special provision for the absence of Ministers at Question time. The tendency of Ministers to absent themselves at that time was growing, and seldom had a greater illustration of it been seen than that afternoon. The habit of Ministers now was to be neglectful of their duty to the House in this respect, and their not being in their places at Question time resulted in a very great waste of time. But the part of the Rule on which he desired to say a word was the part which referred to "Questions of an urgent character." had made many speeches in favour of the Twelve o'clock Rule; so that, while he was in favour of fixing an hour for concluding the business, he was not, apparently, in favour of a fixed hour for commencing it. (5.54.) MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.) did not think the right hon. Gentleman was quite reasonable in asking that this discussion should be now concluded. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman had given away his whole case, because when a Minister sought to introduce a new and unprecedented Rule, in principle, he ought to make out a strong case show MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not ing the necessity for the change; and the part of this Amendment. MR. BROADHURST said if that was so, so much the better. The great point against this Rule was that it was an automatic machine, which clipped off the Questions at a particular hour; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that some modification was made. was right hon. Gentleman had made out no MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, no. MR. A. J. BALFOUR thought the time had now come when the debate on the subject might come to an end. He feared that some hon. Members had worked themselves up into a state of wild alarm without their alarm being founded on anything alarming. Anybody who had studied this matter would agree that forty minutes was sufficient time, as he said before, to bring to book even the wickedest and most flagitious Government. This would work out at sixty to sixty-five verbal Questions allowed to be asked under this Rule; and when they added to these, sixty or sixty-five Questions which might be asked in order to obtain written answers, he thought it was sufficient, as he said, to prevent the the certainty to be obtained under the sins of any Government being concealed. According to the average of the present session, these questions might not have occupied forty minutes; he did not think they had. That might prove that the Rule was unnecessary, but it also proved that it was not tyrannical. He ventured to ask the House, under the circumstances, whether it was not worth while to give this limitation in order that they might know at what period of the day they were to commence the important business of the House. The hon. Member MR. DILLON thought that one of opposite made a protest against fixing the great objects to be achieved by these the hour as to closing Questions, but he Rules was that Members would be able MR. DILLON: Then what becomes of Rule? MR. A. J. BALFOUR said the day now divided into two sittings, was morning and evening. The principal debate would take place at the morning sitting. Supposing it began at three, that would leave four and a half hours. The Government would not have the time cut into. to know when public business would commence. But that was not what this Rule did. He had frequently seen Questions over intwenty minutes, and very often, after the first fury and fervour of a new Parliament had passed away, fifteen minutes were more than sufficient. In the event of Questions being over in twenty minutes, public business would commence at twenty-five minutes before three o'clock. Where, then, was the certainty? A division might easily be snapped before Members expected public business even to have commenced. MR. A. J. BALFOUR pointed out that Members would be able to calculate very closely the amount of time Questions would take from the number appearing on the Paper. MR. DILLON said that at any rate it was clear that there was no definite hour at which public business would commence. In asking the House to consent to this change, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have made out a case, but he had not attempted to do so. Last session, no doubt, Questions did overflow the ordinary average, but, taking session by session for the last twenty years, or even the last five or six years, it would probably be found that, on an average, they did not occupy more than forty minutes. But that average would be composed of nights on which twenty minutes were sufficient, along with other nights on which an hour, or even longer, was required. The objection to the present proposal was that, without effecting any substantial saving, Members, on certain nights, were cut off from the right of asking Questions, and there was created in their minds a feeling of irritation by their rights being invaded on insufficient grounds. The case against the limitation was enormously strengthened by the probable effect of the provision as to "starring." Every one would admit that "starring was a reasonable suggestion. He certainly did not oppose it. Nobody would argue against a provision which, without interfering with the rights of Members, tended to economise the time of the House. But Members should observe how this arrangement would work. Without doubt, "starring" would have the effect of obviating the necessity of verbally answering many of the longest Questions on the Paper. He believed Mr. Dillon. that under the Rule the average time occupied by Questions would be well within forty minutes. Then, where was the hardship, asked the right hon. Gentleman. It was in the fact that the Rule deliberately proposed on certain nights to dock the right of Members to put Questions, whereas on other nights they would have more time than they required. The Rule was more objectionable in principle than it would be in practice. In four nights out of five he did not believe it would interfere in the slightest degree with the asking of Questions. Then there were other results that this limitation would have. According to the Rule as it now stood, Questions were to be so arranged that those which seemed to be of the greatest general interest would be reached before five minutes to three o'clock. in some respects exceptional, a long experience as a Minister, and an