I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any information to give to the House as to events in South Africa.

No, Sir. His Majesty's Government is not at present in receipt of any communication with regard to terms from the Boer leaders.

Has Lord Kitchener been authorised to offer any other terms than those already offered.

I am not in a posit on to make any statement on that subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government are in possession of the terms in which Mr. Schalk Burger and the other Transvaal representatives asked for safe conduct, and the reasons they assigned for that request; and, if so, whether they will communicate this information to the House; whether Mr. Steyn and the Orange River representatives are meeting the Transvaal representatives at Klerksdorp on the suggestion of the Government of Lord Kitchener or on the invitation of the Transvaal representatives; and whether the Government are in possession of the terms of this suggestion or invitation; if so, will they communicate it to the House.

I have nothing to add to the statement which I made yesterday.

May I ask whether there is any word of an armistice during the absence of the commandants from their districts?

There will certainly not be an armistice.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the reasons for the blowing up by the British soldiery of Commandant General Botha's home at Waterfall Vreheid; and can the War Office give approximately the date of the destruction of this house, which was intact in August last.

No report of such, an occurrence has been received at the War Office,

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?

No, Sir.

Well I know it to be true.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will ask Lord Kitchener his reasons for withholding from the War Office the details of the engagement of the 24th March last, having regard to the fact that he has supplied the list of casualties without any particulars of the action.

No, Sir.

Quite right

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Vicomte Villebois Mareuil, whose application to be permitted to conduct an ambulance service to the Boer farms has been refused by the War Office, has asked permission to forward medical necessaries for the use of the Boer commandoes; and, if so, what reply has been given to this request.

The answer again is no.

Does the right hon. Gentleman decline to answer the Question, or is it the fact that these medical requisites have been refused?

No application to this effect has been received from Vicomte Villebois Mareuil.

Has the right hon. Gentleman refused to entertain an application?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the existing regimental regulations of the Volunteer forces could be modified to allow of boots being supplied as part of the existing kit, or in lieu of less useful articles, such as dress tunic for special ceremonial parades.

I will consider this suggestion, but I fear that there may be difficulties about carrying it out.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to a new attestation form (Army form E 595) for Yeomanry recruits issued to Home Yeomanry regiments, in which a certificate of medical examination is required in the form set out; whether the only persons allowed by the War Office to medically examine recruits or the Home Yeomanry are all medical officers and civil practitioners authorised to examine recruits and medical officers of regiments of Imperial Yeomanry in Great Britain; whether it has been brought to his notice that in agricultural counties this regulation either entails on recruits living remote from an authorised medical examiner loss of time and expense in travelling, or similar loss to medical officers of Yeomanry regiments who are civil practitioners; and whether, with the view of preventing detriment to recruiting, he will sanction the medical examination of recruits for the Imperial Yeomanry, in Great Britain, by any resident civil practitioner at places where an officer qualified under the regulation mentioned is not available, or will he consider the advisability of compensating the recruits and Yeomanry medical officers for their losses and expenses.

It rests with the General Officer Commanding and the Principal Medical Officer of each command to make the necessary arrangements for the examination of Yeomanry recruits, and, to meet the special circumstances of the Yeomanry, extra civil medical practitioners can be appointed when necessary, the expenses being recovered under the conditions of Paragraph 483 of the Militia Regulations.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Colonial contingents now serving in South Africa are enlisted for a definite term; and, if so, for how long; whether within the last twelve months any Colonial contingents have been enlisted for the period of the war; and whether any Imperial Yeoman or Volunteer Service Companies have been enlisted for a definite term.

The Colonial contingents now serving in South Africa have been enlisted on various terms, but in many instances for the period of the war. Oversea contingents have been recently enlisted for one year or the period of the war. The Imperial Yeomanry raised under Special Army Order of 19th December, 1901, were enlisted for a year or the period of the war. The Volunteer Service Companies enlisted under February Army Orders were enlisted for a year, of which not more than nine months will be spent in South Africa.

repeated that some of the Colonial men had enlisted for a year only.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Lord Kitchener has reported the absence of horses up country for a large number of trained regular soldiers belonging to the mounted branches of His Majesty's forces; whether there are also engaged in warlike operations a considerable number of the police, especially picked for mounted duty, who are without horses; whether Lord Kitchener still reports the supply of horses in South Africa to be sufficient, and what steps the Government are now taking to increase the supply of ponies or small horses, especially South African or British bred.

I have no information in regard to the first and second paragraphs of the Question: no such report has been received from Lord Kitchener. Lord Kitchener has reported that the numbers proposed to be for-warded to South Africa during March, April, and May would meet his requirements. Over 14,000 horses were shipped in March.

The first paragraph of my Question is based on information from South Africa; the second on a statement of fact by the Government.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can say what horses have been purchased during March, and from what countries they have been drawn.

1,245 horses were purchased in Great Britain and 183 in Ireland during March. It is not possible to state the exact number of horses purchased abroad, as the accounts for March are not yet to hand, but 6,546 horses were shipped from Fiume; 5,365 from the United States of America, and 751 from Canada.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will say what horses have recently been purchased at Preston: and whether those purchased were sent to Carlisle to be inspected and then sent to Aldershot; and, if so, why was this expense incurred.

No horses have been purchased at Preston this year.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what is the age fixed in the Army Regulations under which recruits cannot be enlisted, or, if enlisted on false representations made by them as to their age, their parents or guardians can, under these Regulations, claim their discharge.

The hon. Member will find the information required by the first part of the Question in Appendix II of the Recruiting Regulations, and that required by the second part in paragraph 1,805, Sub-section vi, of the Kings Regulations.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it has been decided that the kilt is no longer to form part of the fighting kit of Highland regiments, and that it is to be replaced by trews.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether Highland regiments in South Africa are to be prohibited wearing the kilt, and if so, will he state who is responsible for this Regulation; is he aware that medical authorities state that the Highlanders have enjoyed greater immunity from stomach troubles than other troops owing to the thickness of cloth protecting the abdomen; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction which will be caused among Highland regiments, and the consequent loss of recruits, will the order be rescinded, or not enforced until the opinion of Highlanders, who have personal experience of the many advantages of the kilt, has been obtained.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether orders have been issued by Lord Kitchener or the War Office that the Highland regiments in South Africa are no longer to wear the kilt: if so, what is the reason for its abolition: and what, in future, will be the distinguishing dress characteristic of these regiments.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if it is intended to abolish the wearing of the kilt by the Highland regiments; and if so, if he has considered the probable effect of this Regulation upon the recruiting for these regiments.

