opposed to the Bill. Then there was the question of the Amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It had been suggested that delay in dealing with that matter was due to an inquiry which had been held and to the recent receipt of certain reports from County Court Judges and others. All he could say was that there was no excuse for the delay; the inquiry could have been held years since and the reports were asked for three or four years ago. The Bill, in fact, ought to have been introduced last year.
The Government had wasted a great deal of time this session by introducing and pottering over Bills for a day or two and then deciding not to proceed with them. When they heard that the Scotch Education Bill was to be dropped they remembered that the Scotch Members failed to attend the Ascot race meeting, at which they were no doubt all anxious to be present, in order that progress might be made with that measure. There were about a dozen smaller Bills which had been introduced, and over which a certain amount of time had been wasted. The Penal Servitude Bill was only one of them. Another Bill, which he thought was to be the principal Bill of the session, was the Irish Labourers Bill. Last year in the discussions on the Irish Land Bill that measure was promised to the Irish Members in terms so strong that it seemed to him that it was to be made the principal measure of the session. At the beginning of the session he was somewhat astonished it did not occupy that position. It was the fifth in the King's Speech, and it had been abandoned without any serious attempt to pass it through the House. It was undoubtedly a fact 552 that Bills which might have passed through the Standing Committees had not been sent to them, and that Bills had been sent to them—such as the Aliens Bill—which ought not to have been sent. These Bills had been allowed to wreck, or rather to jeopardise, the very institution of the Standing Committees, because whenever Bills of the wrong kind were sent to the Standing Committees the effect was a breakdown of the Standing Committee system. It seemed to him also that there had been a great waste of time during the present session in connection with Bills which were introduced year after year. Some of them had figured on the programme for four years. These Bills tended to clog the Order Paper, and were used for preventing other measures from being carried through. The Bishopric of Southwark Bill and the Bishopric of Bristol Bill were measures from last year on which a certain amount of time had been wasted by the House, but there had been no really serious attempt to proceed with them. They were only allowed to stand in one another's way and to waste time. There had been no serious attempt to proceed with the Port of London Bill, and they ought not to have wasted time upon it last year and this.
The moral to be drawn was that it was useless for Members of the House to press for additional Ministries—for example, to divide the Board of Trade into a Ministry of Commerce and a Ministry of Labour—if the Bills produced by the Departments were to be allowed to jostle one another without any intelligible scheme on which they should be proceeded with. The outstanding Supply was likely to keep them up after twelve o'clock on those nights, because Supply had been allowed to fall in to arrear in respect of important Departments which must be discussed. Time had been wasted day after day in the early part of the session, and some of the Supply days had been allowed to finish improperly about seven o'clock. Some of the Votes included in Class I. were discussed year after year, and the time which had been not very usefully devoted to them prevented the consideration of other Votes which were really important and ought to have been discussed. They had spent this 553 year a good many days on Army Supply, but these days were substantially wasted because the Government bad not then put forward their Army scheme. Now they had to discuss the really important points of the Army scheme at a period of the session when they had not time to discuss them adequately. They had not this session had proper time for the discussion of the Labour Votes. The Clothing Vote was one in connection with which there had been gross scandals. Promises had been made in this House to Members who took part in former debates, and these promises had not been carried out. Many in this House ought to have been allowed to express their opinion on it. Now the Prime Minister stated that there would be no further War Office Supplementary Estimate, although within the past few days they were told that there would be a Supplementary Estimate for the expense of the war in Somaliland. He confessed he could not understand the discrepancy in the two statements. That was a matter that must be probed by the House. The moral they had to derive from that was that there was no proper arrangement of the business of the House. There was an immense waste of time in the early part of the session in Supply, and in other ways, due to no fault of the House itself. There were many matters which had not been brought before the House up to the present time. They were matters which hon. Members desired to discuss, but they would not now have the opportunity of doing so because valuable time had been wasted early in the session.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
said he wished to join in the general complaint made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet that Supply had not been managed in such a way as to enable the House to raise the various questions of policy which ought to have been raised. There were still fourteen Reports of Supply remaining to be considered. He was afraid that arose from attempting to rescue these Reports of Supply from consideration after twelve o'clock. With regard to the general question of Supply, 554 he must say that he regretted that the Government had not found themselves able to entertain the recommendation that an Estimates Committee should be formed and that a day should be allocated for the reception of the Public Accounts Committee. A question of peculiar gravity was raised by the Motion now before the House. The Motion said "That, for the remainder of the session, Government business be not interrupted except at half-past seven of the clock at an afternoon sitting, under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the sittings of the House." He did not object to that portion of it, but he thought it was really unfair to ask the House to agree to this sentence, "and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; and that at the conclusion of Government business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put." He thought the Government should not pass that part of the Motion, because under it extremely important business might be entered upon after twelve o'clock in circumstances when it ought not to be taken up. His right hon. friend, with charming cynicism or forgetfulness, was pleased to say that private Members were never so well off. When he himself came into the House they had three-fifths of the time, and the Bills and Motions they brought forward were excellently debated. Now private Members had barely one-tenth of the whole time of the House.
An important piece of business which might come on after twelve o'clock was a Motion to be proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which would eventuate no doubt in the giving of borrowing powers. That was a very serious matter. For something like twenty years, or more, whenever the Government wanted a million or two, they had recourse to the Savings Banks. But that source of supply had now, for the first time, failed. That was a very grave fact, and the consideration of it ought not to begin after one o'clock. Then taking the Cunard agreement, which was entered. into in September, 1902. From that day, it had not been put before the House till the very last day of the session lest year, when there were only ninety-two supporters of the Government present. He did not think it was creditable that 555 an agreement involving the expenditure of seven millions of money should have been put forward for ratification, and did receive ratification, on the last day of the session. He should oppose a Motion to finance the Cunard Company to the extent of £6,900,000 with all the energy of which lie was capable. As to wireless telegraphy, that was a subject of very great importance. It raised very nice and complicated questions, and was not a subject which ought to be raised after one o'clock in the morning. Then he came to the Anglo-French Convention. That raised very important matters indeed, especially under present circumstances. Had the House forgotten that the French Assembly had refused to ratify the Convention until the Autumn? That subject ought not to be entered upon after one o'clock in the morning. He congratulated his right hon. friend in having postponed the Undersized Fish Bill, and he hoped that the Whales Bill had no connection with it. Then there was the question of Naval Prizes—which was most important. So far as it went it was highly desirable to do what it purported to do, and he was in favour of it; but it would be necessary to discuss the question whether the provisions of the Bill should not be extended so as to deal with Military booty. These were all questions the discussion of which ought not to be begun after one o'clock in the morning. It seemed to him that, with these exceptions, the Resolution of the Government was a perfectly proper one, and one which he hoped the House would pass.
§ MR. BUCHANAN
said that his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn had, for once in a way, made his forecast rightly. Almost all these Bills would come on after twelve o'clock, and most of them after one o'clock in the morning. If Thursday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday were to be occupied with Supply, and no other business could be taken until after twelve o'clock, there was a fundamental objection to closing the business of the session at the time proposed. There was a claim, therefore, for extending the session by an additional three days. Tuesday and Wednesday would, be two guillotine nights, and the whole of these Bills would have to be taken after twelve o'clock, and many of them at a mach later hour. He joined with his 556 hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn in his protest against that. He appealed to the Prime Minister whether the right hon. Gentleman could not make arrangements by which the discussion on these Bills, which were of great importance, involving great questions of policy, could not be begun at an earlier hour. There was the Bill to be introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, providing for a new method for borrowing money under the Naval and Military Works Acts. That was a Bill of the highest importance, of which they knew nothing, but which in all probability would have to he discussed after twelve o'clock. He did not think that was a fair way of treating the important questions involved in these Bills. Then, there were other Bills which had not yet been introduced, or any rate had not come before the House. There was one in connection with the Army Council which involved very considerable alterations in the law, and very considerable constitutional questions indeed. He put it to the Prime Minister, was it not perfectly clear that no final conclusion could be arrived at as to the alterations and amendments in our Army system laid before them at this late period of the session by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, and whether it would not be wiser to postpone this Bill and other Departmental Bills connected with the War Office till another opportunity.
He would like to press the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the Somaliland Supplementary Estimates. The Prime Minister told the House a few days ago that these Supplementary Estimates were going to be presented; but the only Estimates were in regard to half-a-dozen Civil Service Votes, and not one in regard to the Military expenditure in Somaliland. How did the Government propose to meet the expenditure which had been incurred in Somaliland, and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House would have to be met in the course of the present financial year? Or was it an oversight that the Prime Minister took no notice of that in the course of his speech? Then there were the Bills relating to Scotland. He thought the Prime Minister had taken the only course in regard to the Scotch 557 Education Bill. It was a Bill which needed discussion. He believed that if there had been an opportunity for its being fully discussed, it would have passed, and would have given general satisfaction to Scotland. If he might say so, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland had, in his desire to conciliate opposition, very considerably improved the Bill; and he had not the slightest doubt that if the Bill were introduced again they would have a better Bill than that now before the House, and one which would be still more satisfactory to the people of Scotland after full consideration had been given to it in the country during the recess. Then if only ten minutes were devoted to the Prisons Bill and the Reform stories Bill they could easily be passed. There was one branch of the policy of the present Government of which he had always approved, viz., that relating to dogs. There was a Bill relating to sheep-worrying, for the discussion of which he earnestly hoped some time would be found so as to enable the Government to pass it into law.
