I gave notice to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that I would ask him whether he had any information to give to the House in regard to events in South Africa.

Lord Kitchener has informed me that the Transvaal representatives, namely, Messrs. Schalk Burger, Krogh, Jacobs, Van Walden, Reitz, and Lucas Meyer have reached Klerksdorp, and that they have been joined there by Commandant General Botha. Mr. Steyn and Commandant General De Wet, with General Delarey and three members of the late Orange Free State Government, have also proceeded to Klerksdorp, where the arrived yesterday. No communications have been received from the Boer leaders except in relation to the grant of safe conduct to those taking part in the conference.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government propose to banish Mr. Schalk Burger and those who have accompanied him after their period of safe conduct expires, and will he state how long that period has still to run.

I do not know whether safe conduct has been given for any fixed period, but it will no doubt be extended so long as the negotiations are in progress. At its; close the delegates will be entitled to return to their respective districts, and no question of banishment will arise at this stage.

Shall I be in order in asking a supplementary Question?

That depends upon what it is.

Then I will ask whether, after Mr. Schalk Burger and his colleagues have returned through our lines, they will be subject to banishment should they again fall into our hands.

If the proclamation remains in force.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state how many rifles and carbines have been supplied to His Majesty's troops for use in South Africa since 1st September, 1899, including the weapons in the hands of the troops stationed in South Africa at that date, and approximately how many rounds of small arm ammunition of all sorts have been supplied to the troops for use in South Africa.

The figures are roughly about 450,000 rifles and carbines, and about 240,000,000 of rounds of small arm ammunition.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the total number of men of all branches of the Army sent to South Africa from the United Kingdom, the Colonies, and India since the commencement of the war to the 1st of the present month.

A Return giving this information up to the 1st January was presented in February. I cannot undertake to publish another Return at present.

Can the noble Lord say about what proportion of the men have been on active service in South Africa during the past two years?

No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government have a record of the numbers of coloured persons killed or wounded while serving with His Majesty's troops in South Africa; and, if so, will he supply the House with the figures.

No, Sir.

Will the information be obtained?

No, Sir.

Cannot it be obtained?

Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been answered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Vicomte de Villebois Mareuil has received from the War Office a refusal to his application for permission to take out to the Boers in South Africa an ambulance with its staff and accessories; and will he state in what instances, if any, have similar requests met with refusals; and, if so, what have been the reasons for such refusals.

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. As regards the rest of the Question, similar requests have been received from foreign Red Cross Societies, and have been refused for the reasons named in the letter to the Vicomte de Villebois Mareuil which has been made public.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will now give details of the fighting at Sutherland, Cape Colony, which according to the casualty lists took place on the 24th March; and why have these details been withheld from the public.

No details of this skirmish have been forwarded from South Africa. The hon. Member has no right to suggest that anything has been withheld by the War Office.

Can the noble Lord inform me whether any details of the engagement have appeared anywhere, as I have been looking out for them?

I do not know that details have appeared. I only know that no details have been forwarded by Lord Kitchener from South Africa.

Is the noble Lord aware that a series of casualties have been reported as having occurred on March 24th, and that details have not been published?

Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been fully answered.

In a most unsatisfactory way.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what were the constitution and duties of the Bushveldt Carbineers, two of whose officers were tried by court-martial, sentenced to death, and executed for twelve murders of Boers; and will he explain why, having regard to the fact that this regiment was made up of time-expired men, the services of these men, when willing to continue in the auxiliary forces, were not retained in the corps to which they originally belonged.

This corps was raised in South Africa for military service during the war, and was employed on military duty in the northern district of the Transvaal. It was composed, I understand, partly of local men and partly of men who had finished their period of service or who belonged to colonial corps which had ceased to exist.

Why were not these men allowed to continue with their own corps, which in many cases had not ceased to exist?

But the corps had ceased to exist.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that several copies of the Cork Examiner, addressed to various persons at Cape Town, have not been received by the addressees; and that for some months past no copies have reached the hands of those to whom they have been sent in Cape Colony; and whether any, and if so what, steps have been taken to suppress the circulation of this newspaper in South Africa.

I have no information as to the circumstances alluded to.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, on sending out the form for Returns to the Board of Agriculture this year, he will enclose with it a description of the various types of horses required for Army purposes, and provide a column on the Return so that the number that may be available can be tabulated.

The method suggested by the hon. Member is not, I think, the best which could be devised for the purpose; but I am, of course, most anxious to afford the farmers every opportunity of supplying the demands of the War Office. But before any adequate arrangements can be made for increasing the supply of horses, it is necessary to know precisely what the War Office requires. The next Question of the hon. Member on the Paper asks for that information.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State, for War whether he will publish a circular containing a full description of all horses required for Army purposes, and have it distributed from every rural post office or otherwise, so that it may reach the farmers and horse-breeders of the British Isles.

The question is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it has been brought to his notice that hardship has arisen in connection with the allotment of pay to the families in this country of those soldiers who have enlisted in South Africa for the various local irregular corps; and whether he will see that instructions are issued to the Pay Department in South Africa to transfer a soldier's credit, whether he be serving in a regular or an irregular corps, in order that his family may not be left destitute.

Arrangements have been made, so far as is practicable, for regular remittances for these men. If the hon. Member can give me any special cases of hardship, I will have them investigated.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that a lance corporal in the Engineers at Gibraltar was ordered by a sergeant to remove from his cap a sprig of shamrock on St. Patrick's day; whether this instruction was consequently cancelled by the Commanding Officer; and whether the sergeant has been censured for his conduct.

I am not aware of the incident referred to.

Will the noble Lord inquire?

No, Sir.

In view of the fact that Her late Majesty directed that permission should be given for the wearing of the shamrock, is this not a proper matter for inquiry?

Every soldier has a proper and legitimate way of bringing his grievances before his Commanding Officer.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Volunteer recruits are to be clothed in the old pattern of uniform similar to the rest of the regiment, or the new pattern as altered by the Department; and also will he say when definite orders on this subject will be issued to the Commanding Officers of Volunteer Corps.

No change is contemplated in the uniform of Volunteers unless they desire it and wish to adopt the new service dress, which would no doubt be sanctioned if the Commanding Officer applied through the usual channels, and if the funds of the corps would meet the expense.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the advisability of giving to acting sergeant majors of Volunteer battalions the same permanent rank as is now enjoyed by sergeant majors of Militia battalions.

