*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.): Are these men to be tried by Removables ?

Gannon Estate, Athlone.

MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he

is aware that the tenants in the neighbourhood of the Gannon Estate, near Athlone, which is now on the market for sale, have made representations to the Congested Districts Board with reference to the purchase of the said estates for sub-division; and whether the Board will make inquiries into the suitability of this property for acquisition by them with a view to meet the wishes of the people concerned.

MR. ATKINSON: The Board have made inquiry, and find that this estate is not suitable for the purpose of enlarging holdings or for migration.

Education Bill-Standard of Education.

DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that Clause 6 of the Education Bill proposes to give the local education authorities, to be created under the Bill, the control of all secular education in the public elementary schools in their areas, it would be competent under the Bill for any local education authority to fix a standard of elementary education more restricted in its scope than that hitherto prescribed by the Whitehall Education Code.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): No, Sir; it will be impossible for the local authority to evade the standard set up by Whitehall, because the Department must be assured that the grants are earned before they are paid, and I take it that if the grants were paid improperly the Auditor General would surcharge them.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, yes. Whitehall must have means to make itself acquainted with what is going on in the school. I do not pledge myself, of course, to the proposition that the inspection will remain absolutely unchanged in all its details.

QUESTIONS UNDER THE NEW RULE. MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on the subject of Questions under the new Rules, which come into operation on Monday next. It will be remembered that the House decided that there was to be no such power of the subsequent rearrangement of Questions as that the important ones were to be put in the privileged earlier part of the list of Questions, and the less important at the end, where there was some possibility of their being excluded from having an oral reply. Of course, that decision of the House stands, and must be fully accepted. I do think, however, that it might be convenient if I could arrange that the first fifty starred Questions shall, as far as possible, be so arranged that those which are addressed to the same Minister shall be grouped together. I frankly acknowledge that this would be convenient to the Ministers of hardworked Departments, on whom, under the new system, a considerable additional strain will be thrown. If this grouping carried out consistently with the arrangewere agreed to, it must, of course, be ments already come to by the House, and must not in any way interfere with them. I think this proposal will not only be to the convenience of Ministers, but of Members asking Questions also.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): By what authority does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make this proposed arrangement?

MR. DILLON: As one who first took exception to the proposed arrangement, I may say that I have no objection whatever to the proposal, as long as the classification is based exclusively on the convenience of the Ministers.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!

*MR. SPEAKER: On Monday, it is to be assumed, the asterisked Questions on the list will be answered orally, and the others not necessarily so; I have no doubt, however, that there will be a certain elasticity in the method in which Ministers answer Questions on the first

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What is! proposed to be done with the Questions subsequent to the first fifty?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR: At the doubtful margin of Questions there may be a

little inconvenience to Ministers, but, if so, I am afraid I cannot avoid that. It is clear that we must not interfere with the decision of the House. I understand I have the permission of the House to do my best to make a convenient arrangement.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford): As I was one of those who took the strongest objection to the proposal as it stood in the Rule, I may say I entirely approve the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, which will effect a reform that has long been wanted.

MR. JOHN ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe): Are we to understand that on Monday only those Questions which are starred will be answered orally?

hon. Members. But the Rule will be in operation.

MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.): Would it not be a reasonable assumption that Questions put down before the Rule was passed were intended to be answered orally?

*MR. SPEAKER: I shall be glad to fall in with the general views of the House.

EDITING OF QUESTIONS AT THE
TABLE.

a

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will you kindly allow me, Mr. Speaker, to direct editing of Questions at the Table, as your attention to the subject of the matter of order, and one affecting the rights of Members. I desire strictly to guard myself against anything like a personal attack or an imputation on the learned Gentleman at the Table, from whom I, in common with every other Member of the House, always receive the greatest courtesy, but it is the rule of Parliament that Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker alone, is the judge in regard to the editing of Questions. When I handed in my Question

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.) pointed out that it might happen that all the first fifty Questions would be addressed to one Minister, say the Secretary for Ireland.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That could not happen, as we shall take the first fifty Questions as we find them. The Clerks at the Table would have no trouble in arranging them so as to suit the convenience of particular Ministers.

MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.) said there were Questions for Monday which were put down before the Rule was passed, and for which obviously an oral answer was desired. Seeing that they had no asterisk attached to them, how would they be treated?

VOL. CVII. [FOURTH SERIES.]

the Table that it would have to be slightly altered. I did not object to that, but I do object to the elimination of the governing sentence of my Question without Mr. Speaker's authority. The sentence cannot be out of order, because a year ago I asked the self-same Question, and on that occasion it was not eliminated.