He wanted to say one or two words on the subject of the opportunities which private Members had for the discussion of grievances. The Prime Minister took credit to himself that the rights of private Members had never been infringed upon in the present Parliament. He believed, with the hon. Member for King's Lynn, that these rights were now of an extremely limited character. Still they gave to private Members some limited opportunity of raising questions of general and provincial importance, in which large sections of the community were vitally interested. The Prime Minister showed himself somewhat blind to the fact that that was, after all, one of the most important duties of the House of Commons: that it should constitute the means by which the representatives of the constituencies should have ample opportunity for bringing before the House and the public a free discussion of subjects which were vitally interesting to their constituents, and which might be coming on for legislation, though they had not yet arrived at that point. That time had been largely reduced. There was another way in which the rights of 558 private Members had been limited, and that was by the new and increasing practice of blocking Motions. That prevented private Members discussing subjects of vast importance, and particularly of sudden importance. The Prime Minister had shown himself anything but adverse to such a practice.
There was another practice in regard to Supply which was alluded to by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. He did not think that the right hon. Baronet had put the matter strongly enough in referring to what they had been doing this session with the allotted days for Supply in the course of the discussions on the Army Estimates an the early part of the session. He did not agree with the right hon. Baronet when he said that these days had been wasted in the sense the right hon. Baronet implied. Then as to the apportionment of the time of the allotted days for which the Leader of the House was alone responsible, they had had eighteen allotted days, but only on four was the House enabled to discuss Supply at the afternoon and evening sittings. On three occasions the adjournment of the House was moved at half-past seven by the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, which deprived the House of the opportunity of discussing important matters at the evening sittings. On one occasion, the attendance was scant; but it was the duty of the Government to keep a House on these occasions; and they should not have informal and secret arrangements which were not stated openly to the House. Even from their own point of view, the bargain was a bad one for the Government, as only on one occasion did they get the required number of Votes. On eleven other nights, the House did not enjoy the complete time because contentious private Bills were put down; and on five or six occasions all the evening sitting was taken up in private business. Private Bills were put down on the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, who, no doubt, exercised his authority in accordance with the Standing Orders; but there was nothing in the Standing Orders directing the Chairman of Ways and Means to put down private Bills on allotted days. He thought that the Leader of the House, 559 who was responsible for the proper conduct of business, and the adequate discussion of Supply, ought to take some notice of the fact that contentious private Bills were almost exclusively put down on allotted days. He thought the Government should share the burden of private Bill legislation with the rest of the House; and contentious private Bills should be discussed on Government days as well as on allotted days. He thought it right to lay these facts before the House; and he hoped that in future sessions they would have a better opportunity of discharging one of their primary and essential duties, namely, the proper discussion of Supply.
§ *SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)
said he should like to express to the President of the Local Government Board the regret of the municipal authorities that the Valuation Bill was included in the list of Bills to be withdrawn. A proper system of valuation was the very pivot on which good local administration rested; and, with the exception of London, the position of which was exceptional, he was quite satisfied that the country generally was in favour of the principle of the Bill, namely, one central authority with good and adequately represented district authorities to secure adequate local information and representation. After the question had been discussed for fifty years, and after it had been reported on by a Royal Commission, he hoped that at no distant date the Bill would be proceeded with. Objection bad been taken to the surveyor of taxes as representing the Crown; but that had worked well in practice, and it would enable Government property to be properly assessed. As a London Member he expressed regret at the withdrawal of the Port of London Bill,which was urgently required in the interests of the Port of London. It was supported by the great body of commercial opinion, and was opposed chiefly by the Members for the City of London. He appealed to the Prime Minister to regard the withdrawal of the Bill as provisional; and he hoped that a Motion would be passed carrying the Bill over to next session as he himself suggested, and as was done last session. He rose chiefly to refer to the County Courts Bill. He did 560 not think that the Prime Minister had quite accurately represented the ground on which words were inserted in last year's Act postponing its operation for one year. That was consented to not because the Bill was not workable; but in order to enable those who said it was; not workable to have an opportunity of finding out in what way it was unworkable, and to provide a remedy. Those who supported the Bill never admitted that there was any obstacle whatever in carrying out the clause which provided for an increase in the jurisdiction of all County Courts up to £100, the only clause in the Bill as introduced. This year's Bill, however, instead of suggesting administrative and financial provisions and facilities, as promised, actually repealed the Act of last year, and then gave to only some of the County Courts increased jurisdiction, such Courts to be selected by the Lord Chancellor and not being named in the Bill. The Bill would encourage actions in the High Court by also omitting the reference made in the Act of last session to Clause 116 of the County Courts Act, thus removing the sanction of risk of costs. He quite agreed that there were some additional reforms which might well be effected.
§ *SIR ALBERT ROLLIT
said he would not discuss the matter further; but the responsbility for the rejection of the Bill rested with those who introduced it at such a late period of the session. He would, however, be very pleased to confer with the Attorney-General as to how the Bill might be amended; but he certainly could not agree to it as it stood or to the repeal of the Act of last session; and in fact most of what was proposed could be effected by rules and resolutions and increased remuneration to judges, according to their work, after experience, and upon the Estimates. The Shops Bill would not meet with universal assent, as many thought it did not go far enough, while others thought it would operate against the small trader especially those not employing assistants, who had work enough to live on. He would support the Resolution, although he thought the 561 measures had been withdrawn which might have been passed, and that measures were to be passed which might have been withdrawn.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister there were fourteen Bills that must be carried, and he would like the House to consider the time allowed for this programme. This week the right hon. Gentleman only had two-thirds of a day, Friday, for legislation; next week he would not have a single day. With the Indian Budget and Supply there would not be a single day for legislation next week until after twelve o'clock. All of those Bills, important Bills, would have to be passed after twelve o'clock or the House would be thrown into the third week in August, when everybody would be thoroughly tired and exhausted except those who were opposing the measures. And the animus of some of the Opposition towards some of these measures would ecp the House sitting for some time. Under those conditions it was rather important to consider those Bills which the right hon. Gentleman had dropped, and contrast them with those he was going to proceed with. The right hon. Gentleman was going to drop the Port of London Bill, a Bill undoubtedly important for the commerce of the greatest port in the Empire, the greatest port in the world. The mere fact that the Bill had been suspended had created a great deal of trouble with the trade of this country, and yet it was going to be again suspended! In the interest of the trade of the country, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, it was not worth giving an extra couple of days to pass this Bill into law. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to drop the Valuation Bill. That such a Bill was necessary nobody would deny; the country had waited for it for many years, and a Royal Commission had sat upon the question and had reported. Everybody wanted one valuation authority, and the Bill was produced as a result of the Report of the Committee. The valuation question was a question of the most enormous importance—yet it was to be put upon one side, because the right 562 hon. Gentleman would not give a little time for the passing of a Bill. A Work-mans Compensation Bill had been promised in the King's Speech, and no one would deny but what that was a matter of great importance to hundreds of thousands of working men in the country, but no day was to be given to that. There was the False Statements Bill, as to which a pledge was given on its introduction. Then there was the Scotch Education Bill, a Bill to vary the educational measures of Scotland, which was so received by the House on its introduction that no one thought fit to go to a division upon it. It had been thoroughly considered up to the thirty-first clause, and now it was to be dropped. It was a Bill the Government thought necessary to reorganise the education of Scotland, it received a great deal of support in the House, and if not carried now would no doubt cause a great deal of inconvenience, because, as he understood, it would suspend the equivalent grant yet no time had been given for it.
Let the House now consider the Bills which were to be passed. The right hon. Gentleman was going through with the Defaulting Authorities Bill and the Bishopric of Birmingham Bill. There were two elements which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman thought sufficient to command his support in the latter Bill. One was that it was a Bishops' Bill and the other that it was a Birmingham Bill. Those were two Bills he was going to give time to, and both of them would take time. What was there in those two Bills to merit the right hon. Gentleman putting on one side Bills affecting the commerce, the working men, the local government, and valuation of the country? What was there in those Bills that the House of Commons at the fag end of the session should give its time, and sit after twelve o'clock, for the purpose of forcing them through the House. Why should that be done? There was trouble with regard to one Welsh county council, a trouble that was in process of solution at the present moment, and which would be probably settled in the course of a week, and yet the Defaulting Authorities Bill was to be forced through. The right hon. Gentleman had said it was a Bill with a central idea. That was true of all Bills; it was true of the Licensing Bill, 563 which was a Bill the one idea of which was to compensate publicans. This was a Bill with one main idea. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to indicate by that that very drastic measures were to to taken to rush this Bill through the House? He would ask the right hon. Gentleman quite seriously before he came to such a decision—this was a Bill which would cause a great deal of irritation and opposition—was it right that the right hon. Gentleman should add to that irritation, and prejudice the prospect of that settlement in Wales and Yorkshire, by resorting to means of this character, which would induce the people to believe that he meant to give no opportunity far discussing it. Was that what they were going to sit late for, to sit after twelve o'clock for, and to sit, late into August—simply to discuss a Bill of that character when there were important measures placed upon one side? It was a great comment on the methods of the Government, and upon the pressure which the Government obeyed rather than consider the commerce of the country. The right hon. Gentleman said this Bill must go through. Who were they who said it "must"? It was not the "must" that arose out of any real need of the country—it Was simply a political "must." The brewers "must" put though the Licensing Bill and the Bishops "must" in other cases. This was treating the House of Commons unfairly. The House ought not at this period of the session to be asked to pass through any measures except those of absolute necessity. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Cunard agreement must be passed, because he had entered into a contract. Was the reason why he was going to pass the Defaulting Authorities Bill, that he had also entered into a contract with regard to it, and so must go through with it? If so, the House ought to see that contract as they saw the Cunard contract. Then there was the Butter Bill and the Dogs Bill. Those were Bills in the interest of agriculture. The Dogs Bill, one would suppose, was a Bill that the Government would desire most to pass. It was a Bill to prevent a masterless dog from worrying the flock; these suffering dogs were to be treated in this Bill as dangerous. That was surely a much more interesting Bill than the Defaulting Authorities Bill, which if 564 passed would only raise a storm of indignation in the country and cause intense irritation. He submitted that in this case the Government were treating the House and the country most unfairly.
§ MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S.W.)
thought that the position with regard to the County Courts Bill should be fully explained. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had suggested that that Bill would not have-been necessary if it had not been that certain County Court Judges wanted their sa'aries increased.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE
said he did not suggest that it was an improper thing for the County Court Judges to want their salaries increased, but that the Bill would, throw a great deal of extra work upon them, and it was not unnatural that they should desire an increase of salary.
§ MR. GALLOWAY
said it should be made perfectly clear that the Bill was not introduced for that purpose. With regard to the Port of the London Bill, he would like to know whether it was to be dropped or to be carried forward in its present stage to next session by a Resolution. With regard to private Bill legislation he found himself in a somewhat peculiar position. It was not his wont to ask for facilities for private Bills, but he asked for the indulgence of the House on this occasion whilst he pleaded for some further facilities for the Musical Copyright Bill which was of great interest to his constituents. It was a Bill that won the first place in the ballot, and was a Bill which was regarded more as a Departmental than a private Bill. A very great grievance was suffered by numberless people who had done nothing to forfeit the sympathy of the House and who had every right to claim its protection in the enjoyment of the privileges they possessed. He felt sure if the right hon. Gentleman would give a little time after twleve o'clock, when the Government business was over, an agreement might be come to, and the Bill become law. In doing so the right hon. Gentleman would only be doing an act of justice to a number of people who were now being robbed of their property. He appealed 565 to his right hon. friend to give time for this measure.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
said he desired to endorse what had fallen from one or two previous speakers and to express his regret at the fate that had overtaken the Port of London Bill. It was a question of great interest to many Londoners. The position of the Government with regard to this Bill was the same as their position with regard to many others. This Bill was the result of a Royal Commission appointed a few years ago; that Royal Commission itself being the outcome of a Bill promoted by the dock companies. The Commission reported in a comparatively brief space of time, and this Bill was introduced in the previous session to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The Bill having passed a joint Committee of Lords and Commons Came on on Report at an early stage of the session, yet not a single day was to be given to it. Had a couple of days been given to it last session it could have been passed and would now have been law. He contended that the Government had no right to carry this Bill over last session if they did not intend to carry it through in the present session. The action of the Government during the last two years had paralysed the trade of the Port of London and their conduct for the last four years had caused great injury to the Port of London itself. The right hon. Gentleman had said the opposition to this Bill arose from Metropolitan Members. To whom did the right hon. Gentleman refer. So far as the Metropolitan Members on the Liberal side were concerned, whether they thought it was a good Bill or not, they were prepared to give favourable consideration to it and not object to its passage. If the right hon. Gentleman would look into this matter he would find that the, opposition to this Bill came from the Unionist side, and the Unionist side alone. It was opposed by the two hon. Members for the City, and by the hon. Member for Uxbridge, representing the Thames Conservancy. Under these circumstances he thought the House ought to have had an opportunity of considering the measure. It was not fair to the 566 trade and commerce of the City of London that a Bill of this importance should be hung up for two sessions without a single attempt being made to discuss it. The real blame for the matter lay with the Government and not with the House, and he could only express his regret that the Government did not attempt to pass a Bill of this importance into law. By raising the question without settling it they had seriously damaged the trade of the Port of London.
The Aliens Bill had been introduced and dropped by the Government. A great deal of political capital had been made out of the dropping of that Bill by the Government. He himself was generally in favour of the Bill, but he was sorry to have to admit that he had come to the conclusion, looking at the matter from all sides, that the Government were never in earnest with regard to that Bill; that it was only a shop-window Bill, and that it was never intended to be passed. In that case the Government had most flagrantly broken their pledges. Nearly ten years ago they had pledged themselves to deal with this matter, and the late Lord Salisbury actually introduced a Bill on the question and passed it through another House. This was the first Bill mentioned in the King's Speech as a principal measure and one would have thought it would have been retained in the House, hut it was referred to a Grand Committee. He did not think Grand Committees were ever created to deal with Bills of this character. It could hardly be contended on behalf of the Government that they were entitled to send up their principal Bill of the session to a Committee of eighty-two Members, and he could only assume that it was never intended that that Bill should be passed.
§ Ma. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)
said that among the Bills that were not to be dropped was the Irish Judicature and Development Grant Bill. It was included in the category of uncontroversial measures, but when it came to be dealt with, if ever it did, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman would find it was anything bet uncontroversial.
§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)
said there were three full days remaining for 567 Supply and he wished to ask the Prime Minister what Supply he proposed to take upon those days. He also desired to express his regret that the Scotch Education Bill was to be dropped. A great deal of interest had been shown in it, and many public bodies in Scotland had communicated with their representatives in Parliament in regard to that measure. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to introduce it next session, but they did not know whether a favourable opportunity would arise. He wished to say that if the Bill was introduced again next session that no Grand Committee would be satisfactory to the Scotch Memhers unless every Scotch Member was allowed to be upon that Committee. With regard to the Port of London Bill, he wished to know whether it would be possible to carry it over to the next session as was done last year. It was a Measure well worthy of consideration, and it was one of very great importance to the commercial community and many regrets had been expressed because it had not been proceeded with. What, had the harvest of this session been? It had practically been one Bill, and that was the only sheaf that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to bear on his shoulders, namely, the Licensing Bill. It was a great measure of temperance reform, and it was a very remarkable Bill because it had been passed against the wishes of temperance reformers. Another point worth mentioning was in regard to the failure of the new Rules of Procedure. The result of this had been that hon. Members had been obliged to come down to the House at an inconvenient hour. whilst the time had been mostly spent by supporters of the Government attempting to put off divisions. He thought the new rules had not improved either the quantity or the quality of the legislation the session. That was the result of the new Rules of Procedure which the House passed after such a large expenditure of time and trouble. If the House wished to do its business properly they would have to have some better Rules of Procedure.
§ SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE (London)
reminded the Prime Minister that in answer to a Question put by the right 568 hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet, he stated last year that the Port of London Bill would be carried over as a quasi-private Bill. It might be called a quasi-private Bill, but it was absolutely a public Bill and a very important one. It was brought in by the President of the Board of Trade and carried through the House of Commons extremely quickly, but upon the distinct understanding that they would be afforded a further opportunity of discussing it fully. He had listened with feelings akin to amazement at what the hon. Member for Poplar had said in regard to the trade of the Port of London being paralysed. Was the hon. Member aware that the last twelve months was an absolute record in the Port of London in regard to the trade transacted, and even during the last six months the record was a better one than the corresponding six months of last year. This Bill was rushed through the House of Commons and sent to a Joint Committee of the Houses of Lords and Commons, and that Committee sat for fourteen days only. And this was how a Bill, involving the entire system of docks in the Port of London, the Thames Conservancy, and the compulsory purchase of docks and undertakings aggregating to some £40,000,000 sterling, a charge which was to be thrown upon the rates of London, was treated. The hon. Member for Poplar said the Committee took a large amount of evidence, but surely this was not a Bill to hang up from session to session. He ventured to say that day by day and week by week the feeling was growing stronger and stronger that this was an impossible Bill. There were other schemes possible, such as the Barrage Scheme, which ought to be considered before £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 was thrown as a charge upon the shoulders of the ratepayers of the Metropolis. He understood that the Prime Minister had dropped this Bill. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that, the general feeling of the Metropolitan Members was against the Port of London Bill, and in the City of London there was a growing feeling that the measure was not one which ought to pass. As to the memorials which had been referred to, he thought, they could easily find where they had emanated from, and a good many of 569 them, he was inclined to think, had emanated from one source only.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL (Oldham)
said he did not think anyone would deny that the House found itself in a very inconvenient position that afternoon, and whilst in that inconvenient position it was confronted with a very inconvenient demand. The demand now made upon the time of the House was a demand which it was usual for the Leader of the House to make at this period of the session. It might be asked on what ground was it justifiable to offer opposition to a usual demand for which there were excellent precedents. Any justification for voting against this Motion was to be found, not so much in the nature of the demand, but from the general circumstances of the session, which had been unusual in their character, and those circumstances had changed a usual demand into a very unusual demand. He did not understand why there was this imperative need of finishing discussions in the House by the 15th or 16th of August. Only two reasons had been put forward why they should close their discussions upon such a date. One of the reasons was a matter of common chaff, and it was that there was a certain sacred bird to be killed on the 12th of August, and hon. Gentlemen opposite were impatient to get away to undertake its destruction. The other reason was put forward by The Times newspaper, that they could not sit later than 17th August, because on that date the Prime Minister had to deliver an address before the British Association. He did not think the house would find in those two reasons any sufficient cause for submitting Members of the House to a great deal of inconvenience, still less any sufficient reason for wishing them to scamp duties which were important in the interests of the country.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen had alluded to the scanty harvest which the Prime Minister had reaped that session, and it must have occurred to everyone who had listened to the universal chorus of complaints which had been directed against the Prime Minister from both sides of the House that this had been a 570 most miserable session, a most barren, worthless, squalid, futile, and profitless session. They had voted £140,000,000 for the expenditure of the country; they had passed the Licensing Bill, which would secure the brewer's vote at the election, and they were about to pass another Bill which would annoy the Principality of Wales. But apart from those important achievements no legislation of value, no administrative action of importance, had been expounded and made clear in the House. The only subject on which there had been any considerable discussion was the Finance Bill, and that was explained by the fact that our finances were in a condition of entire demoralisation and it was absolutely necessary that some protest should be made against the great size of the annual Budget and the increase of expenditure. He much regretted that the Prime Minister had not been able to do what he half promised to do, namely, give a day, or some period, for the discussion of the Report of the National Expenditure Committee. What was the good of having such Committees, with all their attendant labour and expense, if absolutely no notice was to be taken of their Reports? The right hon. Gentleman, of course, would not be able to give them any time now, but he would ask him to remember that this Committee was appointed on his own Motion, and that it was intended to set up machinery supplementary and complementary to his own new Rules of Procedure, and that in regard to the recommendations which it had made, although some were only carried by a small majority, the great mass of them were carried practically unanimously. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, in preparing for the campaign in the autumn, would endeavour to make some proposal of machinery which would enable the House to make something like effective examination of the Votes in Supply.