The Highland regiments will retain the kilt for full dress, and instructions will be issued for providing a kilt of khaki, or some invisible colour, on active service, as is now done in South Africa.

Who is responsible for the Regulations, and will the order be rescinded, or not enforced until the opinion of Highlanders, who have personal experience of the many advantages of the kilt, including the greater immunity from stomachic troubles which the kilt gives, has been obtained? Does the gentleman who made the Regulation know anything about the Highlanders?

I am not sufficiently acquainted with the subject to be able to say anything about abdominal troubles. The Regulations are made for the whole Army, but there are exceptions in the case of Highlanders.

Is it the intention of the War Office that the distinctive tartans of the kilt are to be abolished in the Highland regiments, and is this action being taken by the War Office in revenge for Bannockburn?

Of course the distinctive tartan of the Highland regiments will be preserved.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the recent trials of the submarine boats built for His Majesty's Navy have satisfied the Admiralty of the utility of these vessels for purposes of naval warfare; and whether it is proposed to build the other submarine boats provided for in the Estimates on the same pattern.

The trials of the submarine boats now under construction at Barrow are not yet completed, and more extended trials will be required before the exact limitations of the use of these boats can be determined. Provision is made in the Estimates for the current year for the building of additional boats, with such modifications and improvements as experience may suggest.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it was by the permission or authority of the First Lord of the Admiralty that photographs of the submarine boats just completed for His Majesty's Navy recently-appeared in an illustrated paper: and, if so, why was the paper in question selected as the recipient of this favour.

An application was received on behalf of an illustrated paper for permission to produce a photograph of a submarine boat, and this permission was granted. The paper was not "selected" by the Admiralty. I may add that the photograph actually reproduced was already in the possession of the paper referred to, and was not supplied by or with the permission of the Admiralty. It appears to represent the boat on the occasion of the launch.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to a statement made recently by a naval officer of high rank to the effect that our depôts abroad were unprovided with patent fuel; and if he can state the quantities of patent fuel made of high - class Cardiff coal which have been manufactured on account of, or purchased by, the Admiralty during the last three years for shipment to the Mediterranean and more distant depôts.

The question of supplying a good quality of patent fuel for use in the Navy was examined by an Admiralty Committee in 1898, and, in accordance with the Report of that Committee, and as the result of exhaustive trials, orders were given, in 1900, for the manufacture of patent fuel of the selected type. "Since that date additional orders have been given, and the fuel has been distributed in required quantities to various depôts abroad.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any experiments have recently been made of Scotch coal for steaming purposes, either in the Mediterranean or elsewhere by the Admiralty: and, if so, whether he can state generally the results as compared with those given by Welsh coal; and will the reports furnished the Admiralty be laid upon the Table of the House.

A number of experiments have been made with Scotch coal for steaming purposes, and though some of the coals supplied have valuable qualities, the Reports do not lead to the conclusion that they are as satisfactory for naval purposes as the Welsh coal. It is not proposed to lay the Reports furnished to the Admiralty on the Table.

May I ask whether the Admiralty have tried anthracite in combination with Scotch coal in their experiments?

Yes, I think it has been tried in several combinations. If the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of the question I will endeavour to ascertain.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what was the total number of the forces of the Indian Army recently employed in the recent Military expedition against the Mahsuds; and will he give separately the number of battalions of infantry, regiments of cavalry, mountain batteries' and Maxim guns, and of the field hospitals, and of commissariat and transport camels and bullocks employed; and will he state how long the operations lasted.

I am unable to give all the details asked for by the hon. Member, but I will enquire.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the number of inmates in the Greenwich Union Workhouse is below the number for which the building is licensed; and that this number includes eighty-four children who are to be removed to better homes; and whether he is prepared to still refuse the request of the Guardians that he should receive a deputation, with a view to pointing out how unnecessary is the new Grove Park Workhouse, which will, if completed and furnished, cost the ratepayers of Deptford and Greenwich nearly £250,000.

According to the last Return, viz., for the week ended 29th March last, the number of inmates in this workhouse was still in excess of the number for which the building is certified. I am aware that there were about eighty children among the inmates, but of these forty-four were infants under three years of age, who could not be dealt with by the Guardians otherwise than in the workhouse. I understand, however, that representatives of the Workhouse and Infirmary Committees of the Guardians are to be appointed for the purpose of reporting on the whole question. I have been in correspondence with my noble friend the Member for Greenwich as to my receiving a deputation, and after the receipt of the Report referred to I will, it necessary, communicate with him further on the subject.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Burghley Road and Monnow Road Schools, under the control of the London School Board, were sanctioned by the Board of Education (subject to the observance of certain conditions) as higher elementary schools, and that the London School Board then withdrew its application on behalf of these schools; whether reasons for the withdrawal were given to the Board of Education, and, if so, can he state what they were.

Yes; the London School Board were unwilling to comply with the requirements of the Higher Elementary Schools Minute.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, having regard to the; fact that prior to the issue of the Code of 1901 it was possible for a teacher to obtain a parchment certificate by service in a Boor Law School, and that such service is no longer accepted, whether he is prepared to amend Article 63 of the Day School Code, or recommend an alteration of the Superannuation Rules, so that Guardians of the Boor may be able to secure for their schools the services of teachers who, after leaving a training college, are required to pass a period of probation in order to obtain a certificate.

Service in a Poor Law School is now accepted under Article 63 of the Code of 1901, and this; Article will be included in an even clearer form in the Code of 1902.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Wolverhampton, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state what total sum has been expended by the Post Office in connection with wireless telegraphy, whether for purchases, for experimentes, and for payments to individuals; and under what Votes this sum has been presented, or will be presented, to Parliament.

Experiments in connection with wireless telegraphy have extended over a number of years, and the Postmaster General fears that it would not be possible for him to furnish the information desired by the hon. Member without considerable expense, which would scarcely be justified by the results. Such expenditure as has been incurred has been charged partly to the Vote for the Board of Trade and partly to the Post Office Vote for Telegraphs.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the difficulty experienced in securing suitable hospital accommodation in the poorer districts of the highlands and islands of Scotland, the Secretary for Scotland will consider the expediency of introducing legislation such as will provide for the establishment and maintenance of hospitals in congested areas.

