I beg to ask leave of the House to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the composition of, and the scope of the reference to, the Commission appointed to inquire into the sentences imposed by military courts established by military law in the South African Colonies and Protectorates.

I do not think that this is a definite matter of urgent public importance within the meaning of the Standing Order. It will involve a discussion of what are the subjects that ought to be referred to by the Commission—much too wide a question to be discussed on such a Motion.

With great respect, Sir, I will ask leave to confine my Motion to the composition of the Commission, but I may mention that a Motion similar in terms to that I have asked leave to move was allowed on 5th July, 1900, in reference to the Hospitals Commission in South Africa.

The hon. Member has had the advantage of referring to the record of that incident, which I have not; but still I must adhere to my ruling, for it appears to me these are totally different questions, the one being what enquiry should be made into the management of particular hospitals, the other a question that may raise a general discussion upon the whole administration of martial law at the Cape.

In that case, Sir, will you allow me to curtail my Motion, so as to confine it to the "composition of the Commission?"

The hon. Member may ask the leave of the House, but in the event of its being granted he must confine himself strictly to the composition of the Commission. The Motion was then put, That Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL be given leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the composition of the Commission appointed to inquire into the sentences imposed by military courts established under martial law in South African Colonies and Protectorates," but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen, The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 17, until the evening sitting this day.

A very brief statement will be required of me with regard to the Motion I have to propose, because at Question time on this and previous days I have been put through a course of interrogation which has elicited the main points of the programme the Government desire to dispose of before the summer holidays. Tonight and Wednesday will, I trust, enable the Committee with ease to dispose of Clause 7 of the Education Bill. I shall not propose to enter on Clause 8 in the course of the present session, because I think the end of Clause 7 will be a convenient point at which to break off our debates. I hope also that some progress will be made with the Water Bill, though of this I am not so absolutely confident. These are the only two Bills which I think can be described as controversial the House will be asked to deal with before the adjournment, which I hope will be on August 8. Two Irish Bills will require some discussion—not long, for they cannot be called controversial; and even less so is the Bill in charge of the Minister for Agriculture in relation to food and drugs. The House will also have to deal with the Lords' Amendment to the Shop Clubs Bill, the Public Works Loans Bill, the Expiring Laws, the Isle of Man Customs, and the Pacific Cable Bills, all non-controversial. There are also the Lords' Amendments to the Licensing Bill, which, I am told, are not of such importance as to cause any serious inroad on Parliamentary time. In these circumstances I ask the House to make the sacrifice of convenience which is habitual at the termination of the session, and which it has been the custom to make at a much earlier period than we have now arrived at. I believe the recent practice has been to suspend the twelve o'clock Rule for the remainder of the session about the 20th July. I have the gratification of remembering that the House has been asked to sit less after twelve o'clock during the present than in any previous session in Parliamentary history for a large number of years. [An HON. MEMBER: Autumn session.] I am dealing, of course, with the session only so far as it has proceeded. What the Autumn session may bring forth I cannot say. I do not contemplate the probability, or even the possibility, of the House sitting after Coronation Day; it is only some unforeseen accident that could produce so lamentable a consequence. The Motion I have to make will not be precisely in the form of which I have given notice. By the courtesy of an hon. Member opposite, my attention has been drawn to the drafting.† which, following the old model, would have the effect of depriving Members of the dinner interval. If it were carried as it stands, we should lose our dinner hour, and it might prove an inconvenient reminder of what has been gained by the new Rule. I beg to move the Resolution in this form:—

"That, until the rising of the House on August 8th, Government business be not interrupted, except at half-past seven o'clock, under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the sittings of the House; and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; and that at the conclusion of Government business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put."

On a point of order, I submit that this alteration can only be made after notice. There are many Members who would prefer to sit during the one and a half hours from half-past seven to nine to sitting after midnight.

The alteration is quite in order. It somewhat diminishes the stringency of the original Motion.

We think it increases its severity.

