§ (1) If a Money Bill, having been passed by the House of Commons, and sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, is not passed by the House of Lords without Amendment within one month after it is so sent up to that House, the Bill shall, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified, notwithstanding that the House of Lords have not consented to the Bill.
§ (2) A Money Bill means a Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects—namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; charges on the Consolidated Fund or the provision of money by Parliament; Supply; the appropriation, control, or regulation of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or matters incidental to those subjects or any of them.
§ (3) When a Bill to which the House of Lords has not consented is presented to His Majesty for assent as a Money Bill, the Bill shall be accompanied by a certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons that it is a Money Bill.
2017§ (4) No amendment shall be allowed to a Money Bill which, in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons, is such as to prevent the Bill retaining the character of a Money Bill.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEOn a point of Order. I wish to say that I last night put down an Amendment covering the point which I wish to raise, and it does not appear upon the Paper.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is quite entitled to move his Amendment.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI beg to move in Section (1) after the word "If" ["If a Money Bill"] to insert the words "in any future Parliament."
Whatever may be said of the provisions of Clause 2 of this Bill, un-doubtedly the provisions of Clause I have not been understood, nor publicly argued or properly discussed, as I think I shall be able to show. With regard to Money Bills, the contention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite has always been that the House of Lords by desuetude have waived all right to reject a Money Bill, and that during the period from 1860 to 1909 no Money Bill was rejected. Again and again it has been pointed out that when the House of Lords rejected the Budget of 1909 they set up a principle that could not be maintained, because the Government would then be dependent on the will, not of one House, but of two Houses. All the discussions which have taken place in the country and here turned on that point, so far as Money Bills are concerned. This was the breach of Parliamentary continuity which was alleged when the Budget of 1909 was thrown out, and it was said that this was a dangerous precedent for the Government. When you examine this Bill you find that it contains provisions which go far beyond the arguments that have ever been addressed to this House or to the country. It would not be in order to call attention to the merits of the Clause, but it is in order, and necessary for my argument to call attention to the scope of the Clause. If you read the latter part of the Clause you will find that a Money Bill means something very different and very much wider than it ever meant before these Debates, and than it ever meant when it applied to former usages of Parliament. Going back to 1860 to the famous controversy about the Paper Duty, of course that was a Money Bill, and the Finance Bill of 1861, which was debated by 2018 the House of Lords, and which they consented to pass, was strictly referring to the finances of the year. But a Money Bill under this Clause may mean not only the finances of the year, but any Bill which is founded upon a monetary basis, even though, as I would submit, it only affected rating. To make my contention clear, I will read the defining words:—
"A Money Bill means a Bill which, in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; charges on the Consolidated Fund, or the provision of money by Parliament; Supply; the appropriation, control, or regulation of public money;——"
That goes far beyond anything that was understood to be a Money Bill
"the raising on guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof——"
That possibly might mean a loan by some local authority or an authority like the Port of London or the County Council
"or matters incidental to those subjects or any of them."
I am perfectly certain the significance of those words was not understood in the country at the last General Election or at the preceding General Election. I have taken the trouble to examine the principal Acts that have been passed by this House since 1896, and I find that there is hardly one of them which either did not come within this definition or which, with a little ingenuity on the part of the draftsman, might not have been made to come under it. In the year 1896 there was passed the Agricultural Rating Act, which was undoubtedly a Money Bill under this definition. In 1897 there was the Voluntary Schools Act, undoubtedly a Money Bill under this definition. The Workmen's Compensation Act was not a Money Bill, but it might have been made so if a contribution had been given by Parliament, as will be the case in the Invalidity Insurance Bill. In 1898 the Irish Local Government Act was not based on a Grant, but a Grant was involved in it, and if that Bill had been so drafted that the Imperial Parliament, for the sake of relieving the rates in Ireland gave a certain grant, and if it were arranged that the persons to administer that should be elected by the different county councils, and if provisions were inserted as to what should be the share of 2019 the local authorities, then that would be a Money Bill under the words "matters incidental to." In the next year there was the London Government Act, which could have been drafted in the same way, and would have been a Money Bill as "matters incidental to." In 1900 there was the War Loan, which clearly was a Money Bill, although it involved a large question of policy. In 1901 there was the Civil List Act, and in 1902 there was the Education Act. That, as drafted, undoubtedly was not a Money Bill, but there again a large grant from the Exchequer was involved, and the whole of the rest of the structure could have been made to depend on it.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI rise to a point of Order. The Amendment is that this Clause should not come into operation until some future Parliament. I venture to submit that what the hon. Gentleman is saying as to the definition of a Money Bill has no relevance whatever to that proposition.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEMy argument was this. That authority is claimed for this Bill as having been brought in as a result of two General Elections, and I wish to show that the significance of this Clause has not been appreciated or understood, and that the arguments with regard to Money Bills have been founded on a neglect of the true provisions of this Clause. Therefore it is necessary to my argument to show that the Clause does contain matter, the merits of which I will not now discuss, but which has not been hitherto generally understood. I do not propose to go into the merits of the definition, but simply to show what the definition is.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must confine his argument to showing that the operation of this Clause ought to be delayed until after the next General Election. He must not discuss the merits or discuss the question of how far the electors might be supposed to understand or misunderstand this Clause, except with the view to bringing that argument to bear on the Amendment. I concluded that was what he was going to do, and he must carry that out.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI shall be able, I hope, to carry it out. I ran through the Acts of a Session, merely as an example of what the Clause did contain, and which it certainly has not been supposed, either in this House or in the country, to contain. 2020 I can go further and give Bills later than 1902. There was the Irish Land Purchase Act of 1903, the Licensing Act of 1904, and the Education Bill of 1906, which could have been framed in the same way, and also the Irish Councils Bill and the second Education Bill, and of course the Old Age Pensions Bill, and the third Education Bill, and the Development Bill of last year. In all the arguments that have been used throughout the country, this question of the Money Bill has been put in a secondary position, and I quite agree if a Money Bill under this Clause was as it was understood, under the ancient usage of Parliament, that it would be in a secondary position. As I ventured to argue yesterday, a Money Bill as here defined means any Bill that is founded upon the control of public money whether apparently from the Exchequer or the rates. Therefore, it could be made to comprehend three-fourths of all the general legislation of the country. I am perfectly certain hon. Members opposite cannot contend that that is what was intended. They have always devoted their arguments to the necessity for some check on the House of Lords, but at the same time fully admitting that there was the need of a revising Chamber. It must come as a shock to them if it can be proved that three-fourths of the legislation at least can be passed without any revising Chamber at all. I do not say passed in the best way or in the convenient way, but the measures can be so drafted that three-fourths of the subjects of legislation can be passed without coming under the purview of a revising Chamber. That, I submit, has never been understood, and it has never been explained to the electors and to this House, and it would be a presumption against all the facts of the case if authority can be claimed for this Clause, and I do not think it can be claimed for the Bill at all, on the ground that it has been understood and approved by the people of the country. Therefore if this Clause is to be persevered in by the Government, they must be able to show that a Money Bill means the old Money Bill as understood formerly.
§ The CHAIRMANThat does not arise on the Amendment we are discussing. The hon. Member is discussing the Clause itself; he must make his remarks relevant to his own Amendment.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEMy point is, that at the last election this was not understood, and was not appreciated by the country, 2021 and the Government had no right to obtain the authority of the country. In common fairness they should allow this matter first to be threshed out in Parliament, and not to attempt to force it through until it has been explained, and until they are able to show that they have the authority of the electors for it.
§ The PRIME MINISTERAfter a long experience of Debates in Committee of this House, I do not think I ever heard a speech in which the arguments bore so little relation to the proposition. The hon. Gentleman's speech has been entirely confined to criticism of the language and the effect of Sub-section (2), a Sub-section we have not yet reached, and I do not know when we shall reach it, but which, when we do reach, I shall be perfectly prepared to discuss. What is his proposition? His proposition is that this Clause shall not come into effect until after a new Parliament has been elected. We are really repeating the experience of yesterday. Last night we spent four or five hours in discussing a proposition that the operation of this Clause should be confined to the next three years, and now the hon. Gentleman, after all that time has been spent, solemnly gets up and invites us to discuss another proposition that the Clause shall not come into operation until after this Parliament, which is an exact replica of the discussion we had in an earlier part. Those contrary propositions are successively put forward by the same people and voted for in the same Lobby, although it is quite clear, if one is true, the other must be false.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEIf the right hon. Gentleman had accepted yesterday's Amendment perhaps there would have been no necessity for this.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that ingenious explanation. My answer is a very simple one of one sentence. This country and the electors of this country, if they determined anything at the last election, determined that in this Parliament we should assert the supremacy of the House of Commons in all matters of finance. That is my answer.
Mr. BALFOURIt is a very bad answer. The whole of my hon. Friend's argument is this: That under the phrase, "Everything connected with finance," the country, which in the right hon. Gentleman's view supported this at the last election, were not aware that this Bill meant 2022 not merely Budgets, not merely what in ordinary discourse would be described as the financial arrangements of the year, but all the innumerable things which would appear to come within the very wide ambit of the definition of Sub-section (2). All the answer the right hon. Gentleman has got to that is that the country did understand this Bill in the light of Subsection (2).
§ The PRIME MINISTERI did not say so.
Mr. BALFOURWhat is his argument then? If that was not so he will forgive me for saying, with all respect, that he cannot appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend. What my hon. Friend said was, "You try to ram this Bill down our throats on the ground that it has been before the electorate twice." That means, and it can only mean, that the electorate have been thoroughly seized of all its bearings and all its provisions. My hon. Friend then points out that under Subsection (2) it is quite obvious that the people have not been seized of it in all its bearings and in all its provisions. Therefore, he argues, that you ought not to act as if this Bill or this Clause had received the general assent of the electorate; because, although the electorate may very likely have given their assent to the broad proposition that the House of Lords should not be allowed to interfere with Budgets or Appropriation Bills or with the strictly financial work of the country, the public has never understood that this Bill was intended to make it possible for the House of Commons to call anything a Money Bill and pass it over the heads of the Lords within one month of its reach the the Upper Chamber. That argument does not deserve the treatment the Prime Minister has chosen to mete out to it. He seems to think there is a wonderful inconsistency between the arguments advanced to-night and those advanced last night. The policy on which the Amendment of last night was based and the policy recommended by the present Amendment are perfectly consistent. The contentions of last night and of to-night, taken together, are these: that you ought within the next three years to bring in your scheme for dealing with the House of Lords, and you ought not to frame your Bills in the guise of Money Bills so that, although they are not really Money Bills, the House of Lords has nothing whatever to say to them. Those are the two points urged last night and to-night. Will any human being say that they are inconsistent? The right hon. 2023 Gentleman has taken advantage of a mere verbal point to suggest that those who support this Amendment will be acting contrary to the intentions which animated their arguments last night. That is wholly inaccurate. The two policies are perfectly consistent, and they are both right. The Government ought to bring in their reform of the House of Lords within the next three years, and they ought not to stretch the circuit of Sub-section (2) so wide by the use of such phrases as "the regulation of public money," "matters incidental," and so on, that they could include all those Bills mentioned or indicated in the speech of my hon. Friend. I entirely agree with what I understood to be the ruling of the Chairman, that it would be extremely inconvenient to discuss on this Amendment the very complicated subject that will arise on Sub-section (2), but I do not think that my hon. Friend was open to the charge that he was dealing with those matters which will have to occupy the time of the Committee later on. The point now raised is much broader. Granting that Sub-section (2) passes in its present form, acting on that hypothesis, as he is bound to do, until the Government make any declaration to the centrary, my hon. Friend's interpretation of Sub-section (2) is that it might take in an enormous number of Bills which the country believed would come under Clause 2 and not Clause 1. I believe he has rightly interpretated the view which the country took of Clause 1. I think there was a feeling—in my judgment a mistaken but a genuine feeling—that the House of Lords had gone beyond their propoer constitutional functions in referring the Budget of 1909 to the popular vote. The comman view of the public is that this Clause is intended, and intended solely, to prevent a recurrence of that action. That is how the Clause was interpreted, naturally enough, in all the broad presentments on popular platforms. Will anybody contradict me on that broad statement? Will any Member deny that what the party opposite really aimed at and what the public believed they aimed at in this Clause was the prevention of a repetition of the rejection of a Budget or anything in the nature of a Budget? If we are to read this Clause in the light of Sub-section (2), the electors who voted for hon. Gentlemen opposite never for one moment intended to express the view that everything which could be dragged in under that Sub-section was to be dealt with as a Money Bill, that in regard 2024 to them the Second Chamber should be prevented from exercising even that control which it has under Clause 2, and should be allowed no more power of delay than that of one month which they have in regard to Money Bills. I think my hon. Friend was well advised in bringing forward this Amendment, but he has received very scant courtesy from the Prime Minister, who has distinctly failed to understand the perfectly legitimate argument which my hon. Friend addressed to him.
§ Mr. WALTER GUINNESSThe Prime Minister was so much concerned with the alleged irrelevance of the mover of the Amendment that he did not in any way deal with the merits of the proposal. The Government apparently attach extraordinary importance to the function of delay. Surely, in view of what they have said of the value of delay, they sought to justify their refusal to grant such delay as would afford a reasonable opportunity for the electors to change their minds on the most far-reaching change in our financial procedure ever brought before Parliament. I will not discuss the limits of Money Bills, as the Prime Minister says that that point is irrelevant; but I think my hon. Friend dealt with it very fairly. According to Members of the Government, themselves, the Government have no authority for putting through a matter of this importance as a result of so inconclusive a General Election as the last. I could quote many speeches, but I will content myself with a quotation from a speech by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, delivered so recently as November last. He said:—
He had always taken the view that in regard to constitutional questions there ought to be an over whelming opinion in favour of a change before it carried be carried into law. Constitutional questions ought to have the overwhelming support of the masses of the people before——
§ The CHAIRMANI do not see that that point arises. The Amendment proposes that there should be another election. There is nothing in it about the size of the majority.
§ Mr. GUINNESSMy point is that I want another election. If the last election but one was not conclusive, I do not see how the last election, which gave the Government a smaller majority, was any more conclusive. But I bow to your ruling, and will not pursue the point further. The Government suggest that the House of Lords should have power to delay for two years ordinary matters of legislation. If it is 2025 right that they should be able to hang up for two years a matter of merely local interest, perhaps a private Bill promoted by a county council, surely there is every reason why they should be able to suspend this matter until the electors have had an opportunity of considering it in all its bearings. It is no answer to say that the Resolutions have been before the House. Many Bills are dealt with in general terms by Resolutions, and it is well known that vague principles have often passed muster in the House of Commons and been endorsed by the country, but have absolutely broken down and been repudiated by the people when the Government came to grapple with the details. One might compare the present position with what happened in regard to the first Home Rule Bill. Mr. Gladstone got the support of the country to the outlines of his Bill before the election of 1885. It was only when ho filled in the particulars that he came to grief. He talked of preserving the unity of the Empire——
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must make his remarks relevant to the Amendment.
§ Mr. GUINNESSI was referring to the experience of a Government which obtained the general assent of the country to the broad principles, but broke down over the details, and I was making a comparison which I think is absolutely on all fours with the position to-day. I think it is relevant to show that just as Mr. Gladstone, when he came to frame his Bill, was unable to carry out his Midlothian pledges as to preserving the unity of the Empire, so the Government are unable to restrict their changes in the financial relations between the two Houses in the way broadly laid down at the General Election. The field has been very much extended since then. As by your ruling I am not allowed to make any comparison with the past, I will only say that the matter is of such importance that the country ought certainly to have an opportunity of considering it with the details embodied in the clauses of a Bill; they ought not to be committed to this particular proposal until it has been thoroughly thrashed out in Committee and they have had an opportunity of declaring their opinion, not merely on the broad principles, but on the essential details which must make or mar a measure.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe Prime Minister said that this question was discussed for 2026 some hours yesterday, but I submit that there is a considerable difference between three years and the next General Election. Three years is a fixed period, but the next election might, for all we know, come within three months, and what my hon. Friend suggests is that this proposal should then become operative and not before. If the Amendment were carried, the country would have an opportunity before the next election of making themselves acquainted with what the Bill proposes and with what it will actually do. I say it will be a very great advantage.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Baronet is talking about the Bill. This Amendment deals only with this Clause.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI was endeavouring to confine my remarks to this Clause, which is a revolutionary Clause, because hitherto the other House has always had the opportunity of rejecting Money Bills. Therefore, this is a very considerable change. But I apologise if I have alluded to the Bill instead of to the Clause. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite urge that the country has determined that this Clause shall become law within this Session. I say that the country has done nothing of the sort. What the country did undoubtedly was to give, in some cases, a sort of mandate that there should be some alteration of the financial relations between the two Houses, but it never gave any mandate for this particular Clause. I do not really see what harm would be done if this Clause was postponed until after the next General Election. Certainly, the Prime Minister brought forward no reason why this Amendment should not be accepted, unless it is that, having a chance majority, and fearing that when the people came to understand this Clause they will not have it, he is taking advantage of his majority to pass the Clause. The House should have some further explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary or from the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Joseph Pease), who, on a former occasion, made some enlightening remarks upon this Bill. I would like to draw attention to some remarks made by the Prime Minister on the somewhat similar occasion in this House on the 5th of April of last year:—
That the resolution would have to be embodied in the Bill, and that it should have a second reading stage, a Committee stage, a Report stage, and third reading, and will receive as full discussion as the House can give it.The present action of the right hon. Gentleman is against the spirit of the 2027 statement which he made in the House of Commons last year, and which, of course, we all accepted as his statement of what would be carried out.