I am sorry I am not yet able to add anything to what I told the hon. Member on the 15th March, 1901. †

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state the result of the inquiry instituted into the conduct of District Inspector O'Connor, Royal Irish Constabulary, on the representation made by the magistrates of the Ballyshannon Petty Sessions Bench, who are constant in their attendance at these Petty Sessions, with reference to the refusal of District

†See (4) Debatas, XCI., 86.

Some of the magistrates attending Petty Sessions objected to the presence of a constable placed outside the door of their room whilst the court was sitting. Other magistrates, and apparently a majority of those residing in the district, have expressed full approval of the arrangement. Should, however, a majority of those attending the Petty Sessions desire the constable to be withdrawn at any time, the District Inspector will be happy to comply with their wishes.

That is fair.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the hon. Member for South Mayo and Mr. Denis Johnston, who are at present confined in Tullamore Prison, under Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act sentences of four and five months respectively, are obliged to exercise in the ring with ordinary prisoners; and whether he will consider the advisability of relaxing the prison rules so as to permit Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Johnston to take exercise apart from the common prisoners.

I have called for a report on the facts, but have not yet received it. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the question on Monday.

Is it intended to continue to treat these gentlemen as common criminals, in view of the judgment recently delivered by the Lord Chief Baron?

I am not prepared to debate this matter by Question and answer. When I have the report on the facts, I will then answer.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed to reduce the number of extra police stationed at Tallow, County Waterford; whether any person at Tallow is under special police protection; and, if so, can he state for what reason.

It is not at present proposed to relax the police arrangements at Tallow. The extra force was sent there to afford protection to persons who were subjected to intimidation.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the extra attendance of the officers at the Limerick Post Office in the case brought under his notice was necessary, owing to the increased clerical labour entailed by the Jubilee concessions, and the introduction of the amalgamated system. Whether it is usual to accept the services of officers gratuitously, and whether he is aware that a claim for overtime was previously lodged by one of the men; whether, seeing that necessary services, were rendered, he will now undertake to make further inquiries with a view to having the claim allowed. And, having regard to the fact that provision was made in the recent revision for one chief clerk, two superintendents, one clerk, and four sorting clerks and telegraphists in the postmaster's enquiry office, will he state whether their absence from their different departments is provided for; and is he aware that previous to the 11th March dual officers had ceased to be employed in the telegraph office.

The Postmaster General is not aware that the extra attendance of the officers referred to at Limerick was due to the cause stated, or that any claim for overtime has been made by one of those officers. Any such claim, if made, will receive duo-consideration. In the event of any of the officers mentioned in the last paragraph being temporarily absent from the office, the usual provision would be made for their duties. As regards his inquiry respecting "dual officers." the hon. Member is referred to the reply given to him on the subject on the 24th ultimo.†

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the cable communicaion between Tory Island and the Donegal mainland has for some months past been interrupted through the cable having been broken: and whether, as these islanders are engaged solely in the fishing industry, and as their season for fishing begins in May, steps will be immediately taken to have the cable repaired and communication restored.

The Postmaster General is aware that cable communication between Tory Island and the Donegal mainland is interrupted. The cable is not, however, the property of the Postmaster General but of Lloyd's.

moved to leave out the words "and fourth" and to insert instead the words "fourth and fifth." The effect would, he said, be to give one more day to private Members. It was but a small concession he was asking for, as in practice the Government now gave three Wednesdays, and he now invited them to give the equivalent of three Fridays. He asked this because otherwise private Members would have very little chance of passing slightly contentious Bills through the House. Three separate days were usually required, but under the Government proposal only two would be available, and if there were a small and well-organised body in the House determined to oppose a measure, however acceptable it might be to Parliament generally, they could succeed in defeating it even if the Government were anxious to help it forward. There was another objection to the limit of two Wednesdays. It was quite true that in the past the Government, when asking for the whole of the time of the House, had been ready to make concessions and to give the third Wednesday; but if this hard and fast rule were laid down, they would not be willing to do so in the future. Members were now able to put pressure on the Government when they were anxious to take the whole of the time of the House, and the result was that many a Bill got through which otherwise would be blocked. The right hon. Members for North East Manchester and Sleaford apparently objected to legislation by private Members, but the great majority of the Members of the House did not take that view. The right hon. Member for Sleaford had pointed out that, unless more time was reserved to private Members, the agricultural interest would be neglected. Undoubtedly, since the last General Election, little opportunity had been afforded of debating agricultural questions. The hon. Member for Finsbury, replying to that, said he was glad if that was the case, for agriculture had had more attention paid to it of late years than it deserved. Were hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were always declaring that they were the friends of the agricultural interest, prepared now to sacrifice that interest? If not, then he appealed to them to support this Amendment. Agricultural Members were well aware that the agricultural interest, at the present moment, was feeling strongly on the question of milk-blended butter. A Bill might be brought in by a non-official question to deal with the subject, and it would practically be an uncontentious measure, but the hon. Member for Finsbury, who objected to all agricultural measures, might, with some few of his friends, make it absolutely impossible to get the Bill through, and his Amendment was intended to meet cases such as that. There was, too, the social question, which had been raised by the hon. Member for East Somerset. There was a Bill now before the House affecting the great friendly societies of the country—promoted by the hon. Member for Stepney. That Bill had the general assent of the House, and had been referred to a Grand Committee, but what would be its fate if it came back to the House under the proposed Rule of the right hon. Gentleman? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley had threatened to move a number of Amendments, and one day might not be sufficient for the Report stage, and in that event the Bill would be killed. On behalf of the members of friendly societies he appealed to the House to accept his Amendment, and thus give that particular Bill a chance. This was a question they ought to look at entirely from the point of view of the unofficial Member, because undoubtedly both front Benches dealt with it in a very half-hearted way. He had noticed that throughout these debates the Opposition Whips had only issued three line Whips, thereby practically telling hon. Members it did not matter whether or not they came down to the House. The general attitude of the Front Bench, mind, was to treat private Members as a general nuisance. They seemed to think that only the legislation which they themselves proposed was necessary or desirable. He therefore suggested that Members below the gangway on both sides should unite against those on the front Benches, so as to make it impossible either for the present or future Governments to prevent unofficial Members from carrying Bills of their own, however unpretentious.