Setting aside for the moment these little intricacies, may I observe that the right hon. Gentleman has said with perfect truth and force that this habitual Motion has been moved later than usual. But looking back on the years that have passed let us consider what have been the intentions of these annual Motions. The usual intention of the Motion has been to facilitate the progress of unopposed business, to wind up things, and enable the House to deal with small questions thrust aside by the larger controversies of the session; to, in fact, give the House elbow room after twelve o'clock to transact humdrum but necessary business. Now let the House consider the occasion on which the Motion is made this year. We are in the middle of the discussion of the Education Bill—a great Bill exciting the most intense interest throughout the country, a Bill not only of a complicated character, but touching to some extent the inmost feelings and convictions of religious belief and the strong desire to adhere to the strict rules of political principle. The stage of the Bill at which we have arrived raises controversy in the acutest form. The right hon. Gentleman says the close of Clause 7 would be a convenient resting place; and so it would have been, for Clause 8 opens a new subject which deserves to be taken not at the end of the present session, but with the full energy with which Members will return in the autumn. But the right hon. Gentleman has altered his Bill, and has imported into Clause 7 the very matters that deserve full consideration in Clause 8 as it existed. Therefore, we must understand, before agreeing to this Motion, that the liberty given to the Government to keep the House sitting after twelve o'clock will not be used for forcing through at this stage of the sitting this most important part of the Bill. I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of these provisions, I do not wish to speak too strongly of the feeling they have created in the country, but I do say that nothing could be more foolish, even in the interest of those who approve of the provisions in the Bill, than to add to that feeling the further feeling that the assent of the House has been obtained under pressure at the end of an exhausting session. It must be remembered that this is not an ordinary session. We commenced our proceedings in January. It may be the case that we have had but few sittings after midnight, but nevertheless our sittings have been continuous and fatiguing, and it seems to me to be asking too much of the House to propose that we should necessarily conclude Clause 7 of the Education Bill before we rise for the recess. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give an assurance that, whatever disposition he makes of the time of the House during the next fortnight, he will not keep the House sitting to a very late hour at night for the purpose of passing this Clause. It would be a most unfortunate thing, a most unwise thing, and I will go farther, and say it would be a most indecent thing, if such a question as this, affecting the dearest interests and the most intimate feelings of a large mass of the people, were dealt with in circumstances of that kind. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can give us any such assurance. [Ministerial cries of "No, no!"] A great many hon. Members opposite appear to think that all-night sittings are something to boast about and be proud of, but I venture to say that that is not an effective way of dealing with a critical, complicated, and delicate question. Any law secured under such circumstances, when it deals with matters of this kind, will be the constant subject of attack and denunciation in the country for many years to come. The right hon. Gentleman has, I understand, judging from what he has just said, rather given the go-by to the London Water Bill, but he does wish to proceed with the Education Bill. What I will say of this Motion is, that if the right hon. Gentleman has determined to proceed to the end of Clause 7 of the Education Bill, let it, at all events, be done in the light of day, when every part of the Bill is fully reported, and when the House is not sitting under any unusual or injurious strain. Let the right hon. Gentleman now say that he will not use this power, which, as I have said, has always been willingly given for the convenience of business of the House generally, but not in the interest of some particular Bill which the Government wish to press through. If the right hon. Gentleman will give the House some such assurance as that, he will do away with a great deal of the feeling of hostility with which we necessarily regard a Motion of this kind.

Without entering into the question of the late sittings, there is a good deal to be said from the point of view raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. As a rule, this Motion is made for the purpose of winding up the business of the session. I think the Leader of the House is largely in sympathy with the general principle that the work of this House ought to be conducted in what the right hon. Gentleman opposite has called the light of day, or at any rate in what are called decent hours. It will be contrary to what has hitherto been recognised as a precedent, if an important clause is to be pressed through an important stage under such conditions. I do not think that my right hon. friend meant that. I hope it will be distinctly understood that we are not now giving our sanction to the prolongation of our sittings beyond ordinary reasonable hours, and that no attempt will be made to force through an important stage of the Bill under those conditions.

I am afraid we are being asked to do that which my right hon. friend is anxious that we should not be forced to do. It is well known that the special object of this Motion is to force through Clause 7 of the Education Bill, which deals with this question of the popular management of schools, as to which it is really essential that people should know what is being done. That is the ground of our opposition to this Motion, but in addition I confess it seems to me that we ought to extract from the Government some statement of the kind which is usual in regard to the business generally. I do not know if it is the intention of the Leader of the House to make a full statement with regard to the other business which he means to go on with in the present session. If it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to make a full statement upon the Motion for the Adjournment, then, of course, it is not necessary for me to pursue that subject further today. There is one Bill, against which there are four notices from the Conservative side and two from the Liberal side, and if the custom of the House allowed it there would be a larger number—I refer to the London Elections Bill. According to the precedent of the previous years, this would have been the occasion on which that Bill would have been dropped and the announcement made to that effect. No such intention has been expressed, and we ought to have an answer to this question now, or a promise of an answer on the Motion for the Adjournment. There is another matter which will not take long, but it is one which ought to be discussed in the course of the present week, or early next week. Every hon. Member is aware that two or three years after the event Parliamentary sanction is asked for for the transfer of certain items from one head of the Army Estimates to another. There is an annual general formal Motion made for the transfer of these items for which Parliamentary sanction has to be obtained, and for which, two or three years after, the consent of this House is obtained. The Financial Secretary to the War Office knows that last year we were informed that the matter of the purchase of guns in Germany was one which could not be discussed on any Estimates, because they were dealt with by transfers from the clothing and other Votes, but we were promised that we should have an opportunity of discussing this subject this year. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the House that opportunity, in the presence of the ordinary means of communication between this House and the outside world, which has been denied to Parliament for two and a half years. The transfer is an annual Motion which is made here about this period, and the House has never had any opportunity of dealing with the matter to which I have referred. We asked last year if we should be given an opportunity this year, and we were told that we should. It is that opportunity which I now press for. There is another question which certainly arises today. Not a word has been said yet about the Rules of Procedure of this House, which have been left in an extraordinary position. Some of them have been hung up and suspended in an incomplete form, others have been passed as Sessional Orders, and a few of them have been made permanent. The whole scheme is incomplete—some have been dropped, and we do not know in what condition they stand. We ought to have from the Leader of the House a general statement as to the course he proposes to ask the House to take. We have been led to think, by the words of the Government, that so far as it is necessary to deal with them in this session they would have been dealt with before the Adjournment That is evidently not going to be the case. Is that one of the purposes for which we are be brought together in that Autumn, to further consider these Rules? We should have a full explanation in regard to this question before the House rises for the recess.