§ Lord HUGH CECILIt is, of course, not possible—to reply to the misapprehension as to this Amendment—to discuss any amendment to a Clause without pointing out what the Clause means. You must understand what a Clause means in order that you may form a judgment upon the merits of the Amendment. This is an Amendment for, in effect, referring this Clause to the people. It provides that this Clause is not to come into effect until the people have had an opportunity of pronouncing upon it. I myself do not think that a General Election is the ideal way of referring such matters to the people. I should prefer a system of Referendum. For this purpose, however, for the present occasion, it is only possible to move a reference to a General Election. No one, I suppose, imagines that in this present Parliament disagreements about finance are likely to arise between the two Houses. The precaution the Government is taking I have not the least doubt, and doubtless they have not the least doubt, has reference to future Parliaments. We do not really suppose, at least we may hope, that financial proposals in the near future will be as controversial as in 1909. At any rate, the Government, I suppose, do not imagine that the majority in the House of Lords again during this Parliament will take the course they did. Therefore there will be no practical loss or injury in adopting the Amendment. It would have the advantage of giving the people the opportunity of pronouncing upon the merits of this Clause before it came into effect. I think it is true that this Clause has not been sufficiently discussed by the country. It is hardly possible by platform discussion to bring out the details of Parliamentary proposals. That was one of the great inconveniences of the course pursued by the Government in hurrying the last General Election. The country did not have the opportunity of seeing what really it would be called upon to pronounce judgment upon. Had we been through, as the Prime Minister in his earlier speeches seemed to indicate, this Clause word by word and line by line, as we are going through it now, then the last General Election would have carried very much more weight than possibly it can at the present time. So that my hon. Friend is 2028 entitled to say that there is a strong case for deferring the operation of this Clause till after a General Election. It is silly for the Prime Minister to treat this proposition with contempt. The Government are apparently preventing their supporters from speaking. That is part of their respect for the House of Commons, and part of their idea of the value of the House of Commons discussion. Nobody except hon. Members on the Front Benches opposite are to be allowed on that side of the House to take part in the Debate. Happily, we are so far free from that position, and are able to urge our points one by one, and we urge that this particular Clause should be referred to the people before it becomes law.
§ Mr. G. J. SANDYSIt appears to me that the whole question of this Parliament Bill would be very much settled and simplified if the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment which has been brought forward. I think that every reasonable person will agree that the contention which has been made by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University that the people at the time of the last election were not in a position to thoroughly appreciate the true significance of this Bill is one that can hardly be denied. The election which we have just passed through, and in which, according to the testimony of the Government, so many mandates were received from the people, was not one in which important constitutional measures could be in any way adequately discussed. I am perfectly certain if a national settlement of this constitutional difficulty is ever to be arrived at it can only be obtained after another General Election, distinctly fought upon this issue, and upon this issue alone. By this method we shall be able to place before the people the true significance of this Parliamentary Bill.
§ This Amendment is of particular importance, because it deals with the question of the possible action, or rather the prevention of any action, on the part of the House of Lords in regard to Money Bills. We understand, from the statements which have been made by the Government, that this part of the Parliament Bill is to be permanent. We understand that whatever happens in regard to the Preamble, as to the reconstitution of the Second Chamber, reform of the House of Lords and the relationship between the two Houses, the Clause in regard to Money Bills is to remain as stated in the Parliamentary Bill.
2029§ Therefore, it seems to me particularly necessary that the people of this country should thoroughly appreciate exactly what the changes are that are intended to be made, because these changes are to be, so we understand, of a permanent character. I am quite sure that during the recent General Election very few of the people of this country thoroughly appreciated the very wide and far-reaching changes which will be brought about by the Parliament Bill so far as Money Bills were concerned. I think it is perfectly true to state that should this Bill become an Act of Parliament it will be quite possible in the future for the Civil List to he abolished; for the salaries of the judges and entire administration of justice to be stopped; for an income Tax of 20s. in the £1 to be imposed; for the rating of houses and lands to be raised to occupation value; and it will be quite possible, without a Second Chamber having any say at all in the matter, by imposing an annual rate upon the railways equivalent to annual value to bring about a scheme for the nationalisation of railways. In that short, sharp, but singularly indecisive election from which we have just come, I am perfectly certain from my own experience that there was no possible opportunity of explaining to the people of this country the far-reaching, revolutionary changes, the character of which I have indicated, and which it would be quite possible to bring about by the mere operation of this Bill. Therefore I do urge upon the Government to reconsider this question, and to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend. In this way we may have a further opportunity of placing these matters before the people, so that, as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are so fond of saying, the will of the people may actually prevail.
§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSI think the Government may very fairly and safely accept this Amendment. It is not likely, as the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University has reminded the House, that during the present Parliament there will be introduced between the two Houses any matters of contention about money matters. May I remind the Government of what took place in the House of Lords last year. Lord Lansdowne said:—
In regard to this provision about Money Bills, the Lords are prepared to forego their constitutional rights to reject or amend Money Bills which are purely financial in character, provided that effectual provision is made against 'tacking.'In view of that statement, if there is no "tacking" in a Governmental Money 2030 Bill right hon. Gentlemen opposite may be perfectly sure that that Bill will go through the other House. If they do "tack," well, of course, it will be another matter! The Government may be perfectly sure that during the present Parliament the House of Lords will not reject a Budget—which is only a Budget! The acceptance of this Amendment will give the people during the next three years the opportunity of expressing their opinion.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYThe Prime Minister, in answer to my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, laid great stress on his statemnt that this Amendment was precisely contrary to and paradoxical with the one moved last night. I venture to think that is a superficial answer, because if one looks at the Amendment closely it will be found that the principle underlying it is the same as that of last night, and that is a principle which the Government always ignore, namely, that the people of the country ought to be consulted. If the Amendment moved last night was carried, the people would be consulted at the end of three years. Now it is proposed that the Clause should not come into operation until the new Parliament, roughly in about three years. The Government do not ask whether the people want the Clause to come into operation or not. If they had consulted the people on the principle of the Clause, one could understand their refusing this Amendment. The Government profess to believe in the theory of mandate to justify their action. They say they had a mandate from the country at the last election. Surely when it is alleged, as it was alleged this afternoon by us, that this Clause does not carry out their mandate it rests with them to show that it does, but they have not attempted to do anything of the kind. They are tame and dull this afternoon. They will reject this Amendment in the same humour and in the sam effective manner as they propose to reject all other Amendments. We are entitled to point out that, as a matter of fact, this is only one more example of the imposture imposed upon the electorate at the last General Election. The Government did not like the word "fraud" when used by the Leader of the Opposition at the beginning of the Session. I have no doubt they will get accustomed to it in the course of these Debates, or if they do not get accustomed to the word they will become accustomed to the feeling. Perhaps they have already become accustomed to it. No one will deny that this Clause does 2031 not carry out what the people of the country were led to believe would be carried out. It goes much further, and, as a matter of fact, I do not see what necessity there is for the rest of the Bill if this Clause is carried as it stands.
§ The CHAIRMANThat has nothing to do with the Amendment under discussion.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI was pointing out, with all respect, how important this Clause is and how essential it is that its operation should be postponed to another
§ Parliament. But I will not pursue that argument further if you rule me out of Order. I say this Clause does not carry out what the country was led to suppose would be carried out by the financial proposals of the Government Bill. And, therefore, this Amendment ought certainly to be accepted so as to give the country another opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it.
§ Question put. "That these words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 296.
2035| Division No. 107.] | AYES. | [5.4 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon Sir Alex. F. | Doughty, Sir George | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor., Droitwich) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Du Cros, Arthur Philip | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh |
| Archer-Shee, Major Martin | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Mackinder, Halford J. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Falle, Bertram Godfray | M'Mordie, Robert James |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Fell, Arthur | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Astor, Waldorf | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Malcolm, Ian |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J. | Finlay, Sir Robert | Mallaby-Deeley, Harry |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Fleming, Valentine | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Middlemore, John Throgmorton |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Forster, Henry William | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.) | Foster, Philip Staveley | Moore, William |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gardner, Ernest | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Achburten) |
| Barnston, Harry | Gibbs, George Abraham | Mount, William Arthur |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Goldsmith, Frank | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.) | Gordon, J. | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Newman, John R. P. |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Grant, J. A. | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Greene, Walter Raymond | Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury) |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Gretton, John | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Guinness, Hon. W. E. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Haddock, George Bahr | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Bird, Alfred | Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith- | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton) |
| Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) | Harris, Henry Percy | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Boyton, James | Helmsley, Viscount | Pole-Carew, Sir R. |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon) | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury) | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs.) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter | Ouilter, William Eley C. |
| Butcher, John George | Hills, John Walter (Durham) | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Carille, Edward Hildred | Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan |
| Cassel, Felix | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Rolleston, Sir John |
| Cator, John | Horner, Andrew Long | Rothschild, Lionel D. |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Houston, Robert Paterson | Royds, Edmund |
| Cave, George | Hunt, Rowland | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hunter, Sir Charles Rork. (Bath) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.) | Ingleby, Holcombe | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Chambers, James | Jessel, Captain H. M. | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Kerr-Smiley Peter Kerr | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Kerry, Earl of | Spear, John Ward |
| Clyde, James Avon | Kimber, Sir Henry | Stanier, Beville |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Stanley, Hen. G. F. (Preston) |
| Courthope, George Loyd | Kinloch, Cooke, Sir Clement | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Kirkwood, John H. M. | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Knight, Capt. E. A. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Larmor, Sir J. | Swift, Rigby |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.) | Sykes, Alan John |
| Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred | Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Croft, Henry Page | Lewisham, Viscount | Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.) |
| Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Tobin, Alfred Aspinall |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Touche, George Alexander |
| Dixon, Charles Harvey | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Valentia, Viscount |
| Walker, Col. William Hall | Wolmer, Viscount | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Wheler, Granville C. H. | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon) | Yerburgh, Robert |
| White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) | Younger, George |
| Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) | Worthington-Evans, L. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mackinder and Major Morrison Bell. |
| Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Lynch, Arthur Alfred |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Elverston, Harold | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) |
| Adamson, William | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Essex, Richard Walter | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Esslemont, George Birnie | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Falconer, James | M'Callum, John M. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Farrell, James Patrick | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) | Fenwick, Charles | M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.) |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Ffrench, Peter | M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Splading) |
| Anderson, Andrew Macbeth | Field, William | M'Micking, Major Gilbert |
| Armitage, Robert | Fitzgibbon, John | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Marks, George Croydon |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | France, Gerald Ashburner | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Furness, Stephen W. | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Gill, Alfred Henry | Meagher, Michael |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Ginnell, Laurence | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Glanville, H. J. | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) |
| Barnes, George N. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) | Goldstone, Frank | Millar, James Duncan |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Molloy, Michael |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Greig, Colonel J. W. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Barton, William | Griffith, Ellis Jones | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Mooney, John J. |
| Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Morgan, George Hay |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Hackett, J. | Morrell, Philip |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Hancock, John George | Muldoon, John |
| Black, Arthur W. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Munro, Robert |
| Boland, John Pius | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvll) | Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Harmsworth, R. L. | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Neilson, Francis |
| Brace, William | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Brigg, Sir John | Harwood, George | Nolan, Joseph |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Haworth, Arthur A. | O'Brien, William (Cork) |
| Burke, E. Haviland | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hayward, Evan | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Byles, William Pollard | Higham, John Sharp | O'Dowd, John |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hinds, John | Ogden, Fred |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Hodge, John | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Holt, Richard Durning | O'Malley, William |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Clough, William | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | O'Shee, James John |
| Clynes, John R. | Hunter, W. (Govan) | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | John, Edward Thomas | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Johnson, William | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Jones, William (Ca narvonshire) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Jowett, Frederick William | Pointer, Joseph |
| Crean, Eugene | Joyce, Michael | Pollard, Sir George H. |
| Crumley, Patrick | Keating, Matthew | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Kellaway, Frederick George | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh. Central) |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Kilbride, Denis | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | King, J. (Somerset, N.) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) | Primrose, Hon. Neil James |
| Delany, William | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Lansbury, George | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Rainy, Adam Rolland |
| Doris, W. | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry |
| Duffy, William J. | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Lewis, John Herbert | Reddy, Michael |
| Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.) | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Rendall, Atheistan |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lundon, Thomas | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, N.) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Roberts, George H. (Norwich) | Snowden, Philip | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Scares, Ernest Joseph | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Strachey, Sir Edward | Webb, H. |
| Robinson, Sydney | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Summers, James Woolley | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Sutherland, J. E. | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Sutton, John E. | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Rowlands, James | Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe) | Wiles, Thomas |
| St. Maur, Harold | Tennant, Harold John | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Thorne, William (West Ham) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Scanlan, Thomas | Toulmin, George | Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.) |
| Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Wilson, W. T. (West Houghton) |
| Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | Winfrey, Richard |
| Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B. | Verney, Sir Harry | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Sheehan, Daniel Daniel | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Sheehy, David | Walters, John Tudor | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Simon, Sir John Alisebrook | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | |
| Smith, Albert (Lancs., Ciltheroe) | Wardle, George J. | TELLERS FDR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Guiland. |
| Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) | Waring, Walter |
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEMoved on Sub-section (1), after "a" ["If a Money Bill having been passed"] to insert the word "public."
§ The CHAIRMANThis Amendment is not in Order here, but should come in on Sub-section (2).
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEOn a point of Order, Mr. Emmott, I submit this Amendment is a proposal to limit the operation of this Clause to public Bills, and I submit certain private Bills, such as corporations attempting to get certain borrowing powers or the like, would under the definition, be included. I submit that there would be a difficulty in raising this point later on.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member may raise it on Sub-section (2).
§ Mr. REMNANTMay I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to Standing Order 44, where a distinction is clearly drawn between public and private financial measures. That being so, would it not be in order for the hon. Member to move his Amendment specifying that this is a "public" Money Bill.
§ The CHAIRMANAs I have already pointed out, that question can be raised on Sub-section (2), and that is the right place to raise it. A Money Bill can be confined to a public Money Bill on Sub-section (2).
§ Mr. POLLOCKMay I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the Amendments standing on the Paper to leave out the word "money." I think we ought to have a definition of what a Money Bill means. If we leave the words "Money Bill" in, it will be difficult to argue the point on Sub-section (2). 2036 There is an Amendment standing in my name to leave out the word "Money,' which I wished to move, in order that we may get a full definition of what is meant by the word "money" in Clause 1. It will be very difficult later on to get a definition of a Bill which has already been established by the House to be a Money Bill.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI wish to draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the Amendment standing in my name to leave out the word "Money." If you rule that I am not able to move my Amendment now I may not get a future opportunity.
§ The CHAIRMANThere may not be any future opportunity of getting rid of the word "Money," but a Money Bill can be defined in Sub-section (2), and it can be dealt with there.
§ Lord HUGH CECILEvidently it is a matter for the Committee to determine whether a Bill shall be called a Money Bill or not. How can we decide that point if we do not omit the word "Money"?
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYThis is a new term which the House of Commons has not known before. In all Resolutions dealing with finance it has always been called a Bill of Aid or Supply. The term "Money Bill" is entirely new, and I think it is competent for the Committee to say whether they are going to engraft the term "Money Bill" upon financial legislation.
§ The CHAIRMANI still adhere to my opinion. We have been discussing in the Amendment already dealt with what we are to do with Money Bills. In Sub-section (2) the definition of Money Bill is given, and these points must be left until we deal with that Sub-section. With regard to the 2037 Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Derby (Mr. Watson Rutherford) that is a question which can be raised on Sub-section (3), and it will not be in order here.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThe Clause provides that a Money Bill "having been passed by the House of Commons," and so on. What I want to make clear is before that Bill is dealt with, in order to be passed by the House of Commons it should be a Money Bill, because then we should know what we are discussing when we are dealing with Money Bills. It would be in an entirely different category from other Bills. I do not see any other place where we can make it clear that when the House is passing a Money Bill it should pass it as such, and it should be certified to be such before it is passed by the House of Commons upon that footing. That is the point of the Amendment. I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that there is no other place but this at which that intention can be conveniently expressed. You have got in the Clause the words "having been passed," and that is a question of time. My Amendment deals simply with the question of time, and not with the question whether the Bill should be certified or who should certify it. The point I am raising is that before a Bill is passed it should bear the imprimatur of being a Money Bill.
§ The CHAIRMANI have already ruled that the question dealt with by the hon. Member can be raised upon a later Subsection.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYDo I understand from your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that in reference to my Amendment to leave out the word "Money" I shall be able to raise it on Sub-section (2)?
§ The CHAIRMANMoney Bills are limited and defined in Sub-section (2). Amendments relating to their further limitation must be raised upon that Sub-section. I call upon the hon. Member for Oswestry to move his Amendment.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYBefore the hon. Member for Oswestry moves his Amendment I want to ask whether, if a discussion is taken on this rather wide Amendment, it will cut out the discussion later on a qualifying form of Amendments bearing upon the same question. There are several such Amendments standing in the name of hon. Members as well as in my own name. That is a very important 2038 question, and I should certainly desire an opportunity of raising it quite separately from the Amendment now before the Committee.
§ The CHAIRMANIn all probability it will cut out those Amendments if it is adopted. If the hon. Member desires to move a different form of Amendment at this point he may do so.
§ Lord HUGH CECILMay I ask that you should cause your ruling to be recorded at the Table, in order that a Motion disagreeing with it may be submitted.
§ The CHAIRMANMy ruling will be recorded.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "passed" ["passed by the House of Commons"], to insert the words "without restriction of debate."
In ordinary circumstances I should expect a very large measure of support for this attempt to retain some portion of freedom of speech for private Members of Parliament. Hon. Members are aware of the history of the closure, the different defences which have been made in applying it, and the severity with which it has been applied from year to year. During the tenure of office of the present Government the closure has been applied far more rigorously than it was ever applied before. I am anxious to speak against the closure, but if I went into a very long history of what is familiar to most hon. Members of this House I might be providing an argument for the other side instead of for myself. I will content myself by merely stating that I believe everybody in this House will agree that the closure has become more and more severe during the last five years, and that, whether we like the closure or not, there can be no dispute about what I have said on the point. I think hon. Members will agree with me when I state that wherever it is possible to avoid the closure and the guillotine it is desirable to do so. I think that hon. Members will also agree with me that in reference to any financial questions which the representatives of the people have always been free to discuss the guillotine should, if possible, be eliminated altogether. So far I think we are all agreed. I think most hon. Members will agree that when the power of amending a Money Bill is taken away from the other Chamber there is a still greater necessity that it should be fully discussed 2039 in this Chamber. Nobody will dispute that proposition.
