I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give to the House any information as to the progress of the negotiations which are going on in South Africa.

No, Sir; we have no information on the subject at the present time.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the dismissal of Sir Redvers Buller from the Aldershot command owing to his reference to the heliograms and telegraphic correspondence which passed between him and Sir George White during the siege of Ladysmith, and having regard to General Buller's repeated requests that such heliograms and telegraphic correspondence be published by the War Office, General Buller will, in his own vindication, be permitted to publish the copies of the correspondence which is now in his possession and has been withheld from publication by him by the order of the War Office.

No, Sir. The Question of the hon. Member is not accurate in respect of the statements mentioned as if they were facts. I am not aware of any repeated requests by Sir R. Buller that his heliograms and telegraphic correspondence should be published by the War Office, nor has the hon. Member, so far as I am aware, any title to represent Sir R. Buller in the matter. No correspondence can be published except by His Majesty's Government.

Has Sir Redvers Buller asked the War Office to permit him to tell the truth?

I have already answered that question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state on what basis a calculation has been made to determine the contributions to be paid by Boers who remained in the field after 15th September, 1901, in respect of the maintenance of their families in the concentration camps; whether they are being called upon to provide the whole, or what portion of the cost of the rations supplied to their families in the camps, or are also called upon to provide a proportionate amount of the whole expenditure of the camps; and whether any regularly drawn up accounts for these charges have been sent to these Boers; and, if so, in what form.

Calculations have been made on the basis of charging the head of the family with the cost of rations and a proportionate amount of the whole expenditure of the camps. No such accounts have been sent to Boers in the field.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the sale of farms in the Orange River Colony or Transvaal to recover from the owners the cost of maintenance of their families in the concentration camps, when such owners remained on commando after 15th September, 1901, has been sanctioned by any legislation or regulation of equivalent force to legislation in those Colonies; or whether such sale will require an Act to be passed either in the Colonies or in the Imperial Parliament to give an indefeasible title to the purchasers.

The sale of farms has been sanctioned by Lord Milner's Proclamation No. 18 of 1901, which will have the effect of giving an indefeasible title to purchasers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the date of the sitting of the court-martial by which Lieutenant Handcock and Lieutenant Morant were tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for a series of murders, of which the victims were Boers; what were the dates of the promulgation of the sentence and of the execution of these officers, and when was the War Office apprised of these executions; and will he explain why the facts of the holding of this court-martial and the sentences and executions of there officers have been withheld for some months from the public.

I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state on what day in January last Lieutenants Handcock and Morant were found guilty by the court-martial.

There were two general courts-martial, one on January 16th and one on February 5th, on these officers. The sentences of death were promulgated on February 26th, and they were executed on February 27th. The proceedings of the courts-martial have only recently reached the War Office.

What was the date of the courts-martial? Were they not held on January 19th?

I have given the date already.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered whether the facts that these courts-martial were held and the sentences executed have been withheld from the public for some months.

The facts have not been withheld "some months." It is not the habit to make a statement with regard to courts-martial, and these courts martial have not been made exceptions to the rule.

Were not these officers executed two months ago; and why has the knowledge of the execution been withheld from the public?

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman has answered the Question.

Yes, but most unsatisfactorily.

Order, order!

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will direct the immediate publication of the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, and of all evidence produced before that Court, in reference to the series of murders of Boers, by officers holding commissions under the British Crown, and will likewise direct the immediate publication of the proceedings of the trial by court-martial of Lieutenants Handcock and Morant and of the evidence adduced before that court-martial in its entirety.

As at present advised. I do not see that any public advantage would be gained by the publication of these proceedings.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the recent execution of British officers in South Africa, whether any communications were addressed to the Foreign Office, or to Lord Kitchener, by the German Government with reference to the murder of Rev. Mr. Hesse.

No such communication has been made to the Foreign Office, and I understand that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War has no information as to any communication on this subject having been made to Lord Kitchener on behalf of the German Government.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the total amounts paid to Julius Weil for supply contracts in South Africa, specifying; the totals for loss of trek oxen and waggons, and the amount paid for their hire separately.

The amounts paid to Mr. Julius Weil up to December, 1901, are as follows:—

Can the noble Lord say how long Mr. Weil has been a naturalised British subject?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that applicants for situations in the Transvaal Post Office have been informed by the Glasgow postmaster that their applications cannot be entertained; and if so, will he state on what grounds the applications have been refused.

The Postmaster General is fully aware of the circumstance. So many officers from the Glasgow office have gone to South Africa in different capacities, that the exigencies of the service render it impossible to allow more to go at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether officers of Imperial Yeomanry (for South Africa), now under orders for the seat of war, will be allowed to take out any horses of their own with them at the public expense; and, if this is not the case, whether he can state the reason.

Officers desirous of taking their own chargers will be granted conveyance at the public expense.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Small Arms Committee has reported in favour of a new pattern of rifle; and, if so, whether he is able to make any statement upon the subject.

I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that the punishment of shot drill has been abolished in the Army since April, 1899, he has any, and, if so, what, explanation to give of the fact that shot drill has been inflicted on prisoners in the military cells at Lichfield up till the 17th February last.

I have nothing to add to my previous answer on this subject.

But has this form of punishment in the Army been abolished?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether arrangements can be made for the military hospitals in India to be provided with surgical instruments of modern pattern, and will surgical instruments with wooden handles either be withdrawn or refitted with metal handles.

I am informed that all instruments sent to India in recent years have metal handles, but I will inquire more fully into the matter, and, if there is any reason to suppose that a large proportion of the surgical instruments now in use in India are not of the most approved pattern, the Government of India will, I have no doubt, be anxious to replace them with as little delay as possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the number of persons killed in the autumn of last year through the collapse of a house in Cochrane Street, Hong Kong, the cause of the collapse, the name of the owner of the house, the names of the builder and architect; and whether any compensation has been paid to the widows, orphans, or dependents of the persons killed.

Forty-three persons lost their lives through the accident in question, which was largely due to defects of construction. The owner and the builder of the houses were Chinamen, and their names have not been reported. The architect of the recent structural alterations was a Mr. Hazeland. I am not aware whether or not any compensation has been given to the families or dependents of the deceased.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Agreement of the Canadian Government with the Marconi Companies will stand in the way of an international agreement; and, if so, will he consider the desirability of urging delay in confirming the Canadian Agreement.