My belief is that the best form of words that could have been taken are those at the end of the new Rule, which prescribe that a Minister may make this Motion after notice, but without debate. I think this would have been the better form, and I am quite sure it would have been a better thing for the Leader of the House to have made this Motion every day if necessary. Then the new Rules would not have been called into question, and that would have been the best course to take. The right hon. Gentleman has, however, chosen to take this course, which has been rendered more difficult by the Amendment which has been introduced. If we are to suspend the Twelve o'Clock Rule, in order to go on sitting all night, it is rather absurd to suspend the sitting at 7.30 and resume under what, I maintain, is the absurd position that you cannot test whether you have a House or not until ten o'clock. As to the merits of this Motion, the right hon. Gentleman has truly said that this is a Motion which is usually moved at the end of the session, but this is not the end of the session, for it is only the middle of it.

I said the end of the sitting.

The right hon. Gentleman's words were "end of the session," but he meant "end of the sitting," no doubt. But this is not the termination of the session, for it is only the middle of it. There is another point with regard to this not being the termination of the session. We should have to pass the Appropriation Bill, with the result that when the end of the session actually comes—I presume some time in December—we should not have the opportunity to which we are entitled, and which we usually have on the stages of the Appropriation Bill, of finally criticising the acts of the Government during the session. As to the action of the new Rule I must say that this Motion comes most surprisingly from the right hon. Gentle man. When the new Rules were introduced, and during the course of the discussions upon them, it was intimated that the proposed changes were to be made in order that the Government might automatically have what they were entitled to ask of the time of the House.

It was contended against the new Rules that there ought to be an opportunity of discussing the general course of business, such as existed under the old Rules, whenever the Government took the time of the House, but that, as the Government did not take the time of the House under the new Rules—it having been given—there would be no such opportunity. I always replied to that by saying that practically every Government found it desirable towards the close of the session to suspend the Twelve o'Clock Rule, and therefore an opportunity must arise on that occasion.

I always understood that if there was any merit in the new Rules, it was that they avoided the necessity of the Government coming to the House for time—that it was obtained automatically—that by means of the new Rules, instead of taking the cherry in small pieces they bolted it whole. In spite of all this, and in spite of the greater amount of work which is claimed to have been put out under the new Rules, we have the right hon. Gentleman coming down with this very drastic measure, which is usual only at the end of the session. I am sorry the First Lord has had to confess that the Rules have not automatically provided him with all the time he requires—although I think he has had a good deal of time—and that he has had to make this Motion. I do not know the form in which we should vote on the Motion; I presume it is possible for an Amendment to be moved, to omit the words the right hon. Gentleman has added. As a supporter of the Government, I do not intend to take that course myself, but somebody else may.

I desire to say a word about the form of this Motion. As originally drawn, I thought it was not a bad form, and that the omission of the interval from half-past seven to nine o'clock was part of the scheme. If it had been, I should have supported it with pleasure, because, if we recovered that hour and a half of, at present, wasted time, there would really be no necessity to sit after midnight at all. I would also submit that the words the right hon. Gentleman proposes to introduce are themselves not free from difficulty. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean them to include Friday? ["No."] But the Amendment as it stands does include Friday, and the effect of the Resolution will be not only that we shall sit after midnight on ordinary days, but that Friday shall be subject to a Rule which has never been applied to any day whatever hitherto—viz., that instead of rising at half-past five the House will sit until half-past-seven. I submit that that is the inevitable result of the Resolution.

was understood to dissent.

Then I would ask you, Sir, as a matter of order, whether the Motion as now proposed would involve the suspension of the Half-past Five Rule and the continuation of the sitting until half-past seven on Friday?

That is not a question of Order arising out of the Motion. It is for the House to say what would be the effect of a proposition laid before it. At present it appears to me that it would affect the Half-past Five Rule.

I thought it right that the meaning of the Resolution should be distinctly understood.

I was not ruling on a question of Order. It is a matter for the House. I have only expressed an opinion.

Until I hear arguments to prove the contrary, I shall assume that opinion to be correct; and I do not see how it can possibly be wrong. The Resolution clearly requires an Amendment limiting it to the first four days of the week, and excluding Friday.

But I want it to include Friday.

If an Amendment is proposed to omit the reference to half-past seven, I shall support it, because it would give us the hour and a half before nine o'clock, and obviate the necessity for sitting after midnight.

I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman taking credit for moving this Resolution at a later period than is customary. The one ground on which the Motion is usually made is that stated by the right hon. Gentleman himself on July 22nd last year, when he said—

"I now propose to make the Motion, which for many years has been made at this season of the year, with a view to bringing to a close as rapidly as possible the remaining business of the session."