The matter has been frequently considered, and it has not been thought desirable to grant any higher rank.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that ashes from the brass foundry and rolling mills of the Royal Laboratory and other factories at Woolwich were for some time disposed of free of charge for making roads and making up ground in the Arsenal generally; that later an offer was made by a firm of contractors, and accepted, to take and remove all the ashes at the rate of 3s. 4d. per ton, and that the same contractor, at a later date, contracted to pay £5 17s. 6d. and £6 2s. 6d. for similar ashes; and whether he can state the name of the officer or officers responsible for the disposal of these ashes at the time of these transactions.

This question will come before the Public Accounts Committee, and I am, therefore, not prepared to discuss it at the present time.

Is nothing to be done to stop this extraordinary waste?

I shall put down a Question on this.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, although in the New Army Scheme of 1901 Colchester, which possesses rifle ranges and training grounds, was selected as the headquarters of the Fourth Army Corps, in the scheme of 1902 London has been substituted for Colchester; and, if so, whether he will state the reasons which have induced the Government to deprive Colchester of its position as headquarters of the Eastern District.

London was considered a more central locality for the headquarters of the 4th Army Corps than Colchester.

Is not this a departure from the original scheme of last year?

No, Sir, it is carrying it out.

I bog to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office will prepare model plans and specifications of safety ranges, and a statement of the necessary restrictions and regulations, which could be supplied to those engaged in starting rifle clubs; and whether some officer possessing special knowledge of the subject could be appointed, to whom the managers of proposed rifle clubs might apply for advice and assistance.

The instructions for miniature and safety ranges issued last month give directions for their construction. Secretaries of rifle clubs should apply to General Officers Commanding Districts for any further information they may require. The War Department accepts no responsibility regarding the safety of a civilian rifle club range; the question of such a range being or becoming a public nuisance is one for the legal advisers of the club.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Imperial (government has given any order for British Columbian coal to be supplied to the fleet upon the North Pacific station during the present year.

Orders for the supply of British Columbian coal for the Pacific Squadron were given in 1901, and it is proposed to give a further order during the present year.

Can the hon. Gentleman say for how many tons of coal the contract of 1901 was made?

I think, the contract was for between 3,000 to 4,000 tons; and a new contract will be made for the year 1902.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Greenwich pensions payable to the widows, orphans, and dependent relatives of those seamen and marines who were lost in H.M.S. "Condor" will be on the same scale as the Government pensions awarded to the widows and orphans of soldiers who lost their lives in the South African campaign; and whether, seeing that no public appeal on behalf of the "Condor" sufferers is being made, the Government will represent to the Royal Patriotic Commissioners the desirability of their supplementing these Greenwich pensions from the un expended surplus funds in their possession subscribed by the public for kindred purposes.

The Greenwich Hospital allowances for which the widows and orphans of those lost in the "Condor" are eligible are on a lower scale than the Government pensions awarded to the widows and orphans of men whose deaths are due to the warlike operations in South Africa. The administration of the Patriotic Fund is altogether independent of the Government, but if there be any individual cases of special urgency, they will no doubt receive consideration from the Commissioners if brought under their notice in the ordinary way.

The hon. Gentleman has not quite answered the Question. I asked him whether the Admiralty intended to raise the Greenwich pensions to the level of those now established by the Government for the widows and orphans of men killed in South Africa?

There is no present intention of making any alteration. The hon. Member, I think, is under a mistake. The Navy pensions are not for widows and orphans of men who have lost their lives in action. The are pensions of a different character, peculiar to the Navy.

Am I to understand that the Admiralty appraises the loss of a life at a lower price than the Army?

Order, order!

Why is it that the dependents of the sailors on the "Condor" do not get the same recompense, seeing that they lost their lives in the service of the State?

Order, order! The hon. Member is arguing the question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether a Departmental Committee has been appointed to consider and report on naval prize law, and, if so, whether that committee is empowered to consider and to recommend alterations in the Law of Nations; whether the Admiralty or the Cabinet Committee of Defence will be consulted by the Committee; and whether he will undertake that, before His Majesty's Government commits itself to any alteration in the Law of Nations, a statement of such alteration shall be laid before this House, and an opportunity given for its discussion.

An inter-Departmental Committee has been appointed to discuss the question of the preparation of a digest of the leading cases in naval prize law for the use of Colonial Prize Courts and the revision of the instructions to Navy officers on the question of prizes. The Committee are not empowered to consider or recommend alterations in the Law of Nations.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the dates upon which the contracts with the two remaining originally guaranteed Indian Railways, the Madras Railway Company, and the Bombay and Baroda and Central Indian Railway Company, will terminate; and whether, when these railway companies are taken over by the Government, the terms of purchase will be similar to those in the case of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company; will he say what have been the total sums of capital expended on these two railway systems, and what are the amounts of the arrears due from each in respect of interest or other outlay drawn from public revenues in sustaining the obligations of the guarantors; whether these arrears can be adjusted by discount off the purchase price when the two companies are finally taken, over; and whether precautions will be taken to safeguard the Indian Revenues and taxpayers when the settlement is made.

The dates are 31st December, 1905, and 31st December, 1907, respectively. The terms of purchase are laid down in the contracts. The total sums of capital expended on the two systems up to the 31st March, 1901, were as follows:—Bombay, Baroda, and Central Indian, £10,397,910; Madras, £11,607,973. As I stated on the 7th August last, the Government of India, by a contract, in 1870 gave up all claim to repayment of advances of interest, in exchange for the right of the companies to more than half the surplus profits. In all these arrangements the interests of the Indian taxpayer have been and will be fully considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can now state, or will state at an early date, the total list of casualties to British and Indian troops from all causes during the recent blockade operations in Waziristan. I would also ask the noble Lord whether, having regard to the arduous and successful nature of the operations, he will be prepared to recommend that a clasp be added to the Frontier Medal for the Waziristan blockade.

