MR. VICARY GIBBS (Hertfordshire, private business was most important, and St. Albans): Why? if it was put off until nine o'clock in the evening he did not think that course would be conducive to an adequate discussion of private Bills. He should like to have some little information as to whether adequate time would be given for the discussion of private business. MR. RICHARDS said that unlike his hon. friend the Member for the St. Albans Division he was not endowed with patriarchal fortunes, and he could not attend the House himself at that time of (11.10.) MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield) said that often private business was in the position of a case being tried, and the House was practically а Law Court to decide. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] For that reason private business had to be got through in some way and under the system proposed there was a great danger that a good deal of the private business would have to be done at the end of the session. He thought some undertaking ought to be given them that private business would be got through early in the session. MR. BANBURY (Peckham) said he did not wish to vote against the Government on this occasion, but he agreed with the MR. CHAPLIN said he honestly wished to vote with the Government on this point, but he could not do so unless he received some information as to what was going to be put in its place. MR. A. J. BALFOUR said he was astonished at his right hon. friend, because he had repeated over and over again the Government plan in regard to private business at the evening sitting. MR. CHAPLIN: Could it be put down for Friday? MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Surely it is sufficient for the present discussion to say thas it is not to be taken at the afternoon sittings upon four days in the week. (11.13.) Question put. The House divided:-Ayes, 133 hon. Member for the Scotland Division that Noes, 229. (Division List No. 142.) AYES. Crean, Eugene Cremer, William Randal Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Delany, William Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Donelan, Capt. A. Duncan, J. Hastings Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Goddard, Daniel Ford Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Kearley, Hudson E. Kitson, Sir James Lambert, George Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J. Layland-Barratt, Francis O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Roe, Sir Thomas NOES. Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Blundell, Colonel Henry Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Dickson, Charles Scott Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Firbank, Joseph Thomas Fisher, William Hayes Fison, Frederick William FitzGerald, Sir Robt. PenroseFitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon Flower, Ernest Forster, Henry William Galloway, William Johnson Gardner, Ernest Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans) Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn Gore, HnG. R. C.Ormsby (Salop Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby (Line.) Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y) Coghill, Douglas Harry Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury | Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs. Hope,J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside Maxwell, WJ H(Dumfriesshire Reid, James (Greenock) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Milvain, Thomas Renwick, George Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) Strutt, Hon, Charles Hedley Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray TELLERS FOR THE NOES- (11.32.) MR. FULLER (Wiltshire, ing that the right hon. Gentleman and Westbury) moved to omit the words in the Rule which limited the time during which Questions may be asked. He said the Amendment would have the effect of placing Questions on exactly the same footing as they were in under the present Rule. He ventured to think the Amend ment was one which would receive considerable support from all quarters of the House. He hoped the Leader of the House would give it some measure of favourable consideration. It was noticeable that in the short general discussion on the Rule not a single word of commendation was forthcoming for this proposal. He could not help think the Government were exaggerating the evil of the present state of things. He found that in January and February last the House sat twenty-five days not counting Wednesdays, when of course there were no Questions, and there were no less than 1,398 Questions addressed to Ministers-an average of about fiftysix Questions per day. He considered that the time given to the asking and answering of Questions was well spent and that it was time which might well be spared by the House of Commons. He believed that the answers extracted from Ministers were of vital public importance to the country. If hon. Members would only look at the public Press they would in addition to the Questions with reference see the immense importance which the to the business of the House. I do public at large attached to the answers think, and I hope the House will agree given by Ministers to the Questions with me, that that really is sufficient addressed to them in the House. time to give to the catechism of the Government. It would be an unfortunate Amendment proposed to the proposed thing if we were to allow the solid Amendment "In line 2, after the word 'clock,' to leave out the word 'Business,' in line 7, inclusive.