I have no information as to the terms of the Agreement between the Canadian Government and the Marconi Companies. I have already asked for information on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his official information enables him to state when the Uganda Railway will be completed; whether it will be completed for the sum of money already voted by Parliament; or whether he proposes to ask Parliament to vote a further sum; and, if so, what sum.

As the House is aware, the rails reached the lake on the 20th of December last. We hope that the permanent alignment will be completed by September next. As regards the expense, I am afraid that there will be a considerable excess in the final cost over the sum voted by Parliament, but I am not able to give the figures of the estimated excess until the return of the Managing Member of the Uganda Railway Committee, who is now engaged in inspecting the line, and may be expected to be home again in the course of next month.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an inquest held by the Coroner for North-West Staffordshire, on the 18th inst., on a married woman residing at Port-hill, when the Coroner, in summing up, stated that it appeared that the deceased was a milliner, and had never been employed in the lead, and consequently could not have got this lead poisoning in the course of her trade; that it could not be difficult to find out where this load was obtained; and that if this had been done, and the person who supplied it knew for what purpose, he would find himself charged with manslaughter at least. And, in view of the fact that the jury returned a verdict to the effect that death was due to lead poisoning, brought about by deceased taking pills for a certain purpose, whether he will cause inquiries to be instituted as to the person who supplied the deceased with the lead pills.

I understand that active inquiries have been made, but that no clue has been obtained to trace the person who supplied the pills.

Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to ascertain if it was the practice of this woman to take these pills?

was understood to reply that the inquiry had been directed solely to finding the person who supplied the pills.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the discharge of a prisoner from Cambridge Gaol, there being at the time cases of smallpox within the gaol, although the prisoner had complained of illness the day before his discharge, and is now suffering from smallpox at Alysham, in Norfolk; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be held into the circumstances.

I have made inquiry, and find that the prisoner was discharged at the expiration of his sentence, and that he was visited, on the day before his discharge, by the medical officer, who observed no symptoms to lead him to suppose that he was suffering from incipient smallpox.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries?

I can make no further inquiries, except of the medical officer who examined the man.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state approximately the cost which the present epidemic of smallpox has involved in the London area up to the 31st March last.

I understand that the epidemic has involved an expenditure of about £280,000 on the part of the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District during the half year to the end of March last. This amount includes a sum of £225,000 in respect of special expenditure in connection with smallpox accommodation and transport. I have no information at present as to the amounts expended by Boards of Guardians and other local authorities in London in connection with the epidemic. I think, however, that the amount should be obtained, and if further information is pressed for, willingness might later on be expressed to give a Return, if asked for, showing the expenditure incurred by local authorities in London in relation to the epidemic, when the accounts up to the end of March have been made up.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has observed in the weekly Returns of the Registrar General that an infant, born on the hospital ship "Atlas" on 1st March, was vaccinated on that day and died of smallpox on the 12th, and that many other similar cases occur in the Returns; whether, in view of these results, he will consider whether the vaccination of such children after infection should be abandoned; and, as in several cases of death from smallpox after vaccination the dates of vaccination are omitted, and the words "Vaccinated during the incubation period" or "Vaccinated only after infection" are employed, whether he will direct the hospital authorities to supply exact particulars to the Registrar General, so as to obtain uniformity in these statistics.

As regards the first paragraph, the answer is in the affirmative. With respect to the second, I could not undertake to recommend the course suggested. As to the third paragraph, I have communicated with the Registrar General, who states that it is impossible to obtain uniformity in all cases, and that under the circumstances he considers that the terms employed are the best that can be devised.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the lymph obtained by Dr. Copeman from the inoculation of smallpox on monkeys has been used in general practice for vaccination; and, if so, to what extent; and have the parents and the medical men been aware of its origin.

All the lymph obtained in the manner referred to in the Question was passed through calves and properly glycerinated before it was used for the vaccination of human beings. I understand that the medical men using the lymph thus derived were made aware of the circumstances connected with it, but I cannot say whether the parents knew them. I am informed, however, that the amount manufactured was but small, and that whatever remained in stock was destroyed nearly two years ago.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state what progress has been made in the supply of Government lymph; whether the Local Government Board has been able to overtake the demand for it; and whether any arrangements have yet been made to supply private practitioners as well as the public vaccinators with Government lymph for primary and secondary vaccinations at about cost price.

I am glad to say that since the early part of last I month I have been able to meet all the demands made by public vaccinators for lymph, not only for primary vaccinations but also for re-vaccinations. As regards the last part of the Question, I have carefully considered the matter, but I regret that I have not seen my way to comply with the suggestion of my hon. friend.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the power to use funds out of the rates in connection with the Coronation celebrations will be extended to Parish Councils; and, if not, may District Councils allocate certain sums to the various parishes.

The matter referred to has been under my consideration, and I propose to include Parish Councils in the Order which I am about to issue, sanctioning reasonable expenditure out of the rates in respect of the celebration of the Coronation.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether any action has yet been taken by the British Government relative to the resolution in regard to the presence of foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth, which was unanimously adopted at the Hydrographical Conference held at Christiania in May last; and will he state when a Report of the Proceedings of the Conference will be laid upon the Table of the House.

His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of the matter, which will receive the attention of the British Delegates to the International Council which is to meet at Copenhagen. It is not proposed at the present time to publish the Report of the Proceedings at the last Conference.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that at a meeting of the Ross and Cromarty County Council, held at Dingwall in October last, the County Councillor for the Portmahomack Division called attention to the unsatisfactory condition of several of the piers in the county; and that the chairman of the County Council, in supporting this view, expressed the opinion that there should be improved harbour accommodation for Portmahomack; and will he say whether the Government propose to take any action in the matter.

I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him to the Question he put to me in July, 1899, to which I have nothing to add, as the conditions have not changed since then.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Mr. Charles Gee, of 12, Furber Street, Hammersmith, applied to the Hammersmith Borough Council for an advance of £240 under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act; that that Council was prepared to make the advance, but that, on applying to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for a loan, was informed by them that, taking into consideration the amount of money placed at their disposal by Parliament, they were unable to entertain applications for loans from Metropolitan Borough Councils; and whether he will take steps to remedy this inequality.