Lastly, if these Money Bills are to be Money Bills in the restricted sense, which hon. Members opposite tell us they will be, and if they are strictly confined to raising taxation and entirely free from tacking, then the reasons for curtailing debate will be much smaller than they would be in regard to Finance Bills combined, as they have been lately, with matters foreign to finance. As a matter of fact, the only time in which we have had a very long debate upon a Finance Bill has been the occasion when the Government thought fit to introduce legislation which they could not introduce in any other way than in the form of a Finance Bill. If these Bills are purely Money Bills and purely connected with finance, then the closure and the guillotine will be much less necessary than it ever has been before. Apparently these propositions are agreed to by all sections of this House, and under ordinary circumstances I should expect a very large number of hon. Gentlemen opposite to follow me into the Lobby in favour of this Amendment. I am afraid that on this point they are not enjoying the same liberty which the hon. Member for Somerset told us they were enjoying on the Preamble, which they were allowed to look upon in any way they liked. The Government and their supporters have been going about the country making bombastic speeches about passing this measure without the alteration of a comma, and having the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill. That is a very good illustration of their desire for free discussion in this House. Before this Bill has been discussed here they go about the country saying, "we shall accept no amendments," and consequently they are making discussion here absolutely useless and futils. What is the use of anything being discussed in this House if every-thing is to be pushed through, and if no amendments are to be accepted, however much hon. Members desire them. The Government seem to consider themselves in the position of Ulysses when he was trying to pass the syrens without giving way to their attractions. Those who sit behind them have had their ears and indeed their mouths closed on this subject. The Government, like Ulysses, have tied themselves as well as their colours to the mast, and, although they condescend to listen sometimes to what is being said, they very seldom answer and never agree, 2040 however much they might wish in their conscience to do so. They are not really very much like Ulysses, because Ulysses after all, having seen the cities of a large number of men and having mastered their ideas, used that experience when he came home. The Government, if they have seen the customs and constitutions of cities and countries, certainly have not taken much advantage of their experience, because they are trying to impose on us a system which no civilised country of the world has thought fit to adopt. Therefore, however right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on our Front Bench may be regarded as syrens, a great compliment to their personal and vocal attractions, let me say that, so far from desiring to lure hon. Members opposite on the dangerous rocks, our desire is to put them on safe ground and on ground which has been regarded as safe by their own party for many years past. If they persist in being suspicious of what is said by hon. Members on this side of the House I will refer them to some of the speeches of Members of their own party. The hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. Byles), who I feel certain has absented himself from this discussion for fear of having to allow his principles to rule and to be obliged to support my Amendment, spoke very plainly and very well on this subject on 15th June, 1909, when he said:—
The use of the guillotine is one which affects the efficiency and Credit and almost the existence of the House of Commons. …There are two main objections to these guillotine resolutions. One is, they tend to put too much power in the hands of the Executive, and to take too much power out of the hands of the House of Commons, and the evil is they inevitably afford justification for the interference of the Upper House in the decisions arrived at by this House. …It is impossible to justify condemnation of the House of Lords, if Bills are pushed through this House without ample opportunity for private Members of this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1909. cols. 889 and 891.]You are taking away any control of the House of Lords over finance, and therefore it is impossible and unfair to insist on the use of the Closure in forcing a Bill through the only House where it is possible to discuss it with any advantage or effect. If the hon. Member for Salford is not a sufficiently high authority on Constitutional questions, although he has been a great champion of free speech in this House, let me refer to Mr. Bryce, who, I suppose, would be regarded even by hon. Gentlemn opposite as an authority on Constitutional questions. He said in this House, in 1889:—I believe, generally, there is a strong feeling in the country that the House of Commons ought not to have the sole charge of the interests of the nation. The introduction of the Closure, and the way in which the 2041 Closure is worked, makes this House a totally different body from what it was before, and renders it necessary to provide safeguards against the danger of precipitate action which did not exist in 1884.If Mr. Bryce chose to bring his remarks up to date, how very much more forcible he could make them in view of the great—
§ The CHAIRMANWe cannot discuss the question of the Guillotine in general. This is a question of Bills with which this Bill deals, and the hon. Gentletman's remarks ought to be relevant to them.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANWith great respect, my quotation related to the point of my Amendment. If we are to have Single Chamber Government for financial questions, then the Guillotine and Closure should be avoided in this House. With great respect, I think it is perfectly in order to illustrate my point by a quotation from a high authority. I am satisfied you will agree with that, and I certainly will confine myself to the Amendment, as I think I have done up to this moment. If that was the case then, still more is it the case now when the Guillotine is being used so much more freely. We have not only the old forms of Closure, hut we have the Kangaroo and other innovations, which make that point all the stronger. If the right hon. Gentleman will not listen to reason, whether it comes from their own side or from ours. I will ask them not to go about the country claiming they are passing this Bill in order that the will of the people may prevail. I should like to remind them of an instance we have only just had of this way of dealing with the Finance Bill. No one can say that Clause 10 of the Revenue Bill was according to the will of the people. It was the exact opposite the Government themselves had promised, and the people wanted the opposite. The Government, by means of the Closure and by means of methods for which the Prime Minister is not responsible, but for which the right hon. Gentleman next to him (Mr. Churchill) is responsible, brought it on for discussion, first of all at a time of night when no discussion was possible, and, secondly, the guillotine was used in such a way as to make it absolutely impossible to discuss it on the Report stage.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is in Order in referring to the guillotine, but he cannot reflect upon the Closure adopted on that occasion.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANMy Amendment is to have no restriction of Debate, and I should have thought I was entitled to 2042 argue that the use of the guillotine on the Finance Bill a few nights ago is a very good illustration. I say the guillotine was used so that it was impossible to debate the Clause on the Report stage. That shows how possible it would be for any Government to force financial measures through although they were absolutely contrary to the wishes of the people, and contrary even to the pledges the Government had given to the people. I must also quote in this connection a speech which the Prime Minister himself delivered on 11th April last year in this House. He said:—
There are conceivable and indeed actual cases in which the decision of the House of Commons does not necessarily and perhaps does not even presumptively express the opinion of the people. You might have a case, a conceivable case, of what is called a scratch majority coming together under the coercion of Party exigencies for a particular and transcient purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1910, cols. 896–7.]It is to avoid that which is so present to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that I move this Amendment. It is to make it impossible for party exigencies to overrule the will of the people and to make it impossible for Finance Bills to be passed through this House by means of the guillotine and never to have any discussion of any effect anywhere else. The Government are claiming, not that the will of the people should prevail, but that they, as a Cabinet, shall have the power of forcing through this House, without proper discussion, and with no effective discussion in the other House, Finance Bills which affect the liberties and the property of every citizen.
§ Dr. HILLIEROn a point of Order. May I ask whether the Amendment which immediately follows will be in order if this Amendment is dealt with? I would venture to point out that it practically covers this Amendment. It is another alternative. It reads: "Either without the application of the Closure, or after Debate of not less than twelve Parliamentary days in all on the different stages of the Bill."
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. H. Whitley)I will deal with that question when it arises.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill)The hon. Member who moved the Amendment devoted a good deal of his speech to the subject of the guillotine, but the Amendment which he asks the Committee to accept is not limited to guillotine procedure. The proposal which he commends to the Committee is that the powers of the 2043 House of Lords to reject a Money Bill shall be be operative over any Finance Bill in the course of which a single application of the Closure has taken place. A Government might be confronted by obstruction so persistent and so prolonged that it would be impossible to finish the measure upon which the whole of the supply of the Public Service for the year depends, within the limits of a Session of Parliament, and perhaps within the limits of a financial year. If a Government were to apply the Closure on a single occasion, no matter how grave the provocation or how urgent the public necessity, then the House of Lords would be invited to exercise the power which, as is well known and as has been abundantly stated, we on this side of the House deny that they have had effectively for generations, and which certainly they have not used, except on the disastrous occasion for them, in 1909, within the currency of the present generation. The position in which the Government would be put would be either that its Budget might be destroyed by obstruction in the House of Commons, or else that it might be rejected in the House of Lords. It is only Liberal Governments against whom these inconveniences would operate. There would be no danger when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power, because, having a friendly Assembly to support them, any use of the Closure they might find it necessary to make to carry the schedule of a Tariff Reform Budget would be leniently and indulgently viewed by the great majority which support them in another place. It would only work against Liberal Administrations, and it would expose Liberal Administrations either to be stale-mated by obstruction in the House of Commons or to have the whole finances of the country pulled about their ears by another rejection of the Budget by the House of Lords. I need scarcely say that it is not possible for the Government to accept this Amendment. The position which we adopt is the old position which this House has always adopted. We affirm the old practice, and I cannot put that practice better than in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when he said, "It is the House of Commons uncontrolled which settles our financial system." It is the House of Commons uncontrolled which settles the procedure by which its own debates are conducted. It is unthinkable that the House, at this time of day, should consent to allow 2044 another body to be the judge and censor of any procedure it may think it necessary to adopt in the course of public business. We agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is desirable to avoid the guillotine in debates, and it is especially desirable to avoid it, and, indeed, to avoid any form of closure in regard to finance. But is there any reason to think, from the past records of this House, that it cannot be trusted to consider these matters gravely, according to the importance of the issues with which they are dealing.
I do not propose to enter into any controversy as to the Budget of last year. We threshed that out ad nauseum in the different debates on the subject during the spring. I think everybody's opinion is made up on whichever side of that controversy. But let the House go back to the two most memorable Budgets of modern times—the Budget of 1894 and that of 1909. The 1894 Budget was carried without any application of the closure at all. Although a wicked Liberal Government Administration was in power, and although it had but a very small majority to fall back upon, it carried it through without the closure. The controversy over the Budget of 1909 must be fresh in our memories, and no one can doubt that the temptation to apply the guillotine and closure must have been present to the minds of many hon. Members who sit on these benches. No form of guillotine or closure was, however, applied to that Budget because the opinion of the supporters of the Government, and of Ministers themselves in charge of the Bill, was against the application of such procedure to a measure of such financial importance and of such diversity. That shows very clearly that there are real safeguards for the security of the House of Commons which do secure fair and reasonable discussion in debate for important measures.
§ Mr. MALCOLMCan the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he proposes to follow the procedure of 1894 and 1909.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI do not quite understand the point of that question. I was simply showing the House what had been done on notable occasions in the past, when full and ample discussion had been given to novel provisions in the Budget. We have no intention of taking away from the House of Commons any power it has hitherto possessed. We claim the right to control our own Debates and conduct our own procedure in our own way. We are not going to surrender any right, and least 2045 of all those rights we have long enjoyed which are most obviously within our proper authority.
§ Mr. WALTER LONGThe right hon. Gentleman finished his speech in a very different tone to that which he adopted at the beginning. He found fault with my hon. Friend for moving the Amendment, because he said it proposed to exclude not merely the guillotine but the closure, and he went on to say that persistent obstruction on the part of the Opposition was calculated to paralyse the Government and to prevent it passing its legislation unless it retained these powers. I do not think this Amendment would have been put down if it were not for the fact that the Government has departed from old traditions. Right hon. Gentlemen have given us recent instances of their desire and their intention in this Debate to use a system of closure quite as destructive, and therefore when the right hon. Gentleman points to the past and says the House is entitled to remember how it did its work on the Budget of 1894, we cannot admit that that entitles him to ask us to reject this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman also dwelt upon the obstruction which he said was being indulged in, and he indicated that the Government would be prepared to do all that was necessary in order to get their legislation through. What is the main justification for the Amendment which has been moved. It is that the present Government have indicated their intention to largely use the powers of Closure in this debate. I believe, without any exception, these extreme powers were never employed by the Leader of the Opposition when he sat on the other side of the House; they were never used except when without them it was found impossible to make progress with the Bill. The present Government have not only used their forces more frequently, not only have they made their Closure regulations more violent, but they have used them for their own defence without waiting for any such evidence of obstruction as that to which I have referred. On previous occasions, when we have been confronted with a Resolution for taking time, hon. Gentlemen opposite have risen one after the other and have expressed a dislike for this form of procedure—procedure of closure by compartments because they have looked upon it as contrary to freedom of debate. But things are very different to-day, and hon. Members who support the Government are content to sit 2046 silent and listen while the Home Secretary appeals to the past. They are content to leave it to us entirely to urge—as we are justified in doing—reasons why an Amendment of this kind should be adopted.
The Home Secretary began by pointing out first that this Amendment goes too far, and second that the guillotine is, under certain circumstances, necessary. But does that mean that he is prepared to accept a revised form of this Amendment? Does it mean that they are willing to accept something in a somewhat modified form. I have no doubt that if that be the intention of the Government my hon. Friend will be perfectly willing to modify his Amendment. The Home Secretary, dealing with the Budget, said it would be ridiculous to ask the Government of the day not to retain in their own hands the power, by the use of these extra opportunities, to pass their Budget. Under Sub-section (2) of the Clause we are now discussing the Government propose very largely to carry the financial legislation under which these new powers are to be retained. Therefore supposing the Government were to lay it down that these limitations ought not to be imposed on their strict Budget proposals, would they be willing to consider its application to the other suggestions made by my hon. Friend on the discussion of the previous Amendment.
I am afraid that the language used by the Home Secretary does not indicate any intention on the part of the Government to consider any modification of the proposal Their object is to pass the measure as it stands: to avoid any Amendment. I realise quite as well as they do that these are the conditions on which certain sections of their supporters insist, and that consequently no concession is to be made to fair and reasonable demands from this side of the House. It is in order that this shall be done that hon. Gentlemen opposite are willing to sit silent, whereas on previous occasions they have been most eloquent. We who are opposing this measure will take note of this attitude which the Government have adopted so early in these Debates. We cannot fail to see their determination to resist any suggested Amendment, however reasonable. It is a warning to us, and we realise that nothing but the most vigorous opposition on our part will be of any avail.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. F. E. SMITHIt is difficult to imagine why the Home Secretary dragged into his speech on my hon. Friend's proposal 2047 the Budgets of 1894 and 1909. If my hon. Friend's Amendment were accepted it would have the result of ensuring that all future Budgets would be discussed in this House without restriction of Debate; and to quote the procedure of twenty years ago surely is not a good objection to the proposal of my hon. Friend. If we ask ourselves why the guillotine was not imposed on those occasions, I think the answer readily presents itself. I do not imagine the right hon. Gentleman will deny that the reason which made the Government so much more considerate of the feelings of the Opposition in 1909 than they now show themselves is that they were seeking to occupy a strong tactical position for their coming contest with the House of Lords, because they saw how enormousely their position would be weakened under other circumstances. That, I believe, was the reason for their failure to apply the guillotine to that particular Budget. If these observations of mine are well founded it becomes clear at once that the precedent of 1909 upon which the right hon. Gentleman somewhat illogically founded himself is no precedent at all, and we are driven to ask what is likely to be the conduct of financial business in this House assuming that the present proposals of the Government become law without any such Amendment as that of my hon. Friend, and I need not point out the unanswerable force of the arguments which my hon. Friend has addressed to the Government. It is useless for the right hon. Gentleman, and he ought not to condescend to such an argument—it is useless for him to say that our words are too wide, if he does not mean to assent to any narrowing words at all. It is waste of time to put forward such a plea when the right hon. Gentleman does not mean to assent to this proposal or any other of a similar character. What is the position in which the House will find itself when the present Bill becomes law? I hope the House will like the securities which it will have in dealing with financial matters. The Government are at liberty to propose any restriction of Debate which commends itself to the Cabinet, and, having arrived at a conclusion in the Cabinet, they can come here and make it a matter of confidence in this House that it should be carried through, and they can carry through measures without the sanction of this House, as has been shown by the experience of the last five years. The House of Commons, according to the 2048 Government, has always, in the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman, been in an uncontrolled position. I deny that, and it is common knowledge to every Member of this House that since 1906, and on some measures going over a limited Parliamentary area before 1906, but still more strongly since 1906, the House of Commons has not enjoyed an uncontrolled position in this matter.
In fact, it has not enjoyed any real right of deciding questions of finance, and the condition which we have established for the moment is this, that not since 1906, so incredible have been the developments, has the House of Commons, or any considerable section of it, opposed any resistance to the financial proposals of the Government of the day, and when we are told that unrestricted opportunities of Debate will be afforded by a future Government is there any Member in the House of Commons who foretold the development which the control of the Government over our Debates has assumed since so recently as 1906. There is not one of us who does not know that in regard to every important Bill which has been brought forward since 1906 there has been this restraint in an ever-growing degree, and it is no defence to say that these restraints are provoked or justified by obstruction. These are the fallacies by which, in our party Debates, we deceive ourselves. The Government always say the Opposition obstructs, and I quite agree, and I daresay the right hon. Gentleman has himself taken part in many Debates which he would not think obstructive, but which probably somebody else would. I have not, however, a particular occasion in my mind with regard to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am not entitled to press it upon him, but I have many Debates in my mind in which the Home Secretary has played a part, and in which there was a general concensus of opinion among my Friends in the House I then—I was not here myelf—that it would not be unfair to describe the right hon. Gentleman's attitude as an obstructive, one. Every Government accuses every Opposition of obstruction, and you have not got rid of the real point of importance which underlies the Amendment by saying that the Opposition will obstruct. Let us suppose that the Opposition always will obstruct. Are you justified in giving to the Government of the day the power of insisting on a Bill passing into law one month after it has been passed by this House?
2049 The right hon. Gentleman dealt in a very cavalier manner with the argument of my hon. Friend in relation to the Budget discussions of the present Session. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is rather late in the day, and would not serve any useful purpose to discuss whether the Government were or were not right in regard to Clause 10, but using that as an illustration, were the Government actually doing as we say in relation to Clause 10 that of which we complain, namely, depriving the House of Commons of any opportunity of discussing one of the most important features of the Budget? Whether they did so or not, if this Bill becomes law they could do it, and we have not the slightest doubt that the Government would do it if it suited their purpose. This Amendment is one of the most important that could be brought forward. It is a proposal that there should be some prohibition to restriction, and my hon. Friend proposes an alternative to the Government Bill. It is one of the most important Amendments that can be considered in regard to this Bill, and I hope the House of Commons and the country will understand that if this Bill goes through in its present form it is in the power of the Government of the day to impose any of those restrictions which it is in their autocratic power to bring into force for Parliamentary convenience in order to pass into law without the control of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords, proposals upon which the country has never been consulted. It may be right that we should do this, but do not let any Minister get up and say that this is a very negligible change and does not mean a great advance on everything that has been done before in Parliamentary history. I would say that in contradistinction to all that has gone before, of all the revolutionary changes which are contained in this Bill there is none more revolutionary than this which leaves the full powers of the repression of debate, grown as it has grown during the last six years, as a deadly weapon in the hands of the Government of the day in regard to Amendments which have not been discussed here and cannot be discussed elsewhere.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYI beg to move to amend the proposed Amendment by adding at the end thereof the words, "by the application of any Resolution for limiting the time of Debate."