said he would urge the Government to make the little concession embodied in the Amendment. He admitted that under the proposals of the Government more time might be given to private Members' Bills than had been the practice in many sessions in the past; but hon. Members ought not to be expected to part with the whole of their time for Ministerial purposes, they should have some reasonable opportunity afforded them of passing their Bills into law. The House ought not to be reduced as far as their Bills are concerned to the level of a mere debating society.

said that no doubt it would be very difficult for private Members' Bills which had got through the Second Reading and Committee stages to become law if the Rule were passed in its present form, but he did not think that the Amendment provided the best solution. One extra Wednesday or Friday would not be of much value. Members who had a special object in so acting could easily spread their opposition over three instead of over two Wednesdays. He would suggest that the difficulty might be got over by giving the Bills of private Members which obtained a Second Reading before Easter priority between Easter and Whitsuntide over Bills less advanced. That would give them a chance of passing into law-There was an old saw "Don't bite oft" more than you can chew," and it did seem to him that in using every Wednesday up to Whitsuntide for Second Readings they were biting a good deal more off than they had a chance of being able to chew. He humbly suggested to the Government that they might make this concession to private Members.

hoped that the Government would give favourable consideration to this Amendment. When Governments had proposed to take the whole time of the House, they had not always been animated by the same guiding principle. He would like to point out the divergence of view in the present Government from that of its predecessor. In 1888, when the late Mr. W. H. Smith made a proposal to the House, by which the time allotted to private Members' Bills was affected, he said his object was to give Members, who had obtained assent to the principle of their Bills, opportunity for proceeding with them. Mr. Smith considered this a question for the House to decide, apart from Party majority. It was evident from what he said on that occasion, that Mr. Smith attached considerable importance to legislation proposed by private Members. On the other hand, the present Leader of the House wished to curtail the opportunities for passing such legislation. The present proposal to add a fifth Friday after Whitsuntide was a moderate one, and if the Government allowed a free decision, he felt confident that this and many other Amendments on the Paper would be carried.

thought that a strong case had been made for the Amendment, and suggested that much stronger illustrations might have been cited in support of it. To say that no legislation was of value except such as was promoted by the Government of the day was subversive of all Parliamentary traditions: yet it seemed to have become rooted in the minds of the occupants of both front Benches that private Members were to have no rights at all, and that there was to be no legislation except that which emanated from the Government of the day.