The Borough Council has not applied to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for a loan for this purpose. Although the Commissioners are not at present in a position to make loans to Metropolitan Borough Councils for general purposes, they would, in view of the provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, be prepared to entertain applications for loans under that Act.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that, at the Quarter Sessions held recently in Limerick, the learned Judge was presented with white gloves by both the City and County High Sheriffs, such presentation denoting a crimeless calendar; also, whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of the learned Judge, where he stated that for the eight years he has presided as Judge of Quarter Sessions for Limerick City and County he has found them almost crimeless; and, whether, taking these circumstances into account, he will recommend the reduction of the police force in the said city and county.

Yes, sir; I am acquainted with the facts. It is not proposed to reduce the police force.

Will you export a few of the police to Germany, then?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the State railways of Prussia, with a capital of 375 millions sterling, have paid 7½ per cent. notwithstanding a diminished revenue last year; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of appointing a Commission to inquire into, and report upon, the working of railways in Ireland, with a view to enable amalgamation and economy, with lower rates and increased accommodation.

I can only refer the hon. Member to a reply which I made on 7th May last year.† Whilst far from saying that such an inquiry would not be useful, I am not at present prepared to recommend it.

But why not hold an inquiry?

† See (4) Debates, xciii, 965.

We have so much legislative work on our hands just now that there is no time to spare.

But this is not legislation. I am simply asking for an inquiry.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will, before the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill, lay upon the Table of the House a comparative statement in figures showing, in a given case, the actual yearly amounts of the purchase annuities payable by tenant purchasers in Ireland, and the number of years over which the payment of such annuities would extend under the existing Land Purchase Acts and under the proposals of the Bill now before the House.

Yes, Sir; this will be done.

Will it be done before the end of the session?

Before the Second Reading.

And when will the Second Reading be taken?

Next session.

Before the Coronation?

asked if the statement would include a table illustrating the working of the 19th clause.

replied in the affirmative.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether it can be arranged that in cases in which nautical points regarding distances and limits upon which seizures of nets are made from trawlers, a nautical assessor can be appointed to assist the magistrate who tries the case originally, or the judge who hears the appeal, as is done in ordinary nautical cases.

The change that the hon. Member suggests cannot be made without legislation.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what are the conditions under which the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland were handed over the Clara and Banagher Railway in 1895, in view of the fact that the Treasury forewent a loan of £30,000 advanced by them, and that a sum of £28,346 was raised by a guarantee on the barony of Garrycastle for the construction of the railway; and will he state whether any guarantee was exacted from the Great Southern and Western Railway Company regarding the train service in the district.

Section 15 of the Great Southern and Western Railway Act, 1895, provided for the transfer of the railway to the Great Southern and Western Company "subject to all the conditions, obligations and liabilities imposed on or of the Clara and Banagher Company with respect to the maintenance, repair, management, regulation, user, and working of the undertaking," but the obligations referred to do not include any provisions for a specific number of trains, and no special guarantee was required by Parliament from the company on this point.

Has Parliament no power of control so as to compel a railway company to provide proper facilities for communication?

There are no special powers reserved in the company's Act, and the case therefore comes under the general provisions of the law.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any representations expressing dissatisfaction regarding the constitution of the Irish Lights Board; and whether the Government intend to introduce a measure to amend the constitution and working of the Board.

Yes, Sir, such representations have been received; the answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

What steps can we take to bring this Board more into line with public requirements?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state what arrangements have been made for provincial mayors being present at the forthcoming Coronation.

The subject-matter of the Question of the hon. Gentleman, and other analogous Questions, are being dealt with by a Committee for which the Government are not responsible, although I shall always be happy to answer any Question if I can obtain the necessary information. The Committee has not yet come to any decision on the particular subject to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give any date for the introduction of the Valuation Bill.

No, Sir, I cannot mention any date.

ruled out of order the first Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Lynn Regis—

"To insert after the words, 'at nine of the clock for an evening sitting,' the words, 'and every Friday at the same hour for similar sittings.'"

said he wished to move as an Amendment that half-past twelve be substituted for one o'clock as the automatic time for closing the evening sitting. Although his Amendment was one which he would not care to press against the general sense of the House, yet he thought it would prove very useful. Long practical experience of what occurred after midnight showed that the House usually sat for from five to fifteen minutes only, unless the Standing Order was suspended, when the House deliberately contemplated carrying on business for a considerable period beyond twelve o'clock. Therefore in ordinary circumstances, half-past twelve would be more convenient than one o'clock to close business. This matter was of some importance, because it was affected by the subject of the Questions, and if it were intended to have a long string of Questions put after twelve o'clock it might be necessary to interpose a longer period between midnight and the automatic cessation of the sitting. Of course he would be out of order in discussing that question now, but he moved this Amendment, believing it to embody an extremely rational and practicable proposal, and in the hope also that the First Lord might deem it convenient to state the views of the Government with regard to the subject of Questions.

The Amendment divides itself into two parts—the negative part in which the hon. Member proposes to leave out certain words—and the positive part by which he desires to insert other words. With regard to the former, I am in favour of the omission of the words, because this is a necessary preliminary to any Amendment of our proposals with regard to Questions. It will be observed that the two lines proposed to be omitted were originally put in in order to meet the case of Questions which were to be taken at 7.15 on the understanding that the House should not proceed with them after eight p.m. Of course if the Questions are to be put at another hour the words become unnecessary. It is because one or two other Amendments will have to be made in view of the fundamental alteration of our proposal with regard to Questions that I am obliged to take this opportunity of making a statement on that subject. I am well aware, as every one who has watched the movement or feeling in the House in this matter must be, that no portion of the proposed new Rules has received less favour than the proposal that there should be questions during the interval between the two sittings. The main object of the Government has been to limit the time to be taken up by Questions in any one day and to secure with certainty a solid block of time in the afternoons for the consideration of the main business. These two objects I think we must preserve inviolate in any change to be introduced in deference to the wishes of the House. The feeling against deferring Questions till 7.15 was, as I understand, based on a large number of different considerations. Certain objections came from business men who, already experiencing some difficulty in getting down by 3.30, would find that difficulty very considerably increased if they were called upon to come down to the House for the discussion of public business so early as 2.15. Other critics were shocked at the possibility of important information being given by Ministers in another House before it is given to the House of Commons. They pointed out that important information might be given at the other House at 4.15, whereas it could not be communicated at the House of Commons till after 7.15. I do not myself see anything very shocking in this, but I am aware of the feeling, and, however little I sympathise with it, I am ready to take it into account. A more serious objection was the inconvenience to the business of Committees if Members serving on them were at the same time interested in important business before the House. It is quite true that that would give rise to some awkwardness, because if Members sitting on Committees were interested in important business in the House, the time available for Committee work would be unduly curtailed. Other Members have suggested that it would be rather absurd to move the adjournment of the House at two o'clock when four or five hours must elapse before they could ask for information on the subject in regard to which the adjournment Motion was raised. And finally there is also the subject of the restriction of the opportunities of putting supplementary Questions. In suggesting those restrictions, I can assure the House that there has not been the least idea of protecting Ministers of the Crown.