The total casualties from all causes during the recent blockade operations in Waziristan were:—From commencement of passive blockade to November 22nd last—Native ranks, 38 killed or died of wounds, 20 wounded, 169 died of sickness; during active operations, November 23rd to end of blockade—British officers, one died of wounds, four wounded, none died of sickness; native ranks, 29 killed or died of wounds, 105 wounded, 236 died of sickness. In reply to the supplementary Question, I have to say that I am not surprised that he should raise the question of the grant of a clasp for these operations, having regard to their duration and the soldierly qualities displayed by the troops engaged in them, and the matter will be carefully considered. But I am not prepared to express an opinion in advance until I have received from the Government of India their recommendations.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that many of the mud huts provided by the Government of India for the native soldiers have doorways only four feet high, opening into a room eight feet square, with the springing of the ceiling barely six feet from the floor, and that these rooms are devoid of either light or ventilation; that the mud hut in which the native officer is located consists of two small rooms, one of which is used as his office and bedroom combined, whilst the other is occupied by his wife and family and is without light or ventilation; and will he say whether arrangements can be made for the better housing of the native troops.

The authorised accommodation for a native commissioned officer in Bengal, Punjab, and Bombay consists of two rooms providing a floor area of 220 square feet, with a cook-house, a stable, and an open courtyard. The height of the roof varies from twelve to fourteen feet. For the rank and file each man is provided with accommodation to the extent of sixty square feet, the roof being from twelve to fourteen feet high. Married men are provided with rooms of larger size. In Madras the space allowed is somewhat greater. The dimensions are now adhered to in all buildings constructed at the expense of the State.

Will the noble Lord inquire if the facts are not as stated in the Question?

I understand they are not.

Then I will furnish the noble Lord with information.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state what is the exact amount of the proportion of the special bounty to time-expired men to be paid by India, and what the amount of the saving to India on transport which the retention of these men effects.

The exact amount of the proportion of the special bounty to time-expired men to be paid by India is one half. The amount of the saving to India on transport which the retention of these men effects cannot be stated exactly, but it is roughly estimated at, £10 per man.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Midlothian, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the field and Colonial allowances and rations which the officers of the 2nd Bengal Infantry drew when serving in Shanghai and Hong Kong have been stopped now that they are on service in Northern China; and, in view of the fact that the officers of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers serving in the same district receive extra pay, whether he will consider the advisability of placing officers of the Indian Staff Corps and British service on the same footing when; serving together away from India.

Officers in Northern China receive a free issue of fuel and lighting and also free quarters or an allowance in lieu. This is in place of the allowance granted to the officers at Shanghai and Hong Kong to defray the extra cost of living in those places. The rates of pay ordinarily drawn by Indian Staff Corps officers are calculated on a much higher scale than the pay of British Service officers, and are intended to cover the contingencies of extra service.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state when the Indian Budget Papers will be placed before Parliament, and by what date the issue may be expected of the Explanatory Memorandum relating to the Financial Statement placed before the Supreme Legislative Council at Calcutta on 21st March; and will the total figures in that Memorandum be expressed in tens of rupees (Rx.) so that comparison can be made between the current Financial Statement and those of 1900 or previous years.

Copies of the Financial Statement in India, and of the debate thereon, may be expected in time to be laid before Parliament in the second week of May. The Explanatory Memorandum will, it is hoped, be ready towards the end of June or early in July. It will not be prepared in tens of rupees, but in pounds, as on the last two occasions, so that, by means of the Returns of Income and Expenditure, the figures can be readily compared with those for any year from 1888–9 onwards.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the fact that pigs dying of disease at Hong Kong are disinterred and used as food, will he state whether the authorities in the Colony have taken any steps to enforce the destruction by fire of the car cases of all pigs which are unfit for human food.

An incinerator was sent to the Colony last August, so that the diseased pigs to which the hon. Member refers can now be cremated.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information as to the cause of the rioting in Jamaica; and whether he has any report indicating a renewal of the disturbances.

The Acting Governor has stated in a telegram that the whole matter was, in his opinion, an anti-police riot, but I must await a full report by mail. The latest telegram received yesterday stated that as far as then reported all was quiet and no further trouble probable.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has received communication of a new treaty between Russia and China providing for the evacuation of Manchuria; and whether he can state when the evacuation will begin.

His Majesty's Minister has reported that a Convention relating to Manchuria has been signed. Its terms have not been officially communicated to His Majesty's Government, but we understand that it provides for partial evacuation within six months and for complete withdrawal within eighteen months from the date of the signature.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect that the United States Government have passed an Act in relation to exports of hemp from the Philippines, whereby a preferential rate has been enacted in favour of America; and, if so, whether, in view of the effects on the rope and other trades in this country by reason of such preferential rates, he purposes making any friendly representation to the United States Government; and whether, at the time the Philippines were annexed by the United States Government, His Majesty's Government sought for any assurance that no preferential rates would be imposed which would be detrimental to any old established trades between this country and the Philippines.

There is no preference given in the Philippine Islands in respect of the duty on hemp exported to the United States; but all articles, the growth or produce of those islands, coming thence into the United States, pay only 75 per cent. of the United States Customs duties, and in the ease of such of those articles as are required to pay export duty in the Archipelago, a further abatement is allowed equivalent to that duty. The combined effect of these arrangements upon hemp is that, in order to reach the United States market, it has to pay twice as much duty as it has to pay in order to reach our market. I shall be happy to furnish the hon. Gentleman with the figures if he wishes for them. The answer to the last Question is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners have yet made arrangements for the placing of lights on the five buoys which indicate the channel off Avoch, Ross-shire.

The Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses have proposed a scheme for four lighted buoys and one lighted beacon for marking the channel off Avoch, Ross-shire. A determination upon this proposal will be arrived at without delay.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total quantity of pit wood imported into the United Kingdom and into Bristol Channel ports respectively in 1891, and also the total quantity of iron ore imported into Bristol Channel ports last year.

The total quantity of pit props or pitwood imported into the United Kingdom in 1901 was 1,879,810 loads. The total quantity imported into Bristol Channel ports was 1,014,900 loads. The total quantity of iron ore imported into the United Kingdom and into Bristol Channel ports in 1901 was 5,548,888 tons and 1,091,494 tons respectively.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the exports of anthracite and bituminous coal from the United States of America to Europe in February last, and in the corresponding month of 1891, and up to any later date for which information is available.

There were no exports of authracite coal from the United States to Europe during February last or during February 1901. The quantity of bituminous coal exported from the United States to Europe during February last was 19,678 tons, and during February 1901, 41,441 tons.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been drawn to the resolution unanimously passed by the Essex County Council against the use of the hospital ships for smallpox cases, and urging (if they must be retained) that they should be used only for convalescent cases; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.