The criticisms that were made by the Home Secretary were really addressed to 2050 one particular side of this Amendment, namely, that it could be used so as to provide that no closure of any sort as contemplated by our Standing Orders can be used on any Money Bill in future. I propose to amend my hon. Friend's Amendment, and I hope that he will accept my suggestion, so as to make it read, "without restriction of Debate by the application of any Resolution for limiting the time of Debate." That leaves all the closure which is possible under our Standing Orders at the command of the Government if they choose to make use of it. That is certainly giving them a very large power in consideration of the increase of the powers of the limitation of Debate which were put into our Standing Orders at the time the Budget was passing into law. I desire, therefore, to confine my remarks, as indicated by my Amendment, to the question of guillotine Resolutions, as they are usually called, and surely it is quite clear that this House—and I think we have every right to appeal to hon. Members opposite on this point—if they desire and are going to demand that which the Prime Minister laid down; so strongly last night, namely, the unchallengeable supremacy of this House in point of finance—surely it is necessary for us to ask for this Amendment to a Clause in a Bill which has the object of this one. The object of this Clause is to assert the power of this House against the Second Chamber, but the object of this Amendment is to assert the power of this House against the power of the executive—that is, really in order to restore to and keep for this House that unchallengeable supremacy to which the Prime Minister alludes. What is the analogy we can get from the course of events in connection with the House of Lords. Some Members on the other side challenge the right of the House of Lords to reject a Finance Bill. They certainly cannot object to the right which the House of Lords used to have of rejecting portions of a Finance Bill when they were presented to them as different measures. If we once allow the Government to have in this Chamber the right to put in force those guillotine Resolutions, we really hand to them also the power of forcing this House to decide upon omnibus portions of the Finance Bill and not upon separate Clauses and Sections of it. We had an instance of that last year.
There was well known in this House to be a reluctance on the part of the Government to challenge a Division on particular sections of the Finance Bill of 1909–10 in 2051 connection with the whisky duty. The Government did not wish an issue to be taken upon that question alone, and we find that by means of guillotine Resolutions applied to both Budgets which came before the last Parliament—that of 1909–10 and the main portion of 1910–11—they avoided giving this House an opportunity of voting upon that special matter upon which they knew there was considerable doubt, and upon which they had a doubt as to whether they had a majority. Therefore we see that these guillotine Resolutions would enable the Government to take exactly the same action with this House as they did with the House of Lords when they compelled that assembly to consider all the financial questions in the Finance Bill together instead of separately. So we ought to be very jealous of yielding to the Government in this House now when they are making a written constitution the right to state what portions of a Finance Bill are to be put to the vote and what portions are not. Can anybody get up in this House after the experience of the last few years and say that when a guillotine Resolution has once been passed a really free and full Debate takes place in this House with a possibility of getting those Amendments in the Bill which is the object of discussion in this House. Everybody knows what the effect of the guillotine Resolution is. The Government are careless as to how the Debate goes, and when the guillotine proposal falls everybody else's work is swept away and only their own work will be voted upon. The result of this is that in criticising a Bill the helpfulness of Debate is taken away and I defy anybody to get up and say we have really had a fruitful useful Debate under a guillotine Resolution. If that be so it is an admission of the fact that when we pass this Clause we hand over the fate of a Bill not to the liberty of the House, not to the unchallengeable supremacy of the House, but to the unchallengeable supremacy of the executive and of the particular Cabinet which is in existence.
So it is that we may very fairly say that, whereas certain forms of Closure have been embraced in our Standing Orders, so far as we have embraced them, those Standing Orders should apply to Money Bills as well as to other Bills. The Closure, which is entirely outside our Standing Orders, which is to be the subject of a special resolution of the House, is always introduced with apologies and fortified 2052 by tu quoques against Members of the Opposition Front Bench, never supported on its merits, but always grudgingly supported, because the Government decided that it must be so—a mode of proceeding which has been condemned even by the present Prime Minister. Everyone recollects that at the end of the Session of 1909 he himself agreed to a Committee of the House to decide whether it was not possible to find some better means of helping forward debates without having recourse to these guillotine resolutions. That Committee has been forgotten, but the opinion of the Prime Minister still stands on the journals of the House, and in his opinion this is not a good system of overcoming any opposition which may require limitation of debate. This system has never been put forward as applicable, or in any way appropriate, to Bills which come under the definition of Money Bills under this particular Clause. It might have been said that there was no danger of a Government ever proceeding to such an extremity as to propose a guillotine resolution in connection with ordinary Finance Bills. We might have believed it two years ago. We knew that great Finance Bills have been carried through the House without the use of the Closure, much less the use of the guillotine, but when in our experience within ten months three Budgets have been guillotined, it is time for us, when we are re-writing our Constitution, to take thought as to whether it is not very necessary to introduce a limitation of this character. I most earnestly plead with the Government who have, so far as they have replied on the Amendment, only committed themselves to a negative attitude with regard to the larger question, at all events to consider my much more limited proposal with a favourable eye. I think it is necessary for the protection of the liberty of the House for us no longer to trust to unwritten matters, and it is therefore that I propose the Amendment, which I most earnestly ask my hon. Friend to accept in lieu of the Amendment which stands in his name.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI think I should not be justified in leaving the House in any doubt as to the view the Government take of the modification which the hon. and learned Gentleman has proposed to the Amendment. When I was replying to the hon. Member (Mr. Bridgeman) I dealt with the specific Amendment which he moved, and I pointed out the effect of the Amendment, 2053 but I also made the argument more general and took up the general position that we could not allow our procedure in the House to be regulated in relation to any view which may be taken of the procedure in the House of Lords. That is the broad general position, and the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose Amendment I do not deny mitigates some of the objection to the original proposal, will see that that general principle which I have laid down, and which we must adhere to, equally covers the modified form as well as the form in which the Amendment was originally moved.
Mr. BALFOURMay I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman? He recognises the spirit in which the Amendment has been moved, and certainly it removes a great deal of the objection which the right hon. Gentleman expressed in his first speech. I would put before him a point of view which I think, judging by what he said, did not really occur to him. His first speech was entirely based upon two hypotheses. The first was that the original Amendment referred only to such matters of national necessity as Budgets, Appropriation Bills, and other Bills dealing with the immediate necessities of the country. Now it is no doubt conceivable, though it has never happened, that the Opposition in this House to a Budget might be carried to such lengths that the public service would suffer. Officials might be unpaid and great inconvenience might ensue to the whole administrative efficiency of the country. This Clause does not deal with Money Bills only in that sense. It goes far beyond Budgets and Appropriation Bills. We do not know precisely what the Government limitation is, but I think the right hon. Gentleman would admit that Sub-section (2) as it now stands includes an enormous number of Bills to which his arguments have no relevance at all. They are not Bills of immediate public necessity. They rank, and ought to rank, as the ordinary legislation of the year, and should be dealt with on the same principle as the ordinary legislation of the year. My second observation is that the right hon. Gentleman apparently is deeply moved in his objection, either to the original plan or to the modification that has been suggested, by the consideration that the House of Lords will be an obstacle to Liberal and Radical legislation, but no safeguard when a Unionist Government is in power. He said that in his speech. The 2054 right hon. Gentleman is one of those who say this Clause in its present state is to remain in operation both before and after the House of Lords is reformed. Let us consider, then, the operation of the Clause after the House of Lords is reformed, when that obligation of honour of which we heard so much last night is really carried into effect. Why does the right hon. Gentleman assume that when the House of Lords is turned into a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of an hereditary basis it would always have a majority favourable to Gentlemen on this side of the House and unfavourable to himself? I see no reason to believe in this immutable ascendancy of one party in the State when the right hon. Gentleman has carried out his obligation of honour, and I ask him whether he does not think, when that time comes, and when we are dealing not with Bills of immediate necessity to the administrative means of the country, but with ordinary legislation, it would be right to introduce some such Amendment as this, which would ensure that if one Chamber really is to control, unchecked by the other, the so-called financial legislation of the country at all events that one Chamber shall have an opportunity of hearing the arguments on both sides with regard to the measures which it intends to pass into law.
§ Sir Alfred CrippsI wish to call the attention of the Home Secretary to what he has said, because I do not think he can have understood the constitutional changes which this Clause introduces.
§ The CHAIRMANStrictly speaking we are supposed to be discussing the Amendment to the Amendment. It might be convenient, and I have no objection if that is the case, to allow it to go on on the original Amendment as well as on the Amendment to the Amendment.
§ Sir A. CRIPPSThe right hon. Gentleman referred to precedents and to Standing Orders. What the right hon. Gentleman lost sight of was this different factor when a Parliament Bill of this kind operates in the future. Instead of having our powers dependent on Resolutions of this House and on our Standing Orders, they will be determined by statutes, and there is all the difference between the unwritten Constitution that we now have and the written statutory Constitution which will come into operation when the Parliament Bill is passed. I do not think the Home Secretary met 2055 that point of my hon. Friend at all. For the first time we are giving statutory sanction to the supremacy of a Single Chamber in matters of finance, and surely at the same time we give that statutory sanction we ought to introduce it with proper restrictions, both from the public point of view and from the point of this House itself, because when you once put the powers of this House under statute, we no longer have the same authority under our Standing Orders as we have in relation to our unwritten Constitution and therefore it is right at the same time that we introduce a statutory change, that we should introduce any necessary restriction with which that statutory change had to be accompanied. It appears to me that when you introduce words of this kind, we shall be giving an increase of power by statute to this House which can be used, not only to the detriment of the public, but to the detriment of the proper privileges and authorities of this House itself, because when we introduce restrictions of this kind, not only would it be possible to have no discussion of a valuable character upon very important financial matters—that is a very important question as regards the public—but this House will be subject wholly and entirely to what I may call Cabinet dictation, and we ought, when we are giving a statutory power of this kind for the first time, to introduce and accompany it by restrictions which will preserve to this House the liberties to which we are justly entitled. What is the objection of the right hon. Gentleman opposite? It is very difficult to follow. Does he mean to say that if we are to be a Single Chamber to discuss matters of this kind, we are not to have the privilege preserved to enable us to discuss these important questions when they are brought forward? Does he mean to say that so far as the rights of this House are concerned, when we are a Single Chamber, they are to be the absolute dictation of the Cabinet supported by a majority at any particular time? It does not matter for the purpose of my argument which party is in power, but when we introduce a restriction of this sort at the same time as we are giving statutory sanction to what our powers may be in the future, we shall not only deprive ourselves of the opportunity of fair public discussion but we shall leave this House at the absolute mercy and dictation of the Cabinet for the time being with out any power to preserve what ought 2056 properly to be regarded as our free right and the liberty of discussion.
I want to point again a question which arose very acutely some years ago, when dealing with matters of private business. So long as you have an unwritten Constitution we can deal with matters of this kind under our Standing Orders, but when you have a written Constitution entirely different considerations arise, and without, at the same time as you develop your written Constitution, you introduce proper safeguards, you leave this House without any safeguard at all. The Home Secretary did not deal with that aspect of the case at all. I want to call attention to that because I think it goes to the very foundation of many of the discussions we are holding at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman referred to what was done in the past. What was done in the past was done under an unwritten Constitution, and when we were governed by our own Resolutions and Standing Orders. The conditions in future will be entirely changed. We shall be acting within the four corners of statutory powers, and these statutory powers ought to be defined, as they are supposed to be given in order to enable the business of finance, for which we are the representative body primarily, to be properly carried out under Debate in this House. Therefore, I strongly urge on the Government that in the extreme constitutional change which is being made between a written and unwritten Constitution they should in bringing forward a written Constitution have regard, not only to those old precedents which have been referred to, but should introduce the Bill in such a form as will both ensure the public interest and preserve the liberties of this House and of the Members of this House against the dictation of any Cabinet whether Liberal or Unionist, at any particular time.
§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEYThe Home Secretary in his rather trite argument put in the forefront the most extreme case he could imagine. The moving of the Amendment to the Amendment makes it no longer possible for that argument to be advanced. It removes the argument of the Home Secretary that this Amendment, if carried in a modified form, would impede Liberal Governments, but not Unionist Governments. The right hon. Gentleman forgets that there is another possible set of circumstances in which this Bill might reach the Royal Assent and pass into law, and that is the set of circumstances in which the House of Lords would be reinforced by 2057 500 indentured legislators. You might have a Unionist Government wielding power in this House and anxious to introduce a Tariff Reform Budget. It would be very easy to cast a Tariff Reform Bill, which must necessarily assume the form of a Money Bill, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should understand that in opposing the Amendment the Government are not merely withdrawing Money Bills from the cognisance of the Second Chamber, but also withdrawing from the influence of debate in this House, and the influence of debate upon people outside, a Tariff Reform Budget moved by a Unionist Government in this House under circumstances in which Liberals might be quite glad to find a Free Trade House of Lords which might be inclined to reject that Budget and give the chance of an appeal to the people.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONThe Home Secretary, in the first place, having taken the line of argument in reply to my hon. Friend who moved the original Amendment that it is impossible to accept it on the ground that it is too wide has found himself driven from that line and compelled to rely on the other portion of the argument which he originally addressed to the Committee, but the very much smaller portion of it, which based the case on what he called the old principle. The right hon. Gentleman is audaciously controversial, but I venture to say that seldom has his audacity carried him further than when ho relied on the old principle in regard to matters of finance. The right hon. Gentleman began by referring to what happened in the case of the Budget of 1894. No doubt the Death Duties Budget was a great and revolutionary Budget. Hon. Members opposite consider it great and revolutionary, but the greater you consider it, and the more revolutionary you consider it, the stronger becomes the case for this Amendment, because the greater and more revolutionary it was the more remarkable it was that it was carried without the application of the Closure at all.
My point is this: If these things were done in 1894, ever since that year Liberals have been pursuing a sort of "Rake's Progress" in the matter of Closure, and we want some guarantee against the further pursuance of this progress in future. The right hon. Gentleman relied upon the precedent of the 1909 Budget. He pointed with a certain amount of pride to the fact that in the course of Committee on that Budget the guillotine was not used 2058 at all. While it is quite true that the guillotine was not used, the right hon. Gentleman forgets that the Government went out of their way to invent a special new instrument of torture for the purpose of getting that Bill through Committee. Still pursuing the historical line of argument, the right hon. Gentleman went on to make mention of the last Budget, and very wisely said that he was not prepared to discuss the Closure of that Budget any further. All I say about it is that the closure which was applied to the Budget of 1910 was only following out the whole line of conduct which has marked the course of the Government during the time they have held office. More and more they have been twisting the screw tighter round the neck of this House. Hon Members know it well. It is all very well for hon. Members to speak of the uncontrolled exercise by this House of its own pleasure. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that, will he the next time he has a guillotine Motion guarantee to take off the Government Whips? He knows very well that he will not. When hon. Members opposite go into the Lobby to vote against this Amendment they will know, at all events, that they are voting for the continuance of a system of things under which the liberties of this House, to which the right hon. Gentleman appeals, are fast becoming in the hands of the Government a mockery and a sham.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONThe Amendment before the House is directed against a real and substantial danger, not only to the liberties of this House, but to the whole future of democracy which we profess to serve. The real danger to the democracy in future is corruption, and no doubt Governments less virtuous than that which we see before us will be tempted to indulge in gross local jobbery and gigantic bribes to the people. That is the danger which nobody can fail to foresee as possible who has taken the trouble to study the political and financial history of the new countries of the world. It is just that sort of local jobbery and public bribery on a big scale which it is necessary to have the right of free discussion to prevent. The only safeguard against the corruption of democracy is public and free discussion, and it is just that free discussion which the refusal by the Government to accept this Amendment Tenders thoroughly insecure. Nobody can say, after our experience of last week, that a safeguard of this sort is not necessary. I will only point out to the Prime Minister that 2059 we never had an answer during the discussion of the Finance Bill as to what was to be the principle of appropriations of local grants in future, and what was to be the nature of the Committee the Government was going to appoint to inquire Into and settle the principles of those grants. In fact, the last Finance Bill is the most striking example we have had of the necessity of some guarantee for free discussion, and it is just in those local appropriations that the danger to the future is going to be, and it is the possibility of having these appropriations forced upon the House of Commons without proper discussion, that we ought to consider now. As to the increasing demands for arbitrary power on the part of the Government, it is not only party organisations which put this forward, but every writer who has any pretence to authority, who has inquired into the working of our Constitutions in recent years, has admitted that the danger to the liberty of the people and to Parliament is the arbitrariness of Government—the increasing insatiable greed of the Government for further powers. What Bagehot pointed out as the danger to the future, Mr. Sydney Lowe has pointed to as the great curse of our present system.
I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the very serious change which is proposed in the way of handling finance. In a learned book to which the Clerk of this House has written a preface recently published, he says that the forms of our procedure in the past were so elaborate as to guarantee the freedom and the rights of the minority. Now our forms and procedure and Standing Orders are directed against the liberty of the minority, and it is only by guaranteeing our liberty in our financial debates that in the future we can prevent the grave evils of corruption that are threatening us in common with every other democracy. It is quite true that the hon. Member for South Bucks (Sir Alfred Cripps) pointed out that, of course, the Standing Orders of this House have been in a sense a written Constitution, but now you are going to substitute statutory powers. We used to be governed by Standing Orders which could be altered by a vote of the House, but in the future we are to be regulated by statute law. What is passed by statute can only be repealed by statute, and we shall not have the power in future as we have had in the past to deal with our Standing Orders as we have done in countless cases. 2060 Even under the revised Constitution it will not be so easy to carry Statutes through Parliament. Therefore, the words of the Amendment are necssary if we are to safeguard the democracy from the greatest danger which threatens it and which is just as much a danger to those who claim to speak especially for the democracy as it is to those who sit here. They want to be I protected against themselves, and yet we are doing our best to throw aside every safeguard and to open a very evil future to this country.
Mr. STANLEY WILSONI suppose it is quite hopeless to try to persuade this Government to accept any Amendment of this character. We have had now five years' experience of the Government at present in office, and we have seen them year by year growing more fond of the use of the Closure; so much so that for their own convenience they have invented a new system of torture called the "kangaroo" Closure. I suppose we may regard it as hopeless to impose our wishes on them in view of their past, and in view of the actions they have perpetrated in the past. It is only reasonable that some sort of restriction should be imposed on them, or on any Government that may be in office at any time in future, and that some Amendment such as this ought to be carried by this Committee. I believe that until the Government came into office no important Money Bill has even been forced through this House by means of a Closure Resolution. It is this Government that is responsible for establishing this new principle. Unless an Amendment is included on this Bill it will be possible for any Government to force a Money Bill through this House practically without discussion. There is nothing to stop them forcing it through in a day or two, and it is bound to become law. It is essential that the Committee should look after their own interests and safeguard against any such procedure as that. I appeal to hon. Members opposite below the Gangway. Why do they not speak up? Time after time in years gone by they have spoken in defence of free debate in this House. They were the great upholders of free speech. But now a conspiracy of silence appears to reign on those benches. Are they going to accept these conditions imposed upon them by their Government? Are they not going to say something in favour of free speech in the future? I have often addressed the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy on this subject, and I appeal to him once again. He has always been the 2061 advocate of the rights of private Members. Is he going to allow this Government to impose restrictions such as these upon him and his little body of followers; the defenders of the liberties of this House? I appeal to the Government, and I ask them finally to be reasonable. It is their intention by means of this Bill to take away the power that the House of Lords have in regard to Money Bills. They are going to make the House of Lords simply a debating society with regard to Money Bills, so I appeal to them, in view of what is going to happen, at any rate to give this House the power of free and unfettered discussion when any Money Bill comes before us.