Oh, oh!

That statement appears incredible to the hon. Member for South Donegal, but I think he overrates the embarrassment which his supplementary Questions cause in the Ministerial breast. As far as I am concerned—and in this I feel sure I may speak also for my colleagues—we have not the smallest objection to the supplementaries he has asked. The reason we have put in the restrictions is to shorten the time taken up by Questions, and for that reason alone have we restricted the number of those additional interrogations which it is the habit of hon. Gentlemen to make. An important objection to the alteration of the proposal is based not on the convenience of Members, or even of Ministers, but of the public Departments. I speak in this matter not from any personal point of view—for I am not responsible for any of the very heavily-worked Departments—but I am sure the House will realise that the extraordinary pressure thrown upon some of those already heavily-worked Departments by the modern increase of Questions is so great that some precaution must be taken with a view to mitigating the burden which would be placed upon them if Questions were asked four hours earlier than was originally designed. These being the main arguments on the two sides, I will now venture to sketch out to the House the plan by which we propose to deal with this subject. We suggest that Questions shall begin at a quarter past two o'clock, and only those Questions will be answered orally which are marked with an asterisk; while under no circumstances will any Question on the Paper be answered after five minutes to three o'clock. At five minutes to three Questions of an urgent character put without public notice and Questions relating to the business can be put, and the answers to such Questions usually occupy a very few minutes. I think the Government may count on public business beginning at three o'clock. If the Questions are few in number, business will begin earlier: under no circumstances should it begin later; and words of a very stringent character should limit the class of Questions which may be put between five minutes to three and three o'clock, the intention being to I make this a sort of safety valve in relation to important topics or subjects upon which there is public anxiety. After that, and before public business, leave may be granted or withheld for moving the adjournment, and leave, if granted, will bear its natural fruition at the evening sitting. It will be admitted that forty minutes will afford ample time for the starred Questions. There may be occasions on which the number of Questions may be extended, but I cannot believe that the number of Questions it is possible to put in forty minutes is not sufficient to keep in order any Ministry, however flagitious. It is a modest estimate to say that in that time sixty or seventy Questions can be answered, and I cannot believe that the opportunity would be insufficient to satisfy the most curious Members. But supposing the number exceeds sixty or seventy, it may be asked what security will there be that the most important Questions will not be shut out by reason of their not being reached before 2.55? I think there may be more than one plan for avoiding this. The hon. Member for Central Bradford has, I believe, on the Paper a Motion embodying the method he proposes, and other hon. Members have made suggestions as well; but I think that if directions were inserted in the Standing Order that care shall be taken to arrange the Questions so as to secure that in the first sixty those of the most interest shall be included, the order might be left to the clerks at the Table. [Cries of "No, no!"] That is my opinion; but so far as the Government are concerned, there would not be the smallest objection to the appointment of a small Standing Committee by the Committee of Selection, upon which there would be no objection to members of the Opposition being in the majority. It would be an extremely easy task, and would throw no undue burden of responsibility on either a Committee or the clerks. The House will observe that I have been doing my best to form some scheme which will meet the general view on either side of the House, and I hope the House will be content to limit the starred Questions to those which appeared on the Notice Paper the day before. To require answers at two o'clock to Questions only given notice of on the previous night, and which the Department could have had no opportunity of dealing with till the same morning, would be to unduly burden the Department. I know it is possible at present for a Minister to write a note asking the hon. Member to postpone his Question, but that is a very cumbersome method of dealing with the subject, and one which Ministers are very reluctant to adopt. I therefore hope that the House will consent to our proposal to limit Questions which may be starred to those which appeared on the Notice Paper the morning before.

But there might be Questions of extreme urgency arising out of incidents that only came under notice the night before.

I am afraid I have not made myself quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman. That is, I suggest, the class of Questions for which what I have called a "safety valve" will be provided at five minutes to three o'clock. There cannot be many such Questions. This class of Questions must be rigidly restricted, or the whole arrangement will be spoiled and the time of the House will be eaten away at three o'clock. Only Questions of the most urgent public importance should be asked between 2.55 and three o'clock. I hope the House will support the Government in making the limitation as strong as possible, and the class of Questions to be asked in the interval as narrow as possible. Without this the scheme will do more harm than good, and I cannot promise Government support to any serious change in this respect.

Who is to be the judge of the urgency?

The Speaker will of course decide, and will exercise his discretion in the general interest of the House. But the language of the Rule should be made as clear as possible. I frankly admit that no scheme which the wit of man could devise could be without objection; but I have endeavoured to make an arrangement which will be attended with the least inconvenience. It is not a perfect or flawless picture I present; but, so far as I can judge, it meets the general view of Members, and does not interfere with the fundamental element of the change in the Rules proposed, which lays down within the narrowest limits a fixed time when public business shall begin. There is only one more observation I wish to make. It is possible—but it will be very rare—that a certain number of starred Questions will not be put before 2.55, but in that case they will be of an unimportant character under our Rule. It is inconceivable that sixty-five first-class Questions should be asked in any one day, but, at any rate, under the arrangement I propose, any Questions not reached at five minutes to three o'clock will receive a written answer from the Minister concerned.

Will business go on until eight o'clock?