The Prime Minister had divided the Bills up into three classs—dead Bills, doubtful Bills, and Bills which must at all costs be made to live. He desired also to divide the work of the session into three categories; firstly, the legislation which had been put forward for show; secondly, legislation which 571 the House wanted and which the Govern-lment did not want; and, thirdly, legisation which the Government wanted and which the House did not want. In the first of these classes, of course, the Port of London Bill figured as a noteworthy example. Then there was the Valuation Bill, and he was not sure that the Irish Labourers Bill was not introduced for show. But the greatest example of this first class of legislation was the Aliens Bill. When this Bill was under discussion he ventured to point out to the Prime Minister that he must know from his own views on the subject that this was not the sort of Bill for Grand Committee, and the sending of it to Grand Committee was practically signing its death warrant. He ventured to say then, and he said it again, that the Government was not in earnest about that Bill, and did not desire to pass it. They only brought it forward in order to have an opportunity of saying they wished to deal with the subject, and in order to satisfy a demand made by those who were behind them. A variety of forces had acted upon the Government in regard to the Aliens Bill. His hon. and gallant friend the Member for Sheffield had all his life been advocating this kind of legislation; there were those associated with the protectionist movement who thought it akin to their general line of political thought; and Otero was in his own Party opposition from wealthy Jewish supporters—very proper opposition—and consequently the Prime Minister was forced to choose between the different conflicting forces. The Government decided to make a show, and on the very first excuse made haste to drop it. Not only did they drop the main Bill, but also another Bill which was introduced by the hon. and gallant Member, with a sort of tacit agreement with all those interested in the subject—a Bill dealing with criminal aliens alone. The Government allowed their followers—he might almost say instigated their followers, although perhaps that was rather a strong word—to block the Bill right after night. Of course it had no chance whatever of passing into law. If in the course of the autumn recess hon. Gentlemen opposite should have their houses burgled by foreign criminals, who dumped themselves on our shores in 572 competition with our existing industries, it would be upon the Prime Minister's head and upon the heads of the members of his Government that public indignation should properly fall.
As to the second class of Bills which the House wanted and the Government did not want, there was the Bill of his hon. friend the Member for the Elland Division, dealing with the taxation of land values. That was a Bill which the Government did not dare to resist, and it was passed by a large majority of the House, with the assent of nearly all the great municipalities of the country. There was the Trade Union Bill, which had for its object to amend the law relating to trade unions. It had a preponderating and. he ventured to think, a decisive volume of public support in the country. That again was a Bill which the Government did not dare to resist and it was carried in the House by a large majority, but in spite of urgent appeals from the members of the Labour Party and Members like the-right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, who had given these questions long and careful study, the Government had refused to give the smallest possible facilities, and the responsibility for refusing to deal with the labour problem rested absolutely with them.
The third class of Bills were those which the Government desired to pass and which, he thought, the House was reluctant to assent to. In that class was the Bill in which the hon. Member for Carnarvon was interested. There was also the Licensing Bill, which was now under discussion in another place. What a difference in the treatment of those Bills which were conceived in the interest of the right hon. Gentleman's Party and the Bills conceived in the general interest of labour. In the one case absolutely no facilities; in the other no restraint of any kind in the application of the most drastic form of closure and the absolute twisting and destruction of the ordinary procedure of the House. He thought the last instance, the guillotining of the Licensing Bill, alone supplied a reason why they should not this afternoon. endeavour to go out of their way toe convenience the Government. He heard a most distinguished Member of the. 573 House say, in connection with the procedure the Prime Minister had adopted in connection with the Licensing Bill, that it was nothing short of declaring war against the House of Commons and would justify reprisals of the most severe kind.
The Prime Minister said the other day that the programme of legislation introduced by the Government was of a moderate character. No one would deny that the legislation he had succeeded in carrying was still more moderate. How did it arise that with a moderate programme the Government, with a large majority behind them, were forced to drop important measures and to fall back on forms of arbitrary and unusual procedure? Obviously, there must be something wrong. There was something at work in the House of Commons. It was not the Opposition because the Opposition always opposed contemplated legislation. But there was something now at work in the House of Commons which had made it less easy for the Government to carry their legislation and which had led to great congestion and inconvenience of business. The right hon. Gentleman's Leadership of the House had been much praised in the newspapers whose editors he had ennobled or promoted. That was a fact which could not be disputed. He could not help thinking that if the right hon. Gentleman trusted a little more to reason, and to taking the House into his confidence and frankly endeavouring to convince them of the justice of his measures, and if he were a little more able to assert that he possessed the confidence of the country, business would go through with greater despatch. When the right hon. Gentleman had a controversial measure which he wished to pass he did not introduce it at the beginning of the session. No; he brought it forward at such a period of the session as would enable him to say, "Obviously we have not time between now and the 12th of August to discuss the measure properly." And so the House had to discuss it improperly. How much time had they wasted—for it was wasted—in vain endeavours to find out from the Prime Minister whether he agreed with protection or not? When the right hon. Gentleman was asked a plain Ques- 574 tion, which would save him days, he did not give a plain Answer. He mocked at the ignorance of other Members of the House less intellectually subtle than himself, and who were absolutely unable to fathom his real mind on this question.
Last of all, the causes and the reasons which had delayed the Government business and had disturbed the good humour of the House, had been the increasing resort of the Prime Minister to the practice of putting down blocking Motions. Whenever there was an awkward question to be discussed the right hon. Gentleman, instead of preparing a good case, wrote out a blocking Notice and handed it in at the Table by proxy. Everybody knew what the form was. The result was that in a session not unusually encumbered with any great quality of legislation they had not been able to discuss a most all the important subjects which had been occupying the attention of the country. Supported by that valuable prop, the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters, with or without his careful supervision, had succeeded in preventing any adequate discussion of the vast changes contemplated in the Army, new points of development which had arisen in connection with South African labour; a very inadequate debate upon what he ventured to call the cruel and barbarous expedition to Tibet, and had not enabled the House to examine in any way the costly, profitless, and fruitless operations in Somaliland. By the use of blocking Motions this House was losing its function as the arena for the discussion of great questions interesting to the country.
There was one thing on which they might congratulate the Prime Minister. After all, they were nearly at the end of the session, and there was the Prime Minister still! The procedure of the House of Commons had been mutilatcd: Never mind A great quantity of money had been expended. Never mind! No legislation of any value had been passed. Never mind! But there was the Prime Minister, at the end of the session, a great deal more than many people could have expected or hoped for. He offered to the right hon. Gentleman. 575 most sincerely, his most humble congratulations on his achievement. These congratulations were absolutely sincere, because the right hon. Gentleman would make a great mistake if he supposed that any, on that side of the House, were in any hurry to witness the termination of the spectacle which had been presented that session. He apprehended there was no limit, short of the Septennial Act, to the right hon. Gentleman's capacity of holding out to retain office. But he ventured to think that the process was expensive. He estimated that the rent to be paid by the right hon. Gentleman would amount to 10,000 votes a month, or 120,000 votes a year, at the rate of 1,000 votes per Parliamentary day. That was the price which the right hon. Gentleman was paying out of the votes of his Party for the continuance of his Government in office under present conditions. And while they saw nothing in his Conduct of public affairs which should conduce to make more easy the passage of his legislation, at the same time they had no reason to regret the continuance of a state of things which could only lead to a much more precise and emphatic decision by the country when the hour of decision arrived.
§ MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)
said that, as a representative of an Irish constituency, he wished to enter his protest as to the way in which Irish legislation had been treated this year. Four Irish Bills had been introduced by the Government. All of these Bills were of considerable importance. One of them was promised last session by the Government, and it was used as a means for facilitating the passage of the Irish Land Purchase Bill. He alluded to the Labourers Bill. Now, the Irish labourers were a very important class which could not be neglected with impunity. They were very numerous anal very powerful, and hitherto they had been very contented under the most miserable conditions. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary promised that a Bill would be brought forward by the Government and passed this year to remedy the grievances of the labourers of which they had complained year after year. How had that promise been redeemed? It was quite true that after considerable delay a Bill 576 had been introduced. It had been criticised by Irish Members from every quarter of the House, and it was admitted to be a most lame and impotent Bill. But no Member from Ireland would undertake the responsibility of preventing the Second Reading being taken in the hope, which was rather encouraged by the Chief Secretary, that it would be amended in its passage through the House, because in the shape in which it was introduced it was not likely to be productive of the least benefit to the labourers. It was a mere sop, in order to rebut the suggestion that the Government had broken their faith with Ireland in regard to this question. The first thing the Government did was to send the Bill to the Grand Committee on Trade. He could not say what occurred in that Committee, because he was not a member of it. But he had heard that, after two or three days, it was stated on behalf of the Government that because of some obstruction offered in the name of the Treasury, it would be impossible to meet the demands of the Irish Members, or to amend the Bill in such a way as to make it productive of the slightest advantage to the labourers. As in the case of the Aliens Bill, the Government were very glad to take advantage of that, and avail themselves of the excuse to drop the Bill.