§ Dr. HILLIERI sincerely hope that the Government will respond to the very eloquent appeal by the hon. Member who has just sat down. If they should still continue obstinate, if they will neither accept the Amendment nor the amendment to that Amendment, I beg respectfully to suggest to them that they should embody the proposal which stands in my name, and which I am precluded from moving. I invite the Prime Minister's consideration of the alternative which I have proposed to "Debate without restriction"; it is "either without the application of the Closure or after Debate of not less than twelve Parliamentary days in all on the different stages of the Bill." It is a milder Amendment than either of the two preceding ones, and does seem to represent the very minimum in the way of consideration which this House is entitled to ask of the Government in regard to the discussion of Finance Bills. This Clause if passed in its entirety will give to this Chamber more absolute powers over the control of finance than are possessed by any other civilised Single Chamber in the world. Surely under those conditions we are at least entitled to ask that we shall have safeguards and guarantees inserted in the Bill for full, free and fair discussion of any financial measure which is brought forward. What will be the position if this Clause is carried? Even by this Amendment this House will remain supreme in regard to Money Bills. It is true not only that powers will be vested in this House, but actually we know that with the assistance of those terrible engines for the restriction of Debate which are now at the disposal of any Government they will practically be vested in the Cabinet of the day and if all the safeguards to which we have been accustomed with regard to finance and other measures are to be removed 2062 we are at least in common justice and all reason entitled to ask that there shall be reserved to us the guarantee of full, fair and free discussion.
I am aware that in suggesting a limit of twelve Parliamentary days I am suggesting one which is totally inadequate to many Financial Bills in this House, but at least it would be a guarantee of some minimum on which the House could absolutely rely. In speaking of a Parliamentary day I understand it to mean not a portion of an all-night sitting, but such portion of the time as this House may choose to give to the conduct of controversial business during any twenty-four hours which is usually regarded as constituting a day. Unless we have some Amendment of this sort introduced we are without any guarantee on which we can rely that Money Bills will receive anything approaching fair consideration. We have had some experience of closuring Debates on Money Bills, and with that experience in mind is it unreasonable to ask to be afforded some guarantee for freedom of Debate in the future. Is it to be the policy of the Government to accept absolutely no Amendment whatever to the measure on which we are now going into Committee? Are they absolutely so tied hand and foot to hon. Members below the Gangway and in other portions of the House that they have no discretion at all to make any single concession, however reasonable it may be, in regard to this measure? This Bill has been spoken of frequently as a temporary expedient. The character of this Bill is given to it by these two Clauses—the Clause which we are now discussing and that which follows. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Lord Haldane) spoke of the Bill as an instrument or as a stepping-stone. He evidently regarded it as merely a temporary expedient, yet we are assured by hon. Members speaking on this Clause in the last few days that this Clause is to be permanent and to embody a great principle for all time and under all conditions. If that is so it is still more than ever necessary that some vestige of liberty to Members of this House should be embodied in a statute of this tremendous importance. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman to whom I have referred spoke of this Bill as an instrument and as a stepping-stone. He might with equal justice have added a few more descriptive terms and have spoken of it as a makeshift, a thing of shreds and patches, a log-roller's charter.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman is not speaking now to the Amendment before the Committee.
§ Dr. HILLIERI bow to your ruling. But I was pointing out that the character of this Bill was given to it by these particular Clauses, and I ventured to quote what had been said as a comment on that character by the right hon. Gentleman to whom I have referred. Unless the Government responsible for this Bill are prepared to take into consideration Amendments of so moderate a character as that now under consideration by the House, guaranteeing some minimum of parliamentary time in the discussion of Money Bills, one fate and one fate alone awaits this Bill and all its Clauses, and it is this: it will inevitably be repealed hereafter by an indignant people.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIf there was any possibility of influencing by argument the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister I would be in favour of an Amendment by adding "or by any Resolution empowering the Chairman to select Amendments," because I think that what is called the Kangaroo Closure is one of the worst Closures ever introduced into this House. It casts an invidious duty upon the Chairman of the Committee and should be abolished. But I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman would accept such an Amendment, and, therefore, I will not put the House to the trouble of discussing it, but will say a few words upon the general question. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why really he does object to this Amendment in its present form? It would permit of the Closure being moved, should this Bill become law, and therefore the argument that it might not be possible to get a Bill through without the power of Closure falls to the ground. All this Amendment does is to prevent the guillotine being used to excess. The right hon. Gentleman, at the end of 1905 or the beginning of 1906, speaking in Scotland, said that the decline in the control of the House of Commons over financial matters was rendering the House of Commons useless, or words to that effect. We come now to a very much stronger position, when the House of Commons has not got a check over it which it had in those days, namely, the House of Lords, and we ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow us to discuss these financial Resolutions without moving the Closure, the right hon. Gentleman, through the Home Secretary, refuses 2064 to accede to our request. The real reason is perfectly clear. The Government contemplate closuring a Money Bill the moment they have got rid of the House of Lords. The moment the House of Lords is got rid of free discussion here will be abolished in exactly the same way as the House of Lords will be abolished, and we are going to have Money Bills, or what were called so in this House, a sort of Finance Bill, brought in and treated in exactly a similar way to what those Bills were treated.
7.0 P.M.
It is because the right hon. Gentleman is afraid that if this Amendment is carried it will be impossible, when he gets up, or the Home Secretary gets up, for him to talk in a vague sort of way about the Finance Bill of 1894. I would remind the Home Secretary that the Budget of 1894 was in those days considered to be one of the most revolutionary proposals ever brought forward. In that year we were only a minority of forty, but a very determined minority, conspicuous for ability both on the Front Bench and on the benches behind. Notwithstanding all the ability there was in the House on that occasion, and all the determination which was exhibited in the opposition to that particular Bill, nevertheless it was passed without any very enormous or lengthened Debate. I think that shows that the right hon. Gentleman's alarm as to what would take place if he was in power and we were in Opposition is not really justified. He may rely on the sense of honour and patriotism of the Conservative Opposition, and he may rely also on the fact that, though we fight, we will fight in the proper manner and never use obstructive means to delay or avoid the passing of the finances of the country. I do not know whether anything I have said will influence the right hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite laugh, but I do not know why, unless they suppose that nobody on this side of the House can advance any possible argument which would have that effect. If so, that is an explanation why they do not want any argument, and why they are prepared to support the Prime Minister in his desire to pass everything without discussion either on this side or on that. That is why we are supporting the Amendment of my hon. Friend. There is really no possible harm which can arise to any party in this House if this Amendment is accepted. All it will do is to preserve, not altogether 2065 unfettered, the right of free discussion in this House—to give a fair opportunity to this House—not within two days or three days, as has been done last year and this year on the Budget—to bring forward arguments which it thinks apposite, and such as will enlighten the public on the proceedings of this House, because nowadays it is not to hon. Members opposite, but to the public we appeal, and it is for that reason I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
§ The PRIME MINISTER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ Sir R. FINLAYI rise for the purpose of calling attention to one of the most ominous features of the proceedings of this House in Committee this evening, one which augurs ill for the future under the system which the Government are apparently determined to establish. We have been engaged in a most important discussion on the Amendment for the purpose of securing that measures shall not be forced through this House without adequate discussion, and under conditions which make any effective discussion at all impossible in another place. The effect of this Clause is intended to render the Second Chamber powerless with regard to what are called Money Bills, and Money Bills are so defined as to include a vast mass of measures of the utmost importance, and which, I venture to say, no man in the street would suppose to be comprehended under that title. What has been the demeanour of the supporters of the Government. They hold very strong views on the subject of the Closure. Often have I heard them speak upon it and express indignation as to the way in which this House was being muzzled. Have they any views upon this subject now? To what is their silence due? It is
§ obvious that the power of the Government in controlling Debates will in future be extended not only under the power of applying the guillotine, the selection of Amendments, and the restriction of criticism by the Opposition, but it will be also employed for the purpose of restricting the criticism of their own supporters. In the whole course of this Debate there has not been a single word uttered on the opposite side of the House from the back benches except the shout of "Divide, divide." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough), who now sits on the back benches, on one occasion, I observed, got up as if to speak. He was not successful in catching the Chairman's eye, and he speedily sat down. What took place I do not know, but he has not repeated the experiment, and I do not see him now in the House. I can only infer that he is better employed than in addressing the House, in the opinion of those who control their followers. Surely it is a most extraordinary thing in what used to be a House of Debate, that we should have come to this pass. It is perfectly obvious that orders have been issued to the supporters of the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, it is not true; It is absolutely untrue."]—to hold their tongues in the House and to use their legs in the Lobby.
§ Sir HENRY DALZIEL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGH (seated and wearing his hat)On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Question can be put when no Member on either side of the House rose to continue the Debate?
§ The CHAIRMANCertainly.
§ The Committee divided; Ayes, 300; Noes, 208.
2069| Division No. 108.] | AYES. | [7.13 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Barnes, G. N. | Brocklehurst, William B. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Barran, Sir J. (Hawick) | Brunner, John F. L. |
| Adamson, William | Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) | Bryce, J. Annan |
| Addissn, Dr. Christopher | Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Burke, E. Haviland |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Barton, William | Burns, Rt. Hon. John |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Beauchamp, Edward | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Beck, Arthur Cecil | Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) |
| Alden, Percy | Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney O. (Poplar) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Bentham, George Jackson | Byles, William Pollard |
| Anderson, A. M. | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Carr-Gomm, H. W. |
| Armitage, Robert | Black, Arthur W. | Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Boland, John Pius | Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Booth, Frederick Handel | Chancellor, Henry George |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Bowerman, Charles W. | Chapple, Dr. William Allen |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Brace, William | Clancy, John Joseph |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Brigg, Sir John | Clough, William |
| Clynes, John R. | Kellaway, Frederick George | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Kilbride, Denis | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | King, Joseph (Somerset, North) | Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Lamb, Ernest Henry | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lambert, George (Devon, Molton) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Reddy, Michael |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Crooks, William | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'ri'nd, Cockerm'th) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Crumley, Patrick | Levy, Sir Maurice | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Logan, John William | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Lundon, Thomas | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Delany, William | Lyell, Charles Henry | Robinson, Sydney |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Roche, John (Galway, E.) |
| Doris, William | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Duffy, William J. | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Rowlands, James |
| Edwards, Alien C. (Glamorgan, E.) | M'Callum, John M. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | M'Curdy, C. A. | St. Maur, Harold |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | M'Laren, H. D. (Leics., Bosworth) | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Elverston, Harold | Markham, Arthur Basil | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. |
| Esmonde, Dr John (Tipperary, N.) | Marks, G. Croydon | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeten) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B. |
| Essex, Richard Walter | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Sheehy, David |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Masterman, C. F. G. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Falconer, James | Meagher, Michael | Simon, Sir John Alisebrook |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Ciltheroe) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Menzies, Sir Waiter | Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Millar, James Duncan | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Field, William | Molloy, M. | Snowden, P. |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Molteno, Percy Alport | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| France, G. A. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Furness, Stephen | Mooney, John J. | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Gelder, Sir William Alfred | Morgan, George Hay | Summers, James Woolley |
| Gill, A. H. | Morrell, Philip | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Ginnell, L. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Sutton, John E. |
| Glanville, Harold James | Muldoon, John | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Munro, Robert | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcilffe) |
| Goldstone, Frank | Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. | Tennant, Harold John |
| Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Needham, Christopher T. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | Neilson, Francis | Thomas, J. H. (Derby) |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey) | Nolan, Joseph | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Norman, Sir Henry | Toulmin, George |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Hackett, John | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Hancock, J. G | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Doherty, Philip | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Hardie, J. Keir | O'Donnell, Thomas | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Harmsworth, R. L. | O'Dowd, John | Wardle, George J. |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Ogden, Fred | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Harwood, George | O'Grady, James | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O'Malley, William | Webb, H. |
| Hayward, Evan | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor | O'Shee, James John | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Higham, John Sharp | O'Sullivan, Timothy | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Hinds, John | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth) |
| Hodge, John | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Hunter, W. (Govan) | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Wilson, Hon G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| John, Edward Thomas | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Johnson, William | Pirie, Duncan V. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Pointer, Joseph | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Pollard, Sir George H. | Winfrey, Richard |
| Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Power, Patrick Joseph | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Jowett, F. W. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | |
| Joyce, Michael | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland. |
| Keating, Matthew | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Newman, John R. P. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Forster, Henry William | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Archer-Shee, Major Martin | Foster, Philip Staveley | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Gardner, Ernest | Nield, Herbert |
| Ashley, W. W. | Gastrell, Major W. H. | Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury) |
| Astor, Waldorf | Gibbs, George Abraham | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Goldman, C. S. | Orde-Powtett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) | Goldsmith, Frank | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Baicarres, Lord | Gordon, John | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Grant, James Augustus | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darilngton) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Greene, Walter Raymond | Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Gretton, John | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) |
| Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor | Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Pole-Carew, Sir R. |
| Barnston, Harry | Hambre, Angus Valdemar | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Hamersley, A. St. George | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.) | Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Quilter, William Eley C. |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Harris, Henry Percy | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bonn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Helmsley, Viscount | Rawson, Col. Richard H. |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish | Hickman, Colonel T. E. | Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan |
| Beresford, Lord C. | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hillier, Dr. A. P. | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Boscawen, Suckville T. Griffith- | Hills, J. W. | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid) | Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak) | Royds, Edmund |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Hoare, S. J. G. | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwon) |
| Bridgeman William Clive | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Burgoyne, Alan Hughes | Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Horner, A. L. | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Butcher, John George | Houston, Robert Peterson | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hume-Williams, W. E. | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Campion, W. R. | Hunt, Rowland | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Carille, Edward Hildred | Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Cassel, Fellx | Joynson-Hicks, William | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Cator, John | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Cautley, H. S. | Kerry, Earl of | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Cave, George | Kimber, Sir Henry | Stewart, Gershom |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Swift, Rigby |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford | Sykes, Alan John |
| Chambers, J. | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Larmor, Sir J. | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Cilve, Percy Archer | Law, Andrew Bonar (Beetle, Lancs.) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| Clyde, James Avon | Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End) | Thynne, Lord A. |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Lee, Arthur H. | Tobin, Alfred Aspinall |
| Courthope, George Loyd | Lewisham, Viscount | Touche, George Alexander |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Lonsdale, John Browniee | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Cripps, Sir C. A. | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.) | White, Maj. G. D. (Lanc., Southpert) |
| Croft, Henry Page | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Mackinder, Halford J. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Dixon, C. H. | Macmaster, Donald | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripen) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Malcolm, Ian | Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester) |
| Du Cros, Arthur Philip | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Yate, Col., C. E. |
| Falle, B. G. | Moore, William | Yerburgh, Robert |
| Fell, Arthur | Morpeth, Viscount | Younger, George |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton) | |
| Finlay, Sir Robert | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | |
| Fitzroy, Hen. E. A. | Mount, William Arthur | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Neville, Reginald J. N. | |
| Fleming, Valentine | Newdegate, F. A. |
Question, "That the words by the application of any resolution for limiting the time of debate be added to the proposed Amendment" put accordingly, and agreed to.
§ Question put, "That the words without restriction of debate by the application of any resolution for limiting the time of debate' be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 303.
2075| Division No. 109.] | AYES. | [7.23 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fleming, Valentine | Newman, John R. P. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Archer-Shee, Major Martin | Foster, Philip Staveley | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Gardner, Ernest | Nield, Herbert |
| Ashley, W. W. | Gastrell, Major W. H. | Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury) |
| Astor, Waldorf | Gibbs, George Abraham | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) |
| Baird, J. L. | Goldman, C. S. | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) | Goldsmith, Frank | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gordon, J. | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Parkes, Ebenerer |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Grant, J. A. | Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Greene, W. R. | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood | Gretton, John | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Baring, Captain Hon. G. V. | Guinness, Hon. W. E. | Pete, Basil Edward |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Pole-Carew, Sir R. |
| Barnston, Harry | Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Hamersley, A. St. George | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) | Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hardy, Laurence | Quilter, William Eley C. |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Harris, Henry Percy | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Helmsley, Viscount | Rawson, Colonel R. H. |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Henderson, Major H, (Berks.) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Hickman, Colonel T. E. | Rice, Hon. W. F. |
| Beresford, Lord C. | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hillier, Dr. A. P. | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith- | Hills, J. W. | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid) | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Royds, Edmund |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Hoare, S. J. G. | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hohler, G. F. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Burgoyne, A. H. | Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Horner, A. L. | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Butcher, J. G. | Houston, Robert Paterson | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hume-Williams, W. E. | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Campion, W. R. | Hunt, Rowland | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Carlile, Edward Hildred | Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath) | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Cassel, Felix | Joynson-Hicks, William | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Cator, John | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Cautley, H. S. | Kerry, Earl of | Steet-Maitland, A. D. |
| Cave, George | Kimber, Sir Henry | Stewart, Gershom |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Swift, Rigby |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford | Sykes, Alan John |
| Chambers, J. | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Larmor, Sir J. | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End) | Thynne, Lord A. |
| Clyde, James Avon | Lee, Arthur H. | Tobin, Alfred Aspinal |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Lewisham, Viscount | Touche, George Alexander |
| Courthope, George Loyd | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Tuillbardine, Marquess of |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lecker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lowe, Sir F. W, (Birm., Edgbaston) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.) | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Cripps, Sir C. A. | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Croft, H. P. | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Mackinder, H. J. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Macmaster, Donald | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon) |
| Dixon, C. H. | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Malcolm, Ian | Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Du Cros, Arthur Philip | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton) |
| Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | Moore, William | Yerburgh, Robert |
| Falle, B. G. | Morpeth, Viscount | Younger, George |
| Fell, Arthur | Morrison-Bell, Capt, E. F. (Ashburton) | |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Mr. Pike Pease. |
| Finlay, Sir Robert | Mount, William Arther | |
| Filzroy, Hon. E. A. | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Alden, Percy | Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) |
| Adamson, William | Anderson, A. M. | Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Armitage, R. | Barnes, G. N. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Barran, Sir J. (Hawick) |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. | Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Bakar, H. T. (Accrington) | Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) |
| Barton, William | Hardie, J. Keir | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Harmsworth, R. L. | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | O'Dowd, John |
| Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Harwood, George | Ogden, Fred |
| Bentham, G. J. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | O'Grady, James |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Haworth, Arthur A. | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Boland, John Pius | Hayward, Evan | O'Malley, William |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Henderson, J. M'D. (Aberdeen, W.) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Brace, William | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor | O'Shee, James John |
| Brigg, Sir John | Higham, John Sharp | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Hinds, John | Palmer, Godfrey M. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hodge, John | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Holt, Richard Durning | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Hunter, W. (Govan) | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Byles, William Pollard | John, Edward Thomas | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W | Johnson, William | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Pointer, Joseph |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Pollard, Sir George H. |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Jowett, F. W. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Joyce, Michael | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Clough, William | Keating, M. | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Kellaway, Frederick George | Primrose, Hon. Neil James |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Kilbride, Denis | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | King, Joseph (Somerset, North) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Lamb, Ernest Henry | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Lardnel, James Carrige Rushe | Reddy, Michael |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Crooks, William | Lawson, Sir W, (Cumb'ri'nd, Cockerm'th) | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Levy, Sir Maurice | Rendall, Atheistan |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Logan, John William | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Lundon, Thomas | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Delany, William | Lyell, Charles Henry | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Robinson, Sydney |
| Devlin, Joseph | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Doris, W. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Duffy, William J. | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Rowlands, James |
| Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.) | M'Callum, John M. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | M'Curdy, C. A. | St. Maur, Harold |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | M'Laren, H. D. (Leics., Bosworth) | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Elverslon, H. | Markham, Arthur Basll | Schwann, Rt Hon. Sir C. E. |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Marks, G. Croydon | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B. |
| Essex, Richard Walter | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Sheehy, David |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Masterman, C. F. G. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Falconer, J. | Meagher, Michael | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Menzies, Sir Walter | Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Millar, James Duncan | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Field, William | Molloy, M. | Snowden, P. |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Molteno, Percy Alport | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| France, G. A. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Furness, Stephen | Mooney, J. J. | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Gelder, Sir William Alfred | Morgan, George Hay | Summers, James Woolley |
| Gill, A. H. | Morrell, Philip | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Glanville, Harold James | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Sutton, John E. |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Muldoon, John | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Goldstone, Frank | Munro, Robert | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Murray, Capf. Hon. Arthur C. | Tennant, Harold John |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | Needham, Christopher T. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Neilson, Francis | Thomas, J. H. (Derby) |
| Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Nolan, Joseph | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Norman, Sir Henry | Toulmin, George |
| Hackett, John | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Hancock, J. G. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Wardle, George J. | Whitehouse, John Howard | Winfrey, Richard |
| Waring, Walter | Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay | Wiles, Thomas | Young, W. (Perthshire, E.) |
| Wason, Jahn Cathcart (Orkney) | Wilkie, Alexander | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Waton, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) | |
| Watt, Henry A. | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) | |
| Webb, H. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, West) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) | |
| White, Sir George (Norfolk) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHmoved, in Sub-section (1), after the words "passed by the House of Commons," to insert the words "by a majority of not less than two-thirds."
