why?
Select Committee, the attention of the
Committee of the Whole House would
be directed to the necessary points of
discussion, and in that way discussion
would be increased. But after the first
Session all that would disappear and
these inequalities would be removed,
and the recommendations of the Select
Committee which were of value would
be acceded to, and the necessity for dis-
cussing the Estimates would gradually
disappear. Now, at present, they were
in this position. Last Session the Esti-
mates were brought forward at a very
early period by the Government, and
they were kept on the Notice Paper
with very sufficient steadiness during
the whole Session; in fact, he believed
they had Estimates on the Paper once a
week during nearly the whole of the
Session. But before three months had
elapsed, notwithstanding that the
Notices of Motion did not prove a
bar to the discussion of the Estimates
in Committee, notwithstanding that in
very nearly every instance when Supply
was the first Order of the Day that the
House got into Committee early-not-
withstanding all this, before two or
three months had elapsed the Chancellor
of the Exchequer recognized his utter
inability to get the Supplies for the
nation voted, and the whole of the Par-
liamentary system broke down; and that
was what he believed would occur again
this Session, in spite of the proposals
which had been made by the Govern-
ment for the purpose of facilitating
Public Business. They would have the
attention of hon. Members directed in
an exceptional way to the discussion of
Estimates, especially on Monday, and
Parliament would undertake what it
was a physical impossibility for it to
perform, and they would have continu-
ally occurring all that ill-temper and
many of those unseemly exhibitions
which they all so much regretted last
Session; so that he would impress upon
the Government that they ought to sub-
mit the Civil Service Estimates to the
consideration of a Select Committee, the
experience of foreign countries before
them. Even if the Government be-
lieved their Estimates were as clear as
the Secretary to the Treasury said they
were, why should they not submit them
to the examination of a Select Com-
mittee? It was all very well for the

Because, by the labours of the | hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbet-
son), with that lofty demeanour which
so became him, to contrast his position
under the late Government; but he had
frequently heard the hon. Baronet
during last year say he could not de-
fend certain Votes because he knew
nothing about them. That was, of
course, a necessary consequence of the
system. It was impossible that one man
could understand all the multifarious
branches of these Estimates. They
might depend upon it that either this
year, next year, or, it might be, a good
many years yet, the views of the hon.
Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn)
would impress themselves upon the
House; and that, however unpalatable
they might be at present to Her Ma-
jesty's Ministers, and the majority of
those who would follow them into the
Lobby, they would ultimately be recog
nized and acted upon, if this House was
to continue its functions as supervisor of
the Expenditure of the nation. Of
course, they knew that Ministers and
ex-Ministers would be opposed to any
change, because they were well enough
aware that the system of patronage was
a most important portion of the Govern-
ment of this country. What was it that
made such a vast number of Members
obedient to the Government and follow
them? It was more or less the system
of patronage which, either directly or
indirectly, had permeated every branch
of the Government, whether Army,
Navy, or Civil Service, and, in fact, its
influence extended to the Church. It
further extended itself to the policy of
the Government. Whether at home or
abroad there was no Department, how-
ever minute, upon which patronage had
not its effect. It was not reasonable to
suppose, therefore, that Ministers would
lightly give up a weapon which was of
so much importance to them, and which
they knew so well how to use.

MR. WALTER said, he hoped that one result of this discussion would be that hon. Members would see that it was their duty to attend more scrupulously than they had hitherto been in the habit of doing on the occasions when the Civil Service Estimates were being discussed in Committee of Supply. Havlistened to this debate with attention, he had come to the good resolution of intending to give the right hon. Gentleman opposite as much trouble as he

MR. MOWBRAY rose to move the it would be agreed to and made a Standfollowing Resolution :

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Motion made, and Question proposed, | Committee of the whole House.”—(Sir John Lubbock.) "That, except for a Money Bill, no Order of the Day or Notice of Motion be taken after halfpast Twelve of the clock at night, with respect to which Order or Notice of Motion a Notice of Opposition or Amendment shall have been printed on the Notice Paper, or if such Notice of Motion shall only have been given the next previous day of sitting, and objection shall be taken when such Notice is called."-(Mr. Mowbray.)

MR. BERESFORD HOPE said, that the Resolution had been on previous occasions supported by Leaders of the House on both sides. It had worked well for many years; and he thought it had contributed not only to the health and comfort of individual Members, but to the real transaction of Business.

circumstance had not deprived him of the opportunity, he had intended to move that the Rule sho uld be amended so as to apply to all Business whatever at midnight.