Now, for the first time, as far as I can recollect, the Motion is made for the purpose, not "of bringing to a close the remaining business of the session," but of forcing through a certain amount of business in the middle of the session. Instead of admitting that he is making a grave departure from the practice of the House, the right hon. Gentleman actually makes it a virtue that he is bringing forward the Motion on July 28th instead of July 22nd. The Motion is usually made the occasion of a full and frank disclosure by the Leader of the House of the business he proposes to take before the conclusion of the session, and of the measures he intends to throw over. We are now asked to pass the Motion on the eve of an Adjournment, which in its essence does not differ from the Easter or the Whitsuntide recess, and we are denied the information on which alone the Motion is usually made. All the right hon. Gentleman did was to tell us the business he desired to take before August 8th. What virtue is there in the 8th? It is quite unheard of for a Minister to fix some arbitrary date, which is not the end of the session, and to propose the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule, in order to pass a certain amount of business by that date. With regard to this Motion being made the opportunity for discussing the general conduct of the business of the session by the Government, it is true that it was argued, when the new Rules were under consideration, that the opportunity afforded by another Motion would be taken away; but the right hon. Gentleman said that a Motion to suspend the Twelve o'Clock Rule would be made, and that that would give an opportunity for such a general review, at any rate once each year. The right hon. Gentleman has stated the business he hopes to take before August 8th. In my opinion, the proposal to put down the Colonial Office Vote for an afternoon sitting, and some other vote for the evening sitting, is an outrageous farce, and a denial of a fair opportunity of discussion. Are we to be told that at a time like this, and after all these events that have occurred, and the condition of affairs in South Africa at the present moment, that the Colonial Office Vote is to be confined to one afternoon sitting? It would be more decent to closure it altogether. It is a perfectly monstrous thing that, at a time like this, when the remaining days of this portion of the session are being snapped up, and only a few remaining days for the allotted days of Supply, that we should be deliberately told beforehand, without any reference to the character of the discussions, and knowing the nature of the discussions that can be raised this year, that one afternoon is sufficient for the discussion of the Colonial Secretary's Vote? Then there are the Supplementary Estimates to be discussed, some of which will raise questions of enormous importance. To put them down for an afternoon sitting is not keeping faith with the House. The Government themselves agreed that these Supplementary Estimates are estimates for raising fresh services, and that they should not be included in the twenty-two ordinary allotted days; and I maintain that that confession on the part of the Government involved a promise that a reasonable time would be given for the discussion of these new services. Does any one contend that an afternoon sitting is sufficient for that? I say that it is absurd; and that, in my opinion, such an offer is not a fair redemption on the part of the Government of the pledge they gave during the debates on the new Rules. It is customary at this time of the session for the House, if the Government desire to make a case for additional time, to take this opportunity of surveying the conduct of the business throughout the session, and the character of the session itself.

The hon. Member cannot review the whole session under this Motion.

I do not intend to go into a detailed survey of the session. I submit to your ruling, Sir, but my point is that we are entitled to consider two matters. First of all, the length of the session. We were called together on 14th January, and have been sitting ever since, which is a month longer than the ordinary length of the session, and, in the second place—and this is a point directly germane to the question at issue—we are now subjected to what may fairly be described as an intolerable strain, which compels the House to meet at two o'clock. The hon. Gentleman opposite, in the course of his speech, dwelt on the enormous importance of the reform which had been achieved by the dinner interval and adduced that as an argument in favour of the new Rule. But I regard the Dinner Rule as a fraud. To those of us who dine in the House, it gives us no relief whatever, and in place of that we have an hour added to our labour in the middle of the day, which. I can assure the hon. Member, has enormously increased the strain of those who regularly attend the House. I watch with curiosity the conduct of the enthusiasts who are in favour of the new Rules. These hon. Gentlemen said that they would throw away briefs and sacrifice hundred-guinea fees in order to be present in the House; but, just as I expected, these enthusiastic patriots never or rarely appear in the House until five o'clock. The Ministers themselves who come to the House at two o'clock feel the strain enormously. This new Rule, instead of being a reform, has been a great addition to the strain and endurance to hon. Members who attend the House regularly, and therefore that is a strong argument, which should not be left out of sight at the present moment. When we are asked to sit after twelve o'clock, why should we be brought down to the House at two o'clock? In my judgment, eleven o'clock under the new rule is as bad as twelve o'clock under the old rule. I trust the right hon. Gentleman, in administering the twelve o'clock rule, will take that fact in view, and will not call upon hon. Members to sit up to unreasonable hours in the morning. I am strongly of opinion that, in the interests of the Education Bill itself—in which I am as much concerned as the right hon. Gentleman himself—all-night sittings on the 7th Clause at this season of the year will not be good for us. I am convinced of that, and that if this 7th Clause is driven through the House in the small hours of the morning, a cry will be given to hon. Gentlemen opposite which the right hon. Gentleman will regret.

I rise to confirm the statement of my hon. friend that this Motion is contrary, both in letter and in spirit, to all precedents for the conduct of the business of the House of Commons. As to the letter, it is a contradiction in terms to say that it is a Motion that has been made for the purpose of closing the session. It is not made for the purpose of closing the session at all. We all know what the purpose of this Motion is. It is in order to prevent the country having the opportunity of expressing its views on Clause 7 of the Bill. That is the real meaning of this Motion. It is a Motion upon an Amendment which has been before the House only a few days. The right hon. Gentleman has not even adhered to the principle or the letter of the clause that he originally had in the Bill dealing with this matter. He has sprung on the House, I may say almost by surprise, this Amendment we are now considering. The object is to force this Amendment through the House without affording proper or decent time to consider it here, or to our constituents for expressing their opinion upon it in the country. Let it be thoroughly understood that that is the meaning of this Motion. And, as has been said, it will exasperate this controversy and will lead the people outside to believe that the House of Commons has not given the time it ought to have given to this critical question—as critical question it is. I believe that we and our constituencies have never been fairly dealt with on this matter, and that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is really a trick to get through the critical part of the Bill at hours of the night when the country cannot know what arguments had been used in its favour or against it. Therefore I say it is contrary to the spirit of the conduct of the business of the House of Commons, which has never endeavoured to keep from the judgment of the country matters of the most vital importance. We are asked to do that which, in my opinion, the House of Commons has never been invited to do, and which, if hon. Members respect themselves, they ought not to consent to. I was asked the other day by a friend what I thought of the new Rules, and I said that I judged of things by results, and the result of these new Rules was an autumn session. We met a month earlier than usual, and we were told that by meeting that month sooner, we would be free at an earlier period.