§
In moving this Amendment, I feel in a rather hopeless condition, because we have seen that the Government are prepared to take up an absolutely uncompromising attitude with regard to this Bill, and have apparently issued orders to their followers, and compelled themselves to adopt an absolutely negative attitude in regard to any Amendment put forward on this side of the House. I propose this Amendment on the ground, which I think will be generally admitted, that it is a dangerous principle to allow a financial measure of great importance to be passed in this House possibly by a majority of 1. Hon. Members opposite are, so to speak, legislating for the moment. They are legislating as if they were convinced that they would sit on that side of the House for all time. But it is absolutely certain that in a few years they will occupy the benches on this side, and they will then realise that in agreeing to the proposition embodied in this Clause they have done great injury to the House of Commons, of which they profess to be desirous of maintaining the dignity. If this Amendment is not accepted it is possible that a great financial measure, involving serious and important consequences may be passed by a majority of so small a character that it cannot be said to have obtained such overpowering support as would entitle the Government of the day to carry it into effect. I do not wish to speak controversially, but when it is realised that the Government of the day may be a Coalition, and when we have seen an extension of the logrolling system, with bribes held out for the purpose of controlling the support and sympathy of the various sections which make up the coalition, this Amendment will be seen to be a more important one than it might appear at first sight. The attitude of the Nationalist party with regard to the Finance Bill of 1909 is within the memory of all. On one occasion the Nationalist Members voted against that Bill, and
2076
although they were bitterly opposed to the principles contained in that measure, still, for reasons which I am precluded from going into on this occasion, it suited them at a later stage to support the Government in passing it into law. If in future a financial measure of great importance can be passed by a very small majority possibly made up of Members who themselves are hostile and represent people who are hostile to that measure, it will reduce the proceedings of this House to an absolute farce. After such a measure has been carried through this House there will be no further opportunity for discusssion. The Prime Minister has laid great stress on the academic discussion which is to be permitted in another place during the period of one month; but that does not affect the issue at all. There will be no opportunity for Amendments to be made in another place and reconsidered in this House. I have suggested a two-thirds majority, but I am perfectly willing to give way on the question of number. What I want is that the Committee should insist on a substantial majority being obtained before an important financial measure involving serious consequences can be passed into law. There is a precedent for this proposal in the Standing Order with regard to the Closure. It is there stated:—
If when a Division has been taken it appears by the numbers declared by the Chair, that not loss than 100 Members voted in the majority in support of the motion. …
It has, therefore, been accepted that on so important a matter as the Closure at least one hundred Members should vote in the majority. I bring that forward in support of my contention that a substantial majority should be obtained before any financial measure is passed into law. The Amendment is one of substance, which I appeal to the Prime Minister to consider. I ask him to regard it as an uncontroversial Amendment, and to do what he can to support the contention which I have put forward.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESOn a point of Order, may I submit that, verbally, the Amendment does not make sense? The Noble Lord proposes to insert the words "by a 2077 majority of not leas than two-thirds." Two-thirds of what? I assume that the Noble Lord means either two-thirds of the House of Commons or two-thirds of those voting. I submit that it should be two-thirds of something.
§ The CHAIRMANIt is rather a question of merit than a question of Order. If I had had to do with the selection of the Amendment to be proposed, I should have suggested that that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. James Hope)—to insert the words "either without opposition on the Third Reading, or by a majority of not lesss than three to two of those voting"—was a better one to discuss.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHMay I enlighten the hon. Member? There is a minority, as well as a majority, in this House, and if I remind him of the statement that minorities must suffer he will understand what I mean when I refer in my Amendment to the majority.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI do not think that the last remark of the Noble Lord was either courteous or very much to the point. My hon. Friend was perfectly entitled to point out the defect to which he has referred. The Amendment as it stands, if it is capable of any, is capable of three interpretations. It may mean simply two-thirds, which we may dismiss as being beyond the region of speculative possibility, or two-thirds of the whole House, or two-thirds of those taking part in the actual Division. I do not know which of these alternatives the Noble Lord desires. Let me offer one or two observations on general grounds upon his proposal as to the desirability that there should be a specified majority—he called it at one moment a "substantial," and at another time a "specified" majority. The word "substantial" is capable of various interpretations. Let me say, first of all, that the Noble Lord is totally wrong in saying that the Government are not prepared to accept suggestions which are reasonable from any quarter of the House which are consistent with the general scope of this or any other measure. We will very gladly welcome any improvement in the phraseology of the Bill, or in other ways so long as they are consistent with its main principles. The reason I am going to object to this Amendment is because it is not consistent with the object of the Bill, nor does it seem in any way justified by reason. The contention is that particular financial proposals should be carried by a majority of two 2078 thirds; for the moment I will assume that that is two-thirds of the total Members of this House. That is a majority of two to one. In other words, no Government shall be able to take advantage of the provisions of this Clause unless it can secure on Money Bills a majority of two to one. That Amendment would deprive the Clause of effective meaning. What Parliament is there since 1832—with possible doubtful exception of the Parliament of 1906—in which any Government—I do not care from which side of the House it is drawn or from which party—could count upon a majority of two to one? I do not know of any. Even in the Parliament of 1906, where the proportions of parties were abnormal, so far as I remember the figures, I do not think it would have been possible for the Government of that day to have satisfied entirely the condition proposed, unless it had voting with it not only the Members of the Liberal party—its own followers—but also the Irish and the Labour parties; and this although the Liberal party were in a preponderance above all the other parties in the House combined. Therefore, I say, from a practical point of view, this is an Amendment which would deprive the Clause of meaning.
The Noble Lord says he is not wedded to a particular figure, but we must deal with proposals as they are made. It is not for us to amend his Amendment. The Amendment that is before the Committee is the Amendment that has been put down. It would make the Clause wholly ineffective. There is no precedent for it in our legislation. The only pretence at precedent which the Noble Lord has cited is the Closure rule. The Closure rule does not say that the Closure shall be carried by a certain majority. All it says is that the Closure shall not be carried in an unduly thin House. The Closure is an exception which is not a real exception at all, and I am not aware of any provision in our legislation which denies or qualifies a decision of this House when it has been passed by a majority of this House. It is a totally new principle which the Noble Lord seeks to introduce. Let me further point out, in addition to other objections, that the provision proposed is one which would operate most unfairly as between the two big parties. If the Noble Lord is right, what would be the practical operation of his proposed provision? Whenever his party was in power they would not be bound by this necessity of having a two-thirds majority, because they would know perfectly well that their financial proposals would receive 2079 sanction elsewhere. Therefore, it would be no safeguard whatever, and would have no application to Conservative finance. It would only be when the Liberal party was in power that they would be hampered by the necessity of requiring this artificial majority before they could in the domain of finance overcome the House of Lords.
§ Lord HUGH CECILIn order to meet the objection of the Prime Minister I desire to amend the Amendment so as to make it run that the majority of the House of Commons shall not be less than 350 Members of this House on the Third Reading of the Bill. The Prime Minister's speech divides itself into two arguments. The first argument was directed to a verbal criticism of the Amendment, and the second argument was that any figure would be unfair to his party. That is a very good argument for reform of the Second Chamber. It has no meaning to this Bill as this Bill is framed. The Government have deliberately elected to take the House of Lords as they found it, and now the Lord Advocate has adopted that alternative with positive enthusiasm. He has explained to an audience that the House of Lords is an ideal Second Chamber; that there never was a better Second Chamber in the world; and that the very last thing he wants to do is to alter its character. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks so highly of the House of Lords, if he thinks it cannot be improved upon, then it is unreasonable to object to its having an opportunity to decide a great question. If, on the other hand, you think it is habitually unfair, as the Prime Minister evidently indicates, then the proper course to follow is to reform the House of Lords, to have a better Second Chamber, and then you will get over that difficulty. But the worst way of solving the problem is to allow a bare majority of one to carry financial proposals of a most important character. The right hon. Gentleman said again that this Clause is only restoring the well-recognised practice of Parliament. How untrue that is is shown by this very Amendment and speech. Does he really suppose that if the Budget of 1909 had been carried by a majority of one on the Third Reading that anyone would have blamed the House of Lords for rejecting it?
§ The PRIME MINISTERWould the Noble Lord inform the House by what majority the Budget of 1894 was carried?
§ Lord HUGH CECILThe answer to that is that the Budget of 1894 was carried by a majority of fourteen, and not by a majority of one, and it was a much less controversial Budget than the Budget of 1909. But on neither point is the right hon. Gentleman's remark an answer to my observation. The question is whether if a Budget so controversial as the Budget of 1909 had been passed by a majority of one, anyone would have dreamed of objecting to the action of the House of Lords which would have been told that it was only doing its duty in rejecting such a Budget. That is a very good illustration of how untrue it is to say that these rarely used powers are no use or no value. There is always the extreme case like that of a very small majority, when they become important and valuable. Now you are going to abolish that safeguard altogether you must put in sonic alternative, and you must secure that a Bill should be passed by a reasonable majority of this House. I submit that 350 Members supporting a Bill would be a sufficient adhesion of this House to a proposal of that kind. Within the apparatus of this Clause you can deal with almost anything. You might have a proposal to raise the Income Tax to 5s. in the £. Is it really suggested that a majority of one or two would be sufficient to justify a proposal of that kind? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members below the Gangway think it would. That shows how necessary it is to introduce a statutory safeguard. I am quite sure that a majority of this House as at present constituted would not pass such a proposal, would not consider that it would be reasonable to carry an Income Tax of 5s. in the £ by a bare majority of one or two. The Government must introduce safeguards to take the place of the safeguard they are destroying. At present we will be left absolutely face to face with the despotism of a bare majority without any safeguard whatever. Taxation may be made an instrument of tyranny and often has been so made. To say that a bare majority of a certain partisan assembly is to have this jurisdiction is to set up the apparatus of tyranny in our Constitution. How can anyone doubt that it might be used most unreasonably and unfairly by a party majority in this House? Of course hon. Members opposite below the Gangway no doubt disclaim such a suggestion. No doubt they think they are always right, and that they are always going to be in a majority, and that therefore there is no danger of what I say. On the con- 2081 trary, our position is that they are very often wrong, and that there might be worse majorities than now. Therefore, it is necessary to have a statutory safeguard.
§ The CHAIRMANAs I understand the Noble Lord desires to amend this Amendment by leaving out "two-thirds," and inserting, "350 Members of this House on the Third Reading of the Bill." If it is the general wish of the Committee that we should amend this Amendment, I shall put it. It will make the Amendment read as follows, "by a majority of not less than 350 Members of the House of Commons on the Third Reading of the Bill."
§ Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Mr. JAMES MASONThis Amendment really raises a question of principle whether or not we are to pass these Money Bills by bare majorities or by substantial ones, and there are a number of subsequent Amendments on the Paper which propose other means for carrying out this object. I think there are more reasons than the Prime Minister seems to think for suggesting that something should be done in this direction to ensure the effective working of such a proposal as is contained in the Clause. The Prime Minister based his objection to a very great extent on the fact that the Noble Lord who proposed the Amendment had no precedent to rely upon. After all, I think we have got rather beyond precedents in the whole question of this Bill. This Clause proposes that the House of Commons proposes in financial matters should take upon itself the whole responsibility for passing Money Bills into law. That is the position which is wholly novel in this country. And we have also to consider the fact that the definition of a Money Bill, as proposed in this Bill, is a very wide one and includes a great number of matters which had not heretofore been generally regarded as coming under that title. Finally, we have the fact that the Government has refused anything in the way of a definition as to the use that it is to be made in future of the Closure. When these reasons are taken into account a very good case has undoubtedly been made for securing that these Bills which are not to come before the other House for sanction, should be passed by a substantial and not a mere nominal majority.
Let it be borne in mind that the question of substantial majorities would have 2082 no effect if this House was constituted in anything like the shape it has taken in the last five years. The majority on all Bills has been substantial in recent times, but this Amendment would have the effect when this House was constituted by very nearly equal divisions of parties of providing a very necessary safeguard. It is the doctrine of hon. Members opposite that Members of this House represent the will of the people, and, therefore, if the number of the two great parties are nearly equal it means that the will of the people is equally divided. If that is so, it is fair that it should be in the power of one-half of the Members of this House on a measure on which the people are about equally divided that forthwith without any safeguard, to pass it into law.
The case of the Budget of 1894 has been quoted as an illustration of where a measure was carried by fourteen votes. But it should be borne in mind that the Radical party lost power the next year. There is one more argument why a substantial majority should be substituted for a nominal one, and it is this. That in a great number of organisations—trade union organisations, for instance—when dealing with matters of importance there is an arrangement by which decisions can only be come to by substantial majorities. That is found to be necessary, I presume, by (hose who frame the rules of these organisations, and if in such cases a substantial majority has been found necessary it can hardly be denied that in this House, and on subjects of such vital importance as decisions of financial questions affecting the whole interests of the Empire, and when such decisions are to be come to by one House and by one House only, a good case has been made out why it should be only done by substantial majorities and not by a bare majority of one.
§ Mr. CHAPLINThe speeches made in connection with this matter remove, I apprehend, at all events, some of the objections of the Prime Minister. I do not suppose for one moment, after the speech he has made just now, that anything would induce him to accept anything containing the principle of this Amendment to the Clause now before us. I heard one remarkable statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and it is in order to call attention to that that I have risen at this moment, because it is the second occasion during the evening that such a statement, or one of a similar character fell from another Minister sitting beside the Prime 2083 Minister. Earlier in the evening, when speaking on another Amendment, a right hon. Gentleman opposite said its effect if it was carried could only affect the Liberal party. Because, he said, if the Opposition were in power they would always get a majority in another place. Now the Prime Minister comes forward and says, "Let us examine this proposal for a moment. The way in which it is going to work is this," says the right hon. Gentleman, "if the party opposite had only a majority of one it would be quite sufficient, because their friendly majority in the other House will pass their Bills without any difficulty whatever." Yes, but that assumes that the constitution of the House of Lords is to remain as it is now. Both right hon. Gentlemen opposite have let the cat out of the bag. They seem to have entirely forgotten the Preamble of their own Bill. It was only last night we heard a great deal about the obligations of honour which, under no circumstances whatever, were to be departed from. But see how quickly they are obliterated from the minds of those two distinguished Ministers. It is perfectly clear now they at least contemplate no alteration of the constitution of the House of Lords and no reform, and that they have no intention whatever of giving effect to the Preamble of their own Bill.
§ Captain JESSELI was very glad to hear the Prime Minister say he was not going to give an uncompromising resistance to any Amendment of this Bill put forward by hon. Members on this side of the House. I venture to say, however. Judging of the course of the two days' Debate we have had upon this Bill, the Prime Minister and those associated with him in the conduct of this Bill have not given the House much evidence of their wish to assent to any Amendment moved from this side. In to-day's Debate we raised the question with regard to the closure, and we pointed out that the House of Commons, which is the only House to decide financial Bills, would be supreme unless some proviso of this kind is accepted. But the Prime Minister refused any concession in this regard at all. We are driven, therefore, to move for some further safeguards in the interest not only of this House, but of those outside the House which we represent. The Noble Lord the Member for Maidstone (Viscount Castlereagh) in putting his Amendment upon the Paper did not wish to bind himself 2084 too strictly to a two-thirds majority, and he readily undertook to give way when the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford (Lord Hugh Cecil) moved to modify it, which showed that he really only wanted some substantial majority so as to ensure that great measures of finance should not be forced through by a majority of one.