I think it is desirable I should say a word or two on this Amendment. This topic, or a part of it, was very fully debated last night. I will not occupy the time of the House with a second speech on the subject; but there are some points I would like to put forward in an uncontroversial spirit, and with every desire to make the House understand the motives that influence the Government in the course they are pursuing. I have been represented as a tyrant anxious to deprive Members of the few remaining rags, tatters, or fragments of privileges they have the right to enjoy. I should be sorry to go down to posterity in that character, and I wish to point out that there is absolutely no basis in fact for the allegation. Under the system I have ventured to propose, I think it will be admitted that a scheme of business has been so arranged that the privileges of private Members will be preserved. I do not deny that it will be in the power of the majority to take them away for reasons which have been thought legitimate by every Government. But compare what the plan will give with what has been the habit in the past. I have had some figures taken out. I have been informed that in the course of the present session private Members will have seventeen Wednesdays. Parliament met rather before the usual time, and Whitsuntide is rather earlier. In 1888 private Members had twelve Wednesdays, in 1889, twelve; in 1890, thirteen; in 1891, fourteen; in 1892, thirteen; in 1893, seven; in 1894, eight; in 1895. fourteen; in 1896, ten; in 1897, thirteen; in 1898, nine; in 1899, fourteen; in 1900, fourteen. Under the circumstances I think I may appeal to the House to say whether there is the slightest ground for the allegation that the Government are diminishing the total amount of time for private Members' legislation. Still it is said that with only two Fridays after Whitsuntide it is extremely difficult to bring legislation to fruitful result. I have admitted all along that in that contention there is a certain amount of truth. I have said on many occasions I do not think that, as a logical or coherent system, it is possible to defend our present system of dealing with private Members' Bills. On the other hand, I do not think the form of words suggested by the hon. Member opposite is one the House should hastily adopt. In the first place, if the object is to get through controversial Bills—in which term, in this connection, I include Bills which have behind them a great volume of opinion in the House, but are violently opposed by a small section—I do not think that stub Bills would have any better chance than they now possess, and the result, so far as that class of Bills is concerned, of giving another Wednesday would be that another day would be lost. There would be that time-limit in front of the opponents of the Bill, and they would combine to en-deavour to wreck the Bill—an endeavour which would, in very many cases, meet with a large amount of success. Then, turning to Bills which not only have a large amount or support in the House, but which, if not unopposed, have only a few luke-warm critics, those measures will get through under the present system, and also under the new system, quite as well as if the Amendment was accepted. It has been alleged over and over again in the course of the debate that the only means of forcing the Government to adopt a benevolent attitude towards private Members' Bills is in the debate which takes place when the time of the House is asked for. That is an entire misconception, and I am really surprised that anybody acquainted with Parliamentary practice should have thought it worth while, except for purposes of debate, to put it before the House. Every Government is sensitive to the opinion of the House, and especially to the opinion of those on whose votes it depends from day to day for existence. But the pressure which represents the opinion of the House, and of the majority of the House, is not put on effectively in a debate of that kind. Everybody knows that the Government have means of obtaining information as to the feeling of the House on both sides, and they do their best to weigh the different views which prevail, and to shape their course accordingly. To put forward the idea that the House is going to throw out the demand for time on the ground that the Government does not grant privileges to a particular Bill, is entirely to misrepresent what has ever taken place. If that were done, it would amount to a vote of want of confidence, and no Government would attempt to continue to carry on the business of the House if they were deliberately defeated, after debate, on a question of that sort. That is not the way the thing is done, ever has been done, or ever will be done. I would remind the House that there is a far more important opportunity for making this demand than that afforded by the request for the time of the House immediately after Whitsuntide, which is a mere incident in the progress of the session. The time when these privileges are usually given to uncontroversial Bills is towards the end of the session. The announcement of the intentions of the Government with regard to the Bills to which they will give privileges is not made, as a rule, when they ask for time immediately after Whitsuntide; it is made when they ask the House for the purpose of winding up the session to consent to the abrogation of the Twelve o'clock rule for the remainder of the sittings. That opportunity remains wholly untouched by anything we propose to do. There is one other point, to which I have referred more than once, but which I beg the House most earnestly to bear in mind in dealing with this question of private Members' Bills. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division, who has taken so prominent a part in discussing these new Standing Orders, apparently looks at the whole matter as if it concerned the fate of the Pure Beer Bill alone. But let none of us regard the matter from the point of view of one particular measure. Let us consider it in the light of the general system which we wish to see adopted in this House. I am far from denying that excellent work has been done, even in recent years, by private Members' Bills. But if the scheme of business which gives time to private Members is to be so adjusted as to enable very contentious Bills to pass through, I say most emphatically that you must alter your procedure with regard to the earlier stages through which private Members' Bills have to pass. It is surely perfectly manifest to all Members of experience that, if you are to allow private Members to carry through this House controversial Bills like those which the Government have to carry through, you must safeguard that procedure with the same safeguards as are applied in the case of Government measures. If the Government brings in a controversial Bill, you insist that there shall be a night devoted to the First Beading, three nights to the Second Beading, followed by prolonged discussion in Committee. Compare that with' the most controversial Bill brought in by a private Member. Take a Bill to repeal the Crimes Act. It would be brought in without a word; the debate on the Second Beading would probably be closured at half-past five, and the question put: and then, after three or four days before a Standing Committee, you might have an alteration in our legislation, for good or for bad, which every human being acquainted with House of Commons procedure will agree ought not to be initiated except on the responsibility of the Government of the day. Therefore, though I am far from saying that our present system is perfect, or that it ought not to be drastically reformed, I do say it would be a very hasty interference with ancient practice if we were to attempt to reform it simply by the method suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I think I reminded the House last night, but I may be forgiven for reminding them again today, that when some of us were younger, in our early days in the House, private Members at large had a very simple method of preventing the undue passage of controversial Bills—they were always talked out at half-past five or six o'clock. The only Bill in which as a private Member I was ever involved suffered that fate. I mention that simply to remind the House that you are touching a piece of machinery which ought to be surveyed as a whole before I you deal with any one of its weaknesses. May I be permitted to recall the House for a moment to one of the realities of Parliamentary life so far as they affect the distribution of time. From listening to these debates, one would imagine there was an unlimited store of time in the keeping of the Government, which they ladled out to the various interests according to their respective merits. That is not the case. I traced out this morning how the case would stand if this new Rule passed, and it may interest the House if I give them my calculation as to the distribution of Parliamentary time as between the great topics or interests which we have to consider in the course of the session. I take a session of 120 days. I am afraid the present session will be longer, but for the purposes of this calculation I take 120 days as a good full session. That is, roughly, twenty-four Parliamentary weeks of forty hours each, giving altogether 960 hours. Those 960 hours we have to distribute amongst the various interests. I calculate the King's Speech as taking ten days, or eighty hours; Questions, on the ninety-six Question days, three-quarters of an hour a day, in seventy-two hours; private Members' Bills, fourteen Fridays—I have given what I regard as an underestimate; of the number of days they would get—making seventy seven hours: private Members' Motions, up to Easter, seven weeks at six hours a week, and, up to Whitsuntide, six weeks at three hours a week, less eight hours—that is the highest limit of the possible diminution—for Private Bill Business, altogether fifty-two hours: Private Bill Business, taking the sessional average over a good many years (this is from a Return), thirty-two hours; Supply, twenty-three counting days, to which we must add eleven days for Supplementary Estimates, and getting Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the three separate occasions on which that operation has to be accomplished, making 255 hours; extra days, consisting of Motions for the holidays. Votes of Censure, special Resolutions, Motions for adjournment and contingencies—I cannot put those at less than five or six days—say thirty-eight hours; then add for the Budget and Appropriation Bills, ten days, or seventy-eight hours; and the total, before you come to any legislation in the proper sense of the word, is 684 hours. Taking those 684 hours from the total of 960, you have left for Government legislation only 276 hours, or about six weeks. I am addressing an audience which is in the habit of spending the first fortnight of the session in bringing forward a series of Votes of Censure on the Government for not adding to their legislative programme. I ask whether it is possible to carry on the legislative work which the country desires on a less allowance of time than 276 hours in a session of 120 days. I am afraid I have detained the House upon this point, but I have endeavoured to show why it is that the Government have made these changes. We are anxious to carry out the legislation which the majority of the House, and presumably the majority of the country, desire should be carried out. I have tried to show why I think, if any alteration is made in the privileges of private Members, it should be done only after careful inquiry as to how those privileges work, and after very careful consideration of all the aspects of one of the most perplexing problems that has ever come before the House of Commons. I trust that the House will not accept the Amendment of my hon. friend.

I am sure the House will recognise and appreciate the temperate way in which the right hon. Gentleman has resumed the debate upon this question, which both yesterday and today has perplexed the House. The light hon. Gentleman has referred to a number of figures which are somewhat difficult to follow, and which I think will require a considerable amount of investigation before we altogether accept them. But still, if the conclusion he comes to is that there is not time enough for the Government to fulfil all the duties which fall upon them in the way of legislation and conducting the business of the country in this House, that is a conclusion which a good many of us have arrived at a long time ago, and we have a remedy for that unfortunate condition of things which may be called rough and ready, but which, at all events, would be an effective remedy, namely, the remedy of devolution upon a largo scale of at least half the business with which the House is at present concerned. The right hon. Gentleman has enveloped in a cloud of figures the original question, which was the treatment of private Members. The right hon. Gentleman had the whole House with him when he said that the present arrangements for private Members' legislation are indefensible. The manner in which that legislation originates is absurd in itself; the ballot is absurd, and the whole proceedings from first to last are almost ludicrous, and, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have that large question looked into by a Committee, I am sure there will be no objection to that course in any part of the House. But we are dealing with that system as it exists, and it is not necessary to have any revolutionary measure altering those arrangements. What we have to do is to see that this new Rule does not take away from the private Member anything that he now has, and that it does not alter his position for the worse; and when I say his position, it is not because of any particular liking for the unofficial Member or his projects, but with a view to securing that the House should have the opportunity of itself deciding in these matters how far those projects are to be pursued. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out another matter, in which I am disposed very much to agree with him. He said that the mere giving of one, two, or three more fixed days for the purpose of the final stages of private Members' Bills will very likely be an illusory concession. It may be in many cases, because there is a fixed time which cannot be exceeded for these final stages, that there would no doubt be abundant opportunity and temptation for the evilly-disposed enemies of the measures to take those steps which are so obvious to them. Still here are many measures upon which the House may have bestowed an immense amount of labour—Bills which lave passed through their preliminary stages and through the Grand Committee, and been discussed at great cost of abour and time, and which are lost for want of opportunity. What we are afraid of is that the right hon. Gentleman's proposals will diminish still further those opportunities. At all events, as we pointed out last night, it will make the optional Rule of recent years a cast-iron Rule in the future. It will take away from the House of Commons the opportunity of dealing more leniently towards the private Member and his desires than we have done in recent years. That is the cause of the strong expression of feeling we have had during the last two days, and I think the right hon. Gentleman might look with some favour upon the proposal of my hon. friend, and give an extra day for the purpose, in order to prevent the possibility of the private Member and private Members' legislation being worse off in the future than in the past.