I never said anything of the kind.

Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman tells me that, I withdraw the statement at once. At all events, I did think myself—I do not know from what source I derived the opinion—that when we met a month sooner we were not going to have an autumn session, and that with all the advantages of the new Rules, the Government were to have more time than ever formerly for the business of the House. As my hon. friend has asked, what has meeting an hour earlier done to get through with the business of the House sooner? It has done nothing at all. I agree with what has been said that it is a great inconvenience to Members of the House—this early meeting. It has been productive of no good results at all. Everybody knows that the attendance is not as numerous as it used to be with the former hours. For these reasons, I think that, in the interests of fair debate, and, above all, in the interests of our constituents, the questions involved in Clause 7 of the Bill should be thoroughly understood in the country, and that they should not be treated in the manner proposed and forced through the House of Commons. What has been the practice under the new Rules? We know that the attendance in the House at two o'clock is not so numerous as it used to be at three o'clock, and the discussions are merely fragmentary. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had treated the House very fairly in regard to the Foreign Office Vote, the Army Vote, and the Navy Vote. We are this week to have the Colonial Vote. That Vote, of all Votes this session, is the most important of all. Under this Vote the Colonial conferences, South Africa, and everything else—matters of the most vital importance to this country—are dealt with, and yet, for the purpose of forcing Clause 7 of the Education Bill through the House, it is to have a morning sitting devoted to it. Well, I say that that is not treating the House of Commons fairly. It has never been so dealt with in matters of great consequence, and to endeavour within a few hours to cram through the Colonial Vote is a thing entirely contrary to the ordinary practice of Parliament, and I think we ought to resist the attempt to treat a matter of such importance in that way. The new Rules seem not to be imprinted very strongly on the memory of; the First Lord. His proposal is entirely inconsistent with the new Rules. He makes an Amendment which, in your opinion, is inconsistent with the new Rules.

No.

I think you ought to address that remark to the Speaker. The Speaker's opinion is that it will include Friday. Are we to sit on after twelve o'clock midnight on Friday? Really, we want a little information on this matter, Are the new Rules going to form part of the business of the autumn sitting? The attempt to treat this, which is the middle, and not the end of the session, on the conditions which are only applicable to the end of the session, is a thing entirely contrary to Parliamentary precedent and practice; and I feel that, for every reason, we ought to resist this Motion, which, as I have said, is not fair to the House, and is not presenting the House in the light in which it ought to be presented to the country. It will be felt that a most critical part of the Education Bill is being—I was going to use the phrase—smuggled through the House of Commons, without the opportunity of having daylight thrown upon it, after twelve o'clock. This question is to be handled, and the country is not to be allowed the opportunity of considering the reasonable Amendments brought forward by hon. Members.