I understand that the Essex County Council have passed a resolution on this subject. The number of smallpox cases under treatment is still very large, and, as I stated in reply to a Question of my hon. and gallant friend in January last, I do not propose to interfere with the discretion of the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District as to the use of the hospital ships. The managers are endeavouring to provide adequate hospital accommodation on the land, but I cannot at present say that it will be found practicable to restrict the use of the ships to convalescent cases only.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a petition was recently forwarded by the London branch of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association, on behalf of the junior section of its members, with a request that the reply might be communicated to the secretary of that organisation, and that the branch secretary has now been informed that, as the matter referred to in the petition does not directly concern himself, the reply cannot be communicated to him; and whether, in view of the repeated assurances given to this House that Post Office employees enjoy all the rights of combination, he will direct that the reply he forwarded to the elected officer of the organisation presenting it.

The facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the Question. The Postmaster General has repeatedly announced that, whilst he is ready to receive representations under proper conditions from any servants of the Department on matters in which they are themselves directly concerned, he is unable to entertain representations made by any person on behalf of another unless the interests of both are substantially the same. He is not prepared to depart from this position; and no question as to the right of "combination" appears to be involved.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the Secretary of the General Post Office recently decided that two postmen should be employed in bringing letter and parcel mails to and from railway stations where the weight is 200 lb., and whether, in view of the fact that loads over this weight are still conveyed in Ireland by one postman, he will have this decision published in the Post Office Circular as an official order.

If the hon. Member will say to what Post Office, or Post Offices, this question refers, the Postmaster General will have inquiry made into the matter and acquaint him with the result.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to a letter, dated 26th September 1901, from the telegraph staff at Sheffield, referring to the Secretary's paper No. 338,733/01, asking for a Return of the number of instances where the rest interval, as recommended by the Tweedmouth Commission, had been encroached upon between 1st June and 11th July 1901; and whether, in the light of that Return, which has now been obtained, the caution administered to certain officers will be erased from their records.

The letter in question was duly received, together with the Return asked for; but no sufficient reason was seen for erasing from the records the caution administered to certain officers who absented themselves from duty without first obtaining permission from the proper quarter.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, having regard to the petition of the telegraph staff at Sheffield to His Majesty's Postmaster. General, dated 24th September 1901, on the subject of the shortness of male staff at that office, he will state what steps, if any, have been taken to ameliorate the grievances therein complained of.

A revision of staff at Sheffield was under consideration when the petition referred to reached the Postmaster General, and it has since been carried into effect, with the result that a considerable addition has been made to the numbers of established officers; and it is expected that as soon as all the vacancies have been filled, the duties will be placed on a satisfactory footing.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster: General, whether it is the intention of the Department to take any action toward obtaining any comfort for the postmen at the Eastern Central District Office with regard to their retiring room, on account of the state and inadequacy of space of the rooms referred to and the health of the men concerned; and, whether, in view of the length of time since the Tweed mouth Committee condemned the whole of the Old General Post Office, and that matters have become worse owing to the increase of the staff, he can take steps to expedite some extra provision for these men.

The retiring room accommodation for the postmen in the Eastern Central District Office is being considerably enlarged, and the additional space will be ready for occupation in a few days. The conditions of the General Post Office, East, have been materially altered since the date of the Tweed mouth Committee. There has been no increase of staff, but the force occupying it has been reduced by about one half.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is the intention of the Postmaster General that Coronation Day shall be observed as a Sunday in the provincial telegraph and postal hours of duty.

Coronation Day will be observed as a Bank Holiday in all provincial Post Offices.

But that will not relieve the telegraphists.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the continually increasing arrears of causes in the Court of Appeal, which at the beginning of the present sittings amounted to 427, and also to the similar increase of causes in the King's Bench Division; and whether the Government will take into consideration the desirability of either increasing the strength of the judicature, or of decreasing the length of the Long Vacation, in order that judicial a rears may be overtaken within a reasonable time.

It is the fact that the causes in the Court of Appeal are considerably in arrears. This is in great measure due to the large amount of additional work which has boon thrown on to Courts of Appeal by recent legislation, and to exceptional causes in the past, which have now ceased to operate. The question what measures should be taken is under consideration. As regards the King's Bench Division, I am informed that the condition of business there is better than it has been for a considerable time. The cases pending before the Divisional Court, and in bankruptcy, should be finished in the course of these sittings, and the number of cases for trial is due to fluctuations in the number of entries which from time to time occur.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Congested Districts Board can see their way to accede to the request of the Ross and Cromarty County Council for a grant in aid of the cost of construction of a bridge over Applecross river.

I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that, upon consideration, they were of opinion that the bridge referred to by the hon. Member was not of such a character that it ought to be provided for by them.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many seizures have been made in the years 1899, 1900, and 1901, respectively, of illicit stills in each of the following police districts of the Castlebar (County Mayo) police division, viz., Pontoon, Tarlough, and Bally vary; how many convictions have been obtained in each district in each year; what was the amount of the fines imposed in each district each year; what was the amount of the rewards received by the police for the discovery of such stills; and could he give the names of the constables who made the discoveries.

The information desired will take some little time to collect; it will be communicated to the hon. Member when received. I cannot, however, in the public interests, consent to give the names of the members of the force who made the seizures.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can yet state when the prosecution will take place of the Orange rioters at Dromore, County Down; what explanation is forthcoming of the delay in bringing to justice the two men who have been identified; and whether it is intended that the prosecutions will take place under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act.

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask what foundation, if any, there is for the slanderous imputations on the Orange Society, contained in the Question, by the reference to "Orange rioters"?

I have already stated that the delay in taking proceedings in this case is entirely due to the extraordinary reluctance of the parties most concerned to identify their assailants or give assistance to the police. The papers are now in the hands of the Crown Solicitor, who has been instructed to institute proceedings on a charge of riot, under the ordinary law, against a number of persons at the next petty sessions at Ban bridge on the 17th instant. So far as I am aware, from the information before me, there is no foundation whatever for the statement in the Question that the persons who engaged in the rioting on this occasion were Orangemen.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Normoyle case the Crown prosecuted those who refused to identify the persons supposed to have assaulted them? Why is not the same course taken in the North of Ireland?