agreed with the remark of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the conciliatory tone adopted in the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury. But notwithstanding that, holding the views which he did hold, he was bound to support any proposal which he thought improved the position of private Members or rendered the position: less hard than it would be under the scheme of his right hon. friend. At the same time, he was bound to say that if he had to choose between what the right hon. Gentleman opposite described as devolution—which he took to be the latest description of Home Rule—and the scheme of his right hon. friend the Leader of the House, undoubtedly he should feel it his duty to sacrifice what he believed to be the rights of the private Member. However that might be, that question, fortunately, did not arise at the present time. He entirely agreed with his right hon. friend that the Amendment as it stood would not be sufficient, and he was perfectly right in saying that it would simply lead to a useless loss of one more Parliamentary day in the great majority of cases. He should like to add to the Amendment of his hon. friend, by leaving out of the proposal of the Government the words:

"on the third and fourth Fridays after Whit Sunday."

"and that all Friday Sittings, except the sittings on the first six Fridays after Whitsuntide."

I hope to be able to satisfy the House upon that point when we come to that Rule.

said he should be delighted if that were the case, but as the Rule stood, there was no doubt that the private Members' Fridays, under the Rules as they stood at present, would be seriously eaten into by the time which would be occupied by what is known as private Bill Legislation. If his right hon. friend was going to make some other arrangement for private Bill legislation, that would, of course, alter the position. There was, however, another side to the picture, and he was perfectly right in what he stated the previous night, for this system of taking private Members' Fridays was an entire innovation. In the year 1891, under the Rule of their late lamented friend, Mr. W. H. Smith, private Members' Wednesdays were not taken until the 15th of June; in 1890 they were taken on the 17th of June; in 1889, on the 17th of July; and in the year 1888, not until the 11th of July. Now the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take Fridays after Whitsuntide, which this year fell upon the 18th of May. His right hon. friend seemed to think that he regarded this question of the rights of private Members solely from the point of view of one particular Bill, but in that he was entirely mistaken. He stated himself the other night that there were bad Bills introduced by private Members, and that there were also a number of very good and useful Bills introduced by private Members, and he cited, as an illustration, the Children's Bill, and the Beer Bill which was introduced last Session. One of his late colleagues said that the greatest danger they had, in his opinion, would arise from private Members' Bills supposing the Conservative Party were in opposition. He believed that was an entirely erroneous notion. The real danger they had to provide against in future was from a Government which might be composed of men of extreme opinions, and with the uncontrolled power they would have over the proceedings and the whole time of the House. That was the danger which they were laying up for themselves, and it might be perhaps not so distant as a good many of his hon. friends, in the pride of their present majority, believed. He was rather amused last night by the lecture addressed to him by the right hon. Baronet the Member for North-East Manchester upon his attitude towards the Government since he had ceased to be one of them. The right hon. Baronet had been kind enough, to write to him a letter couched in terms of kindly and almost fatherly remonstrance, but it might surprise him to learn that, not only personally but politically, upon all questions except in these Rules of Procedure his relations with his former colleagues since, to his regret, he parted from them had been universally of the most friendly character. Last night he asked the right hon. Gentleman to cite a single instance upon which he had been in opposition to the Government, and had tried to defeat their proposals, except upon these new Standing Orders. He had made some reference, and he had not been able to produce a single ease. His right hon. friend had stated in his letter that it was his manner, and the whole tone of his speeches, that appeared to give the impression that he was acting in an organised attempt to defeat the Government in these proposals, and that he was far indeed from being dispassionate. Well, he did not pretend that his manner Could ascend to the level of the right hon. Gentleman's. But that was his misfortune, not his fault. While the right bon. Gentleman was lecturing him last night he was irresistibly reminded of an occasion in this House when Mr. Horsman, who at that time was a very prominent figure, lectured Mr. Disraeli. Mr. Disraeli rose and replied that both sides of the House; acknowledged that the hon. Gentleman was "a superior person." He did not think he could do better than pass on the compliment to his right hon. friend. But even from the pedestal of his admitted superiority, he was not warranted with great respect, in imputing blame to him, either for his action or his motives, in the Debates on the Procedure. He need not, perhaps, have noticed the attack of his right hon. friend, but it would have been discourteous to ignore it, and what he said tonight would save the necessity of any S further reply to the letter of his right hon. friend. This curtailment of the rights and privileges of private Members was greatly to be regretted in the interest of the House of Commons on totally different grounds. Even Prime Ministers and Leaders of the House of Commons had begun by being private Members themselves, and if the rights and privileges of private Members were to be curtailed in the manner that is now proposed, what opportunities would be left to young Members for political and Parliamentary training? It was his fortune to come into Parliament under the great Leaders of former days. There was nothing more remarkable, either in Mr. Disraeli or Mr. Gladstone, than the never-failing interest they took in any young Member of this House who showed ordinary aptitude, and the encouragement they gave to him to persevere in his Parliamentary work, and to induce him to take as prominent a position as he could. But how completely changed was all this. His opinion was that there never was a time since he had been in the House of Commons when there was so much political ability among the younger Members on the Conservative side of the House than at present. He spoke of this side because he knew more of it than of the other. What opportunities did they get commensurate with their deserts for taking part in the proceedings of the House? Why was it they had not opportunities? It was all due to the system of obstruction, which the Rules of the Leader of the House were avowedly not brought forward for the purpose of stopping. The Whips went round making entreaties to Member after Member on this side of the House not to speak.

I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the only Question before the House is whether there shall be two or three Fridays after Whitsunday when Government business shall not have precedence.

said he always bowed to the ruling of the Speaker. He was supporting an Amendment which was intended to strengthen and improve the position of private Members. He was endeavouring to show how unfortunate was the position of private Members at the present time, and in support of that he made the statement that it was impossible for them now to take part often in the proceedings of the House because of the obstruction which prevailed, and which these Rules would not prevent.