even longer experience as a private Member, subject to the existing Rules-and that in the evil days when they were in a great be a another point-that of the relative import ance of legislation and of Questions-it was astonishing to find that the Government had developed an extraordinary passion for legislation. When he first entered the House, the Leaders of the Tory Party minority-which very few present Memhad the doctrine-with which, if he bers of the House remembered. Upon were not an Irish Nationalist, he would that experience he had formed his have considerable sympathy-that a great opinions, and if he did not express them deal of legislation was evil. The only he would deem would deem himself to genuine Tory left in the House the traitor to what he honestly believed right hon. Gentleman the Member for were the best interests of the House and the Isle of Thanet-held that view still. hon. Members and of the country. As to But to such an extent had the Govern- the merits of this particular Rule, he ment developed that passion, that, in totally differed from the contention of their eyes, everything the House did was the hon. Member for East Mayo that the of little consequence compared with the proposal was put forward without any rushing forward of legislation. How justification. Except on one material was the matter regarded by the Press and point, there was not a Rule among those the public? He was not an unlimited brought forward by the Government to admirer of the Press, but, in considering which, on their introduction, he gave a what were the most important functions more cordial welcome. It then seemed of the House, some guidance could be to him that it was impossible to lay obtained from the amount of interest down that no Question, whatever its taken in the proceedings by the outside importance, should be asked at the compublic. What was the fact? That the mencement of the proceedings. That public took more interest in the Ques- opinion now obtained generally, and the tions than in anything else. Frequently objection had been met. In fact, if anythree times as much space in the news- thing, the right hon. Gentleman had papers-with the exception of The Times gone rather too far. The hon. Member was devoted to Questions as was for the Scotland Division had declared given to the rest of the proceedings. that the right to put Questions to It was, therefore, ridiculous to treat Ministers was essential in a democratic Questions as a matter of slight im- institution. So it was; but it could not portance, which could be pushed on be denied that in the past that right had one side to make way for the legislative been grossly abused. [Cries of "No, proposals of the Government. It was no!"] Hon. Members could refer to one of the most important functions of the records in the Library, and they the House, and the Government had not would find that 150 to 160, and made, or attempted to make, a case for he believed even 170, Questions had the change now proposed. been on the Paper in a single day. That practice went on until the abuse became intolerable, and there were few abuses which more needed reform than this one in regard to Questions. His right hon friend had provided for 300 Questions a week, and what could the House want more? He most cordially approved of the proposal of the First Lord of the Treasury, and he trusted that he would not agree to any compromise. *(6.14.) MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford) said, if he might allude for a moment to a personal matter, that his right hon. friend had stated earlier in the evening that if he gave his support to the Rules they might be easily carried in one more sitting. His right hon. friend would find that, apart from the Rules relating to private Members, he had supported his right hon. friend far more often than he had opposed him in the course of these debates. He regretted he had had to oppose him even on those occasions, but he had had an experience on these points which was *MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.) thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford had given a rather exaggerated view of the number of Questions. Since 1895 he did not think Camps. The House ought to hesitate before adopting this Rule, which would strike a great blow at the liberty and prestige of Parliament without gaining any commensurate advantage. were there was any occasion upon which anything like 160 Questions appeared on the Paper of the day. To have this hard and fast line drawn was not only unnecessary, but unconstitutional. According to the First Lord of the Treasury, sixty-five Questions could be put and orally (6.25.) SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islinganswered within the time provided, and ton, S.) said he should like to say a word the right hon. Gentleman argued that or two upon what he thought was from a therefore nobody had any ground to com- practical business point of view. If he plain. It might however happen that the thought this proposal would really restrict sixty-sixth Question might be the most vital the privileges of the House or limit the one upon the Paper, but it would be cut rights of any section of the House to out according to this Rule. Therefore, the put Questions to Ministers, he would not right hon. Gentleman's argument appeared support it. He was, however, convinced, to be altogether fallacious. It was quite after hearing the concessions that would clear, from the computation of the First be made, that there would be ample Lord of the Treasury himself, that by time to deal with all Questions which leaving out this 2.55 limit, the sixty-five had a really practical value. He did Questions would not be exceeded in a not in the least undervalue the right of great many cases, and in that way no questioning Ministers in the House. But loss of time would be incurred. From it was not, after all, the Questions this point of view, a hard and fast Rule of wide public interest which was unnecessary, and would be produc- the most important. The opportunity tive of no real advantage. He did not of drawing attention to individual think that there had been any abuse of grievances by speech was SO limited Questions which would warrant this that Questions were really the only organic change in the constitution means of drawing public attention to of the House of Commons. In the them. One great value of Questions