That is absolutely inaccurate and without the slightest foundation.

Is it not a fact that the Chief Secretary, in replying to a Question put by me, stated that two of these persons had been identified?

Yes, and I have said that they will be prosecuted with others on the 17th inst.

Is it not true that such terrorism is exercised over these people that they are afraid to prosecute?

The Attorney General has said that it is absolutely inaccurate that the Normoyles were prosecuted. Were they not, as a matter of fact, sent to prison for contempt?

Yes.

Well, why not take the same course now?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government will invite Secretary Hay, United States, to attend the Conference of Colonial Premiers to be held during the Coronation festivities.

The conference to which the hon. Gentleman refers only concerns the affairs of the British Empire, and no foreign representatives will be invited.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of recent decisions of the Law Courts excluding women from the exercise of public functions, unless the contrary is expressly provided by Act of Parliament, he will state whether women will be eligible, under the Education Bill, to serve as nominated Members of education committees; and, if not, whether he will undertake to make such alteration as will confer upon women this privilege.

I suppose the hon. Gentleman's Question is due to the fact that women are not specifically mentioned in the first clause. The clause was not so drawn with a view to excluding women—quite the contrary. There is always apt to be some confusion in the Bill unless the word is introduced throughout. The wording amply covers the case of women, and it is certainly contemplated that women should take their full share in the work of education

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state what are the proposals of the Government as to the time at which private business is to be taken for the remainder of this session after the new Rules of Procedure have come into operation; when the Committee on Private Bill Legislation is likely to be appointed; and if the question of the cost of such legislation will be included in the reference to them.

It would be premature to say what decision the House will come to on the new Standing Order proposed by the Government; but the intention of the Standing Order is that private business should take place at other sittings than the afternoon sittings of Mondays. Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, and the Standing Order is so drawn. As regards the Committee to which my hon. friend refers. I shall ask the House to appoint it as soon as it has assented to the group of Rules on which we are now engaged.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the chief part of my Question. Does he mean by "other sittings" the evening or afternoon sittings?

I was very specific in my answer. At present, under the existing Rules, private business may come on on any day of the week, including Wednesday. The Standing Order does not propose to alter the present procedure as regards the Wednesday sitting, because that is now transferred to Friday. The intention of the Rule is that afternoon sittings on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday shall not be interfered with by private Bill procedure, and does not affect any other sitting of the House.

We are to understand then that private business is to be relegated either to evening sittings or to the private Members' day on Friday?

I am afraid I lack lucidity to-day. I have stated to the House as clearly as I can that the Rule on the Paper protects the four afternoon sittings on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. It does not protect any other sitting of the House.

Is it the intention of the Government to make any proposal defining the day on which private business might be taken?

It is in the Rules as printed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the Question which refers to the cost of private Bill legislation?

It is surely rather premature to discuss the reference to the Committee until the time has come for the Committee to be appointed; but I shall be very glad to consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, or any other suggestion from other parts of the House.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that, in consequence of the debates on four separate Amendments standing in his name to the Standing Orders having been adjourned, the consideration therefore remains incomplete of the Standing Order entitled Sittings of the House, of the Standing Order entitled Order in Debate, of the proposed new Standing Order entitled Second and Third Readings, and of the proposed new Standing Order Priority of Business; whether he will state which one of these four adjourned debates will be resumed when the Procedure of the House is next put down on the Paper; and whether he can now say, or, if not, when he expects to be able to say, on what day the debate on Procedure will be resumed. The hon. Member asked the First Lord to answer the Question so far as he had not already done so.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me which part has not been answered.

We were told yesterday that, after the Rule then under discussion had been disposed of, the Supply Rule would be proceeded with. That is not in accordance with what is on the Paper.

I think the hon. Member must have overlooked the separate Paper.

Then am I to understand that the Rules will not be taken in the order in which they appear on the Paper?

I am not saying in what order the Government wish to take them I only pointed out what the hon. Gentleman had evidently over-looked.

Will the Leader of the House tell me in what order the Government propose to take the Rules?

We propose to go on at once with the Rule on the Paper. After that we shall take the Supply Rule. I stated yesterday that I thought it possible hon. Gentlemen might desire more time to consider our proposals as to Questions, and we shall not, therefore, begin that Rule tonight.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will state, with reference to his proposed Amendment to Standing Order 20, relating to Questions, to what person or what authority he proposes to commit the decision between the Questions as to which Questions are and which are not of an urgent character, such as entitles them to be asked after five minutes before three of the clock; and also by whom he proposes that Questions shall be distinguished so as to decide that some are of greater general interest than others, and therefore entitled to priority in their arrangement on the Paper.

It will rest with Mr. Speaker to determine whether any particular Question will, under the proposed new Rule, come within the definition of urgent Questions such as can be asked after five minutes to three o'clock. Mr. Speaker will also, I apprehend, lay down general principles which will guide the clerks at the Table in the arrangement of Questions on the Paper, so that those of greatest general interest may be reached before that hour. The task is not difficult, and will only have to be performed when more than sixty or sixty-five Questions were on the Paper. So far as the Government are concerned, there is no objection to the appointment of a Committee nominated by the Committee of Selection to perform this duty if the House so desires.

Do I understand that Mr. Speaker will decide what questions are "urgent" and the clerks at the Table what are "interesting"?

I cannot answer more clearly than I have done.

I understand that the object of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is to secure that certain evening sittings after Whitsuntide shall be set apart for the further discussion of Bills which, prior to Whitsuntide, have secured a Second Reading.

Wednesday evening sittings only.