Business will proceed until half-past seven, after which no further business can be taken, though a division may be. The business under discussion will be interrupted at half-past seven, and no fresh business can be undertaken until the evening sitting. It will be seen that in this way the Government give up a quarter of an hour each day, beginning at three o'clock and breaking off at half-past seven. We make this concession because we are anxious to meet the general views of the House, and I think our plan succeeds in that.

thought that before proceeding further, and in order that Members might clearly understand the proposal, the New Rule should be printed. The right hon. Gentleman's statement was somewhat complicated, and his proposed alterations might considerably affect the course of the debate. He therefore moved the adjournment of the debate until hon. Members had had an opportunity of seeing the new Government proposals in print.

I cannot say that the hon. Gentleman has received in a very grateful spirit what I conceive to be a real concession. Considering that the Rule as to Questions is not now on, and that no substantial or important change is involved in the present Rule by anything I have said, I hope he will not press his Motion. I will, of course, put upon the Order Paper of the House, before we next discuss the Rule, the scheme which I have foreshadowed to the House. The hon. Gentleman has described it as very obscure and complicated, but I venture to say it is quite simple. At all events, I do not think we ought to waste any more of our time over the discussion of this general question, and I would ask the House to proceed to the consideration of the Rule now before us.

said he desired to ask a question or two arising out of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He understood that it was now proposed to leave out the lines—

"If the business appointed for an afternoon sitting is not disposed of at eight of the clock, the sitting shall be suspended till nine of the clock."

Yes, Sir, that is sure to be discussed. We will have to introduce an Amendment carrying out our view, and when that is put from the Chair it can be discussed.

asked further if it would be within the right of a Member to star his own Question.

Yes, Sir.

asked who was to decide the urgency of the Questions to be put in the five minutes mentioned.

Mr. Speaker.

said he understood the Rule would be set up and could then be discussed.

Everyone must admit the perfect frankness and fairness with which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with this difficult question. What he said was no more than the truth when he referred to the immense interest taken in this particular part of the subject, viz., the Rule of Procedure affecting the putting of Questions. The right hon. Gentleman has proposed a scheme which, in many particulars, is a great improvement on the original proposal of the Government. At the same time, I have a great deal of sympathy with those who are afraid of going on with this particular Rule, which lays down the particular hour and moment at which certain changes will take place. These are part of the plan, and may be considered to be an acceptance by the House of its main principle. Therefore, I think it is not quite fair to ask the House to go on with this particular Rule at this moment until we have had time to see the whole proposal with regard to Questions in print, and until we can appreciate more fully than we can at present how it will work. I do not wish to appear to be picking holes in the proposal until I have seen it, but I think that the House should not now be asked to lay down a Rule as to the particular moment at which we are to begin and leave off work, that being part of the concession which the right hon. Gentleman has made.

said that the House was now asked at once to destroy the formulated plan for Questions. They were asked, to use a homely proverb, to throw away the dirty water before they got in the clean. They had only the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to go on; although he agreed that, at the first glance, the water they were asked to take in, if not clean, was cleaner than that which had hitherto been offered to the House. One most important point in the proposal, to which, however, the right hon. Gentleman only devoted a word or two, was that the surplus of Questions which had been starred, if not reached in the number of minutes which the right hon. Gentleman, for once exercising the functions of a prophet, considered adequate, would not then be susceptible of receiving answers at all, and if the Amendment were adopted the answers would appear only on the Paper. He was not pronouncing a dogmatic opinion as to the propriety of that, but he was jealous in regard to Questions which the interrogators thought were important, and should be answered in a way which would afford the opportunity of asking supplementary Questions, and therefore he was jealous of such Questions being shut out, because the previous Questions had taken all the allotted time. He thought the House ought to have the scheme before it, before it finally determined or adopted it. If hon. Members passed the Motion now, they would be practically agreeing to the right hon. Gentleman's scheme that the residuum of Questions, practically selected by an authority not yet defined, should only be answered on the Paper, and not in the House, and that as to these no supplementary Questions should be possible. It seemed to him that those considerations lent themselves to the view that the Rule under discussion should be adjourned until the House had had an opportunity of seeing and considering the altered proposal. He saw no reason why that should not be done. This change had been resolved on for some time. It had been common gossip that a change was about to be proposed with reference to Questions, and the right hon. Gentleman might at least have put his proposal on the Paper yesterday, thereby giving hon. Members twenty-four hours to consider it. They had, it was true, an admirable explanation from the right hon. Gentleman; but it was a complicated question, which was made more complicated by the fact that they were dealing with a Rule which did not deal ostensibly with Questions at all, but their action on, which would, nevertheless, limit their action in reference to Questions. He strongly supported the Motion.

said that the right hon. Gentleman had certainly made a very considerable advance in his method of dealing with Questions. One of the strongest points made by the right hon. Gentleman was that his proposal would enable due notice of Questions to be given; and he appealed to him to give the House due notice of what it was now asked to discuss. They could not at that moment deal with the concrete and new proposal placed before them. As he understood it, Questions were to be divided into four categories. There were to be the urgent Questions, for which the sacred five minutes or more were to be reserved. There were to be the interesting Questions, to be decided to be such by the Gentlemen at the Table. There were to be the uninteresting Questions; and finally there were to be the outcast Questions, which were not to be answered at all, except by letter. The difficulty, to his mind, would lie in the method of selecting the Questions, and until they had that method before them, it was impossible to decide whether the proposed mode of dealing with Questions was satisfactory or not. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that every hon. Member, in the eyes of the law of the House, was equal—not in his own eyes, perhaps—and that his Questions were equal. It would be a very difficult thing to set up an authority which would satisfy everyone, and which would have to say that one hon. Member's Question was interesting and that another hon. Member's Question was uninteresting. That was a fair subject for discussion, but he wished to point out the great difficulty in which they were placed by the way the Rules were dealt with. There were three separate additions to the Rules, all undecided. Three of the proposed new Rules were half discussed and left half decided, and they were wholly unfitted to add a fourth. Moreover, before the Motion for the adjournment they were not discussing Questions at all, but lines 3 and 4, which proposed that—

"If the business appointed for an afternoon sitting is not disposed of at eight of the clock, the sitting shall be suspended until nine of the clock."