MR. CHARLEY supported the Amendment.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK moved as an Amendment to the Resolution, in line 1, after the word " Bill," to insert the words "or a Bill which has passed MR. SERJEANT SIMON said, the expethrough Committee of the whole House." rience of the past week, when hon. MemThe hon. Baronet said, that this had bers had been kept there night after been the Rule in 1874, and, though the night until 2 and 3 in the morning, Proviso was dropped in 1875, no suffi- ought to strengthen the hands of the cient reason was given for the change. right hon. Gentleman who brought for- The noble Lord at the head of the Go-ward this Resolution. If an accidental vernment then supported it, though he said he did not feel strongly about it. In 1874 the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) and the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) gave cases in which the Rule as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite had led to very unsatisfactory results, as hon. Members had been compelled to accept proposed changes under pain of losing their Bill altogether. He would not occupy the time of the House by quoting cases which were probably familiar to most hon. Members. He submitted, however, that when a Bill had passed through Committee it was hard that the House should have no opportunity of determining whether it should become law. Under these circumstances, the time spent by the House in getting the Bill through Committee might be all thrown away at the discretion of a single Member; and he proposed, therefore, that the Resolution should not apply to such Bills. He concluded by moving the

Amendment.

MR. MUNDELLA seconded the Amendment. He was not opposed to the spirit of the original proposal; but he thought the Rule would work much more advantageously, and a considerable amount of now wasted time would be saved, if the provision contained in the Amendment were embodied in the Resolution.

Amendment proposed,

In line 1, after the word "Bill," to insert the words "or a Bill which has passed through

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE said, he thought the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone could not have found a worse defender of the Amendment than the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley), for many persons thought that the latter hon. and learned Gentleman had passed through the House some Bills which had much better never have been passed at all. His vote on the Motion would depend on the course taken with regard to the next. Resolution. If the Motion were made a Standing Order of the House, he should vote for it; but if the Rule were to be as hitherto a Sessional Orderhe should vote against the Amendment, because otherwise Bills might slip through, as, for instance, early in the Session, before the Rule was set up, which otherwise might have been stopped.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he had never concealed his own opinion with regard to the half-past 12 o'clock Rule, of which he was not fond. He thought there was a good deal to be said for the Rule, and quite as much against it. It did not signify nearly so much what the Rules of the House were as in what spirit they were worked. If the Rule were worked in a proper and fair spirit, with a sincere desire to attain the objects its promoters

had in view, it would be useful and valuable; but if, on the other hand, it was worked for the purpose of wasting a great deal of time over Business-which would be opposed only for the purpose of throwing something else over the limit of half-past 12- it would be not merely useless, but mischievous. He was fully conscious that the Rule met the wishes of the large majority of the House; and he thought it the duty of the Government in such a matter to yield to its wishes. If the House adhered to its former decision, it would be convenient to make the Rule a Standing Order, because there was no use in wasting time in discussing it every Ses

sion.

with respect to which Order or Notice of Motion a Notice of Opposition or Amendment shall have been printed on the Notice Paper, or if such Notice of Motion shall only have been given the next previous day of sitting, and objection shall be taken when such Notice is called.

MR. MOWBRAY moved that the Resolution be made a Standing Order of Were that proposal acthe House.

cepted, there would be no need each year to waste time by repeated discussions as to whether the Rule should or should not be adopted. Those who had experience of the working of the Rule could tell the next Parliament how well it had worked.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Resolution be a Standing Order of the House."-(Mr. Mowbray.)

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

MR. DODSON said, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House would be induced to pause before making the Rule a Standing Order. If the Rule was popular in this Parliament, that was no reason why they should remarked that it had been pointed make it binding on the next. It would out that it would be competent for the be better to let it remain as a Sessional next Parliament to repeal or adopt this Order, and leave it to the next Parlia-Resolution. If in the next Parliament ment to decide whether they would adopt it or not. He was prepared to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maidstone.