The Prime Minister reminded the Committee that the Finance Act of 1894 was passed by a majority of fourteen. That no doubt was a small majority, and the measure was a very important one. But the circumstances under this Bill would be entirely changed. There would only be practically one Chamber to discuss finance, and it would be the first time the country would be working under a written Constitution. I appeal to the Prime Minister as the representative of the ancient Solon, and not as the champion of the modern Constitution mongers, to at least safeguard matters like this, especially as regards Finance Bills, by accepting some such Amendment as that indicated by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mason) has alluded to the well-known practice of other bodies, such as trade unions, of requiring large majorities on important matters. No doubt if that is wrong some hon. Members opposite on the Labour benches will correct it. I am one of those who think that finance is the most important matter with which this House has got to deal, and if that is the case it ought not to be laid down that by a majority of even one vote some great revolutionary change could be carried out. The Prime Minister will be the first Prime Minister who is the author of a written Constitution, and if we are not to have adequate safeguards he might at least take some steps to prevent a great and important measure being passed by a bare majority of one. He might even have some regard to what is done in municipal institutions.
Upon municipal bodies it may be said that by the introduction of aldermen there is set up a species of the House of Lords upon democratic assemblies like county councils or town councils. Even upon those bodies no great fundamental change is made without a substantial majority, and if it is wished to reverse anything which has already boon passed, it cannot be done without a two-thirds majority of those present. In view of those circumstances is it too much to ask the Government upon matters of finance to allow this House to have a similar safeguard? I doubt if the Noble Lord the Member for 2085 Oxford University, really attaches very much importance to the actual number being 350. That does not mean a majority of 350, and all the Noble Lord wishes to secure on the third reading of a Bill is that there should be 350 Members voting for it. The total number of Members of this House—counting Mr. Speaker, who does not vote on these matters—is 670. I do not think it is too great a proportion to ask that 350 Members should be called upon to vote for the third reading of a Bill. I can assure the Prime Minister that we raise this Amendment in all seriousness. The situation which will be brought about if this power is taken away from the Upper House will be very dangerous, because it has always been in the power of the Second Chamber to throw out a Budget, and under this Bill there is to be no such power. It is now proposed to allow this House an absolute uncontrolled power over finance without any substantial majority voting in favour of the Finance Bill.
§ Mr. PETOI support this Amendment with greater confidence than I should have supported the original Amendment of the hon. Member for Maidstone. As I had a similar Amendment standing in my name I should like to say what I meant by suggesting a two-thirds majority. I meant two-thirds of the Members voting: I think that is an obvious and natural interpretation to put upon my proposal. Nothing so extravagant as two-thirds of the Members elected to this House was ever contemplated. I think that was obvious to nine out of every ten hon. Members who read the words of this Amendment. In the Amendment before the House we have a most important principle. If the Finance Bill is supported on the third reading by 350 Members of this House it is perfectly obvious that it must have a clear majority of the elected Members of this House. That, I think, is absolutely essential if the Government desire to ensure any measure of confidence whatever in their financial proposals—and more particularly in the financial proposals of this Parliament Bill—on the part of people outside who have any stake in the country, or any interest great or small in the retail or wholesale or manufacturing trades. Take the Bill as it stands without Amendment. There is nothing in it to ensure that a financial proposal, no matter what nature it may be, shall have more than a majority of one solitary Member. In the Bill as it stands there is nothing to ensure that 2086 there shall be a clear majority in favour of any financial proposal. It is quite easy to conceive a case where the Government might be in a small nominal majority and on account of the weakness of their position might be placed in the power of one group or other, who might form the coalition majority of the Government.
I appeal to the Government to consider seriously the principle of this Amendment even if they will not accept the actual words. Many appeals have been made to right hon. Gentlemen opposite in the course of the Debates we have had upon the Parliament Bill. Appeals have been made to them to consider the real interests of the country before they press forward with this revolutionary and unconstitutional proposal. We know that all those appeals have fallen up to the present upon absolutely deaf ears. The Government do not consider the interests of the country or the Constitution, or anything but the interests of the Radical party. I will not waste time by making another appeal upon the same lines, but I appeal to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite not to save the country but to save the Liberal party. If they leave the Liberal party in the position in which these proposals unamended leave them they will be entirely in the hands of groups who are not of them, but who may support for the moment the policy of the Liberal Government. If there is to be a clear majority of the Members voting, and if the Government have only got a majority which just about represents that, they can secure themselves from pressure from below the Gangway to incorporate in their financial measures utterly extravagant proposals which they do not believe themselves are in the true interests of the country as a whole. If they had the Amendment which is now before the House incorporated in their Bill they could point out that if they were to gain the thirty votes of some extreme section—either the teetotal section, the 20s. in the £ taxing Gentlemen, or anybody else holding strong views on finance—it would be no use incorporating those extreme views in their Budget because they would lose the support of more of their solid Liberal and Radical supporters than they would gain by the support of a small section who believed in these extreme proposals. The Amendment we have now before us is undoubtedly one which would tend towards solid and orthodox legislation in financial matters, and it would be a safeguard against proposals which we do not believe 2087 in on this side of the House, and which right hon. Gentlemen opposite are no more in love with than we are. We want to do for the Government what is generally called saving them from their friends, and it often happens that a party stands in greater danger from this cause because hon. Members appear in the guise of friends only when it suits their special interests. I do not blame them for that. I very much admire the way in which hon. Members below the Gangway have engineered their power and made the very utmost of it, but I think it is in the interest of the country as a whole that the Government should accept this Amendment, because it gives some sense of stabliity in matters of finance if we are to have Single-Chamber Government in that most essential department.
§ Mr. BARNESI rise mainly because the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Captain Jessel) and the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason) professed to have found some justification for this proposal in the practice and rules of trades unions. Speaking with same experience of trades unions, having been a member of one for thirty years, and having been chief secretary of the largest one in this country, I know of no justification whatever for this proposal in the rules or practice of trades unions. The trades unions of this country are ruled in the democratic way by majorities. If a majority votes in favour of any particular proposition, then the will of the majority is carried out in all normal business. There are, so far as I know, two exceptions—a two-thirds majority of the Members remaining must vote for the dissolution of any society or trade union. There is a good reason for that. If that was not protected in some way it would be possible for the remaining members of a trade union, very much shrunk in numbers, by a snatch vote to take to themselves the money subscribed by all the members, and the trade unions very rightly protect themselves against that by requiring a two-thirds majority. They also require a two-thirds majority in the event of one trade union desiring to amalgamate with another trade union. I want to remind hon. Gentlemen, however, that that exception has been found to be unworkable, because we cannot get a two-thirds majority for any purpose under the sun. At this very moment a Bill has been promoted by the Labour party, and is now in print and in the hands of Members of this House, in 2088 the name of the hon. Member for East Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) to abolish that rule.
In some cases trades unions, including the engineers, require a substantial majority—I do not think there are any so large as two-thirds—before any rule is altered which involves breaking faith with its members. Trades unions, in the course of a year, take in tens of thousands of members, and promise to pay them, say, 10s. a week in the event of being sick. Many Unons require that a certain substantial majority must vote before the rule can be altered and before the Members of one generation can break faith with Members who joined in the preceding generation. I think hon. Members will admit there is justification for that exception, but is there the slightest justification for citing the experience or practice of trades unions in favour of this Amendment? I venture to say there is absolutely none. Is this a question of making any alteration? We are dealing, as has been said, with the financial powers of the House of Commons. It has been said that the House of Commons for many generations has had exclusive power over finance, and we therefore seek to make no difference by this Clause. Why, therefore, drag in the trade union practice in regard to things which are quite exceptional in their nature in justification of a proposal which would really throttle the House of Commons and prevent it carrying out its legitimate functions? The Noble Lord, the Member for Oxford (Lord Hugh Cecil) has put forward an Amendment to the Amendment, and he said it ought to make it more acceptable and more intelligible, but, according to the last speaker (Mr. Peto), the Amendment to the Amendment involves no alteration at all. He told us that the original intention was not that there should be a two-thirds majority of the whole House. I suppose a two-thirds majority of the whole House would seldom be obtained for any financial proposal.
§ Mr. BARNESTherefore that is ruled out, and the hon. Gentleman says the intention was not two-thirds of the whole House, but two-thirds of those voting. What is the difference between that and this proposal?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)The original question of a two-thirds majority has been disposed of, and we must only discuss the Amendment, as amended.
§ Mr. BARNESThen I will put it that this proposal is a ridiculous one, because 350 Members are required to vote for any financial proposal before the House of Commons is to be allowed to get on with its business.
§ Captain JESSELOn the Third Reading.
§ Mr. BARNESThat docs not make any difference. Before the House of Commons can even pass a financial measure it has got to have 360 votes for it at its final stage.
§ Captain JESSELMay I ask you, Sir, to read the Amendment to make it quite clear?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is not a point of Order. I presume hon. Members make themselves acquainted with the Amendment.
§ Mr. BARNESI presume I am quite right. If my figures are wrong, of course, I am all wrong; but, as I understand the proposal of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford, before the House of Commons can pass a Finance Bill 350 Members have to vote in favour of it. We seldom get 525 Members. I do not know that we have had 525 this Session. We have not had so many at any rate for some weeks, and if we do not get 525 we shall not get 350 voting for any proposal. The Amendment is really tantamount to the original Proposition. It is no modification at all. It is seldom you can get 350 to vote for any proposition, and this Proposition, therefore, is tantamount to reducing the House of Commons' proceedings to a farce; to say that the immemorial right of the House of Commons to manage its own business is to be denied to it and that the House of Lords shall take that duty on. I can only characterise this Amendment as an attempt to induce the House of Commons to substitute the despotism of a minority for that of a majority. I am having none of that.
§ Sir R. FINLAYThe hon. Member who last spoke has referred in some detail to the proposed figures and I think his criticism on that ground is a little exaggerated. We are not engaged in discussing the precise size of the majority. We are engaged in discussing the question whether there should be some security that the majority shall be a substantial one and not a mere chance majority of one vote. As a matter of fact the voting might be equal and the matter have to be decided 2090 by the casting vote of Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has also referred to the practice of Trades Unions, but I think the ultimate result of his argument was to show that questions could only be decided when they were of an exceptional nature by a substantial majority. In one instance, which he cited, and it was of a startling nature, he pointed out that a certain majority was required before the Union could break faith with its members. I should have thought that no majority of any kind should have been able to carry a motion of that kind. But the whole point is that on matters of special importance it is required, as a safeguard, that there shall be a substantial majority. That is the point to which this Amendment is directed. Here we are dealing with a Clause which brings within its net all sorts of measures, labelling them as Money Bills, and proposals of a most sweeping character may be carried by a chance majority of one vote, or by the casting vote of the Speaker, and would receive the Royal Assent without any check elsewhere. If there ever was a case for such a safeguard being introduced is not this the very case?
There was one other observation made by the hon. Member in his most interesting speech with which I should like to deal. He referred to the past relations between the House of Commons and the House of Lords with regard to Money Bills, and he said, "Do you want anything of this kind, because of what has happened in the past?" Yes. The practice of an assembly when it is subject to the possibility of check elsewhere is one thing. The practice of that assembly in a position when it is subject to no such check may be very different indeed. As to the existing constitutional right of the House of Lords there is absolutely no doubt. It was held in reserve to be used only on extraordinary occasions, and, during the fifty years which elapsed after Mr. Gladstone introduced the alteration in the way in which the Budget was set up, so as to combine all in the one financial measure of the year, the occasion never arose for the exercise of the powers which the House of Lords undoubtedly possessed until the Budget of 1909. But the power was there. Now it is proposed that this House is to be emancipated from all control with regard to Money Bills defined in the very extensive terms contained in the Clause under discussion. I would respectfully appeal to the hon. Member for the Black-friars division of Glasgow to reconsider the conclusion which he has formed in his 2091 own mind. Surely that is a trade union argument for this Amendment, and the fact that the House of Commons in the past has behaved in a way to which he has referred, with very rare exceptions, affords no security whatever as to what would be the state of things in the future when the House of Commons is emancipated from all control.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us we are not discussing the terms of the Amendment as amended by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, but that we are discussing a different Amendment, which is not before the Committee at all, and in which we are invited to consider as to whether there is to be a substantial majority. Much depends on what is meant by the words "a substantial majority." We have had one indication from the Noble Lord which was that the majority must consist of not less than 350 Members supporting the Third Reading of the Bill.
§ Sir R. FINLAYWill the hon. and learned Gentleman indicate any figure which the Government is prepared to accept?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI am prepared to consider any figure the right hon. Gentleman may introduce as an Amendment, but now I can only deal with the Amendment before the Committee. I am quite sure the ingenuity of my right hon. Friend is equal to devising another scheme to lay before the Committee. I am not surprised he does not wish to support this particular Amendment. Let hon. Members consider for a moment what it means. In the 1906 Parliament, when the Liberal party had an abnormal majority in this House, they carried their Bills by majorities consisting of 335 for the Plural Voting Bill (the actual majority was something like 200), of 350 for the Licensing Bill, of 379 for the Finance Bill of 1909–10, and of 369 for the Education Bill, 1906, so that in an abnormal House we had on the Third Reading of all these measures a majority which would have been barely sufficient to carry them through if this test had been applied. Nobody could expect to see such majorities except in abnormal times. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University spoke of the Finance Act having been passed by a majority of fourteen, but that Act was described as one of the most revolutionary ever introduced into the House 2092 of Commons. It made a new departure, and it was only carried by the support of the Nationalist Members of this House; yet the Marquess of Salisbury told the House of Lords that it was their duty to pass it, because it was necessary for the Government of the day, so long as it had a majority, to be able to carry its Finance Bills, otherwise it would paralyse its operations. I notice one other matter, and one only, to which I think I need refer. I wonder if it has occurred to the Noble Lord who made this proposal that it would be extremely difficult in a House where you have even an abnormal majority to get for the minor Money Bills which would have to be introduced and passed through this House anything like the majority mentioned. It would be practically impossible, and therefore, if this Amendment was passed by this Committee the result would be really that we should destroy all the provisions of Clause 1 of this Bill which are introduced in order to give effect to what we believe to be the principle which has been already established and for which we have contended for some time, that the House of Commons is supreme in finance and the House of Lords has no power in regard to it. I am not going to be drawn into a discussion with my legal friends as to the legal aspects of the matter, because I am ready to concede to them that there was in the House of Lords a legal and technical right to throw out the Bill, but that is an entirely different thing to saying that the House of Lords has a constitutional right. We have fought that battle before, and I do not think anything is gained by fighting it over again, but I do ask the Committee to resist this Amendment, which would have the effect of destroying all the proposals that we are putting forward in Clause 1 of this Bill.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI am sure the Members on this side of the House are very much indebted to the Attorney-General for telling us that he will be ready to consider an Amendment which may be specifically moved in which the numbers may be different from those proposed by the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford. I am glad to think that he will have the opportunity of making good his words upon an Amendment which stands three or four lower down on the Paper, because I see that the hon. Member for Windsor has one in which he suggests that certain measures should be carried by a majority of not less than 100. We 2093 shall be very interested to see what the Attorney-General will say when the number is 100 instead of that which is under discussion. But what, after all the Committee are considering is whether or not some safeguard should not be put in in order to see that a Money Bill should have a sufficient force behind it to justify its being passed over the heads of the House of Lords, without any possibility of Amendment, and without any responsibility being thrown upon another place.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIn dealing with one Amendment, I must point out that the hon. and learned Member must not rely upon another Amendment dealing with the same point.
§ Mr. POLLOCKOf course, I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I was just replying to the Attorney-General, because I know at some particular time it will be possible for him to make good his offer. I pass from that, because I want to deal with the observations made by the Prime Minister, The Prime Minister tells us that the reason why he does not accept Amendments to this Clause is that it is declaratory only, and he has endeavoured in the Section to declare what the law always has been for a very considerable number of years. I desire to call the attention of the Committee to what was incidentally mentioned by my right, hon. Friend who spoke from this side of the House, that the practice or the system under which Finance Bills have been passed has by no means been so consistently limited to the House of Commons and the House of Commons only as the Prime Minister suggests. Up to 1860 each tax was the subject of a separate Bill, and each tax had to be separately passed, and the consequence was not only was there a separate responsibility for each tax, but also there was a safeguard for each tax in respect of its being separately submitted to the House. That was a safeguard, but there is no safeguard at the present time, and the Prime Minister tells us he is merely repeating the practice in regard to Money Bills. We ask him what the practice was before 1860, and it is to be observed that Lord Morley, in his "Life of Gladstone," in discussing the question of what happened in 1860, tells us that:—
The abiding feature of constitutional interest in the Budget of 1861, was the inclusion of the various financial proposals in a single Bill, so that the Lords must either accept the whole of them or try the impossible performance of rejecting the whole of them. …Until now (1861), the practice had been to make the different taxes the subject of as many different Bills. …By including all the taxes in a 2094 single Finance Bill, the power of the Lords to override the other House was effectually arrested.That is an admission that up to that time the power of the Lords had not been arrested, and that the greater power was only arrested in 1860. The Prime Minister says, however, he has only declared what was the system of the Constitution.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI must protest against the development of the discussion into one upon the constitutional question. The question is the majority by which the Bill is to be carried.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI bow to your ruling at once, Sir; but the reason why the Prime Minister, when you were not in the Chair, told us that he declined to accept this Amendment was that the Clause merely declared what was the system of the Constitution in respect to the Money Bill. It was on that ground that he based his refusal to accept the Amendment, and I was discussing it.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member will allow it is impossible to reopen that discussion on every one of the Amendments to this Clause. We really must deal with one thing at a time.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI bow to your ruling, Sir. I was only pointing out the need of a safeguard, and I was showing whether or not there is one in this declaratory Clause. I am quite sure I am in order in saying that, because I am using only a paraphrase of the Prime Minister's words that there is a declaration, and no more than a declaration, of what has been the practice so far, but we are pointing out the necessity of a safeguard. Before 1860 there was a safeguard, and until 1909 there was the safeguard which was exercised by the House of Lords; but when this Clause lays down what the Constitution is there is no sort of safeguard at all, and there is, therefore, a necessity that we should have some number put into this Clause as a minimum by which the Bill should be passed. There is a need of some safeguard of this sort, otherwise we are starting on a new venture and declaring a new system whereby a Money Bill shall be passed by this House without any of the safeguards which existed before. It is on the ground that we desire to put in some safeguard that we support the principle of this Amendment.