As a matter of personal explanation. My right hon. friend has made an attack upon me for discouraging rising talent, I suppose on both sides of the House, and certainly on this side. I never remember a case in which any gentleman came to Parliamentary eminence through bringing in Bills on a Wednesday. The truth is that these are not the opportunities by which a Member of this House has ever risen to the summit of his Parliamentary ambition.

said that nothing that had occurred during the whole of these debates so directed attention to the difficulties of their position as the very interesting and lucid statement which the Leader of the House had rendered this afternoon with regard to the time occupied by private Members and by Government measures. No doubt it was a great revelation to many hon. Members of the House, and he could not help thinking that oven at this late hour the Leader of the House must see how wise it would be even now to throw the whole of these Rules overboard and appoint a competent Committee to suggest some system for the re-organisation of the sittings of the House and the season of their meeting. The Amendment now proposed was exceedingly moderate, and he sincerely trusted that the House, taking an independent judgment upon it, would carry it.

said the First Lord of the Treasury must have observed that many Members of the House on the Government side viewed these Rules with somewhat lukewarm enthusiasm. The right hon. Gentleman must be cheered by the fact that very often the objections raised to them were mutually destructive. He, for one, welcomed that callousness to the demands for the further worsening of this Rule, as he regarded it. Every hon. Member had got his own view as to the importance of the Resolution which he wished to bring before the House, or he thought that the Bill which he wished to pass was the most excellent in the world. But what the House had got to consider was whether, when private Members introduced on Fridays Bills of a revolutionary nature without proper consideration, they ought to facilitate their passage into law. He held that they ought not, and, therefore, he advocated that the fewer days devoted to that purpose the better. To increase the two days for private Members' business to three would only produce a scandalous state of things, and increase the obstruction to the proposed measures or Resolutions. He did not say that that obstruction would be wrong. Probably he would conceive it to be right, and would take part in it. He thought it would be a far less evil to stop the passage of a Bill by even unnecessary conversation than allowing it to pass into law without proper consideration. He did not think the proposed Rules would stifle rising talent. It was entirely beyond the power of the First Lord to effect that. He joined the hon. Member who had just spoken in congratulating the First Lord on the extremely interesting speech he had made, and in giving the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity of poaching on the manor of the hon. Member for Waterford and dragging in the question of Home Rule.

said that the First Lord of the Treasury had admitted that the position of private Members' business was very unsatisfactory. Why should the time of the House be taken up in discussing private Members' Bills which could not pass, and in which few Members took a real interest? This was one of the evils which ought to be inquired into and dealt with. The second difficulty was, supposing twelve private Members' Bills had been carried to a second reading, but that only two or three of these had any chance of passing into law; assuming that all those Bills went to a Grand Committee, and were carefully considered and brought into shape, the process of obstruction might be brought to bear on the first, and the remaining eleven would have no chance of passing at all. That was a waste of the time of the House which did no credit to the practical sanity of the House. The moral which they ought to draw from the First Lord's interesting classification of private Members' Bills was that there was only a limited time to consider these, and that the House ought to economise that time; in fact, that unless they employed private Members' time more usefully it was wasted. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to promise the House an inquiry, either by the Cabinet or by a Committee of the House, as to how the leakage of the time of this Chamber could be avoided. There was another grievance. Year after year the same Bills were brought forward and the same discussion took place upon them, but those Bills never got any more forward. He took, as an illustration, the Rating of Machinery Bill, which had been before the House for twenty years, and on which a great number of Wednesdays had been wasted. That Bill ought to be dealt with once for all. There was another instance—the Registration of Firms Bill, which had been discussed over and over again, and the Second Reading carried by large majorities. Here there was a limited amount of time for private Members' business, which the right hon. Gentleman had shown the House was needed for so many purposes, but which was squandered. He hoped the First Lord would take this subject into his serious consideration and institute some inquiry in regard to it, with the view of the allotment of private Members' time on a more business-like footing.

said that many hon. Members had spoken as if for the first time private Members were called upon to give up their opportunities for carrying legislation. He ventured to say that in all his earlier years in Parliament the opportunities afforded to private Members were mainly with the view of bringing forward Motions for ventilating their; grievances. These took up eight hours each on Tuesdays and Fridays, while five or five and a half hours on Wednesdays were devoted to unofficial Members' legislation. He had never disguised his; feeling that private Members' time should be devoted to ventilating grievances rather than to passing measures, many of which were bad. He maintained that unofficial Members should stand by their rights and privileges to call attention to grievances, and to raise questions of general interest. Private Members should insist on a legitimate opportunity being given to them to bring forward important questions and not concentrate their attention on Bills.

said he intended to vote for the Amendment on pretty much the same grounds that he had ventured to urge to the House with reference to another Amendment yesterday. At the same time, he confessed he preferred yesterday's Amendment, because, although it only left two Fridays after Whitsuntide, it still preserved liberty of action on the part of the House, and gave the House the power to meet anything like flagrant obstruction by giving another day to a measure which had received the sanction of the overwhelming majority of the House. But, as he had said last night, half a loaf was better than no bread. He did not think the hon. Member for the St. Albans Division was quite correct in saying that, so far as obstruction was concerned, three Fridays would be just the same as two. He thought if the House saw that there was a deliberate campaign of obstruction against a particular measure which was backed by the general feeling of the House, that some means would be devised whereby a third Friday should be used for the passage of the Bill. Therefore he thought there was a very considerable difference between three Fridays and two. He entirely dissented from the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet. He was disposed to accept the right hon. Gentleman's general attitude in hostility to mere fads and fancies. He was as much an anti-faddist as the right hon. Gentleman himself, but the right hon. Gentleman appeared to regard the majority of private Members' Bills as merely' faddists' Bills. That was not his opinion. The faddist's Bill generally met with an early death, but the kind of private Member's Bill he wished to preserve was of a very different character. He saw on the opposite Benches an hon. friend and countryman of his own, the hon. Member for Devizes, who, in a private Bill and without any Government support, but simply by his own energy", effected a very considerable and desirable change in the social and economic condition of the agricultural labourers of the country. That was a very remarkable instance of a measure carried by a ministerialist Member by the support of the House generally. That was the kind of private Bill he wished to see preserved. He mentioned last night the changes in the social condition of married life in this country, every one of which had been carried by Bills proposed by private Members, and carried through without the support of the Government of the day. He did not think the First Lord of the Treasury was quite fair in giving the repeal of the Crimes Act as the kind of private Members' Bill of which the House was thinking. That Act was passed after many weeks of Parliamentary time, in face of a fierce and obstinate opposition, and its repeal would also demand a large proportion of parliamentary time unless the House had arrived at an united opinion regarding it.

said it would obviously be a very controversial I measure.

said that for that very reason it was not the kind of measure they were thinking of in proposing three Fridays.