The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was filled with a great many statements for which there seems to be very little authority. He quite mistakes the difficulty that has arisen on the question of form. It may be that I failed to understand what the right hon. Gentleman dropped in the course of his speech, and that may have caused some misunderstanding between him and me. It is intended that we shall sit at present in two sittings — afternoon and evening — four days a week. During these days the sittings shall not be interrupted by the twelve o'clock rule. As regards Friday, the same course shall be adopted as was often adopted as regards Wednesday, namely, that half-past five should not see the termination of our sittings. I do not anticipate that we shall be obliged to sit to a very late hour on Friday on that account, but it is to be anticipated that we shall sit on Friday, as on Wednesday under similar circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman and some other hon. Gentlemen were extremely indignant with the Government for allocating an afternoon sitting to the discussion of the Colonial Vote, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire fell into a blunder for which the hon. Member for East Mayo was responsible. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that we were going to sacrifice a full discussion on the Colonial Vote in order to get more time for the Education Bill. That is a very delusive idea. The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten what the Supply Rule is. The time under the Supply Rule may have been improperly divided between the different claims upon it, but it is one of the great advantages of that Rule that there never can be a question raised under it of sacrificing discussion in Supply for the discussion of controversial bills. As regards the allocation of an afternoon sitting to the Colonial Vote, the House knows the unfortunate reason which has caused the Vote to be so long delayed. While I frankly admit that I have given the evening sitting to the Office of Works Vote in consequence of an earnest demand made upon me, I think there is a collateral advantage. The considerable strain on my right hon. friend in dealing with the Vote will not be prolonged if it is disposed of at the afternoon sitting. That is not my motive, but, nevertheless, that is the effect. Of course, if it is made clear that the leaders of the Opposition disapprove of this allocation of time, I should greatly regret it, but I should feel bound to do what I could to meet their views. I pass from that—which has really no immediate connection with the Vote before us—to the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean. He has asked me various questions as to the remaining business of the session. He asked particularly about the London Elections Bill and the new Rules. As regards the London Elections Bill, I do not think it is very probable that we shall hear more about it in the course of the present session. It was brought in by my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board, in obedience to a request from both sides of the House, as a non-controversial measure. It has proved to be a very controversial measure. Evidently those in favour of it have run away from their guns, or they do not represent the great body of opinion they claimed to represent. In any case, I do not propose to expend time upon it. As to the Rules of Procedure, it is perfectly evident to the House that we must make Standing Orders of those Rules which at present are only in the transitory phase of being Sessional Orders. Whether any other Standing Orders ought or ought not to be passed I do not now say, but I do not think it will be possible to complete the whole programme of the alteration of our Rules which I proposed at the beginning of the year. Then I come to the larger question raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and enforced by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I confess that I listened to their speeches with absolute amazement. One of the criticisms passed upon me was that this was not the end of the session, but only the end of this part of the session. That is, of course, perfectly true. It is desirable that we should separate by August 8th, and the amount of business I ask the House to get through by that date is not an excessive amount. I think that is some reason to ask that the twelve o'clock rule be suspended in order that the House may prorogate on August 8th. I have now only asked that there should be an adjournment. I see no difference in principle at all. When the right hon. Gentleman opposite says he never remembers such a thing being done, I think he ought to cast his mind back to the methods of operation which they themselves practised. Does the right hon. Gentleman remember what he did over the Home Rule Bill? These two right hon. Gentlemen come down here and say, because we talk of finishing before August 8th Clause 7, on which we have already spent two whole Parliamentary days, that we are doing something in the dark; and we are threatened with something—I know not what—from the country because we legislate after twelve o'clock on a subject which greatly interests them. I suppose the people of the country were greatly interested in the Home Rule Bill, and I suppose that deserved to be discussed. The right hon. Gentleman first discussed it and then threw it into compartments, or else he threw it into compartments and then discussed it. Whichever it was, the then Leader of the House moved the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule before the separation for the holidays in the autumn, and that Motion included not merely the days intervening between the Motion and the holidays, but it included the whole of the autumn session. These are the people who comedown and, because I venture to suggest that for ten days it would be convenient that the twelve o'clock rule should be suspended, say that the Constitution is in danger and that I am endeavouring to thrust controversial legislation through the House in the small hours of the morning. The suggestion, if I may say so respectfully, looking to the Gentlemen who made it, is almost more than absurd. It is verging on the indecent. One more observation fell from the Leader of the Opposition. He said the Government had deliberately tried to introduce under Clause 7 of the Education Bill controversies about the management of schools which came under Clause 8. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is a complete illusion. It was because his friends sitting next him put down long Amendments, and it became perfectly clear that we could not, do what we would, avoid the whole controversy on Clause 7 that we have adopted the course we have adopted, and which I think is really for the convenience of the House. I have been asked whether we will have all night sittings over Clause 7. I hope we shall not have all-night sittings over anything, but there must be reason and moderation in all those concerned in our discussions. Observe the contradictory accusations made against us. We have been told that the session is too long. We have been told that we have met too early and that we are continuing too late. At the same time we are told that we are burking discussion and that we have asked the House to consider too many questions in the course of the session. If the House is incapable of dealing with an Education Bill of twenty clauses and to alter the Rules, it has confessed its own impotence. I have endeavoured to make the discussion as brief as I could. I have certainly not endeavoured to prolong it by irritating remarks. Perhaps have not used the closure sufficiently often, but when I have used it I have been reproached by hon. Gentlemen opposite for doing so, and they have indicated to me that we should have got on much better without it. But you cannot have it both ways. The House must remember that the number of days at our disposal is a limited quantity, and if the Government do not squeeze in too big a programme of business, then it rests with the House to deal with the matter according to their own judgment. No such accusation can be brought against us, and if I ask the House to finish Clause 7 of the Education Bill before we separate in August, even the most vigorous of our opponents, I think, will have to admit that we are not making any unreasonable demand.

I want to bring to an issue the differences between this side of the House and the other side. We desire to exclude the Education Bill and the Water Bill from the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has moved. The effect of this course would be that we should discuss the Education Bill when it is set down, and also the Water Bill, until twelve o'clock, and then we should pass to the other business which the right hon. Gentleman says it is necessary to pass in order to finish up the session. I have been looking at the Amendments on the Paper to the Education Bill. There are 131 notices on the Paper to Clause 7. Of these thirty-nine are obvious duplicates, and that leaves ninety-two for discussion, and of course some of those are mere consequential Amendments. These are what the hon. Gentleman is asking us to dispose of in the early hours of the morning, when the House is tired out, and when the discussions are not reported; and he is aiming to keep the country in the dark as to what is being done by him and his Government in the House of Commons. Is there any justification for this course? There have been sixteen sittings devoted to the Education Bill. The First Lord of the Treasury has referred to the Home Rule Bill, but he could have found a much better parallel in the Parish Councils Bill. In a letter which appeared in The Times of January 8th, 1894, writing about the Guardians Clause, which was merely a proposition to give the people some voice in the appointment of Guardians, the right hon. Gentleman said—

"It was fought, line for line, for seven days, and was finally debated and decided against as a whole."