present state of things, the Govern consisted in the fact that there was no ment which they were under was person, however humble or poor, who, one of the most autocratic in Europe, if he had a real grievance, could not, by and the great majority never failed to means of a Question, put it before his answer to the crack of the whip. Hon. representative, and in twenty-four hours Members on the Opposition side of the he could get the Minister responsible House, under this Rule, would have no for it to give whatever explanation he opportunity of calling attention to abuses could and thus secure public attention which always crept into the best regulated and possibly a remedy to the grievance. administrations, such as jobs or mal- He considered that all Rules were administration, and the only opportunity in themselves an evil as a restricthey had of calling attention to them tion on individual liberty. It might was through the medium of Questions. be that unlimited time for Questions Abuses often occurred in the remotest in itself gave them additional value, parts of Ireland, and the only way to but unfortunately time was not expose them to the light was by means of Questions. If they were deprived of that right, a blow would be struck at the freedom of Parliament, and at the constitution of which they were all so proud, and valued so highly. They would not have had much light thrown on events in South Africa had it not been for Questions put in the House. It was by the exercise of this privilege that abuses were brought to light in South Africa and exposed in the House of Commons, and the remedy was then applied to them, as in the instance of the Spion Kop despatches and the Concentration Mr. Hemphill. un resolved itself There was SO limited, and this matter into a question of time. So far as the time of the House was concerned, he believed that the evil with which they were dealing in the Rules was not want of time but a want of a systematic use of the time which the House already had at its disposal. much uncertainty and chance about it that really hon. Members hardly knew what business would occupy the attention of the House. For his part, time limit upon a very important matter he welcomed this Rule as establishing a which one would not wish to restrict, but which was an example of what might be 209 New Procedure {29 APRIL 1902} new done in other directions. They wasted | make out a case for taking such a course. time very largely upon trivial Estimates, He respectfully submitted that the First whereas, if they distributed the time Lord had failed to make out his case. properly, they might discuss a large This Rule would not have the intended number of them. By having a specified effect of saving time. The right hon. time they would know, at any rate ap- Gentleman the Member for Sleaford had proximately, at what time public business said that the Questions in the last Parliament had sometimes gone up to 160 would begin. in a day. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was exaggerating On one or two occasions they went up to 100, but that was in the first session of a Parliament, when, as those who had experience of the House knew, Members coming in for the first time put down a large number of Questions, thinking they would get satisfactory replies. As time went on, they found that the putting of Questions to Ministers was in many cases not a profitable occupation. Why did the right hon. Gentleman ask the House to gag itself in this respect? The hon. Member for the South Molton Division had pointed out that Questions had considerable value; and if that was true with regard to the House at large, it was certainly true with regard to Ireland, because there were Questions cropping up, owing to the unconstitutional way in which the country was governed, upon which the Irish Members had to ask information. On account of the way the guillotine worked in Committee of Supply, they had no opportunity of having a word on these matters, and Question time was the only occasion on which they could raise these points. It was proposed by this Rule to further abridge the rights of the House, and he ventured to say that what was proposed Owing to would not give further time. the condition of Ireland, it was important that the Nationalist Members should be able to ask Questions. MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar) said the whole contention of the Leader of the House and other hon. Members opposite, with the exception of the right hon. Gentle man the Member for Sleaford, was that no hardships would occur if this Rule were passed. The whole point seemed to turn on ten minutes or fifteen minutes, and for the sake of a quarter of an hour it did seem very unnecessary to interfere with what had been called the constitutional right of hon. Members to ask Questions. They all recognised now that closure was an essential element of the Parliamentary proceedings, and they all knew that the closure led and must lead to friction and irritation. Looking at it from the point of view of expediency of the House itself, he thought this Rule would be a very great mistake. The putting in of this Question closure would only save a few minutes. The House had not yet defined what was a Question of an urgent character, or what was a matter of public information The Speaker or some other official would have to classify the Questions, and the classification would be sure to lead to additional irritation, for it would necessitate at the end of each sitting deciding what were matters of urgent public importance. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that this was a very small matter as regarded the amount of time, and it was very important that this additional friction should not be added to the proceedings of the House. (6.35.) MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)said the First Lord of the Treasury had not even endeavoured to make a case for this Rule. No Minister who asked them to curtail the rights and liberties which had existed for centuries, by adopting a new Standing Order, would ever be able to MR. A. J. BALFOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put." (6.40.) Question put," That the Question be now put.' The House divided:-Ayes, 256; (Division List No.144.) Arrol, Sir William Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Archdale, Edward Mervyn Bailey, James (Walworth) Aird, Sir John |