Very likely not.

asked if anyone imagined that a Bill of such a controversial character as the repeal of the Crimes Act could be carried on a Friday afternoon. The House of Commons had got into an unfortunate legislative habit of dealing with every question in the most piecemeal fashion. He would call, in support of that statement, the testimony of the Home Secretary. Last year the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Factories Bill, a beneficent measure, which he successfully piloted through the House. He was not going to reveal any secrets as to what occurred between the right hon. Gentleman and himself, but between them they managed to get the dockers into that Bill. The docker was within the existing Acts on one side of a vessel, and outside them on the other; one half of his body was within and the other half outside the law. That was one of those preposterous, piecemeal, tinkering Bills which the House constantly indulged in, and the only way of repairing small defects was either through the countenance and support of a sympathetic Minister like the Home Secretary, or by a private Member's Bill. Seamen were still outside the Compensation Acts, and no Government would take the question up. A private Member would have to take it up, and it was just the kind of question which a private Member could carry better than any Government. That was the kind ox legislation which the right hon. Gentleman was now trying to destroy. He joined with other hon. Members in admiration of the extremely interesting speech which had been delivered by the First Lord of the Treasury. That speech was more than interesting; it was historic. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman in the matter, because it was one of those Parliamentary accidents which would occur, but that speech should have been delivered last night, and it would have been more appropriate on the preceding Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were 960 hours in a Parliamentary session of 120 days, and then, by a series of calculations, the accuracy of which he had no means of testing, but which he was quite willing to accept, the right hon. Gentleman arrived at the conclusion that only 276 hours remained for the legislative business of the Government—276 hours for the government of one-fifth of the human race! If he had the advantage of being the proprietor of a great daily paper, he would tomorrow put the right hon. Gentleman's speech on one side of a large column in letters of gold—if the resources of the establishment permitted—and on the other side he would put the following:—

"The English"

"are the greatest, people the world has ever seen, but whose fault is that they do not know their strength, their greatness, and their destiny, and who are wasting their time on; their minor local matters.… The American has been taught the lesson of home rule and the success of leaving the management of the local pump to the parish beadle."

"He does not burden his House of Commons with the responsibility of cleansing the parish drains. The present position in the English House is ridiculous. You might as well expect Napoleon to have found time to have personally counted his dirty linen before he sent it to the wash and re-counted it upon its return."†

pointed out that the Amendment under discussion had occupied a considerable number of hours on the previous evening. He therefore appealed to the House to bring the debate to a speedy conclusion.

thought that the speech that the right hon. Gentleman had made on this Amendment required some elucidation. The right hon. Gentleman had no doubt a strong case for showing that this Rule, if passed, would make very little difference to private Members' Bills, but the suggestion of the hon. Member for Partick was that Standing Order 12—the Whitsuntide Order assigning precedence to the Committee Stages of Bills on two Wednesdays after—should be ante-dated to Easter, so that private Members' Bills which had been fortunate enough to obtain a Second Heading early in the session should really have a chance of passing through their further stages in the course of the session by having those days between Easter and Whitsuntide which were now allotted to Second Readings of private Members' Bills allotted to them. He hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would indicate whether he was favourably disposed to the solution of the difficulty of private Members which was suggested by the hon. Member for Particle. If the right hon. Gentleman were favourably disposed, he would not carry the discussion further. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Partick was a practical one. There were, in that case, two further questions he would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. First of all, would he consent to the appointment of a Committee to consider this particular point, the alteration of the present Rule, and, next, would he take steps as to the ballot with regard to Bills, in the sense which had so frequently been suggested by the right hon. Member for Aberdeen and other Members in the past? The right hon. Gentleman would do himself great credit and facilitate the passing of the Rules if he were to indicate his general approval of the scheme in some form or other of this particular solution of this question so that it might be placed upon the Paper and become a Standing Order this session. If that were done, it should be possible to place important private Members' Bills in such a position in the early part of the session as to give them a real chance of becoming law.

said he had a very strong feeling against all encroachments of private Members' rights. The House of Commons was becoming more and more an official Registry. He remembered when the Home Rule Bill was under discussion, Mr. Courtney moved an Amendment; he wished to have a Resolution passed whereby a Cabinet Minister in one House should have a right of audience in the other, but Mr. Gladstone rose up and with some heat said that for fifty-two years he had been a Member of Parliament, and he would never sit in a House of Commons in which the smallest privilege was given to a Member by reason of his being a Minister of the Crown.

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman must make his remarks relevant to the question before the House.

said he only wished to show that every encroachment on private Members' rights gave further power to official Members on one side or the other. The argument of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was that if this extra day were not given, no private Bill of a contentious nature had the least chance of passing. Everybody knew that there were private Bills which, though not controversial in their nature, were highly contentious, and which no Government desired to take up. For instance, there was the great class of Criminal Law Amendment Bills brought in by Sir Samuel Romilly, all of which were brought in as private Members' Bills. On the ground that if he went into the Government at all the question would become a Party question, Sir Samuel Romilly refused the Solicitor Generalship, and actually got an independent seat in order to give expression to his views. All philanthropy of that; kind, by a man who wished to hold himself independent of Party, would be utterly destroyed by this Rule. But there was a more recent illustration—

The hon. Member is going into some interesting historical reminiscences, but at the same time, I must remind him that they have nothing to do with the question before the House.

said he dared no; make a compromise with Mr. Speaker, but would he state at what time or stage it would be in order for him (the hon. Member) briefly to show the benefits that had come from private Members' Bills; and the way in which these Rules would affect that question?

said that he could not lay that down beforehand. If the remarks of the hon. Member were irrelevant he would be interrupted; he would then, exhaustively, And out whether he was in order.

said he would not venture to transgress the Rules of the House in order to find out when, by accident, he might be in the right.

I did not suggest that the hon. Member would wilfully transgress.

said he would endeavour, by some species of ingenuity, when the Rule as amended was put

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."