If the right hon. Gentleman took seven days to fight one clause of a Bill which he originally described as non-contentious, how many days ought he now to allow for a clause dealing with education, which raises questions of vital moment to the country, and which is endeavouring to reverse a policy which has been approved of by the people for nearly thirty years? [Ministerial cries of "No, No."] Probably those hon. Members who cried out "No, no," represented constituencies where there are no School Boards. What was the answer which the right hon. Gentleman got at Bury?

Order, order! It must be obvious to the hon. Member that it is not in order to discuss the Bury election.

I was endeavouring to compare the time occupied upon the discussion of this Clause with the time occupied in the discussion of two minor clauses of the Parish Councils Bill. On the Charities Clause the right hon. Gentleman and his friends took six days, and on that and the Guardians Clause alone they took almost as much time as this House has taken over seven important clauses of this Education Bill. Where is the justification for forcing us to discuss the Education Bill in the small hours of the morning? The right hon. Gentleman said they were "threatened with something in the dark in the country." It is not in the dark. We have just had an election at Clitheroe, and there the right hon. Gentleman has not dared to put a candidate in the field. There is an election pending in North Leeds, where the right hon. Gentleman has ventured to put a candidate in the field; but does anybody call him a candidate? [Cries of "Question, question!"] The answer he will get from Leeds will justify the answer which came from Bury. The right hon. Gentleman talks about threats from the country—

I never talked about threats from the country.

The right hon. Gentleman's words were "threatened with something in the dark in the country."

I was quoting the words of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

The right hon. Gentleman is now adopting, as a reason for pressing this forward, the argument that there were threats made to him from this side of the House as to what would happen in the country. The right hon. Gentleman is now engaged in the thankless task of forming a Ministry. [Cries of "Question, question !"]

That is not a matter which is open for discussion now.

I beg to move my Amendment.

I rise to support the Amendment of my hon. friend. If the right hon. Gentleman had just moved to clear up the business at the end of the session there would have been no real resistance, because that would have been perfectly fair. The right hon. Gentleman, however, proposes to utilise this Motion in order to dispose of a controversial Clause in a Bill, not one-third of which is through the House of Commons. The Home Rule Bill is not a precedent, because it was disposed of before the Ministry moved this Motion at all. My recollection is that the Home Rule Bill was not discussed under the pressure of the suspension of the twelve o'clock Rule at all. The Bill had been disposed of when the Ministry moved this Motion for the purpose of clearing up Supply and two or three Departmental Bills which remained undiscussed. I do not think the Government suspended the twelve o'clock Rule to discuss any part of the Parish Councils Bill. Supposing it had been the Home Rule Bill, and the Government had got to the 6th, 7th, or 8thClause, and intended to dispose of the rest of the Bill in an autumn session? I know what the right hon. Gentleman would have said. The Government did not then suspend the Rule to dispose of any controversial Bill at all. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not stick to his autumn session and not utilise exceptional measures. This is the most complicated, important, and critical Clause in the whole Bill, and if there is a Clause which ought to be discussed fully, it is this one. It is not merely details of machinery, but the Clause itself is full of great, important and crucial principles, and, according to the way we decide them, and the judgment we pass upon them, will depend the whole success or otherwise of this Bill in the country. Is it desirable or fair that the right hon. Gentleman should insist upon discussing this Clause after twelve o'clock? Today there will be a discussion on a Motion for the adjournment on a very important issue which will throw the discussion on Clause 7 far into the night. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to discuss this Clause in the light of day or in darkness? Does he prefer darkness to light, because his deeds are evil? In order that this momentous Clause may be discussed, the right hon. Gentleman wishes to confine discussion on other Bills. When was the Appropriation Bill ever disposed of at a morning sitting, especially in a year in which there has been the largest expenditure in our living memory, viz., £200,000,000? In order to get more time for his Education Bill, the right hon. Gentleman now proposes to discuss that huge expenditure during a morning sitting. I think that is unfair. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision, and treat this Parliament as the late Liberal Administration treated the then Parliament, and keep the time after twelve o'clock, not for the discussion of important measures, but to sweep up the odds and ends of the session.

said he thought the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that the Amendment was reasonable. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would clear up a point which was still doubtful with regard to the London Water Bill. He had gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that no more would be heard of that measure until the autumn session. It was a very difficult Bill to discuss; and there were only a few hon. Members who represented what he believed was the predominant feeling of London regarding it. There was a further reason why the Amendment should be favourably entertained. Apart from the two contentious Bills covered by the Amendment, there was also a Bill with reference to a tramway on the Embankment. The Lords' Amendments to that measure would have to be considered. Then, again, a deputation was to wait on him regarding two Bills in reference to the police. Of the twenty-three Bills which had been asterisked as Government measures, the right hon. Gentleman had only mentioned four or five. Surely the House ought now to know what the intentions of the Government were with regard to all these measures, and unless the Opposition was met in a reasonable spirit great confusion would result, and business would not be got through as the right hon. Gentleman would wish. There was a slight contention between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for King's Lynn as to what the right hon. Gentleman said during the debate on the Supply Rule with reference to business after twelve o'clock. On the 30th of April—