They are not to be replaced by anything.

said he would respectfully suggest that it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman put down on the Paper exactly what he proposed to do with reference to Questions, and also the proposal he meant to make with regard to the selection of Questions. It was not reasonable to ask hon. Members to debate a thing which was thrown at them as if it were only invented that morning. Of course, it was not invented that morning. It was the deliberate work of the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers after due consideration. That being so, the House also ought to be given some time for consideration, and this particular Standing Order ought, therefore, to be postponed.

thought that, under all the circumstances, this particular part of the subject might be adjourned. His right hon. friend had made a very great concession to the wishes of the House; in some respects he had, perhaps, gone too far. He had never been one of those who attached great importance to the large majority of Questions and to having an opportunity of putting them at the opening of business. He thought in many cases it would be more convenient to postpone them to a later period of the sitting. His view generally was that forty minutes was a good deal too long a time for what was described as the asking of Questions. He thought, however, that for Questions of extreme importance more than five minutes might be allowed; but for a right and clear understanding of their position it was desirable that the House should see the whole of this considerable change in print.

said he was lost in amazement at the action of the Leader of the House on this question. The right hon. Gentleman was interested in the speedy passage of these Rules, and yet his action again and again had been of such a character as necessarily to delay their progress. The right hon. Gentleman had been pressed again and again to make a statement on the subject of Questions, because Questions dominated the consideration of a number of other provisions in the Rules. Though the right hon. Gentleman must have been considering his new proposal in respect of Questions, he had hitherto offered no light or guidance to the House on the subject. When the right hon. Gentleman had at last made up his mind to make a new departure, he did not make a statement to the House or allow the change to appear in print, so that the House might be able to consider it before the discussion; but this day he explained what the new scheme was, and asked the House to enter upon its consideration at once, with the result that further time was being wasted in discussing a Motion for the adjournment of the debate on this Rule. Was that the action of a Minister who was anxious to have the Rules brought speedily into force? He invited the light hon. Gentleman to try to be more businesslike in the management of the Rules, and to take the reasonable and practical course of adjourning the consideration of this particular Rule until the House saw it in print.

said that the criticisms and charges which had been levelled at the Government were extremely unreasonable. Complaint was made that the House was in the midst of a discussion of three separate Rules, but the reason of this was that the Government had been anxious to meet the wishes of the House. Again, why were there three additions to them? Because he had been anxious to meet the wishes of the House by introducing certain alterations in the Rules, and by having them reprinted. It was also said that the Government ought to have given notice of the changes. There must be a period at which the House was made acquainted for the first time with a proposal of this kind, and he had selected the time which was most convenient to the House to state orally the general grounds for arriving at the conclusion that a change was desirable and for not putting it on the Notice Paper without comment. That course of action was made a charge against the Government.

You should have made the statement yesterday, and placed the change on the Paper today.

said he thought that would have been most inconvenient. The debate was being carried on on the hypothesis that he was asking the House now to discuss a plan which had been heard for the first time. If that had been the case, he should agree with all the epithets launched at him, but nothing so unreasonable had been done by him. He did not wish, however, to enter upon a contest with the House on the subject, and he would not press the matter farther. He suggested that the House should proceed with the discussion of the Rules relating to Friday sittings, priority of business, and business in Supply.

agreed that it was desirable to postpone this particular Rule and to go on with a discussion of the others as they stood on the Paper.

said he was content for the present to assent to the postponement of this subject.

asked leave to withdraw the Motion for adjournment.

presumed he would be in order in raising the whole question of the merits of Friday as a day for sitting, and as to whether it should be a long or a short sitting.

pointed out that the Standing Order provided for a short sitting on a certain day, and that certain business should be taken at that sitting. The question was whether Friday should be substituted for Wednesday. The hon. Member would be at liberty to propose either Saturday or Sunday instead, but that seemed to be all he could do.

said the House had not decided definitely as to the previous days.

reminded the hon. Member that the House had decided that on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday there should be long day sittings. The Standing Order under discussion provided for a day in the week on which the House should meet at twelve o'clock and certain business have precedence. The only Amendment the Government proposed was that Friday should be substituted for Wednesday, and the only question was whether the day on which the House should meet at noon should be Wednesday or Friday.

was afraid the question was even more restricted since the House had already decided that Wednesday should be a long day.

said that was the reason he had suggested the only course open to the hon. Member was to move the substitution of Saturday or Sunday.

did not propose to suggest either Saturday or Sunday; he simply desired to show that Friday was a bad day on which to meet at twelve o'clock for private business.

said in that case the hon. Member's observations would come in better on the Question "That 'Friday' be there inserted."

contended that Friday was a bad day for a morning sitting day, and that it ought to be kept either as at present, or as an afternoon and evening sitting day. The Government had taken from him Wednesday as a day of rest in the middle of a laborious week—a day on which he could recover from Monday and Tuesday, and prepare for Thursday and Friday. [A laugh.] Hon. Members who smiled probably did not know what it was to fight a Finance Bill day after day, and week after week. To those who did the work entailed by such a task, the Wednesday holiday was very important. That rest, however, had been taken from him, and it was proposed to satisfy him with this mess of pottage—this Friday as a morning sitting. But he did not want Friday as a half holiday; it was of absolutely no use. In fact, he preferred that Friday should be a full Parliamentary day, since it was followed by Saturday and Sunday, on which he could rest. The House had lived through many generations of full Fridays. To those who attended to the business of Supply—of whom he was one—Friday was often a very long and fatiguing day, and, consequently, a very fruitful day. It was on a Friday attention was called to the question of remounts, and on the Saturday the War Office acted on the debate by dismissing, or making an attempt to dismiss the officer responsible, or, at any rate, an inquiry was ordered. Friday was an extremely good and useful day. It probably would not be in order to refer to the proposed transfer of Supply from Friday to Thursday, but even if that change were made, the value of Friday as a long day would remain, because the business then to be dealt with would be private Members' Bills. He, therefore, claimed the support of every private Member in insisting that Friday should not be a short day. The Government also ought to join him in keeping Friday as a long day, because they would then be answering the continual complaints of private Members at their time being taken. The Government would probably suffer more than anybody else by Wednesdays being taken, because they would be deprived of the opportunity for compromise and arrangement which Wednesdays always offered, and they would gain nothing. Wednesday having been taken, it was no compensation to offer him Friday. Wednesday was bread, but Friday was a stone; and he should certainly divide against the proposal.

