The Telegram. — 1901-02-26 (Weymouth, Dorset, England)

PARLIAMENT.  SHOWING THEIE HAND. BIG FALL IN THE GOVERNMENT MAJORITY.  MONDAT.—h Was not a good night for the Government in the House on Monday, for they were knocked inside out in debate, and in the Lobby their majority was reduced by just about one hundred. The trouble began during questions, when Mr. Dillon wanted to know if the Ministers of the Allied Powers in Pekin are pressing that four bush officials di the Chinese Governinent should be oraered to commit suicide.—Lord Cranborne replied that the death penalty we, being insisted upon.—This WISP, of course, no answer at ad, and Mr. Dillon repeated his question as to whether suicide was being dernande I.—Lord Cranborne sat silent, and Mr. Dillon, amid loud cheers, insisted upon being answered. It was then that Lord Cranborne made an , unfortunate statement Si the effect that the Leader of the House had arranged that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs should not answer questions without notice.  A little later, this resulted in one of the most telling debates that have been heard in the HOllOl for ninny a day, a debate in which the Government was attacked from both sides, and though the division wam taken on the adjournment, a question on which &Government can rely on a full majority, the majority fell to 45 in a full House, or almost 100 less titan the normal. Several members protested against the Linder Secretary for Foreign Affairs beingii uzzled by the Leader of the House. For a long tone the Government wan wonted, and that chiefly by its ow v supposed ft iends. Mr. Balfour was continually interrupted by his own followers. He resented this treatment, and at length when Mr. Bartley had interpolated noire unfriendly remark he snapped out, ' Surely my own friends might allow ice to finish a sentence !" Mr. Btifour produced a copy of Hansard for the year 1865, in order to show that the custom ef cross examination Miniaters is a comparatively recent) practice. There were cries of, ' Why not go is B.C. ?" Then he said be could remember tlis growth of this custom in his own time, and thi' produced shouts of the " Fourth Party.'. Indeed there were many unpleasant reminders Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerinan recollected the days when Sir Edmond Fitzumurice and Sir Charles Dilke had been almost savagely cross. examined on foreign afitirs by the Tory Opposition. Sir William Harcourt joined in on the same side, and even so cautious and official-minded a member a. Sir Edward Grey took the same side. From Mr. Balfour's own side there were protests from Sir Ellis Ashnotarl Barlett, Mr. James Low. thee, Mr. Gibson Bowlee—the last named raising a roar of laughter by pointing out that it was ' peculiarly cruel to muzzle Lord Cranborne, seeing that he was brought Into the Government in order to strengthen it ! Mr. John Redmond in a , very eloquent and forcible speech declared that thia step was simply part of a deliberate policy of Ragging the House of Commons and reducing its influence and importance. It was left for Mr. Brodrick to blunder even more seriously. He announced that foreign Ambassadors and Ministers of other natioihs friendly to us had apuroved warmly of this change in the Rouse of Commons proved me. 'Coin gave Mr. Tint Healy his chance. He led off with a solemn recognition of the fact that the Ambassador of the Sultan of Turkey had been very much pleased by. this "reform." " You cannot stop here," exclaimed Mr. Healy. " You must muzzle the whole pack (pointing total the Ministers) ; it is not enough to muzzle the leading doge !" The motion for adjournment was rejected by 243 to 204—Government umjority, 45 ! The shouts which greeted this result were deafen. ing and long continued ; indeed, the Speaker bad to call for order again and again before anything like silence could be obtained. It wan recognised on all aides that the Government harl experienced o severe Wow, and that this " ctrungest '' Government in by no means invulnerable. The debate ou the address was resumed by Mr. Lord George, Mr. Winston Cuurchill (in a memorable IllAidell speech), and Sir Hubert Reid. . . . . . . .  ----ii.;ply—ing—to M. 17. Chamberlain said the Oppositon carefully avoided a definite issue. The propmal that we should place in the hands of the . •  iloe'rs the power of stultifying everything we had done was ridiculoug nri childish. We could not  re.itore independence, and we could nut grant free gos eminent until the country was re,stured to something like its normal condation.