liberty to cross the corridor and smoke in the Irish Members' dining-room, he said that that did not meet his views, because there was a flavour about the Irish Members that he did not like. He might consider that a remark of that kind was smart, but it was just one of those tactless English statements which were extremely offensive to Irishmen, and which went a considerable distance to widen the gulf between the English and the Irish people in spite of 100 years

of union.

*SIR HENRY SETON-KARR said the hon. Member had entirely misconstrued what he said. He assured the hon. Member that he had no intention whatever of saying anything of that kind, and he was very sorry if he had said anything which hon. Members opposite considered offensive.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND said that if the hon. Member stated that he did not mean anything offensive, of course he must accept that disclaimer. The hon. Gentleman had a constituency in St. Helens where there were a number of Irish voters and he wished to know if the hon. Member had the same objection to the flavour of Irish voters as he had to Irish Members of Parliament.

*SIR HENRY SETON-KARR said he had already withdrawn his expression, and stated that he did not mean anything offensive. He hoped that the hon. Member for East Clare would, in the future, be ready to act on the principle he preached when he made statements about our soldiers abroad.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND said there was no parallel in regard to the action of our soldiers abroad, or anywhere else, and the observations made between men who were supposed to be Gentlemen in this House. Irish Members fought for what they believed was right, but it was not in the power of any hon. Gentleman to say that they had personally been offensive in any way, for that had never been the intention of any Irish Member. It had been said that there ought to be a room where hon. Members might talk and read without smoking, but what Mr. William Redmond.'.

They had

they were complaining of was the failure to carry out the recommendations of the Committee. There was widespread dissatisfaction in all parts of the House in regard to the accommodation. It was no use arguing now that they must economise, because if they wished to do that they might commence at once by stopping the war against the Mullah and little things of that kind, but he did not see why they should economise at the expense of the Irish Members. For all evils there was generally a sovereign remedy, and a remedy for the difficulty they were in with regard to accommodation would be found by granting Ireland Home Rule. been told that they were going to have more indicators and a fresh one in the tea-room and the Ladies' Gallery. He hoped they would have some assurance that those indicators would be accurate. An indicator that was accurate was an exceedingly useful thing, but, if they could not rely on it, it was no use and it was inconvenient and misleading. He remembered being in the Members' smokeroom upon one occasion when the indicator clicked, and to his astonishment it announced that he himself was speaking. He mentioned the fact because he had to undergo the humiliation of seeing all the hon. Members in the smoke-room settle themselves back in their chairs and order fresh cigars. If the First Commissioner of Works would take cognisance in some indirect way of what he had asked for it would be an improvement.

CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.) said that if the change which had been sug gested in the method of taking divisions was introduced divisions would be taken much more rapidly. He thought. at any rate, that the new method might be given a trial for a time, and, if it did not meet with the approval of hon. Members, it could be dispensed with. Any hon. Members, who sat in the House between 1892 and 1895 when the Home Rule Bill was considered, and who had to crowd in the lobbies, knew the state of the atmosphere at that time and the great inconvenience to which hon. Members were put. He supported the suggestion that a room should be provided for those Members who wished not to smoke or read but to confer with each other. He wished to

to the Speaker, or some other authority, with the view to an alteration in the practice.

direct the noble Lord's attention to a matter on which he had already communicated with him privately. It was within the knowledge of Members that much inconvenience was caused to those who came in from Westminster Hall through the door leading to the cloakroom, because the door opened only in one direction. There was no reason why it should not be a swing-door, and he hoped that the suggestion would be considered.

MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.) said he was a Member of the House when the method of taking divisions which an hon. Member had suggested was tried. It was done when the Irish permanent Coercion Bill was under discussion, and the object, no doubt, was to expedite the taking of divisions. He believed it did hasten the work of taking divisions, but he reminded the Committee that the Bill was passed, although fourteen of its clauses were not discussed at all. As a result of the trial given to the method then, the verdict was against it. He thought a great deal of the inconvenience complained of would be obviated if more doors were opened. He suggested that the authorities of the House might consider whether some means could be adopted whereby Members of this House who might be at the Bar of the other House could be informed of divisions. He objected to the suggestion that an indicator should be provided in the Ladies' Gallery because of the noise it would make. He suggested that an effort should be made to get some form of indicator which would make less noise than that now in use.

MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea) called attention to the practice of clearing the permanent officials and distinguished strangers out of the benches reserved for them when divisions were taken. The occupants of the strangers' gallery were very properly allowed to stay where they were during divisions, and there was no reason why those in the benches referred to should not also be allowed to remain, instead of being hustled out to the inconvenience not only of themselves but of Members. He suggested that the noble Lord might make a representation

The

LORD BALCARRES said the Office of Works could not alter the arrangements made by the House for the taking of divisions. That was beyond their province, and it would be most imprudent for them to interfere in the matter. hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty had drawn attention to the condition of the post office. He had had no notice that the matter would be brought up, and he suggested that the hon. Member should put a Question on the Paper on the subject. The increase for the cost of furniture was due to necessary changes, and also to the charge for recovering some of the Benches in the House.