I am not at all sure that the Amendment, even if it were carried, would effect that object. I rather think it would not. The Government are not of opinion that it is desirable to set apart by Standing Orders a larger amount of time after Whitsuntide for dealing with private Members' Bills. I have never been one of those who think that our system of dealing with legislation proposed by non-official Members is entirely satisfactory; indeed, I think it is not. This, however, is not a matter which can be dealt with piecemeal. I do not suggest that the present practice of giving Wednesdays after Whitsuntide is one which should be perpetuated, but, undoubtedly, there are measures, as to which there is such a general consensus of opinion in all parts of the House in favour of passing them as to render it undesirable that they should be allowed to lapse from mere want of time, and such cases are provided for by the Government, which has power to give facilities to Bills of this nature. Such facilities are rarely given to Bills of a controversial character, and I do not think that anybody responsible for the business of this House would be likely to undertake to give facilities for Bills which are not generally supported and which are likely to meet with violent opposition. I see no reason why controversial Bills should have privileges which are not extended to measures brought in by responsible Members, and probably prepared by more expert draughtsmen. That is one of the reasons why I do not think we can deal with this subject in a fragmentary manner. Again, I would point out that the Amendment, if carried, would not effect the object which the hon. Member has in view, but would probably give further facilities to controversial measures, and I do suggest in conclusion that this is not a good method of making any alteration in our present system of dealing with legislation initiated by private Members of this House.

said he was sorry to hear the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, and he hoped the House would take note of the admission he had made that the present system of introducing private Bills was extremely unsatisfactory. He accepted that as an admission that the system of the ballot was absurd, and that when any proposal was brought forward to change it for a better method it would have the right hon. Gentleman's support. His hon. friend had not possibly drawn his Amendment in such a shape as would secure the object which he had in view, but it could easily be altered. But the right hon. Gentleman went to the root of the matter when he said that he did not desire to give any further facilities for dealing after Whitsuntide with Bills which had obtained a Second Reading, and he alleged as a reason for that that Bills which were calculated to excite violent controversy ought not to have further advantages given them. But the right hon. Gentleman had omitted a very important class of Bills from his purview, a class of Bills with which he believed the House had considerable sympathy. The Bills he referred to were those which, though they did not pass their Second Readings unopposed, were yet opposed by only a small section of the House, which, under the present Rules, had the power to prevent any Bill passing as an unopposed measure, although it might meet with ready acceptance at the hands of an overwhelming majority. Now, that was a class of Bill which deserved consideration and indulgence at the hands of the Government, and it was, too, the class which he believed his hon. friend had in mind when he brought forward this Amendment. He was not contemplating those highly controversial questions which were evidently in the minds of some hon. Members, but he was thinking of that large class of business upon which there was a general feeling that the Bills should pass.

said he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman's experience was not of much use—

said the reason why he spoke upon this subject was because he had some experience in his early days of carrying Bills of this kind.

And very bad Bills they were, for they were hustled through the House of Commons practically in camera.

What Bills does the right hon. Gentleman refer to?

said he understood the right hon. Gentleman to refer to Bills in the earlier days of his Parliamentary career, which went through practically unnoticed.

I did not refer to those Bills at all.

said he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman's experience did not help them much. There appeared to be some doubt as to what was really the effect of an Amendment carried the other night. He understood that after the notices had been exhausted, Bills other than those put forward by the Government were to come next in their turn. He was not sure that there was any demand for this. Private Members had a right to call attention to matters of public importance, and to ventilate their grievances, but in nine cases out of ten, legislation was much better left in the hands of the responsible Ministers of the Crown. He did not think the House ought to accelerate and accentuate tinkering with legislation. A private Member's duty was to call attention to grievances and criticise the action of the Executive Government, and not to embark upon the discussion of fads of their own.

said that hitherto this time had been taken every session by a Sessional Order for the convenience of the Government. This Motion had been made session after session, but he desired to call attention to the difference between taking this time every session by such a Motion, and making it a permanent Order. Whitsuntide was exceedingly early this year, and Whit Sunday fell upon the 18th of May. In some years Whitsuntide fell almost at the end of May. Under the old system they knew beforehand what would be the date upon which Whitsuntide would fall. Now they were claiming this time irrespective of the date upon which the Government days began. What would they gain? Perhaps some five or six days to the advantage of the Government, and to the loss of private Members. Five or six days was not a great deal to add for the convenience of the Government, but it was a very great deal to take away from the time of private Members. It might be that that time would be occupied in discussing a Motion or a Bill, but, after all, this gave private Members opportunities for airing their views upon subjects which very often were of great importance. He wished to take exception to the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that the Government were always ready to give facilities for private Bills. The Government were in the habit of putting down their business at such times as would prevent discussions by private Members. It was a fact that very useful legislation had been brought about by private Member's Bills. Two or three years ago a very useful Bill introduced by the hon. Member for North Shields was accepted by the House.

But the Government can give time.

contended that they would not be able to give time in the future unless they violated the permanent Rules of the House. He hoped his hon. friend would go to a division if the Government did not give way. He did not mind whether the date was the 30th of June or some other modification.

said the Members of the front Ministerial Bench were inclined to throw great discredit upon the work of private Members, and no doubt their work had been very futile in past years. That result, however, arose from the reason that work well begun had no chance of being finished, and if the Government persisted in trying to make the work of private Members less they would make their work in the future absolutely futile. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet said, he objected to all legislation, and the right hon. Gentleman would no doubt like to see the House of Commons take a holiday for seven or eight years, and he would like to see a large duty put upon corn. That was not the view taken of the legislation which had been passed during the last few years. Bills passed by a large majority in the House of Commons ought to be given a chance of getting through their final stage, and if this Amendment did not meet the case absolutely a very few words might be added to make these later days absolutely for the finishing of Bills and not for Motions. But even as it was, this Motion would give enormous advantages in enabling them to finish legislation brought in which the House washed to have passed into law. He hoped the Government would give private Members a chance in this respect.

hoped the Government would see their way to grant some further facilities for the Bills of private Members which had reached a certain stage. He wished to make a suggestion which he thought would meet the case, and he wished to show why it was necessary that such a proposal should be made. With regard to the observations which had fallen from some other hon. Members of greater experience than himself, it appeared that there was an impression that the tendency of the change from Wednesday to Friday for private Members' business would be to impart a certain air of unreality to the discussion. Moreover, the decisions arrived at would represent the sense not of the House as a whole, but of only that section of the House who were more or less interested in the measures. The First Lord had stated that the proposal embodied the usage of Parliament for a long time past. But usage was a very different thing from a fixed rule. It had also to be remembered that the necessity of the Government taking a large part of the time of private Members was based upon a condition of things existing before the Rules were prepared. The object of the Rules was to save the time of the House. If the object were secured, why should not private Members participate in the saving? If the Rule passed in its present form private Members would really have no chance whatever of passing their Bills if they were at all of a contentious character, and in his judgment, a Bill was of no good whatever unless it was contentious. He quite agreed that the Government should initiate the bulk of legislation, but many things had to be left to private Members, and he hoped the First Lord of the Treasury, who was the guardian of the privileges of all Members of the House, would pay some consideration to the just claims of private Members in this respect. The suggestion he desired to make was that on the first four Wednesdays after Whitsuntide priority should be given to private Members' Bills which had already passed their Second Reading.