But there were other three Bills relating to Ireland, all very important. One of these was the Loans Fund Amendment Bill. That was a most important measure, affecting the very humblest and poorest class of the community. Unquestionably, from the evidence of the various officers throughout Ireland, considerable loss had been sustained by the very poorest class in the community. An Act was passed by the present Government three or four years ago for the purpose of removing the evils caused by a previous faulty Act. Numbers of poor people in Ireland put their money into debentures in this Loan Fund and it turned out that there was no money to pay the interest on these debentures, and the whole of their savings had been lost. Then a Bill was introduced for the purpose of remedying this grievance. And what was the fate of that Bill? It was one of 577 the measures which the Prime Minister assured the House was to he dropped—a Bill affecting the comfort and prosperity of the class on whom the peace and happiness of Ireland depended. Another Bill was the Irish Development Grant Bill. If that were to be proceeded with at three or four o'clock in the morning, possibly there would not have been a single Irish Member present. The Bill purported to sweep away two of the Judgeships in the Superior Court of Ireland, and to alter the whole judicial system which had existed in Ireland for centuries. He would not discuss the Bill, because he would not be in order; or say that he would oppose it when it came on, if he were in the House. But the Bill was to effect organic changes in the judicial system which had existed for centuries, and should not be introduced under circumstances which would not give the Irish representatives an opportunity of discussing or amending it if necessary He thought, at any rate, that the legal profession had a right to complain; and a Bill of that sort should not be rushed through the House when the English Members were not awake, and all the Irish Members were absent. He regarded it as the greatest possible farce to enter into a discussion of such a very important measure at five or six o'clock in the morning in an exhausted House.
Then there was the Irish Land Bill. That Bill, which would pass without much discussion, was brought in to remedy the defects of that much discussed measure, the Irish Land Purchase Act. But there were a great many hon. Members who would desire to discuss the principle as to whether the bonus should be given to the tenant for life.
§ MR. HEMPHILL
said he would only mention that the Bill would be more satisfactory to Irish public opinion if it were passed when the Irish Members were present. For his own past, he did not see the necessity of Parliament proroguing on or about 12th August. Members who were worshippers of "St. Grouse" might indulge in their tastes, leaving behind Members who were more 578 intent on legislation. The House had often sat into September, not to speak of Autumn sessions; and it would be much better and more decent, if he might use the expression, in the eyes of the public if legislation were carried on deliberately up to the very eve of the prorogation.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said it would perhaps be the most convenient course if he were to reply at that point of the debate. The debate had been very much of the character of the debates which had taken place before on similar Occasions, He had never known it admitted by the Opposition of the day that the Bills which the Government had passed were of any value or that any value was to be found except in the Bills which they did not pass. Bills seemed to become sur-rouaded with quite a lustre and a halo from the fact of their not succeeding in the struggle for existence, and the actual legislation which had been passed had always been regarded either as useless or worse than useless. It had been said that private Members had not had enough time, and that Supply had not been discussed sufficiently, and there had been an occasional seasoning of the ordinary elaborately prepared personalities of the Member for Oldham. Among the critics of the Government had been the hon. Member for Aberdeen, who pointed to the experience of the session as conclusive proof of the failure of the new rules. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in his criticism. In the debates on the new rules he never held out to the House the smallest prospect that the great prolongation of debate which had been the growing disease of the House for many years past would be effectually dealt with by those changes. It was not to these new rules or any modification of them that he had ever looked forward as affording a real issue from the embarrassment in which the House had undoubtedly long found itself. That change—if and when it came—must take a very different form, and all he could now point out to the House was this, that they had only to listen to the debate that had been going on that afternoon to see that if the double set of critics who always attacked the Government on these occasions were to be satisfied, the work of the session could not be got through 579 in twelve months. Parliament would sit the whole year and would leave its work unfinished. Some critics said that time enough was not given for criticising the Government; others said that a great amount of legislation was left undone. Considering that all the time not given to legislation was given to criticism and that all the time not given to criticism was given to legislation, it was clear that in a given number of months everything that was taken away from criticism was given to legislation, and that everything that was taken away from legislation was given to criticism, and there was no way out of that. When the hon. Member for Oldham, or some hon. Member taking the same line, attacked the Government for not having passed the Bills, which, as the Government did not propose them, they regarded as extremely valuable, and other Members maintained that more time ought to have been given to Supply, whilst a third set said that the ten days or eleven days given to fiscal discussions were not enough, or that five or six days given to the yellow labour discussion were not enough, the smallest common sense, the most moderate modicum of the rationality which a person would apply to his own affairs, would show that the House of Commons could not possibly meet all these demands without throwing upon itself a burden which would undoubtedly break down the whole representative system of the country.
He would pass to the questions put to him regarding particular Bills. He would mention first the Musical Copyright Bill, because this was the only session that he recollected in which the plea had been put forward by Gentlemen interested, in private Bills for one private Bill alone. He was obliged to reply, as he had done on many previous occasions, that a private Bill, if it were opposed, could not obtain facilities at the end of the session. No Government could give facilities, and Governments had always got into trouble by trying to do so. If, indeed, it were possible to conciliate the opposition to the Bill, which he did not think came from a very large number of Members, nobody would rejoice more than he. So far as he was able to judge, the Bill really did endeavour to find a remedy for a very hard state of things affecting 580 a very deserving section of the community. He had been asked about the Constabulary Bill. That was a Bill which it was desirable to pass, but it was not a Bill on which he could ask the House to spend a great deal of time. If he understood the matter rightly, it was required largely for the interests of the Treasury and indirectly for Ireland. As to the Bill relating to County Courts, he was certainly surprised to hear that the new Bill repealed the old one.
§ *SIR ALBERT ROLLIT
It does not re-enact the same measure. Instead of giving to all County Courts increased jurisdiction it gives it only to some to be selected by the Lord Chancellor, and it omits one important provision as to costs in the High Court, viz., Clause 116 of the County Courts Act.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said such a measure could hardly'be described as a Bill repealing the old Bill. However, he need not go into those matters, as the Bill was not one which he thought it possible to ask the House to deal with at this late period of the session, since it would require considerable discussion. With regard to the Port of London Bill, it had been suggested that its only opponents were to be found among the Members for the City of London.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he did not know how the hon. gentleman defined "principal." If he meant numerically the greatest he should say the hon. Gentleman was entirely incorrect. From information which had reached him he believed that the opposition came from a very much larger section. The procedure which had been suggested, that the Government should prove that opposition existed by trying to pass the Bill, had always when attempted been described by the Opposition as an egregious waste of time. Whether it would be possible to carry over the Bill was another question, and 581 if hon. Gentlemen would ask him about the matter at Question time in a day or two he would give a final answer on the subject. There had been some discussion about the Aliens Bill, chiefly by two hon. Gentlemen—one of them sitting on that Front Bench and the other the Member for Oldham—whose chief ambition had been to show that they had no hand in destroying the Bill; that it was entirely due to a pernicious Government that the Bill had been destroyed. He did not desire to deprive hon. Gentlemen of any satisfaction they might obtain from that line of argument.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)
asked whether the Bill would be reintroduced next session.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he had already stated the views of the Government on that point. He had been attacked for his management of Supply. In the first place, it had been said that on three occasions when Supply was under discussion h had procured the adjournment of the House before the dinner hour. But Members were aware that there were frequently occasions when more business was done by stopping at half-past seven than by continuing till midnight. A second criticism was that really important questions had not been discussed in Committee of Supply. He had endeavoured to pursue his steadily declared policy that the critics of the Government on both sides should, as far as possible, be consulted with regard to the allocation of the business of Supply. If the motive of those critics had been imperfectly expressed the Government could not be blamed for that.
There was one general criticism upon the work of the session with which he had the profoundest sympathy. Year after year a number of small Government Bills were introduced and failed to pass. There were many defects in their rules, but the one which it was of most importance, from the point of view of public interest, to remedy was to be found in the machinery for dealing with these smaller measures. The large Bill of the session the Government would always insist on passing. It might have 582 to be got through by methods which they all admitted to be clumsy and the necessity for which they all regretted, but it would be got through. There was no corresponding machinery for getting through small Bills, nor did he see any easy modification of their rules—any modification which would not be almost revolutionary in its character which would enable these Bills to pass. They could not do that kind of work by any form of Home Rule or provincial councils, because these Bills had an operation throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, and must therefore be dealt with by an Assembly which had authority over the whole of the United Kingdom. He did not believe delegation to Grand Committee was sufficient to meet the difficulty, and his consideration of the question had not satisfied him that this great blot upon our Parliamentary institutions was one easy of remedy. He could only hope that those who had criticised the Government would devote some of their attention to thinking how this matter could be dealt with, and perhaps in some future time a means would be devised by which to remove this defect which all must regret.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
said the statement made by the Prime Minister was most alarming. The net result of the session's work so far as Ireland was concerned was that the Vote for Irish Education had been docked by £100. And, after that, the Prime Minister promised that he would kill the one Bill they wanted and pass another Bill for which nobody asked. English Members complained of the Government and of Parliament, but, after all, it was their own Parliament and their own Government—a poor thing, but their own. But in the case of the Irish people it was not their Parliament nor their Government. Could English Members conceive any Irish Assembly, however contemptible or illustrious, however democratic or aristocratic, whether it brought forward proposals of the most squalid or the most majestic dimensions, which, after six months of harassing labour, would have to confess that the net result of the whole thing was not nil but a minus quantity, namely, the loss of £100? The Prime Minister had now admitted that 583 there was no cure for this disease, and that next year and the year after the position would he as bad. The Prime Minister had divided British possessions into two categories—those obtained by peaceful occupation, and those which had been obtained by warlike conquest. He (the speaker) did not know into which category Ireland was placed. But, as regarded the future, the Prime Minister told them he saw no cure for the evil, and he asked those of them who were not in the Government, and who never would be in it, and who had no voice in this House except on sufferance, to devise a remedy. After all, if the Irish people had the smallest shanty of a Parliament of their own, he supposed that they would be able to legislate upon herrings, canals, commerce of some kind, and free trade and protection. There might be a "blocker," but they would probably be able to invent some means of getting round him. But to tell him that the net result of six months arduous labour on the part of a large body of Irish representatives would be the loss of £100 was a most miserable suggestion of what Parliament should be.
