true that the Commissioners should themselves determine the question-I do not see that there is any absolute necessity for a formal meeting. So far as the Aberdeen case was concerned, there was still time to make the application. If it was not made, I cannot help thinking that the promoters must be held to have acquiesced in the general arrangement, and the provisional arrangement became permanent. There is absolutely no view on the part of the Scotch Office, or any anxiety, to use the Private Bill Legislation Act for the purpose of making a centralised tribunal in Edinburgh; nor had counsel anything to do with fixing the place of meeting. Their fees would be precisely the same in Edinburgh as at Aberdeen, and their interests would be the same, because there was nothing else going on at Edinburgh, and I suppose they would just as soon be at Aberdeen. I can assure my hon. friend that the counsel are the very last people who are considered at the Scotch Office. It is absolutely necessary to first make a provisional arrangement. The arrangement was made with the concurrence of the Chairman, and though there was not a formal meeting, the Chairman and the Commissioners practically adopted the arrangement, and though I admit that the first Order could not be changed, so far as Aberdeen was concerned there was nothing in the world to prevent the Aberdeen people on the first day of the week making an application to the Commissioners to hold the Inquiry in their case at Aberdeen. (4.30.) MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.) excessively simple one, because it turned on the words of the statute, which said— said the matter was an "The Commissioners shall hold their Inquiry at such place in Scotland as they may determine, with due regard to the subject matter of the proposed Order and the localities to which the Commissions relate." The case made by his hon. friend and by those who had put questions on the subject was this: The statute had not been observed. It said the Commissioners should fix the place. The Commissioners had not been consulted, and the place of Inquiry had been fixed without reference to them. The Lord Advocate said the Chairman had been consulted. That was true, but the Chairman was not the same thing, after all, as the Commissioners. In the next place, the Lord Advocate said the Chairman went abroad. He (Mr. Bryce) thought he went abroad because he supposed the matter had been settled at the interview he had with the Secretary for Scotland, and he considered that, after the expression of the opinion of the Scotch office, he had nothing more to do with the matter. The Lord Advocate asked, why did not the Aberdonians remonstrate with them when they found that the Inquiry was not to be held at Aberdeen. But they did express their opinion in the first instance. They said they wished the Inquiry to be held there, and the only reason why they did not continue their remonstrance after the Commissioners had begun to sit was that they also thought the matter had been settled, and that it was no use trying to alter it. That, after all, was the long and short of the matter. He was glad to accept the assurance which the Lord Advocate gave that the Scottish office had no view that these inquiries ought as a rule to be held at Edinburgh. He was sure that statement would be received with satisfaction, because there was no denying that what had happened in this case had caused a certain amount of disquiet, and had made people feel that the beneficial effects which were expected for Scotland-because this was by no means a mere question of Aberdeen-from bringing the hearing of these cases to the very places which were affected, to the very doors of the parties and witnesses, was considered to be a great boon. That was the boon which was expected from the Act, and if it had been lost through the precedent set in this case, there would have been general regret and disappoint ment. He was glad to find that the Lord Advocate repudiated any such construction as had been put upon the action of the Scotch Office, and had practically admitted that a mistake had been made, and he hoped that in future steps would be taken to guard against any similar occurrence. If it was difficult to have an actual meeting of the Commissioners-although he thought the statute contemplated a meeting-there should be an opportunity for ascertaining the opinions of all of them. He was quite sure that if a thing of this kind was to happen again there would be very great disappointment and regret. However, after the explanations they had heard, although they might regret any inconvenience which had been caused in this case, he thought they would all feel that the discussion had been of use, and that the real intent and meaning and working of the Act had been elucidated by it. MR. CROMBIE (Kincardineshire) thought some assurance should be given that there would be no repetition of this procedure. A breach of the law had been committed, and steps should be taken in future to see that the Commissioners discharged their duty, and that a meeting should be held in London to determine where they should sit. DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.) was very glad to hear the assurance from the Lord Advocate that this precedent would not be followed in future. He considered, with his hon. friend, that the Secretary for Scotland had flagrantly broken the law, and acted absolutely and distinctly against the statute, and knowing something of local conditions he could tell the House that very grave inconvenience and expense had been incurred on account of this decision of the Commissioners to allow themselves to be overborne by the central authority in London, instead of asserting their authority and coming to the conclusion on their own knowledge of the localities where the Inquiry should be held. One of the objects of the Act transferring these Inquiries to Scotland was to save expense, but if Edinburgh was to be the scene of them, well, then the work might just as well have been kept in London from an economical point of view. He hoped the Scottish Office would make it their business to set the Commissioners right when they attempted to go wrong. MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.) said his colleagues were watching anxiously and jealously the working of this Act, because there were by no means obscure intimations that a similar scheme might be made applicable to the country in which could assure they were more deeply interested. He the Government that would be less calculated to favourably introduce a measure of that nothing character to the consideration of the Irish people than for the Irish Office to copy the example of the Scottish Office. The discussion had been useful and he hoped it would be fruitful. Under the circumstances he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a division. *MR. PIRIE: I have no desire to press this question to a division, as I now understand it is admitted that a mistake has been made but that it will not occur again. I ask leave, therefore, to withdraw the Motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION MR. WEIR said it was incumbent on the House to see that a bad precedent was not established in this matter. The Scotch Office had no right to interfere, and their action was ultra vires, for the Act distinctly said that the Commissioners, and the Commissioners alone, should settle the place at which the Inquiry should be held. He hoped that in future the Secretary for Scotland would not interfere in these matters, but he was afraid there was a clique of experts in Edinburgh for whom the (4.43.) The House divided:- Ayes, Scottish Office desired to make provision. 