said the position taken up by the First Lord was that in practice, although private Members had only two Wednesdays after Whitsuntide, if, in a special case, extra time was required to carry through a Bill, the Government always granted that time. That was perfectly true, but the time had been granted because under the old Standing Order Members had an opportunity of putting pressure upon the Government. That opportunity was now to be taken away. Instead of the First Lord having to come and ask the House to give him the time, he was now proposing to take it for evermore. The initiative previously possessed by private Members was being taken away from them; what compensation were they to have? The Rules were to save the time of the House. For whose benefit? For the benefit of the Government, and, of course, in that sense, for the benefit of the House. But there was being taken away from the unofficial Members one of the best opportunities they had of controlling the kind of legislation they would have. It was essential that in return for what they were losing private Members should have at least one more Friday. The Amendment was sound both in form and principle, and if carried, would mean that private Members would retain their Wednesday evening sittings until 30th June; that was to say, in an ordinary year they would have two more Wednesday evening sittings and either one or two more Friday sittings than the Rules would now give. That, as a compromise, seemed most reasonable, and he should heartily support it.

said it was perfectly clear from the statement of the First Lord that the Fridays given to private Members in the place of Wednesdays were in great peril of being absolutely useless. It would have been more candid of his right hon. friend if he had disclosed his intentions with regard to the future of private Member's privileges when he made his opening statement. But he did nothing of the kind. When the Rules were first laid before the House they contained a proposal with regard to the committal of Bills. That was a great concession to private Members, because it gave them an opportunity of getting their Bills referred to a Grand Committee. [Cheers.] Many hon. Members thought, that proposal a great mistake. He heard loud responses from eminent Members of the Church Party. That clause had entirely disappeared from the Paper, and he frankly admitted that its withdrawal was a great concession on the part of his right hon. friend to the Church Party, for it would render impossible the passage of the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill. But the House had some right to complain of that proceeding. As one of those who were anxious to see the rights of private Members maintained, he accepted that proposal with gladness, because as he had said, it made it possible for private Members to make progress with their Bills. He would not go so far as to charge his right hon. friend with committing a breach of faith; he would be sorry to do that, but the existence of that proposal on the Paper was undoubtedly one of the causes which induced him to vote in favour of the Motion "That the Rules be now considered." If he had been aware at that time that the proposal was going to be withdrawn without hon. Members having an opportunity of expressing their opinions with regard to it, his vote would have been given very differently. They now knew that private Bill legislation was to be relegated either to the evening sittings or to the private Members' sitting on Friday. What did that mean? Of course the promoters of private Bills would not come down to evening sittings, with all their array of council and legal paraphernalia.

pointed out that it would not rest with the promoter to decide either the day or the hour for which private business should be put down; that would rest with the Chairman of Committees.

said he was about to point out that if it did rest with the promoters they would naturally choose to come down on the Friday morning. As it seemed to be contemplated that the matter should rest with the Chairman of Committees.

intimated that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman on that point had better be reserved until the Rule to which he referred was before the House.

said he would reserve his further remarks, but it was because he regarded the Amendment before the House as some mitigation of the severity proposed to be practised upon private Members that he for one should vote in its favour.

thought the Amendment was a very modest one, as, on an average, it would mean only two additional Wednesdays in the year. There was no doubt that, if these Rules were passed in their present form, legislation by private Members would be a thing of the past. The work of private Members of the House had in the past largely decided the fate of general elections. This was the case with the General Election of 1874, when the First Lord of the Treasury entered Parliament. The questions which brought about the result of the elections were questions which had been agitated by private Members ever since 1868, and those questions which had been discussed by private Members for so long compelled the Government, as their first work when they came into power, to appoint a Committee into these great and important social and labour questions. He himself in 1880, as a private Member, introduced a subject for discussion in the House, and, although his Bill did not pass into law, the result of the discussion that ensued was to revolutionise the whole system of leases in Cornwall and a large part of Devonshire and other parts. That was only one instance of the importance of work done by private Members, and the House was to be commended for fighting to the last ditch in defence of the rights of private Members. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would, after the reasonable appeals that had been made to him, accept the Amendment.

said this, no doubt, was a small matter compared with the larger changes proposed by these Rules. He shared the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet, and thought the House existed rather for the purpose of debating measures than passing them. His opinion was that a private Members' Bill was really much less likely to be mischievous than a Government Bill. In the first place it was less likely to pass. In the second place it introduced subjects for discussion which were of an interesting character, very often of a far more interesting character than that which formed the subject of a Government Bill, which was often introduced less for the sake of the Government than for the sake of the Party it represented. This was no doubt a small thing, but nevertheless if the Amendment was passed it would save something from the wreck; because if these Rules were passed as they stood they would wreck the opportunities, the time, and the Bills of private Members. By the Standing Orders at present the Government were entitled to four-tenths of the time of the House and no more; the new Rules would give them nine-tenths, and in fact, unless this Amendment was carried, nearly ten-tenths of the time of the House. If the hon. Gentleman went to a division he should vote in favour of the Amendment.

thought that anybody who voted for the Amendment ought to go down at once to their constituents and apologise for so doing. Most Members had promised at the hustings to do their best to bring matters interesting to the notice of the House, and those who voted for this Amendment would, he thought, require to go to their constituents and say: "Remember, it is no use asking me to bring anything to the attention of the House because I have voted for the new Rules, and under those Rules there will be no opportunity given to me to to so." Their constituencies ought to know that those Members who were voting for the Amendment before the House were deliberately attempting to get out of their promises, for the Government was under this Amendment to take the whole time of the House after Whitsuntide. He did not say that the Government ought not to get proper facilities for bringing forward their Bills and Motions and administrative reforms, because, so far as England and Scotland were concerned, the Government was the expression of the will of the majority, but they were now asked to trample on the old traditions of Parliament and to give the Government the whole time of the House, and to deprive private Members of the time they had for bringing forward the grievances of their constituents. To deprive private Members of their time seemed to him to be a step towards making the Government absolutely independent of public opinion. If he made promises on the hustings that he would bring this, that, and the other matter of interest before the House of Commons, and if he now voted for a Rule to deprive himself deliberately of that opportunity, he would feel ashamed of himself.