The Prime Minister suggested that he would drop the Irish Charitable Loans Bill. He admitted there was some opposition to it. But what was the Irish Loans Fund? It was a body managed by Dublin Castle, whose inspectors were appointed by Dublin Castle, and Dublin Castle invited honest people to invest their money in debentures to be lent out at reasonable interest on the faith of the security of British audit and management. The result was that something like £200,000 or £300,000 had gone, and the British Government calmly announced that they would not even pass legislation to enable it to be collected. This money was largely the money of pensioners, ex-soldiers, politicians, clergymen. He believed there were a few clergymen on both sides, and year after year this Government-managed business had failed to meet not only its interest but its principal. The total deficit did not amount to more than about £250,000, and yet the Government not only declined to meet that but refused the machinery of collection. The Prime Minister absolutely shone on occasions like this, and it required a very subtle 584 mind to appreciate his distinctions. The right hon. Gentleman knew what reality or unreality there was behind an attack such as had been made upon him, because he himself had attacked Governments a thousand times and had heard replies by the greatest masters of Parliamentary strategy. The hon. Member for Antrim had asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended to go on with the Judicature and Development Grant Bill, but the Prime Minister said nothing about that Bill; he only referred to the Development Grant Bill. He would only suppose that the abolition of the Judges was going to be dropped and the development portion of the Bill was to be proceeded with. When the Prime Minister was asked a Question by one of his own supporters he remained as steadfastly silent on the subject as if he were asked a Question about free trade. While nobody was more anxious than himself to see established a kind of Irish Exchequer, for that was whet the Government were being driven into, he must say that the Irish Members should remember that all this was in aid of the British Treasury and the Irish landlords. While the Government refused to the Loan Fund debenture-holders the payment of monies practically guaranteed by the Government, they did suggest that at one scoop they should capture £150,000 of the finest fund in Ireland and apply it practically to the issue of stock to enable the landlords to be paid in sovereigns instead of paper. The Chief Secretary shook his head, and therefore he would not pursue the matter further; but that was the, interpretation he put upon the Bill. Whatever time was devoted to these two Irish Bills he thought they should be given a little notice of the intention to bring them forward, and that they should be brought forward at some reasonable period, if at all.
With regard to the Land Bill, he intended to support the Government throughout upon it, although he wished to propose Amendments in regard to the incidence of the bonus, as he believed its incidence had not been apprehended by the House or the country. But he considered that he was in honour bound to support the Government which came forward at the time when Irish Members 585 were unanimous in demanding that the bonus should be given in a particular way and agreed that £100,000,000 should be voted on the faith of an agreement between andlords andl hon. Members for Ireland. In the face of that bargain, made openly in the House of Commons, it was no secret arrangement made behind the Chair or in the Lobby, but a solemn bargain made between the Government and the Irish Party, it would redound to the everlasting discredit of Irishmen, whoever they might be, who went back on that solemn pact. But he thought they were entitled to discuss the incidents arising out of the transactions which were not apprehended at the time the Bill was passed. If he was told that time would not allow of the discussion of those matters he conceived he was so bound by the main principle of the Bill that he would not press his opposition to what he called mere details to the extent of needlessly occupying time. But that would only be on the condition that measures, which he apprehended nobody wanted—such as the proposal to alienate £150,000 of the Fines Funds and to grab money that was intended by the Local Government Act of 1869 to go in relief of taxation, for the relief of the Treasury or for landlord purposes, were not pressed. If the Government insisted on going on with Bills which were really contentious and asked him to give up the time that should really be occupied by the other Bill—that was not a proposition to which he could assent. He thought that, on the whole, this session in the way in which it had been consumed—he would not say wasted—would be a memorable one for Ireland. For himself, he did not think the Labourers Bill was such a great loss. What he thought would strike the people of Ireland, was the inefficiency of this Parliament to bring to the most troubled and most anxious portion of the Empire—the sick child of the family—relief, comfort, legislation, or even debate, and the confession of the Prime Minister of England himself that there was no remedy for the evil.
§ MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH (Anglesey)
moved as an Amendment that Fridays be excluded from the operation of the Resolution.
§ MR. DELANY (Queen's County, Ossory)
I object. I respectfully object, Mr. Speaker, because I want to speak. I have something to say.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
I do not know whether the hon. Member has something to say or not, but I have not accepted the Motion. I called on the hon. Member for Anglesey to move his Amendment which I think is one that may be disposed of very shortly.
§ MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH
said his Amendment would give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of relaxing the rigour of his proposal. The Prime Minister was the champion of the weekend holiday, and if he was going to sit up the greater part of every night in the week, he would need a little recreation on Friday or Saturday. The health of the Prime Minister was one of the assets of Parliament which should be carefully guarded. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that only one Bill in a session should be treated in a drastic manner. Inasmuch, therefore, as one Bill had already been drastically treated this session, he submitted that Friday should be exempted from this Motion, as the measure down for Friday next, though not a long Bill, was exceedingly contentious—
§ *MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing particular Bills; he must confine his remarks solely to the question of the omission of Friday.
§ MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH
said another point was that on Friday there would be no interval beyond the half-hour at two o'clock. He appealed for some modification of the Motion in the interests both of the Prime Minister and of the House generally.
Amendment proposed—In line 2, after the word 'except,' to insert the words 'on Fridays and'."—(Mr. Ellis Griffith.)587 Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the only reason the hon. Member had been able to put forward in support of his Amendment was the consideration of his (the speaker's) health, and he was grateful for the hon. Member's consideration. They would doubtless not rise at half-past five, the usual hour on Fridays, but lie could see no reason why the sittings should be unduly prolonged beyond that hour. While unable to accept the Amendment he thanked the hon. Member for the spirit in which he had moved it.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, N.)
thought there ought to be some understanding with regard to Fridays,upon which day it should be remembered the House met at noon. There was an understanding the last time a rule of this kind was passed that the House should not sit beyond 6.30 or 7 o'clock on Fridays. He hoped the Prime Minister would assent to the suggestion, that as they met at 12 o'clock on Fridays the sitting on that day should not be unduly prolonged.
§ MR. DELANY
said he wished to support the Amendment which had been proposed in order to relieve them on one night of the week from attending long discussions. He quite sympathised with the Prime Minister in the position in which he had been placed. His hon. and learned friend the Member for Louth had spoken of the great disappointment he had experienced in regard to Irish legislation that session, and he quite shared that disappointment. He had sat in the House of Commons through the whole of the session and he had been extremely disappointed at the attitude of the Government in regard to Irish legislation. They were primarily interested in two Bills.
§ to transact public business efficiently or discuss measures late on Friday after the long sittings which would take place on the days preceding Friday. The Bills which would be brought in during Friday sittings could not be discussed, and ought not to be discussed under those circumstances, and therefore he joined with those who had appealed to the Prime Minister not to extend the length of the sittings on Friday to any great extent.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said he was not at all sure that this Amendment was necessary because the Resolution before the House referred only to the interruption of business at 12 o'clock, 7.30, and 5.30 on Fridays.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
thought the hon. Member for King's Lynn was mistaken, because he remembered that they sat of after 6 o'clock last session under the same Order. He wished to appeal to the Leader of the House to use the powers he would probably get very moderately, not only on Fridays but upon other nights. They all recognised that there was sure to be a long discussion at this period of the session upon the suspension of the Twelve O'clock Rule, but he hoped the Prime Minister would not prolong the sittings to a late hour in the morning. If the House sat after seven o'clock on Fridays it destroyed all the chances of a holiday for the week-end.