Order, order ! The whole Resolution is not now before the House.

said he would bow to the ruling of Mr. Speaker; but the meaning of the Amendment was that the twelve o'clock Rule at the end of the session should only be suspended to carry through necessary business, which the Government considered should be passed before the adjournment. The contention of his hon. friend was that the right hon. Gentleman was now using the suspension of the Rule in order to get on with two measures which he had already decided should not be closed during the present period of the session. Their objection was that the right hon. Gentleman was not fulfilling the promise he gave. On the 30th April, during the discussion on the Supply Closure Rule, the right hon. Gentleman accepted an Amendment enabling this business to be taken on the last two Supply nights between ten o'clock and midnight, which indicated that he did not assume that the House would sit after midnight. The right hon. Gentleman also stated that the suspension of the twelve o'clock Rule at the end of the session would only be used to carry through Bills which the Government had declared it was absolutely necessary to finish before the House separated. A new precedent was now proposed to be set up, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would facilitate matters generally by accepting the Amendment.

said that the reason they objected to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman was that they regarded Clause 7 as a vital part of the Education Bill, because when the right hon. Gentleman had got Clause 7 he would have got his Bill. Why could not the right hon. Gentleman wait until the autumn session and have the matter thoroughly discussed? It was not a case of now or never. The right hon. Gentleman would have ample opportunities during the autumn session; but meantime he ought to give the country a chance of thinking over the matter. The Government were not elected on an education mandate. They were elected on the idea that a vote given to the Liberals was a vote given to the Boers. The Government had received no mandate to pass the Education Bill, and, therefore, he strongly and earnestly protested against their getting through a most vital part of that measure in the dead of night when the proceedings could not be reported, and when, consequently, the country would not be able to judge for itself.

said that they were all agreed, that, if possible, the House should rise on the 8th of August. The object of the Amendment was merely to give the House more time to discuss the other measures which the right hon. Gentleman said it was desirable to pass. There was one Bill which remained to be considered. It was perhaps the most Protectionist measure ever brought before the House of Commons, although it appeared under the seductive title of the Food and Drugs Act Amendment Bill. Already there were five pages of Amendments on the Paper regarding it, most of them being in the names of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Second Reading was taken by a mere fluke after midnight; and now at the end of the session they were asked to dispose of a measure which would require two or three days consideration. The Agents General of the most important Colonies had protested against the Bill; and in the closing days of the session they were asked to discuss five pages of Amendments to a measure regarding which not a word of explanation had been given. The most important part of the Bill would not come into operation until January 1st, 1904; and it was absurd to take up valuable time in discussing it now. It was an undigested measure which had not been properly considered: and it might well be postponed until the autumn. Even the supporters of the Bill would welcome its postponement, as nothing would be gained by persisting in it at present.

said he did not desire to say anything about the Education Bill; but he desired to enter a protest in connection with the London Water Bill. Up to the present, the Bill had only been discussed on two short Parliamentary days; and now the right hon. Gentleman proposed the suspension of the twelve o'clock Rule in order that it might be taken at a late hour of the night. The right hon. Gentleman in a speech he delivered outside the House, said that hon. Members who opposed the Water Bill were merely actuated by a desire to impede the Education Bill; but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was no foundation for the statement. His hon. friends and himself believed that the Water Bill was a thoroughly bad Bill; and their opposition to it had nothing to do with the Education Bill. He did not think it was fair to ask the House, on the third occasion of this Bill being taken, to suspend the ordinary Rule, and, therefore, in regard to the London Water Bill, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, if he intended to take it again this session, to take it under the ordinary Rules of the House.

pointed out that although the Food and Drugs Bill might be objected to on the ground that it was Protectionist, all the Agricultural Members of the House could assure the right hon. Gentleman it was only Protectionist in the sense that its object was to protect the working classes from adulterated foods. The Amendments put upon the Paper were, with, one exception, not hostile, but were placed upon the Paper to improve the measure, and there was no doubt, if the Government could give

said he should vote for the Amendment, because he did not think the effort of the right hon. Gentleman to force through this Clause was wisely directed. The right hon. Gentleman had cited as a precedent for the Motion he had made the action taken by a Liberal Government on the Home Rule Bill, but there was a great difference between the two cases. In the case of the Home Rule Bill of 1893 there was an irreconcilable difference of opinion between the two sides of the House with regard to the objects of that Bill. On this occasion there was no such irreconciliable difference. There was the strongest disposition on the part of hon. Members on the Unionist side of the House to meet hon. Members on the Liberal side, and he thought if the right hon. Gentleman used the Party screw to force through the 7th Clause, he would be unwise to the last degree. It would be disastrous to the country, and would bring woe to the right hon. Gentleman's supporters. There was not a Unionist Member who was not elected by Nonconformists votes, and they would lose all the votes of the Nonconformists at the next election if this Bill was forced through in its present shape. He believed the action of the right hon. Gentleman would also offend the feeling of a vast number of Churchmen in this country, especially Evangelical Churchmen. He regretted the action of the right hon. Gentleman from the bottom of his heart. The Clause which touched the country most closely was to be driven through with the Party force. He wanted peace on this question, and that it should be settled, in the right hon. Gentleman's own words, "in a spirit of Christian charity."