fully sympathised with the views of the hon. Member for King's Lynn as to the serious injury done to Members by the alteration of the Wednesday half-holiday, and the desirability of Friday being a full day. He had always regarded it as a public scandal that even Saturday should be a holiday. The making of Friday into a short day was simply an enlargement of the "week-end" policy. The Irish Members came to discharge the business of their country, and every day in England was a day away from their homes. It was not right that the time they spent in London should be frittered away for the mere personal convenience of certain hon. Gentlemen. Members should attend and discharge their public trust, and not be society loiterers or "week-end" trippers. This proposal was another evidence of the utter heartlessness and contempt shown by the Government towards everything relating to Ireland, and Irish representatives were simply discarded in the House of Commons. This alteration was not for the convenience of the ordinary Members of the House, but for the convenience of Society men. If they allowed the Government to fritter away the time of the House in this manner, they would be little less than fraudulent trustees. He hoped the hon. Member for King's Lynn would press the matter to a division. (5.17.) The House divided:—Ayes, 192; Noes, 112. (Division List No. 88.)

said the hon. Gentleman had moved his Amendment entirely from the point of view of those who were opposed to private Members legislation. He thought that, from a different point of view, those who were in favour of private Members' legislation would support the Amendment. He admitted that to some extent they were re-arguing a question which had already been argued, but they could not avoid doing so. The fact was that many hon. Members had the strongest opinion against allowing an additional day of the week to become a slack Parliamentary day, when the House of Commons was no longer the House of Commons, and when the House was merely in the hands of a very small and wholly unrepresentative body of Members. Those who desired private Members' legislation might take precisely the same view on this subject as those who were opposed to them. They did not want the opinion of sixty or seventy Members not representing the House as a whole. They wanted to get the real opinion of the House on the subject of any Bill brought forward. He believed the House and the Government themselves would be oppressed by the debating of great Bills on four days running, and they would find the strain more than any one could stand. He would cordially vote for the Amendment.

said a great deal was to be said from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean. He did not say whether he was in favour of or opposed to private Members' legislation, but in either case the legislation should be considered by a full House and by people competent to give an opinion on the question. To allow private Members' Bills to come on when there were sixty or seventy Members in the House was to give an erroneous opinion to the country. It had been asked—Why should not Members come down on Friday? The reason was that they would go away on Thursday. But if Friday was a Government day they would desire to come down, and the Whips would see that they did come down. If they did not come down the Government would take means to secure their attendance. He did not care whether private Members' Bills were taken on Thursday or any other day except Friday, but the object of the Amendment was really to secure a full attendance when these Bills were before the House.

said this Amendment raised the question of the bona fides of some of the new rules. Were they to continue to make this House a business House, or were they to arrange to give Members a long week-end? If Friday was to be the off-day, he was afraid they would have repeated what happened last Wednesday week, when a Bill affecting Friendly Societies was settled by half-past one, and everybody went off for the holidays. The same thing would happen practically every Friday. Under this rule Friday would become a dies non altogether. If Thursday was to be kept for Supply, it would become a slack day also. Members would not come back till late on Monday, and the real business of the House would be done on Tuesday and Wednesday. Looking to the requirements of the country, and to the interests of the ever-growing Empire, it seemed to him strange that they should strive to make the Rules such as to give a minimum of time to the work of the House.

said he had a similar Amendment on the Paper, his proposal being that private Members' Bills should be taken on Wednesday. He believed in the utility of private Members' Bills, and he desired to see those Bills discussed at a sitting when they would be properly considered by a full House, and not at the end of the week when Members would not be in attendance. If the Government took the Friday morning sitting, a comparatively full House could be secured by their Whips for Government business, and in exchange they could give on another day earlier in the week a morning sitting to private Members. He pointed out that if either Amendment were adopted, private Members would have to sacrifice an hour of the time which they would have under the proposal of the Government. Therefore, by accepting the Amendment, the Government would actually gain time for their own business. He hoped the Leader of the House would take this into consideration.

said he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Peckham, who had put the whole thing before the House with perfect clearness and force. The business time of the House would be whittled down to two days a week. The great difference between the private Member's day and the Government day was that there was pressure on the Government time but none on the other; and therefore on the private Members' day a great number of Members of the House would make it a holiday, whereas if Government business was put down for the day the Government would see that there was a proper attendance and the darling week end, which was the great object of the new Rules, would be equally secured, as the House would rise at six and hon. Members could go away to their enjoyment. That would at least keep up the work of the House through the week with something like regularity, whereas if private Members' business was to be relegated to Friday that would be simply a dies non. He hoped the Government would appoint some other day for private Members' business and take Friday for themselves.

said they were not now discussing whether the Parliamentary week-end was a good or a bad change. The only question before the House was whether private Members' business should be taken at a twelve o'clock sitting or not. It was perfectly immaterial whether the afternoon sitting should be taken on a Friday, or Thursday, or any other day. He admitted that under the existing Wednesday Rules, private Members had been able to pass into law certain measures which were sober, useful, and harmless. It had been contended by the supporters of the Amendment that a House could not be got to sit on a Friday, and that therefore it would be better to devote some other day of the week to the work of the consideration of private Members' Bills. He denied that the House would decline to sit on Friday, but if it did decline to sit on that day it would be much better to decline to sit on private Members' Bills than on Government Bills or on Supply put down for such a day. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that that was a matter which could be determined by the issue of a Government Whip. But the House of Commons represented the country, and the Government could not control the Opposition, and he did not know that they had any great desire to do so. He supposed that the idea of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was that on Friday the Government would take Supply. He was constantly being told that private business was more important than Supply; but his content on was that it would be easier to get a big House on Friday to discuss a private Member's Bill than a big House to discuss Estimates which did not excite any wide interest. There was also this great difference between private Members' and Government business, that it could be foreseen for the whole session what private Members' Bills were to be brought on on a particular day, whereas it was impossible for the Government to say a long time beforehand, what was the business they would take on a particular day. His hon. friend the mover of the Amendment spoke for men of business whose private avocations called them out of London, and he said that there would be a temptation for them to go out of town on the Thursday night or the Friday morning, if Friday were made the private Members' day. But if his hon. friend and those Members who were in his position were going to make engagements for Fridays throughout the session it was obvious that they could not be in the House on Fridays to either oppose or support the Government business, and that they would not be able to make any arrangements for a long time beforehand, in view of some important Government proposal—such as a vote of censure or a big Bill. But with private Members' business the case was entirely different. His hon. friend, and others with him, would say that on such and such a Friday, such and such a faddist was going to introduce a revolutionary measure, and they would make arrangements by which, he had no doubt, they would defeat it. Was it not much better, by appointing Friday as private Members' day, that the business of the final day of the Parliamentary week should be capable of being foreseen a long way ahead, and that every preparation should be accordingly made for the properly handling and discussing—and if need be throwing out by an exemplary majority—of any faddist proposals? He did not know that he need labour the point much more, but he did not think that the House would willingly entertain a change of a system which went far beyond the Parliamentary recollection of any of them, and which gave to the twelve o'clock sitting the discussion of private Members' business. He did not dwell on the fact that the continuity of Government business would be interfered with; but he did think that, not only for the reasons he had stated, but in accordance with the wishes of the great mass of the Members of the House, they had better, on the whole, adhere to ancient tradition in this matter and devote that day on which they met at twelve o'clock to private Members' business.