MR. LABOUGHERE (Northampton)
said if the Prime Minister would meet them by getting up and stating that he did not intend to prolong the sittings on Fridays he thought his hon. friend would withdraw his Amendment, but the right hon. Gentleman, by refusing to do this, rather implied that he intended to continue the sittings late on Fridays. This was most distasteful to hon. Members on both sides, and he thought the Prime Minister would find it most disagreeable to himself. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would say a word or two and come to some sort of an agreement.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 138; Noes, 208. (Division List No. 291.)591
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Ainsworth, John Stirling||Ashton, Thomas Gair|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Asher, Alexander||Atherley-Jones, L.|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Harwood, George||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.||Partington, Oswald|
|Bell, Richard||Healy, Timothy Michael||Perks, Robert William|
|Blake, Edward||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Boland, John||Higham, John Sharpe||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Holland, Sir William Henry||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Brigg, John||Horniman, Frederick John||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Jacoby, James Alfred||Roberston, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Burt, Thomas||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Caldwell, James||Joicey, Sir James||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Cameron, Robert||Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea||Runciman, Walter|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Joyce, Michael||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Cawley, Frederick||Kearley, Hudson E.||Sheehy, David|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Kilbride, Denis||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Crombie, John William||Kitson, Sir James||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Crooks, William||Labouchere, Henry||Sullivan, Donal|
|Cullinan, J.||Langley, Batty||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Leamy, Edmund||Tennant, Harold John|
|Delany, William||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||Levy, Maurice||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Lewis, John Herbert||Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower)|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Lloyd-George, David||Tomkinson, James|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Lough, Thomas||Toulmin, George|
|Doogan, P. C.||Lundon, W.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Tully, Jasper|
|Dunn, Sir William||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Wallace, Robert|
|Edwards, Frank||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.)|
|Elibank, Master of||M'Kenna, Reginald||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Ellice, Capt E C(S Andrw'sBghs||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Weir, James Galloway|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Mooney, John J.||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Moss, Samuel||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Murphy, John||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid,)|
|Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Grant, Corrie||O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Ellis Griffith and Mr. Warner.|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale)||O'Dowd, John|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||O'Malley, William|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Brotherton, Edward Allen||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden||Bull, William James||Davenport, William Bromley|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Butcher, John George||Denny, Colonel|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Campbell, Rt Hn J. A.(Glasgow)||Dickson, Charles Scott|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Campbell, J H M(Dublin Univ.||Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.|
|Arrol, Sir William||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cautley, Henry Strother||Doughty, Sir George|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Cavendish, V. C.W.(Derbyshire)||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Doxford, Sir William Theodore|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Duke, Henry Edward|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A(Worc.||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r||Chapman, Edward||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W(Leeds||Charrington, Spencer||Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Clare, Octavius Leigh||Fielder, Edward Brocklehurst|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Clive, Captain Percy A.||Finch, Rt. Hon George H.|
|Bigwood, James||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne|
|Bill, Charles||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R.||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose|
|Bond, Edward||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Craig, Charles Curtis(Antirm, S.||Flannery, Sir Fortescue|
|Brassey, Albert||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Flower, Sir Ernest|
|Forster, Henry William||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Foster, Philip. S.(Warwick, S.W.||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Gardner, Ernest||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Garfit, William||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Long,Rt.Hn. Walter (Bristol,S.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||Lowe, Francis William||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Gore, Hon S. F. Ormsby-||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth||Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.|
|Goschen, Hn. George Joachim||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Macdona, John Cumming||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry|
|Grenfell, William Henry||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Gretton, John||Manners, Lord Cecil||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.||Smith,Abel H.(Hertford, East)|
|Groves, James Grimble||Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E.(Wigt'n||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry||Maxwell,W J H(Dumfriesshire||Spear, John Ward|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Stanley,Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th||Middlemore,John Throgmorton||Stanley,Edw. Jas. (Somerset)|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Milvain, Thomas||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.|
|Haslett, Sir James Horner||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Heath,James (Staffords. N.W.||Morpeth, Viscount||Talbot,RtHn J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Morrell, George Herbert||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Helder, Augustus||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Henderson,Sir A.(Stafford, W.)||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Tuff, Charles|
|Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside||Myers, William Henry||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Horner, Frederick William||Newdegate, Francis A. N.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Nicholson, William Graham||Walrond,Rt Hn.Sir William H.|
|Hoult, Joseph||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Howard, J (Midd.,Tottenham)||Pemberton, John S. G.||Whiteley,H.(Ashton und. Lyne|
|Hozier,Hn. James HenryCecil||Percy, Earl||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Pierpoint, Robert||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Hunt, Rowland||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)|
|Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)||Plummer, Sir Walter R.||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)|
|Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Kennaway, Rt.Hn. Sir John H.||Purvis, Robert||Wortley, Rt.Hon. C. B.Stuart-|
|Kerr, John||Randles, John S.||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||Rankin, Sir James||Wylie, Alexander|
|Knowles, Sir Lees||Reid, James (Greenock)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Remnant, James Farquharson||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Lee, Arthur H.(Hants. Fareham||Renwick, George||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge||Alexander Acland-Hood|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.|
|Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
§ Main Question again proposed.
§ MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS (Lanarkshire, N.W.)
said he felt bound to say how seriously he personally, and he thought many other hon. Members also, regarded the abandonment of the Scotch Education Bill. He confessed that he was a little surprised that the hon. Members opposite, who represented Scotch constituencies, should allow the Bill to go derelict with so little protest to the Prime Minister. Of course, he quite realised that at this stage of the session there was not time to carry the Bill now. He felt that it reflected no very great credit on the legislative capacity of this House for the discharge of its business when, at such a 592 stage, the Government had to abandon a Bill which was practically non-contentious and against which no division had been taken; which had been discussed in the fairest way on both sides of the House, and which had been carried after considerable exertion to such a point that two or three more days of Parliamentary time would easily have been sufficient to allow of its being passed. The postponement of this Bill was a very grave and serious matter for Scottish education. He did not think it would be held by hon. Members of this House that the people of Scotland were less willing to undertake the labours of education than other people were. But it was an undoubted fact that at this 593 moment Scotland stood in a position of distinct inferiority as regarded the organisation of higher education than any other part of Great Britain, or even than every civilised Country in the world. That, in itself, was a state of matters which called for much more serious treatment than it had received in the House. It ought to have been a matter of the greatest urgency on the part of the Government to carry into law the Bill which they had introduced and which had been so favourably and generously received in every part of the House and in every part of Scotland. The postponement of the Bill was very serious from a practical point of view, because the money which had been granted to Scotland in lieu of that which had been spent under the English Education Act was at present being devoted to the relief of rates; and he was sure that every year that that was continued would make it more difficult to devote that money to higher education instead of to the relief of the rates. But more than that. Anyone at all familiar with educational work in Scotland knew perfectly well that the very introduction of the Bill in the House had given a confident hope that it would be carried this year, and that, in the meantime, there had been a great deal of arrest of higher education in Scotland. The certainty that a new scheme was about to be introduced made it impossible for those who had been doing good work in various districts—in the county councils and in the school boards—to proceed in the development of that kind of education until they knew what legislation in regard to it would be introduced. Still more serious was the fact that, if the Bill was withdrawn, they might not see it again, or, at any rate, any Bill half so good. The Prime Minister took a hopeful view of next session, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would give a definite pledge that the Scotch Education Bill would take an important place in the next King's Speech. He made not the least complaint of the way in which the Scotch Education Bill had been brought before the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, but because the Bill had been lost by the failure of the Government to make any serious attempt to carry it. It might 594 have been carried if only two or three more days had been devoted to it. Various essays had been made to bring in other Bills which had been dropped. Time had been spent on these Bills which might have been given more usefully to the Scotch Education Bill, and if so, it could have been easily carried. But they had also to consider the selection of the Bills which the Prime Minister had made. He would venture to suggest to the Prime Minister that he should turn his mind to, or suggest to his followers in Scotland, some explanation of the choice he had made in dropping this Scotch Education Bill.
The Scottish Unionists were a very estimable and ingenuous body of men, but they would be unable to explain to the people of Scotland why their Education Bill had been placed behind the Licensing Bill and the Welsh Defaulting Authorities Bill. These Bills had certain properties in common; both conferred pecuniary advantages on certain sections of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, although it would be seen that they were thoroughly disliked by the people by whom they were to be applied. The Scottish Unionists and their representatives who supported the Government must ask themselves what the reasons really were for the Government giving priority to the measures to which he had referred over the Education Bill which had been so long promised to Scotland. He did not raise this question for the purpose of recrimination, although recrimination was abundantly called for by the way in which this Bill and the Scotch Members had been treated by the Government; but he hoped the right hon. Geatleman would say whether he was prepared to reintroduce the Bill in the course of the next session.