MR. C. B. DENISON said, he did not think the argument of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was valid against adopting the Rule as a Standing Order. This Parliament might last longer than hon. Gentlemen seemed to suppose. He objected to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maidstone, because, if carried, there would be really only one occasion on which the Rule would operate, and that was the second reading, because, as a matter of courtesy, Members generally allowed a Bill to go

into Committee.

they had anything to say about this Rule, they would have to tell something about it not so pleasant as the right hon. Gentleman supposed. They would have to tell them that, in the opinion of the Speaker, this Rule, so far from shortening the Sittings of the House, had had the effect of prolonging them. It also put into the hands of any individual Member the power of obstructing a Bill which the House generally desired to pass. They would also have to inform them that it placed in the hands of any Members who wished deliberately to obstruct the Business of the House the most convenient engine they could use. Although he thought it was to be regretted that the Motion was made so late in the Parliament, he did not intend to offer any opposition to it.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK protested against the Resolution being made a Standing Order of the House.

MR. BIGGAR supported the Motion. He considered that Business could not be properly carried on after half-past 12 o'clock. Bills might be pushed on; but they were not maturely considered.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, he voted for the Amendment of the hon. Baronet because he believed it modified a Rule to which he had a very strong objection. He had always stated

in the House that he looked upon this half-past 12 o'clock Rule with considerable distrust. He believed the experience of the past few years proved that when they had no such Rules the House did not sit later than it did under the operation of this Rule. He quite admitted that the general feeling of the House was in favour of this Rule, and he was not prepared, any more than the noble Marquess, to vote in opposition to the general feeling of the House; but he desired to record his protest against stereotyping a Rule which, in his opinion, had not tended to facilitate the progress of Public Business.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE thought it a little curious that, after the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had led them to suppose that the Government would support the proposal, the only speech that had been made from the Treasury Bench had been one against it.

the proceedings in the interregnum before the renewal of the Rule. What happened? Why, just as in old timestwo Bills of private Members were urged on in a thin House and divided upon, when proper discussion was impossible, and newspaper reports of the proceedings were entirely absent. He had voted for both those Bills; but he felt it was a most unseemly procedure, and that such legislation was an absurdity, to say the least. Members should be exceedingly glad that there existed a Rule to put an end to such proceedings at an unreasonable hour of the night.

MR. DODSON strongly opposed the proposal. He would remind the hon. Gentleman, who had said that no one of common sense would oppose the Rule, that the Speaker had given evidence against it, and that a much humbler individual, but a former officer of the House, he (Mr. Dodson), had opposed it. The Return moved for by the hon. Member for Durham proved that it had no effect in diminishing the time of the Sittings; and he (Mr. Dodson) contended that it told against those who sought to promote legislation. As a challenge had been thrown down imputing want of common sense to those who opposed the Rule, he felt bound to answer that challenge, and to state that, in his opinion, it would be a mistake on the part of the House to make the Rule a Stand

who wished to obstruct the Business of the House, and hon. Members sometimes prolonged debates on the first Motion in order to prevent the second from coming on.

MR. HEYGATE, in reply to the statement of the hon. Member for Maidstone, that the House sat as many hours, in Sessions when the 12.30 Rule existed, as before, wished to point out that though the House might often be kept up to a late hour, and a few of its Members, including the officials and ex-officials, might not gain so much by the 12.30 Rule, yet to the bulk of the Members it was an enormous boon. The great majority of the House were enabled to seeing Order. It was in favour of those with certainty what measures could not come on, and to retire at a reasonable hour. Some of the Government officials would, no doubt, very gladly get rid of a Rule which was in their way; but which was, nevertheless, supported by the general feeling of independent Members. His belief was that hitherto it had certainly worked with advantage to the comfort and the health of every Member of the House, and that its continued action would equally be for the benefit of all concerned. No one could say that the Members of the House had not work enough to do. No one of common sense who had sat within the walls of that House 15 or 20 years could doubt the wisdom of the proposal, for they must know that before the Rule was enforced proceedings arose of which the House ought to be ashamed. A few nights ago, after the debate on the Irish Franchise Question, and a late division in a full House, he had sat up to watch

VOL. CCXLIII. [THIRD SERIES.]

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, so far as the Government were concerned, he never looked on this as a Government question at all. He regarded it more as a matter for the convenience of the House. But his opinion was that as the House had pronounced its opinion in favour of the Rule, it was better that it should be made a Standing Order, so that hon. Members might have a clear arrangement from the beginning of the Session, and be saved discussions on the renewal of the Rule.

MR. NEWDEGATE said, he believed he was the first person who mooted this question in the Committee on Public Business, and his appeal was immediately answered. The object was to

3 A