said it would be a dangerous thing to surrender the whole time of private Members after Whitsuntide to an arbitrary and unreasonable Government. The measures brought forward by the Government might not be dropped, but other useful legislative proposals, brought forward by private Members, would have no chance whatever. If the proposed Rule had been in operation last session the Child Messenger Bill would not have become law, because there would have been no chance of putting pressure on the Government to allow the Bill to be proceeded with. It was only when pressure was put on the Government from both sides of the House that the Bill, which was a private Members Bill, was allowed to go through all its stages and become law. That was a convincing argument why hon. Members should support the amendment.

said he did not quite agree with the hon. Member for King's Lynn that this was a small and insignificant Amendment. In one sense it was small because it involved the difference between the Government taking the time of the House at Whitsuntide or at 30th June. In that respect it was small, but it was one of the last opportunities private Members would have to have the time at their disposal for their business at all. He confessed it was a matter of astonishment to him that, when the rights of private Members were at stake, the most strenuous supporters of the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire had come from the other side of the House, while hon. Members on the Opposition side above the gangway took no interest in the matter. He did not know why that was so. It appeared to him that the question now before them affected private Members in all parts of the House. By the ruling of the Speaker the debate must be confined to the particular Amendment under discussion, but the House would see the great difficulty they were in if the Rule was applied very strictly. He would be inclined to agree with the hon. Member for King's Lynn if all the opportunities for private Members' business were to be left, but on the contrary, they had good reason to believe that those occasions, which under the Rule were reserved for private Members, would not be left at all. As a matter of fact, it was almost certain that their value would be entirely destroyed by the Rule dealing with private business. The Leader of the House hail attempted to make a point by stating that the decision as to when private business would come on would rest with the Chairman of Committees. But that did not apply to Friday at all. The promoters of private Bills could put them down for Friday without the intervention of the Chairman at all. There was no provision that private business could not be put down for Friday. It would be put down on Friday by the promoters of private Bills, and therefore the whole of these sittings might be taken away from them.

A single Member would say, "I object," and then it would go over.

said he did not admit that at all. As he read the Rule as it stood that was not the ease. This was one of the last opportunities private Members would have of protecting their right to have any share of the time of the House, and he was sorry that the question had not been more seriously treated by Members on the Opposition side.

said they found themselves in an extremely difficult position in connection with the discussion of procedure. The Speaker was of course bound to take care that the discussions mainly if not wholly related to the particular amendment before the House. But at the same time, the whole question of the Standing Orders was of such an intricate and complicated nature that it was almost impossible to discuss one Standing Order without trenching on the others. They were placed in another difficulty—one which he very much regretted to have to allude to. When discussing procedure in the House of Commons procedure of the most vital importance—never had he seen a Leader of the House so comparatively careless as the right hon. Gentleman had been.

What do you mean?

I mean, for instance, that never have I seen an Under Secretary of State put up to explain the meaning of an Amendment. Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Smith—

If the right hon. Gentleman refers to me, I am always in a difficulty in dealing with these things, because, under the Rules, I can only speak once. I have sometimes asked a colleague to start the discussion, when I did not know to what extent it was going to proceed. I regret that in this case I did not ask a colleague to start the discussion, because I should have had the opportunity of replying.

If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I have been in any way personally discourteous, I will at once withdraw anything I have said. I still maintain my point that when procedure is before the House, the Leader of the House, in the days of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Smith, made it his first business to be present, and to answer any question that arose.

I have not been absent ten minutes during the whole discussion.

The right hon. Gentleman left a most difficult point to be answered by an Under Secretary. [Cries of "Order" and "Withdraw."] I will certainly withdraw anything supposed to be personally discourteous, but I maintain that the right hon. Gentleman has not shown, by his action, his sense of the extreme gravity of the proposal of the Government. The Amendment before the House was to save two or three Wednesdays in June for unofficial Members' Bills. Everyone with the slightest experience of these things knew perfectly well that the value of such days at that period of the Session could not be over-estimated. The Amendment, if carried, would be the means of saving the life of one if not two of these Bills each Session. Hon. Members who voted against an Amendment like this had better not talk to their constituents about the Bills they meant to promote. It was becoming a perfect farce for non-official Members to put their names on the back of Bills, and then to give up all their time to the Government.

said that his hon. friend the Member for the City of Waterford had expressed surprise that hon. Members above the Gangway had not very much interested themselves in regard to these Rules. To some extent he agreed with his hon. friend; but there was an explanation for that. The present Government were running away with private Members' rights in a manner which no Liberal Government would have dared to attempt. The Conservative or Constitutional Government—as they took pride in designating themselves—would henceforth have the credit of invading the rights of private Members and doing away with their privileges more than any other Government which had preceded them. Members on that side of the House hoped, to some extent, to reap the benefit of such legislation, and that at some future date Gentlemen opposite would have their backs scourged with the whip which they had prepared for their opponents. He had been in the House and some years, during which the Rules of Procedure had been changed in various respects, but he did not remember any occasion when they had been asked to make great changes, as now proposed, without the House of Commons being-placed in a better position than at present for their consideration. They had been told that the highest authorities and officials of the House approved of many of these Rules.

I am not aware that any such statement has been made.

Hear, hear!

said he understood that the authorities in the House did approve of many of these Rules, and had been consulted about them. But on every previous occasion when it was proposed to change the rules of procedure a Committee of the House had been first appointed to consider the matter. [Hon. Members, "No" and "Yes."]

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in his facts. The greatest alteration made was not preceded by any Committee.

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he is now departing from the question before the House. He cannot enter into a general discussion of the Rules.

said that in his own recollection there was certainly one occasion when a proposed change was preceded by a Committee of Inquiry. As to the Motion before the House it might appear to be a small point, but at the same time a great principle was involved. The Government evidently wished to make the House of Commons a mere voting machine. He thought his hon. friend was doing a service by calling attention to the fact that they were asked to give up, at the end of the session, a few private Members' days which might be of great value. Knowing as they did that this Rule and every other Rule was directed against them, it was the duty of Irish Members to stand up and protest against it as far as they could.