*MR. SPEAKER: I am informed that the hon. Member was told at the Table that the Question would be altered.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That is so.

*MR. SPEAKER: Then in that case the hon. Member should have come to me. The hon. Member says I am responsible for anything that is done. So ultimately I am; but surely the hon. Member does not suppose that every Question is submitted to, and edited by me before it is put into the list. If hon. Members are

X.

not satisfied with the view of the clerks at the Table, from whom, I am sure, as the hon. Member says, they receive every courtesy, the question comes before me; and, as the hon. Member was informed that the Question was not a proper one to put on the Paper, he should have come to me. It would be quite intolerable if, whenever an hon. Member was not satisfied with what was done with his Question at the Table, he was to raise a debate in the House.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: You somewhat misunderstand me, Sir. It is not my intention to raise a debate. I did not object to alteration, but when I was told by the clerk at the Table that my Question would be altered, I did not understand it to mean mutilation.

*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, when he was told that the Question would require to be altered, might have asked what the alteration was. If he found the effect of the alteration was to put the Question into a shape in which he did not wish to ask it he could have declined to ask it, or he could have put it down again and then have appealed to me. That is the proper course, and not to raise a question in the open House.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I am quite satisfied with the explanation. I hope the House will forgive me for trying jealously to guard our mutual interests. It is a fault in the right direction.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment amended—

"By leaving out the words, when the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put.""

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E) said he would like to know exactly what they were doing. As he read the Amendment, the effect was to substitute half past twelve for one o clock as the time at which the House must adjourn. He could not see the necessity for that. In nineteen cases out of twenty the business after midnight was disposed of in ten minutes. But occasionally it did occur that there was business down of a character to which no Member objected, and surely if it were desired they ought to have the power of dealing with it up till one o'clock. Of course, any single Member had. the power of objecting, but when no objection was raised and when there was a desire to discuss the question, they ought to be able to do so until one

o'clock. It seemed to him that the

Amendment would deprive the House of a valuable privilege.

MR. DILLON said it would be unfair to adopt the Amendment, because it proposed to do what was certainly not contemplated by the Government.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.) said it might be inconvenient to press this, and therefore he hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn.

(4.35.) MR. DILLON said the result of the new system of having two sittings of the House instead of one throughout the session on Government days would be not to expedite but to obstruct business. He was absolutely convinced that before three or four years were over Ministers themselves would regret that this change had been made. The First Lord of the Treasury hardly contended tha the change would relieve from the strain of work Members who had been regular attenders of the House. He believed it was the opinion of the older and more experienced Members of the House that the effect of the Rule would be to sacrifice the efficiency of the House of Commons as an administrative machine in the interests of those who sought their ease and pleasure in social enjoyment. He also thought the character of the debates would suffer severely under this Rule. The closure and the enormous pressure and multiplication of business had already, within the last few years, seriously injured that character. There was no doubt that the result of the great pressure on the House of Commons had been to degrade and deteriorate the character of their discussions. This change would, in his opinion, greatly promote this process. It was a commonplace to men who took any interest in the proceedings of the House of Commons that at the dinner hour, when the attendance was small, the young Members got their opportunity, and he believed that the cutting out of the dinner hour would have the effect, to a large extent, of for many years muzzling the young Members. The consequence would be that the

a bit more powerful under the new Rules than under the old, and probably Ministers might be surprised at some of the developments that might arise.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has told us that these new Rules, or at any rate this portion of them. will not facilitate the rapid transaction of business. He did me the justice to say that I never pretended it would. I have no ground for thinking, and I have never for a moment suggested, that this particular set of provisions will have the effect of rendering public business more expeditious than it has been. It may or it may not, but, at all events, it was not with that view that I pressed it on the House. I think, however, it will have the effect and this is a consideration to which full justice has not been done-of enabling most important business which does not rank as first-class business to be transacted. For example, there are small questions which come before the House to which, under the new system, it will be possible to allocate one evening sitting to getting rid of them, but which cannot be got rid of by the old system. It seems to be impossible, I venture to say with the utmost confidence, to interrupt a Second Reading debate on a firstclass Bill to deal with these important. though relatively insignificant, matters. They do not take very much time, and I think in that way the new system will facilitate business. But the hon. Gentleman tells us that it will have a deteriorating effect on our debates. Well, I am as old a Member as the hon. Gentlemanindeed, I think I am older as a Member of the House as well as older in years; and my memory goes back to the days of Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone. I really do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that there has been this deterioration in the quality of our debates.