— (Mr. Fuller.) Question proposed, "That the words *no Questions shall be taken after' stand part of the proposed Amendment." MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I confess I four and a half hours, which is all we get in the afternoon sittings, to be intrenched upon by any overflow of irrelevant or unnecessary Questions. I shall not expend more time in defending a thesis I have often spoken on before, but I claim that we have not shown ourselves indisposed to meet the views of both sides of the House. MR. T. P. O'CONNOR said he must think the Government have some right express his surprise at the way the to complain of the criticism which the right hon. Gentleman had treated this hon. Gentleman has passed on the question. The right hon. Gentleman. proposal. It has always been recognised had spoken as if the question had that Questions are capable of abuse, already been exhaustively discussed, and have been abused now and then, when, as a matter of fact, save from and it has also been admitted that the allusion to it in his opening speech there was a great deal to be said for on the subject, and on a subsequent the original plan of the Government, occasion when he announced a modiwhich set the time for Questions fication of the original proposal, and between 7.15 and 8. But that hour also the few words which they had now was objected to, and a further objection heard, and which nobody could dignify was offered to the limitation of supple- with the name of a statement, this great mentary Questions. We have met the and tremendous revolution in the proceedHouse on both of these points, and ings and practice of the House, had not we have altered the time for Questions found anything like adequate discussion so as to be indeed much less convenient from the right hon. Gentleman. He would to Ministers but more convenient to withdraw the word discussion, for they Members of the House, and we have were now discussing the proposal for the done away with the limitation of first time. The right hon. Gentleman supplementary Questions-a limitation thought he had risen to the situation by which I am bound to say had great making remarks which occupied about justification. I had hoped that a con- three minutes. He believed the right cession so large as that might have hon. Gentleman was proposing to alter reconciled hon. Members to cutting one of those practices which most down the time for Questions to'a period honourably and beneficently distinguished which will allow sixty-five to be answered this House from every other Assembly in to was the case made out for the change? Surely a case ought to be made out before a great revolutionary change like that was carried out. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman either gathered around him for his assistants in connection with these most important Rules, to tell the House what was his case. That Questions had been, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman himself, now and then abused he did not deny. There was not any right the world. The great distinction, merit, and superiority of the British Parliament over that of the United States was that, while here Ministers were responsible to the representatives of the people, in the United States there was an almost com- to state himself, or to get anyone of plete separation between the Executive the vast collection of colleagues he had and the representative Assembly. The power of addressing Questions Ministers was the symbol and the sign that the Executive power of the country was subject to the supervision and constantly under the control of the representatives of the people. That power went to the very roots of the Constitution, and to the very roots of their liberties, and yet the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Constitutional Party thought that the House was entitled to make a change of that kind in the Constitution after a three minutes speech. MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I respectfully interrupt the hon. Member. The Rule would allow about 300 Questions being answered every week without any difficulty. of the House which was not now and then abused by every section of the House, he would not say by every Member, according to the strength of their convictions or when they imagined that they were not being treated properly, or when their duty called upon them to offer obstinate resistance to the proposals of the Government of the day. The right hon. Gentle man himself admitted that there had been a considerable change in the second session of the present Parliament from the first session. They all knew what took place in a new Parliament. He had never known a new House of Commons which did not begin by asking that seating accommodation should be given to every Member, and that every hon. Member should have a seat set apart for him. The House was full, everyone wanted to hear what was going on, and the new Members were like a young lady at her first ball-interested in everything around her. A few months passed, and not a word was heard about the smallness of the House, and ample accommodation was afforded for the average attendance of Members. It was found that other departments in the What House offered, perhaps, greater amuse MR. T. P. O'CONNOR said with all due respect to the right hon. Gentle man, that did not touch the point of principle at all. Even the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, who seemed to find his observations very amusing, would see the difference between an unlimited and a strictly limited right of asking Questions. He repeated that it was an essential part of the Constitution, and of their democratic institutions that they should have the right of putting Questions to Ministers unlimited by time or number, or by anything else, except the common sense of the Assembly and the Rules of Order. Mr. T. P. O'Connor. |