The amount paid in connection with the water supply was a payment to one of the water companies for an improved supply. He would make further inquiries as to the question of the doors. The hon. Member said that the indicators were inaccurate, but the explanation was simply that some hon. Members only made speeches two or three minutes in length, and had consequently sat down before Gentlemen came from the smoking-room.

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs) said the debate had been a very useful one so far as results were concerned. He had sat on two Committees in connection with the management of the House. One of these Committees ten or eleven years ago made a recommendation that new smoking-room accommodation should be provided, and that in the event of any room becoming vacant, it should be utilised for that purpose. His complaint was that when hon. Members gave their services on the Committee upstairs, and carefully considered a Report, the Government of the day took no notice of it. The rooms of the late Chief Clerk were at the disposal of the Government, and instead of carrying out the recommendation of the Committee, he understood that they were given over to the accommodation of Ministers. If so, hon. Members ought to enter an emphatic protest against it. He thought that Ministers had quite sufficient accommodation and comfort without encroaching on the privileges of private Members. He imagined that one of the reasons why they did not now see one or two Ministers on the Treasury Bench was the luxurious surroundings they enjoyed in the neighbourhood of the Chamber. In dealing with this matter hon. Members could not complain of the noble Lord, who had given most courteous replies, but the unfortunate thing was that the noble Lord

was

not the First Commissioner of Works; he was only there to hear complaints, and to represent them to a higher authority. The time had come when the House itself should take the matter into its own hands. He suggested that the best way to make the Government realise the importance of this matter and desire to carry out the reforms recommended by the Committee, Iwas that hon. Members should have the Lord Balcarres.

courage of their opinions, and go into the division lobby against the Vote. He agreed with the hon. Member for Clare that the smoking-room accommodation was a scandal, whereas it ought to be one of the most comfortable rooms in the House. There were half a dozen rooms which were never utilised by the House of Lords which ought to be appropriated. There was too much Ministerial influence against the interests of private Members, especially when the House was up. The First Commissioner of Works, who was not a strong man, was badgered by Ministers; and in that way the interests of private Members were left out of consideration. In order to give hon. Members an opportunity to protest against their treatment, he should divide the Committee.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.) said that hon. Members ought to recognise the fact that the House had outgrown its accommodation. They must get a new House, enlarge the present one, or make a raid on the House of Lords. The last speaker had pointed out that rooms had been appropriated to Ministers which ought to have gone to private Members. It was quite true that the beautiful house formerly occupied by the late Chief Clerk had been appropriated to Ministers. But it should be remembered that Ministers had to do a great deal of work in the House, and formerly they had to do it in what were no better than cells. He had had one of those cells for five years, and he told the House candidly that the accommodation was so wretched that it was scarcely possible to do a scrap of work in it. Why should not Ministers have a comfortable room in which to do their work, which was national business? He, for one, preferred that the work of the country should be done in comfortable surroundings, rather than that smoking-room accommodation should be provided for private Members. He did not smoke himself, although he had not the slightest objection to the fullest accommodation for smokers being afforded. He agreed with the hon. Member for Greenwich that a room next the Speaker's room should be set aside solely for reading, and he thought that the suggestion of a writingroom was an excellent proposal. He

was not enough custom; the House of Commons catering was in difficulties because there was too much custom. It was quite right that the House of Lords should be exclusive; but the two Houses might join together in a catering arrangement. If pressure were exercised, he thought the House of Lords would grant that concession. Other points which would not involve expenditure might also be taken in hand. There were rooms in the building which were scarcely used at all, and which might be turned into smoking-rooms. He hoped the noble Lord would give an assurance that something would be done.

was all for making a raid on the premises of the House of Lords, and that on the grounds of economy. It was no use for hon. Members to talk of economy in the House and in the country, and then, the first week after an alarming Budget was presented, propose that thousands of pounds should be spent on a new smokingroom. He did not believe that the public outside would view such a proposal with satisfaction. A good deal of nonsense had been talked about the ventilation of the House. He thought it was very good. Open windows were the best ventilation in the world. Early in the debate the Ladies' Gallery had been referred to. Why should there be a separation of the sexes in two galleries? It was absurd that when an hon. Member brought two of his constituents, a lady and a gentleman, to the House, he should have to take the lady up to one gallery, and make a long roundabout to take the gentleman to another gallery. He believed in the mingling of the sexes.

expense

MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield) said the matter was simply a question of re-arrangement. There would be no involved in turning one of the library rooms into a smoke-room. As to getting some more rooms from the House of Lords, something might be done in that direction. He thought the noble Lord might be able to arrange that Members should have the use of the Lords' tea-room and join with them in the catering. The House of Lords catering was in difficulties because there

MR. JACOBY (Derbyshire, Mid) said he wished to ask the noble Lord what became of the Report of the Accommodation Committee. It contained several important recommendations, such as the construction of another smoking-room downstairs, better accommodation for ladies' dining-rooms, and other arrangements. He hoped that the Government would carry out some at least of the recommendations of the Committee. The arrangements for ladies' dining at the present time were a positive disgrace. The hon. Member for South Tyrone thought a great deal about the country, but he ought also to have regard for the health of Members of Parliament. He wished to know if the recommendations of the Committee were to be entirely overlooked.

Question put.

The Committee divided :-Ayes, 158; Noes, 243. (Division List No. 99.)