to give one's decision in one case without very small one indeed, and it was knowing something about what was whether Questions should begin at 2.12 So far as that narrow point going to be done with the others. The or 2.15. right hon. Gentleman had stated that was concerned, speaking as one who had there were two sets of business before had to answer as many Questions as any the House which conflicted with each member of the Government, he wished other, one of which must be in a con- to say that he thought the short interval between prayers and the commencement dition of some uncertainty, and that, as that condition of uncertainty must prevail, of business was not only valuable to the uncertainty ought to affect private Ministers who had to answer Questions, business rather than public business. but it was also of great value to hon. Members who wished to put Questions, This was something more than a question of uncertainty, for the House because it enabled them to consult Mr. Speaker upon questions which mustwere in complete ignorance as what was going to happen to private necessarily arise. The more important question, however, was what was going business. All they knew now was to happen in regard to the private busithat, if it was not disposed of by a quarter-past two, it would be ness which could not be got over in the five or seven minutes which intervened postponed until such time as the ChairWhat between prayers and questions. man of Committees should determine. was going to happen to all the private He thought before this Amendment was business in connection with great municipassed which banished private business palities? He did not wish to appear altogether from consideration after 2.15, discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, the House ought to know what kind of but he did not think the First Lord of arrangement the Government contem- the Treasury, not having taken an active plated. They knew nothing whatever part in private business, was fully aware as to that part of the case. The right hon. of the large questions which came up for Gentleman had said that after the Rule consideration. The right hon. Gentlewas passed he would appoint a Committee man the Member for East Wolverhampton to consider this question, but it ought to and himself had frequently raised questions be considered before. Whatever the at the time of private business in regard Government did, and before the House to the unlimited borrowing powers exerwas asked to revolutionise its procedure, cised by municipalities, and it was largely it ought to be enlightened on some of owing to their efforts that the inquiry these questions. The House ought to now being conducted into this question have some guidance with regard to the arose. When upon several occasions they future of private business before they were succeeded in stopping Bills because they asked to commit themselves in this matter. thought the borrowing powers of those He hoped that before they went to a divi- municipalities were being exercised in a sion some member of the Government dangerous manner, they raised great would throw a little light upon the diffi- questions of principle. culties in which they were placed, and know what the Government had really this question. which were inevitable in the present got in their mind upon position of affairs. There was a feeling of disquiet and alarm in the country in regard to the vagueness of these proposals. When this proposal was brought up, he should have thought it would have been accompanied by a large scheme of devolution in regard to private business. Under this proposal the Chairman of Committees was to be made an absolute autocrat in regard to private business. (9 36.) LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade) said he was quite aware that it might be said, and said with some force, that the proper occasion for discussing this matter would be when they reached the later Resolution on the subject. This was, however, such a great matter that he did not think the Govern ment ought to complain if they took the earliest opportunity of pointing out that there was an alarming vagueness in the views of His Majesty's Government in reference to private business. The immediate point before the House was a Mr. Chaplin. He wished to *MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord will not be in order in discussing the whole Standing Order. LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE said they had dealt with a water scheme the present Rule gave an immense power for Birmingham which involved the to the Chairman of Committees. What he expenditure of £7,000,000. wanted to urge upon the Government was that before they reached the Standing Order dealing with private business, the House was entitled to ask that there should be something more before it than the mere autocratic power given to an officer of the House. Upon the immediate question before them he could only say that he thought the Government had given a fair answer to the Amendment, and, as the Amendment had been raised owing to the apprehension to which several hon. Members had given voice, it would, perhaps, be better to pass this Rule as it stood, reserving their liberty to deal later on with the very important question which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford had raised. MR. A. J. BALFOUR said they were not dealing with that question at the present time. He agreed that the question of private business was very important, but it was not raised in the aspect which his hon. friend suggested on this Amendment. The question was merely whether the Speaker should call upon a questioner at a quarter-past two o'clock or a few minutes earlier. He hoped the House would leave the other part of the subject to be discussed at the proper time. MR. GALLOWAY said that as both sides of the House seemed to be agreed upon this point, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. [Cries of "No, no."] *MR. BLAKE regretted that the First Lord of the Treasury had left this important question of private business told them distinctly that private business so vague in the Rule, because he had was to be distributed over four or five There was no days in the week. *(9.45.) SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan) said there ought to be certainty in regard to both private and public business. He hoped that the Government would not leave this question as it now stood. Ordinarily the work of the House was purely legislative, but when they came: to private business, the House was not only a legislative body. It was also, practically, a legal tribunal. They had to deal with promoters of measures, with evidence, and with witnesses, and they had complicated Rules by which their proceedings were guided. He did not think that the House was always fully alive to the gigantic importance of many of the questions belonging to private business. Sometimes they had to deal with Water Bills relating to London introduced by by the London County Council. As Chairman of the Committee, he had had to deal with Bills affecting The House divided:-Ayes, 199; Noes Liverpool, Glasgow, and Edinburgh, and 111. (Division List No. 141.) Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. difficulty in arranging that this little space of time which intervened between prayers and 2.15 should be used for Questions. What was convenient and satisfactory for opposed private business, ought to be equally satisfactory for unopposed private business. This arrangement would give them a little longer time for Questions. AYES. (9.53.) Question put. Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Hall, Edward Marshall Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Allan, William (Gateshead) Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Johnston, William (Belfast) Manners, Lord Cecil NOES. Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn Ffrench. Peter Bell, Richard Blake, Edward Boland, John Broadhurst, Henry Field, William Flavin, Michael Joseph Flynn, James Christopher Fuller, J. M. F. Gilhooley, James Goddard, Daniel Ford Hammond, John Rattigan, Sir William Henry Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. Hobhouse, C.E. H. (Bristol, E.) Kitson, Sir James Law Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) Leese. Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Leigh, Sir Joseph Levy, Maurice Lewis, John Herbert MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift New Procedure 117 MacVeagh, Jeremiah M'Crae, George M'Fadden. Edward M'Hugh, Patrick A. M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) (28 APRIL 1902} O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N. Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Schwann, Charles E. (10.6.) Mr. GIBSON BOWLES moved sitting. Spencer, RtHnC.R. (Northants. Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr Weir, James Galloway TELLERS FOR THE NOES He would not insist on Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment an Amendment providing that Questions the Amendment or carry it to a division should be taken "on days when there if the Leader of the House thought it He objectionable, but still he proposed it in is one sitting, at twelve o'clock." moved the Amendment for the purpose order that he might get an answer to of raising the question whether there the arguments he had used. should or should not be Questions permitted possibly on on Friday, or was a Saturday "In line 2, after the word 'clock,' to insert Saturday, if there sitting. At present there was, he the words and on days when there is one believed, no Rule prohibiting Questions sitting at Twelve of the clock.'”—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.) Wednesbeing put at twelve o'clock on day, and there had occasionally been instances of Questions being put on It sometimes very that day. important that there should be the power of putting Questions to Ministers on that day. It was practically to retain the power of doing so that he moved the Amendment. was on 1 Question proposed, words be there inserted.” "That those As I conceive MR. A. J. BALFOUR: it, my hon. friend's Amendment is unnecessary, because, as I understand the matter, there is nothing at all in the Rule in question to prevent any Question being put and answered at twelve o'clock on Fridays. Unless my memory deceives me, some hon. Members have during the last few sessions put down Questions on Wednesdays, which, of course, shows conclusively that there is nothing in the Standing Order to prevent it. My hon. friend thinks it would be an improper restriction of our liberties to make it He apprehended that even if the Amendment were carried, the practice which at present obtained with respect to Wednesday sittings would continue That was Friday. to say, while it was recognised that a Minister found it extremely difficult, if not impossible, except under special circumstances, to be in attendance to answer Questions at twelve o'clock, because he had to be in his Department to do his work, yet there might be occasions when a Minister would desire to have Questions put to him at twelve o'clock, and by adopting the Amendment, the House would leave it open to a Member to ask a Minister a Question. Under the MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON said Rule as proposed, there would be no power whatever, when an emergency he was very glad that the right hon. As he understood might arise, of putting a Question Gentleman did not oppose the Amendto a Minister at a Friday or Saturday ment on the merits. impossible for a Question to be asked and the Rules and customs which now attach answered on a single sitting day, but all to Wednesdays will be transfered to Fridays, and under these Rules and customs it will be possible to put a Question if an hon. Member desires it; although Ministers will not as a rule, be here to answer such Questions. the right hon. Gentleman, he had no objection to the object of the hon. Member for King's Lynn. He conceived however, that the new Rules might produce an element of doubt, and at all events, the introduction of the words proposed by the hon. Member would remove any possibility of doubt, and as the right hon. Gentleman did not object on the merits to the proposal, he respectfully hoped that the hon. Gentleman would persevere with his Amendment. MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but if these words were put in they would imply that a practice was to prevail on Fridays what did not prevail on Wednesdays. There were no corresponding words in the old Standing Order, and, if they were inserted, it would be said that it was evidently intended that Questions should be asked on Fridays as on other days of the week. My hon. friend does not desire that, any more than I do; and I think it would be in accordance with good drafting to accept the Rule as interpreted by the practice of the House, and not interpose confusion. *SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Man chester, N. E.) said that between 1892 and 1895 many Questions were asked at a twelve o'clock sitting. MR. FLYNN said the new Rule would involve an essential difference. Wednesday came in the middle of the week, and it was no great hardship that a Question should be put down on Thurday instead of on Wednesday. But under the new Rule, if a Member desired to put down a Question for Friday it would have to stand over until Monday. There was nothing in the present Rule against asking Questions on Wednesdays. The common sense of the House, however, recognised that Questions should not be put down on that day, and that Ministers should not be required to leave their other business in order to be present to answer them, and the general sense of the convenience of Members did not tempt them to put down Questions for twelve o'clock. There was, however, a great deal of difference as regarded Questions on Wednesdays and on Fridays. He had a very lively recollection of some important Questions being put on Wednesdays. He remembered one Question Mr. Edmund Robertson. of great public policy with regard to education in Ireland. It was essential that the Department in Dublin should get an authoritative announcement in this House, and if he was not mistaken, the present Leader of the House intimated to Mr. Sexton to put down a certain Question with regard to the business to which he had referred. It was answered, and the Department in Dublin at once proceeded with developments of a most important character. If Questions were not to be asked on Friday, they would have to be put off until the Monday following. He trusted the hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn would press the Government a little more. The Amendment could not alter a Rule which did not exist; neither would it alter the customs of the House He trusted the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment, as it would suit the convenience of Ministers as well as the convenience of unofficial Members, and would not be abused. |