said that the First Lord of the Treasury had told the House that the selection of the private Members' business was not satisfactory at the present moment. That was quite true, but under the proposed new Rules, not only would the selection be unsatisfactory, but the discussion thereupon would be also unsatisfactory. They would now have four long sittings together up to twelve or one o'clock each night, and after that it was absurd to expect hon. Members to come down to the House to discuss private Members' legislation. If this proposed change took place the right of private Members to initiate legislation would be lost entirely, and Friday would be a wasted day. This arrangement was not fair to those who lived a long way from London, and why should this change be made simply to enable those who lived near London to enjoy themselves? The right hon. Gentleman said that they should not change an immemorial custom.

I did not say that. I said that I thought that the House would object to it.

said that it was now proposed to change an immemorial custom. Private Members often initiated most important legislation, and they had done so even during the present session. Under the changed condition of affairs private Members would come down on Fridays to a skeleton House to discuss matters of interest with about forty or sixty hon. Members present, and the remainder of the hon. Members of the House would be away enjoying themselves.

said that it was proposed to relegate private Members' day to Friday; he should support the Amendment, although he should be perfectly willing to meet the right hon. Gentleman if he suggested any other day but Friday. The First Lord of the Treasury said that it would be much easier to keep a House for a private Members' Bill than for Government business on Friday.

I never said that, or anything that could be so interpreted. I think the right hon. Gentleman must be referring to the statement which I made that we could easily foresee private Members' business, but we could not foresee for a long period what business the Government would take. Therefore private Members could easily make their arrangements earlier.

did not think that it was at all desirable that private Members' business should be relegated to Fridays. His right hon. friend had given a very amusing description of the Bills of private Members, but with all due respect to the First Lord of the Treasury he would say that he had known a good many very useful and well drawn measures introduced by private Members, some of which had actually been taken up by the Government of the day. A great many useful little Bills could often be introduced by private Members, such as the Sparks Bill, and if this change were carried it would be difficult for private Members to secure a House for Bills of that particular kind. He hoped his right hon. friend would reconsider his decision upon this point. This was not a Party question, and there was no doubt that the rights and privileges of private Members would be very seriously injured by the Rules which were now being submitted. If the First Lord of the Treasury would not make a concession upon this point, he hoped the private Members of the House of Commons would take courage and assert their own rights and privileges and carry this Amendment by a large majority.

said that most of the speeches of hon. Members opposite had been in favour of the Amendment of hon. Member for Manchester, and that showed how they regarded as a whole these new Procedure Rules. He supported this Amendment, however, upon very different grounds. The idea of these alterations was the long week-end, and that was the great goal which the right hon. Gentleman sought to secure. It seemed to him that if this Amendment were carried the right hon. Gentleman would have to drop the whole of his new Rules because, without the long week-end, the now Rules would be entirely worthless. The supporters of this change seemed to be divided into three classes, the golfers, the Whips and the week-enders, and it was to meet the wishes of these three separate classes that these alterations had been proposed. The change would at once create slack Fridays, when there would be a poor attendance and the measures would be inadequately discussed in a very thin House. The right hon. Gentleman's argument upon this point was worthless because Supply was Government business, and could the First Lord of the Treasury argue that the attendance during the discussion of Supply had been in-adequate and insufficient? The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that they always had full Houses on Fridays, and the attendance was more than adequate to discuss Supply. He had no hesitation in saying that the Whips would guarantee the right hon. Gentleman a House on Fridays if he accepted this Amendment. Some of the most useful legislation which had been passed by the House had been initiated in consequence of the efforts of private Members upon Wednesdays. They would by this change also place the various Committees in a very difficult position, because those Committees would be called upon to discuss a Bill perhaps passed by a very small House and which might not receive the support of the majority of the House. He urged the Government not to throw away Friday. He agreed with the statement which had just been made, that while they were in London they ought to put in as much work as they could. This would probably be the longest session on record, and yet they were now being asked to sacrifice six hours of their Parliamentary time every week in order to allow certain hon. Members to go into the country.

did not think the Leader of the House had even yet grasped what was involved in this proposal. It was well known that he (Mr. Stuart Wortley) was one of those who had objected to this change from Wednesday to Friday in the first instance. But the Government had got their way, and having got their way, they were under an obligation to go as far as they could towards securing the efficiency of the Friday sitting. When the right hon. Gentleman said there was no difference between a private Members' day and a Government day he denied that which was patent to all. It was perfectly well known that some of the largest attendances had been on Fridays. The Government, by putting down the Foreign Office Vote or the Colonial Office Vote, practically challenged the Opposition to use their opportunity or forego it for the rest of the session, and on such Friday evenings they had secured an exceptionally large attendance. Another thing which the right hon. Gentleman ignored was that if they had private Members' Bills on Fridays, and had a thin attendance in the House, it tended to reduce the whole proceedings to the level of irresponsibility, and afforded the Government a loophole which they ought not to have of disclaiming responsibility for giving the House a lead by expressing their opinions on Bills. From the Government the infection would spread right through the House, and the result would be that everybody present would salve his conscience by the feeling that the decision given was so irresponsible, that at its future stages such a Bill might, without discredit, be passively obstructed or conveniently shelved. That was not a situation in which the House should be placed. He would support the Amendment.