§ MR. DELANY
I object, Sir. It is a marked insult to the Irish Members that not one of them should be heard 595 on this Question. I protest against it. [MINISTERIAL ironical laughter.] Hon. Members opposite will be on this side by and by, and they will see what will happen then.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 134. (Division List, No. 292.)597
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyue||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Fisher, William Hayes||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose||Maclver, David (Liverpool)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||McKillop, James (Stirlingshire)|
|Arnold-Forster,Rt Hn.Hugh O.||Flower, Sir Ernest||Manners, Lord Cecil|
|Arrol, Sir William||Forster, Henry William||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Foster,Philip S(Warwick,S.W.||Maxwell,Rt Hn SirH.E.(Wigt'n|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Gardner, Ernest||Maxwell,W J H(Dumfriesshire|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Garfit, William||Melville Beresford Valentine|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Middlemore,John Throgmorton|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||Milvain, Thomas|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Balfour,Rt. Hon.A J.(Manch'r.||Gorst, Rt. Hon.Sir John Eldon||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Balfour,RtHn Gerald W.(Leeds||Goschen, Hon. Goerge Joachim||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. Christch.||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Greene, HenryD.(Shrewsbury)||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Bhownaggree Sir M. M.||Grenfell, William Henry||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Bigwood, James||Gretton, John||Murray,Rt Hn A.Graham(Bute|
|Bill, Charles||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Groves, James Grimble||Myers, William Henry|
|Bond, Edward||Hamilton,Marq.of(L'nd'nderry||Newdegate, Francis A. N.|
|Brassey, Albert||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)|
|Bull, William James||Haslett, Sir James Horner||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Butcher, John George||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Percy, Earl|
|Campbell,Rt Hn.J.A.(Glasgow)||Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.||Heath, James (Staffords.N.W.)||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Heaton, John Henniker||Plummer, Sir Walter R.|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Helder, Augustus||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire||Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford,W.)||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Birghtside||Purvis, Robert|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Horner, Frederick William||Randles, John S.|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Rankin, Sir James|
|Chamberlain,RtHn J.A.(Worc.||Hoult, Joseph||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Chapman, Edward||Houston, Robert Paterson||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Charrington, Spencer||Howard, J. (Midd.,Tottenham)||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Hozier,Hon. James Henry Cecil||Renwick, George|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Hunt, Rowland||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Colomb, Rt.Hon. Sir John C.R.||Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Kerr, John||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Keswick, William||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Kimber, Sir Henry||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Denny, Colonel||Knowles, Sir Lees||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Dimsdale, Rt.Hn. Sir Joseph C.||Lawrence,Sir Joseph(Monm'th)||Saunderson,Rt HnCol.Edw. J.|
|Disraeli, Coningsby, Ralph||Lee,Arthur H.(Hants.,Fareham||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Dorington,Rt. Hon. Sir John E||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Seely, Charles Hilton(Lincoln)|
|Doughty, Sir George||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Leveson-Gower,Frederick N. S.||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Spear, John Ward|
|Dyke,Rt. Hon.Sir WilliamHart||Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham)||Stanley,Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Long,Rt.Hn. Walter (Bristol,S.||Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset|
|Fergusson,Rt Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r||Lowe, Francis William||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurs||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Talbot,Rt Hn.J.G(Oxf'dUniv.||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und.Lyne||Wylie, Alexander|
|Thornton, Percy M.||Whitmore, Charles Algernon||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. Geogre|
|Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. J|
|Tuff, Charles||Wilson, A. Stanley (York,E.R.)|
|Tuke, Sir John Batty||Wilson, John (Glasgow)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES. Sir|
|Valentia, Viscount||Wilson-Todd,Sir W.H.(Yorks.)||Alexander Acland-Hood|
|Walrood,Rt Hn.SirWilliam H.||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm||and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowees|
|Warde, Colonel C. E.||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Abraham,William (Cork,N.E.)||Gadstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Grant, Corrie||O'Dowd, John|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Grey,Rt.Hon.Sir E.(Berwick)||O'Malley, William|
|Asherl Alexander||Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Gordon, Sir W. Brampton||Partington, Oswald|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Perks, Robert William|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Bell, Richard||Harwood, George||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Benn, John Williams||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir ArthurD.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Blake, Edward||Hemphill, Rt. Hon, Charles H.||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Boland, John||Higham, John Sharpe||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Holland, Sir William Henry||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Brigg, John||Horniman, Frederick John||Runciman, Walter|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Hutchinson,Dr. Charles Fredk.||Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Jacoby, James Alfred||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Burt, Thomas||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Sheehy, David|
|Caldwell, James||Joicey, Sir James||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Cameron, Robert||Jones,David Brynnior(Swansea||Slack, John Bamford|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Jones,William (Carnarvonshire||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Joyce, Michael||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Cawley, Frederick||Kearley, Hudson E.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Channing, Francis All ton||Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Kitson, Sir James||Tennant, Harold John|
|Crombie, John William||Labouchere, Henry||Thomas,Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)|
|Crooks, William||Langley, Batty||Tomas,David Alfred(Merthyr|
|Cullinan, J.||Leamy, Edmund||Thomas,J. A(Glamorgan,Gower|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Leese,Sir, Jos. F. (Accrington)||Tomkinson, James|
|Delany, William||Levy, Maurice||Toulmin, George|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||Lewis, John Herbert||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Lloyd-George, David||Tully, Jasper|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Louth, Thomas||Wallace, Robert|
|Doogan, P. C.||Lundon, W.||Walton, John Lawson(Leeds,S.)|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lmark)||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Dunn, Sir William||Mac Veagh, Jeremiah||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Edwards, Frank||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Elibank, Master of||M'Kean, John||Weir, James Galloway|
|Ellice,Capt E C(S Andr'wsBghs||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Whitley, George(York, W.R.)|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Mooney, John J.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Moss, Samuel||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Fenwick, Charles||Murphy, John||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||O'Brien. James F. X. (Cork)||Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid|
§ Question put accordingly.598
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 216; Noes, 128. (Division List, No. 293.)601
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte.||Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John||Balfour,Rt.HnGeraldW. Leeds|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bailey, James (Walworth)||Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch|
|Allbusen, Augustus HenryEden||Bain, Colonel James Robert||Banbury, Sir Frederick George|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Baird, John George Alexander||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Balcarres, Lord||Bigwood, James|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn. Hugh O||Baldwin, Alfred||Bill, Charles|
|Arrol, Sir William||Balfour, Rt. Hn A. J. (Manc'r)||Blundell, Colonel Henry|
|Bond, Edward||Groves, James Grimble||Percy, Earl|
|Brassey, Albert||Hamilton,Marq.of (L'nd'derry||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Harris, F.Leverton (Tynem'th||Plummer, Sir Walter R.|
|Bull, William James||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Butcher, John George||Haslett, Sir James Horner||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Campbell,Rt.Hn. J.A.(Glasgow||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Purvis, Robert|
|Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Handles, John S.|
|Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Heath, James (Staffords.N.W.||Rankin, Sir James|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Heaton, John Henniker||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire||Helder, Augustus||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford,W.||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside||Renwick, George|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Horner, Frederick William||Ridley,Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge|
|Chamberlain, RtHn.JA(Worc.||Hoult, Joseph||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Chapman, Edward||Houston, Robert Paterson||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Charrington, Spencer||Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Horier, Hn. James HenryCecil||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Hunt, Rowland||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.||Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Colomb, Rt.Hn. Sir John C.R.||Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.||Sackville, Col. S.G. Stopford|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H||Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos.Myles|
|Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.||Kerr, John.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Keswick, William||Saunderson, Rt.Hn.Col.Edw. J.|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Kimber, Sir Henry||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Knowles, Sir Lees||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry|
|Denny, Colonel||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Lee,Arthur H(Hants.,Fareham||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Dimsdale,Rt.Hn. Sir Joseph C.||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Spear, John Ward|
|Dorington, Rt.Hn. Sir John E.||Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.||Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk|
|Doughty, Sir George||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Stanley, Rt.Hon. Lord (Lanes)|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Long, Rt.Hn. Walter (Bristol,S||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Dyke,Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart||Lowe, Francis William||Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Fergusson,Rt.Hn.Sir J.(Mane'r||Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Tuff, Charles|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Macdona, John Cumming||Tuke, Sir, John Batty|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Fisher, William Hayes||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Walrond, RtHn. SirWilliam H.|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn.W.F.||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Maxwell,RtHnSirH.E. (Wigt'n||Wharton, Rt.Hn. John Lloyd|
|Flower, Sir Ernest||Maxwell,W.J.H (Dumfriesshire||Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne|
|Forster, Henry William||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Foster, Philip S. (Warwick,SW||Middlemore,John Throgmorton||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Gardner, Ernest||Milvain, Thomas||Wilson,A. Stanley (York,E.R.)|
|Garfit William||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Wilson-Todd,Sir W.H. (Yorks.|
|Gordon,Hn.J.E.(Elgin &Nairn||Montagu,Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||Morgan,David J(Walthamstow||Wortley, Rt.Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Gordon, MajEvans-(TrH'mlets||Morrell, George Herbert||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Wylie, Alexander|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Murray, RtHnA.Graham(Bute||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Goschen, Hn. George Joachim||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Myers, William Henry|
|Green, WalfordD(Wednesbury||Newdegate, Francis A. N.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES,—Sir|
|Greene,Henry D.(Shrewsbury||Nicholson, William Graham||Alexander Acland-Hood|
|Grenfell, William Henry||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes|
|Gretton, John||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Abraham, William(Cork,N.E.)||Asher, Alexander||Barran, Rowland Hirst|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Ashton, Thomas Gair||Bell, Richard|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Barlow, John Emmott||Benn, John Williams|
|Blake, Edward||Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Boland, John||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||O'Dowd, John|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Harwood, George||O'Malley, William|
|Brigg, John||Hayter, Rt.Hon.Sir Arthur D.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Partington, Oswald|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Higham, John Sharpe||Perks, Robert William|
|Burt, Thomas||Holland, Sir William Henry||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Caldwell, James||Horniman, Frederick John||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Cameron, Robert||Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Jacoby, Jame s Alfred||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Cawley, Frederick||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Runciman, Walter|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Joicey, Sir James||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Crombie, John William||Jones,DavidBrymnor(Swansea||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Crooks, William||Jones,William (Carnarvonshire||Sheehy, David|
|Cullinam J.||Joyce, Michael||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Kearley, Hudson E.||Slack, John Bamford|
|Delany, William||Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Devlin,CharlesRamsay(Galway||Kitson, Sir James||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Langley, Batty||Sullivan Donal|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Leamy, Edmund||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington||Tennant, Harold John|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Levy, Maurice||Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Lewis, John Herbert||Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Lloyd-George, David||Thomas, JA(Glamorgan,Gower|
|Dunn, Sir William||Lough, Thomas||Toinkinson, James|
|Edwards, Frank||Lundon, W.||Touhnin, George|
|Elibank, Master of||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Wallace, Robert|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall||Walton, Joseph(Barnsley)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||M'Kean, John||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Fenwick, Charles||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Weir, James Galloway|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Mooney, John J.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Moss, Samuel||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Murphy, John||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Grant, Corrie||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid||J. H. Whitley and Mr. Trevelyan.|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
§ Ordered, That, for the remainder of the session, Government Business be not interrupted, except at half-past Seven of the clock at an Afternoon Sitting, under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; and that at the conclusion of Government Business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put.