253; Noes, 154. (Division List No. 143.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the consideration of Business of the House (Rules of Procedure), if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).”—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.) Acland-Hood, Capt. SirAlex. F. Mr. Bryce. AYES. | Arrol, Sir William Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch') Bignold, Arthur Bill, Charles Blundell, Colonel Henry Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Gibbs, Hn. A.G. H(Cityof Lond. Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Green, Walford D. (Wed'bury Greene, W.Raymond- (Cambs. Houston, Robert Paterson Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm. Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE(Wigt'n Moon, Edward Robert, Pacy | Myers, William Henry Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n Pilkington, Lieut. -Col. Richard Royds, Clement Molyneux Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Bell, Richard Blake, Edward Boland, John Horniman, Frederick John Leese, SirJoseph F(Accrington) MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift M'Fadden, Edward M'Hugh, Patrick A. Morgan, J. Lloyd, (Carmarth'n Nannetti, Joseph P. Norton, Capt. Cecil William NEW PROCEDURE RULES. [THIRTEENTH DAY'S DEBATE.] QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS. Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Amendment proposed [28th April] to Standing Order No. 20 (Question to Members). Which Amendment was- "On days when there are two Sittings of the House, Questions shall be taken at a quarterpast Two of the clock. No Questions shall be O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Roe, Sir Thomas Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Spencer, Rt. Hn.C.R. (N'hants Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) TELLERS FOR THE NOESMr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton. to ask it, or if it is not reached by five minutes before Three of the clock, the Minister to whereas the House, if left to its own discretion, would confine Questions to thirty whom it is addressed shall cause an answer to be printed and circulated with the. Votes, minutes. This would have the effect of savunless the Minister has consented to the post-ing a quarter of an hour, but the proposal ponement of the Question. "Questions distinguished by an asterisk shall be so arranged on the Paper that those which seem of the greatest general interest shall be reached before five minutes before Three of the clock."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.) of the Government would decrease the time of the House and the Government by a quarter of an hour. Take what happened today. The present Parlia ment was not very old, and, although some of the Questions on the Paper were And the Amendment to the proposed of considerable importance, yet the whole Amendment was "In line 2, after the word 'Clock,' to leave out to the word Business' in line 7 inclusive.' -(Mr. Fuller.) Question again proposed--"That the words 'no Questions shall be taken after stand part of the proposed Amendment." forty-one were concluded within the space of half an hour. So that today the Government would have lost a quarter of an hour, instead of gaining. When anyone proposed a revolutionary change like this, the burden always rested upon him of justifying the change; and if his statement that the Govern(4.45) MR. T. P.O'CONNOR (Liverpool, ment would lose time by this change Scotland) said he thought it would be was correct, that was a strong argument ungrateful upon his part if he were to against the proposal of the Government, occupy any time in putting the remarks because it showed that there was no he felt it necessary to make with regard necessity for the change. It was always to the Amendment before the House impossible, however wise and prophetic after the time he had absorbed on the a mind a statesman might be, to previous evening, but he felt his position prophesy the entire effect of changes on this proposal very strongly indeed. made in ancient laws and traditions. When the House adjourned on the pre- The testimony of those who had sat vious evening he had got to the point of long in this House was conclusive upon meeting the objection which the right this point, for there was not a single hon. Gentleman was making to the change that had been made in the Rules argument he was employing against the which had not had consequences entirely Rule. The right hon. Gentleman had beyond the expectations and desires of pointed out that even under the Rule those who made them. Take the case there would be an opportunity of address of the closure, which had had conseing 300 Questions to the Ministers quences which nobody anticipated when weekly; and the right hon. Gentleman the change was made. He held that, asked how was it possible under those although this change might, as a matter circumstances for anyone to maintain of fact, not seriously diminish the amount that the liberties and privileges of the of time given to Members of the House House were seized or curtailed. Curi- for asking Questions, still there were other ously enough, the fact which the right results which he regarded as most perhon. Gentleman had stated as a strong nicious. Owing to the fact that the argument in favour of his proposal was time was limited, there would grow up a quite as formidable an argument against spirit of impatience with regard to Ques it. He doubted whether the Government tions, a spirit of eagerness to be done would save an hour of time; in fact, it with Questions, and a feeling on the might so operate that the Government part of Ministers that Questions were a would lose an hour, instead of gaining nuisance, which ought to be frowned one, by this proposal. Everybody knew upon and curtailed as much as possible. that where a minimum of time was fixed That spirit, if developed, would be fatal for the discussion of particular business, to one of the very best features and it was the almost irresistible impulse functions of this House. He maintained of the House to keep up to that that, in spite of the more democratic form minimum. If forty-five minutes were government in America, fixed for Questions, the tendency would Parliamentary institutions of this country be to utilise the whole of the time; were much more amenable to the of the |