§ Mr. GARDNERThe hon. Member (Mr. Barnes) entirely misapprehended the point of the Amendment, and I am not at all certain that the Attorney-General did not 2095 follow his example, for he said if it were passed the Government of the day would be unable to get their small Finance Bills. The whole of the Bill from beginning to end appears to me to deal with abnormal circumstances and it is to abnormal circumstances that this Amendment is supposed to apply. There is nothing in it which makes it necessary for any Bill, finance or other, to have a two-thirds or 350 majority. It only provides for this majority in case of acute difference of opinion between the two Houses, and surely in that case a majority of thirty in a House of 670 is not too large to ask for to force the Bill over the heads of the Second Chamber. To suggest that the Second Chamber is going to reject every small Finance Bill that the Government brings forward is to suggest that they are a body of idiots, and in that case the sooner the Government reforms them the better. But that is exactly what they will not do. Looking to the fact that the Amendment only applies in these conditions, surely it is necessary. It only asks that if there is this acute difference where a Finance Bill has provisions altogether outside the region of finance there should be a substantial majority. The Attorney-General showed that in some past and bygone Parliament only 350 Members turned up when the Government had a majority of perhaps more. If on the Third Reading of a Bill to which the Government attaches so much importance they cannot get 350 Members in a House of 670 on one occasion to force a Bill that they want to pass through the other House it is obvious that they do not possess the confidence of the House, and the sooner their existence is put an end to the better.
§ Mr. CASSELI only intervene to raise a short point with regard to the speech of the Attorney-General. We have to deal with the Clause as it stands un-amended. The Government may possibly accept some Amendments in Sub-section (2). If they state now that they will accept Amendments which would really limit this Clause to purely financial matters there might be some force in what the Attorney-General said. But so long as this Clause stands as it is there is a danger of Bills which are not purely financial in character being carried without their being any kind of control by a Second Chamber. We have already had several instances put. May I put this instance? Do the Government propose to 2096 bring in a Home Rule Bill as a Finance Bill? If I may suggest that to Irish Members as rather a good plan for trying to get Home Rule through quickly.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Gentleman had better defer that until Sub-section (2).
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. CASSELIf the Government tell me now that they are ready to accept Amendments to Sub-section (2) I quite agree, but I am bound now to discuss the Clause on the assumption that Sub-section (2) remains as it is. If I am to discuss it on that assumption I am pointing out that a Home Rule Bill should be carried without the House of Lords having the opportunity even to reject it three times. It would become law at once without their assent being in any way required. And when there is a danger of a measure of such importance as that going through without any assent of the Second Chamber at all we want some kind of safeguard to ensure that at the least there is an adequate majority in this House before it goes up to the Second Chamber. I have myself attempted to draft a Home Rule Bill as a Finance Bill which was on the lines of establishing an Irish financial council, to which only had to be entrusted powers of remission, imposition, repeal, alteration, and regulation of taxation.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Gentleman must reserve that till a later stage.
§ Mr. CASSELIf I knew how to raise the point after we had passed Sub-section (1) I should endeavour to do it in that way, but my difficulty is that when once you have passed Sub-section (1), and then when Sub-section (2) comes the Government refused to accept Amendments to that Clause my opportunity of discussing it will be gone. This is the only occasion on which I can raise the point. I think I have perhaps sufficiently indicated it. There is a danger, unless some such Amendment as this is adopted, something to ensure that something more than a bare majority is necessary, we run the risk of the greatest possible constitutional changes being carried in a sparsely-attended House by a majority of one, and without the possibility even of having the assent of the Second Chamber even once, quite apart from the question of having it three times, to give some opportunity for subsequent discussion in the country. Under these circumstances I most strongly 2097 urge upon the House to adopt this very necessary safeguard.
§ Mr. SANDERSONIt is very apparent, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Gardner) says, that the hon. Member (Mr. Barnes) entirely misinterpreted the object of the Amendment. We have had an instance given by the Attorney-General just now of the most important Finance Bill of 1894, which was only passed by fourteen votes, and yet it was accepted by the House of Lords because they recognised that it was necessary for the finances of the country, although the Attorney-General reminded us that at that time it was described as a very revolutionary method. Therefore, under the present system, we get Finance Bills adopted by the House of Lords even when they are passed by a small majority of this House, and even when they include proposals of a revolutionary character. The Amendment is only intended to provide for an exceptional occasion, and surely upon such an occasion it is only right to provide that there should be a substantial majority consisting of something like 350 Members, and in that case it may be right to disregard the decision of the House of Lords and ask the King to give his Royal Assent to the Bill. Unless that exceptional occasion arises matters will go on as at present, the Finance Bill will go through the House and be presented to the House of Lords and will pass in the ordinary course of events. The object of the promoters of the Clause is to ensure that the will of the democracy as regards financial questions should prevail, and that the will of the democracy as represented in this House should prevail. I would ask the Committee to consider whether this House does register at the present moment the opinions of the democracy. I submit that this Amendment is necessary in order that the opinions of the democracy should be adequately represented and registered in this House. I read the other day an extract from a letter which was written by one of the most prominent of the hon. Members who sit below the Gangway on the other side on this very question. I should like to quote it, for he seemed to express the point I wish to put before the Committee very concisely and forcibly. He said:—
The will of the people as represented by the House of Commons is a patent delusion. Under the system of Party Government, the will of the people is the will of the Cabinet. Nine-tenths of the measures passed by the House of Commons would not be passed in the form in which they are passed, if the House of Commons had free and unfettered power to express its will, The British Cabinet is a despotism. …
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not see that the letter which the hon. and learned Gentleman is quoting is relevant to the Amendment now before the Committee.
§ Mr. SANDERSONIf you say so I will not finish the sentence I was reading. I was using the argument to show that inasmuch as the Cabinet may be able to obtain a bare majority on any measure in this House, even such a majority as fourteen, then according to this Section as it stands at present if the Bill under discussion were a Finance Bill, and the House of Lords did not accept it, it would obtain the Royal Assent. My point is that, even although there is a majority in this House in favour of a Bill, it may be a majority which does not adequately represent the will of the people. If you will allow me to finish the sentence I was reading, I will do so.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not think you should read what I have already described as irrelevant.
§ Mr. SANDERSONIn that case I bow to your ruling. My point is this. You may get a majority which, according to the opinion of the hon. Gentleman I have just quoted, does not really represent the will of the people. If you are going to override the powers of the other House in regard to any particular Bill you ought to take measures to ensure that the majority of this House which does override the opinions of the other House should be a substantial majority, such as the one proposed in this Amendment.
§ Sir F. BANBURYA very important question arises on this Amendment, not so much as to whether or not a Bill will represent the will of the people, but whether it will represent the will of the House of Commons unless the Amendment is passed. We very often find snatch Divisions in the House of Commons. Over and over again it has been done. There is not a single Member of the House of Commons who has been here for more than three years who will contradict me when I say that over and over again a snatch Division which has been designedly taken upon a question has not really represented the will of the people or the will of the House of Commons. If we are going to put this House in the position of having supreme control over the finances of the nation, at any rate we ought to see that the will of this House is effectually expressed. 2099 Unless something of this sort is done, I am perfectly certain the will of this House will not be properly expressed. I am not alone in holding this opinion. There are plenty of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who hold that view. One of them unfortunately has been elevated to another place, which we are soon going to abolish. The Noble Lord said in November, 1909, that he could imagine a state of things where a Second Chamber might be resisting the wildest proposals of a demented House of Commons. These remarks were made, not by a reactionary Tory——
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe extent of the dementia does not depend on the size of the majority.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThere might be occasions on which, owing to certain circumstances, a large number of people who are mad might come down and take advantage of the absence of a minority in order to force their will. I think, with the utmost respect, that that is an apposite illustration, and one that is likely to occur. That was the opinion of one of the Leaders of hon. Gentlemen opposite less than two years ago. Is that not to have any weight? Are hon. Members going to sit with folded
§
arms and do nothing more than accept the will of the Cabinet above them. That does not promise a happy state of things when the Cabinet will be master of all it surveys. On 11th April, 1910, the Prime Minister said:—
You might have a case, a conceivable case, of what is called a scratch majority.
We have got that now.
combined together under the coercion of Party exigencies.
I think we have got that now.
for a particular and transient purpose.
§ That is what we are going to have unless this Amendment is passed. I believe in short speeches on certain occasions. I have been able to demonstrate in four or five minutes what I venture to say nobody can contradict. I hope the Postmaster-General, whom I see present, will impart to the Prime Minister that it would be advisable to accept the Amendment.
§ The POSTMASTER-GENERAL rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 155.
2103| Division No. 110.] | AYES. | [9.16 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Clough, William | Gelder, Sir William Alfred |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Clynes, John R. | Gill, Alfred Henry |
| Adamson, William | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Goldstone, Frank |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) |
| Alden, Percy | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Greig, Colonel James William |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Cotton, William Francis | Griffith, Ellis Jones |
| Anderson, Andrew Macbeth | Cowan, W. H. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) |
| Armitage, Robert | Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Hackett, John |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Crooks, William | Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) |
| Baker, Joseph Alien (Finsbury, E.) | Crumley, Patrick | Hancock, John George |
| Barnes, George N. | Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) | Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) | Dawes, James Arthur | Harmsworth, R. Leicester |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Delany, William | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) |
| Barton, William | Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Devlin, Joseph | Harwood, George |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Dickinson, W. H. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry |
| Benn, W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Doris, William | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Duffy, William J. | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Hayward, Evan |
| Black, Arthur W. | Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Boland, John Pius | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Hodge, John |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) |
| Brace, William | Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Brigg, Sir John | Elverston, Harold | Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | John, Edward Thomas |
| Bryce, John Annan | Essex, Richard Walter | Johnson, William |
| Burke, E. Haviland | Esslemont, George Birnie | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon John | Falconer, James | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Farrell, James Patrick | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Fenwick, Charles | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Ffrench, Peter | Jones, W. s. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Field, William | Joyce, Michael |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Fitzgibbon, John | Keating, Matthew |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Kellaway, Frederick George |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | O'Donnell, Thomas | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Kilbride, Denis | O'Dowd, John | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. |
| King, Joseph (Somerset, North) | Ogden, Fred | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Lamb, Ernest Henry | O'Grady, James | Sheehy, David |
| Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clithero) |
| Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'ri'nd, Cockerm'th) | O'Malley, William | Snowden, Philip |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Lewis, John Herbert | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Logan, John William | O'Shee, James John | Summers, James Woolley |
| Lundon, Thomas | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Sutherland, John E. |
| Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Sutton, John E. |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcilffe) |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Tennanl, Harold John |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Thomas, James Henry (Derby) |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| M Callum, John M. | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Therne, William (West Ham) |
| M'Curdy, Charles Albert | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Toulmin, George |
| M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Pirie, Duncan V. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Pointer, Joseph | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Marks, George Croydon | Pollard, Sir George H. | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Mason David M. (Coventry) | Power, Patrick Joseph | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Wardle, George J. |
| Meagher, Michael | Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County) | Pringle, William M. R. | Webb, H. |
| Menzies, Sir Walter | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Millar, James Duncan | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Molloy, Michael | Reddy, Michael | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.) |
| Money, L. G. Chiozza | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | While, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Mooney, John J. | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Whyte, A. F. |
| Morgan, George Hay | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Muldoon, John | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Munro, Robert | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mld) |
| Needham, Christopher T. | Robinson, Sydney | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Neilson, Francis | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Nolan, Joseph | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Winfrey, Richard |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Nugent, Sir Walter Russell | Roe, Sir Thomas | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Rowlands, James | |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Guiland. |
| O'Doherty, Philip | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Hamersley, Alfred St. George |
| Archer-Shee, Major Martin | Clive, Percy Archer | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Clyde, James Avon | Harris, Henry Percy |
| Ashley, Wilfred W. | Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Courthope, George Loyd | Hills, John Waller (Durham) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak) |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Horner, Andrew Long |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Craik, Sir Henry | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor | Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis |
| Barnston, Harry | Gripps, Sir Charles Alfred | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Croft, Henry Page | Jessel, Captain Herbert M. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.) | Dalrymple, Viscount | Joynson-Hicks, William |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. | Kehty-Fletcher, J. R. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston) | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Kimber, Sir Henry |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Du Cros, Arthur Philip | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford |
| Bird, Alfred | Falle, Bertram Godfray | Lane-Fox, G. R. |
| Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith- | Fell, Arthur | Larmor, Sir J. |
| Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Law, Andrew Bunar (Bootle, Lancs.) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Finlay, Sir Robert | Lee, Arthur Hamilton |
| Bull, Sir William James | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Lewisham, Viscount |
| Burgoyne, Alan Hughes | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Butcher, John George (York) | Forster, Henry William | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Gardner, Ernest | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh |
| Campion, W. R. | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Mackinder, Halford J. |
| Carlile, Edward Mildred | Gibbs, George Abraham | Macmaster, Donald |
| Cassel, Felix | Gordon, John | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Cator, John | Greene, Walter Raymond | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Gretton, John | Moore, William |
| Cave, George | Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward | Mount, William Arthur |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Haddock, George Bahr | Newman, John R. P. |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hambre, Angus Valdemar | Nield, Herbert |
| Norton-Griffiths. J. (Wednesbury) | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) | Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) |
| Paget, Almeric Hugh | Salter, Arthur Clavell | Tobin, Alfred Aspinall |
| Parkes, Ebenezer | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) | Touche, George Alexander |
| Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Sanderson, Lancelot | Valentia, Viscount |
| Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge) | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mld) |
| Perkins, Walter Frank | Scott, Leslio (Liverpool, Exchange) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Peto, Basil Edward | Smith, Harold (Warrington) | White, Maj. G. D. (Lanc., Southport) |
| Pollock, Ernest Murray | Stanier, Beville | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) | Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester) |
| Ratcliff, R. F. | Starkey, John Ralph | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel | Steel-Maltland, A. D. | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Rawson, Col. Richard H. | Stewart, Gershom | Yerburgh, Robert |
| Remnant, James Farquharson | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) | |
| Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan | Swift, Rigby | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Balcarres and Mr. Sanders. |
| Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Sykes, Alan John | |
| Ronaldshay, Earl of | Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.) |
§ Question put, "That the words, as amended, be there inserted."
2104§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 260.
2105| Division No. 111.] | AYES. | [9.25 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | Newman, John R. P. |
| Archer-Shee, Major M. | Falle, Bertram Godfray | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Fell, Arthur | Nield, Herbert |
| Ashley, W. W. | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury) |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Finlay, Sir Robert | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Forster, Henry William | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gardner, Ernest | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baring, Captain Hon. G. V. | Gastrell, Major W. H. | Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge) |
| Barnston, H. | Gibbs, G. A. | Perkins, Walter F. |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Gordon, J. | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Greene, W. R. | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Gretton, John | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Haddock, George Bahr | Rawson, Colonel R. H. |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bird, A. | Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Rice, Hon. W. F. |
| Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith | Hamersley, A. St. George | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) | Hardy, Laurence | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Boyton, J. | Harris, Henry Percy | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Henderson, Major H. (Berks) | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool. W. Derby) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hills, John Waller | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Burgoyne, A. H. | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Butcher, J. G. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Horner, Andrew Long | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Campion, W. R. | Houston, Robert Paterson | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hume-Williams, William Ellis | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Cassel Felix | Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.) | Stanier, Beville |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Jessel, Captain Herbert M. | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Cator, John | Joynson-Hicks, William | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Cave, George | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Stewart, Gershom |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Swift, Rigby |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Knight, Captain E. A. | Sykes, Alan John |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Larmor, Sir J. | Terrell, H. (Gloucester) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End) | Tobin, Alfred Aspinall |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lee, Arthur H. | Touche, George Alexander |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lewisham, Viscount | Valentia, Viscount |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craig, Norman (Kent) | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Mackinder, H. J. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Clipps, Sir Charles Alfred | Macmaster, Donald | Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester) |
| Croft, H. P. | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Yerburgh, Robert |
| Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston) | Moore, William | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Mount, William Arther | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord Balcarres and Mr. Sanders. |
| Du Cros, Arthur Philip | Newdegate, F. A. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Addison, Dr. C. | Agnew, Sir George William |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Alden, Percy |
| Adamson, William | Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) |
| Anderson, Andrew Macbeth | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Armitage, R. | Harwood, George | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Haworth, Arthur A. | Phillipps, John (Longford, S.) |
| Barnes, George N. | Hayden, John Patrick | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) | Hayward, Evan | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Pointer, Joseph |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Higham, John Sharp | Pollard, Sir George H. |
| Barton, William | Hodge, John | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) | Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) | Priestly, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Bentham, G. J. | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | Primrose Hon. Neil James |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | John, Edward Thomas | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Plack, Arthur W. | Johnson, W. | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Boland, John Pius | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Reddy, Michael |
| Brace, William | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Brigg, Sir John | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Joyce, Michael | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Brunner, J. F. L | Keating, M. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Bryce, John Annan | Kellaway, Frertrick George | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Kilbride, Denis | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | King, J. (Somerset, N.) | Robinson, Sydney |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Lamb, Ernest Henry | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Roche, John (Galway, E.) |
| Chapple, Dr. W. A. | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid., Cockerm'th) | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Clough, William | Levy, Sir Maurice | Rowlands, James |
| Clynes, John R. | Lewis, John Herbert | St. Maur, Harold |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Logan, John William | Samuel, Right Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lundon, T. | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lynch, A. A. | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. |
| Cotton, William Francis | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B. |
| Cowan, William Henry | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Sheehy, David |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Crooks, William | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Crumley, Patrick | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Snowden, Philip |
| Dalzlel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | McCallum, John M. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Davies, E. William (Eifion) | M'Curdy, C. A. | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Dawes, J. A. | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Delany, William | Markham, Arthur Basil | Summers, James Woolley |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Marks, George Croydon | Sutherland, John E. |
| Devlin, Joseph | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Sutton, John E. |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Masterman, C. F. G. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Doris, W. | Meagher, Michael | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Duffy, William J. | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.) | Menzies, Sir Walter | Thomas, James Henry (Derby) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Millar, James Duncan | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Molloy, Michael | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Toulmin, George |
| Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Elverston, H. | Mooney, J. J. | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Morgan, George Hay | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Essex, Richard Walter | Muldoon, John | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Munro, R. | Wardle, George J. |
| Falconer, J. | Needham, Christopher, T. | Waring, Walter |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Nellson, Francis | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Nolan, Joseph | Watt, Henry A. |
| Ffrench, Peter | Norman, Sir Henry | Webb, H. |
| Field, William | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Fitzgibbon, John | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Flavin, Michael J. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Gelder, Sir W. A. | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Gill, A. H. | O'Doherty, Philip | Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | O'Donnell, Thomas | Wiles, Thomas |
| Goldstone, Frank | O'Dowd, John | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Ogden, Fred | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Grelg, Colonel J. W. | O'Grady, James | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | O'Malley, William | Winfrey, Richard |
| Hackett, J. | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Hancock, John George | O'Shee, James John | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Sullivan, Timothy | |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Palmer, Godfrey M. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Harmsworth, R. Leicester | Parker, James (Halifax) | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) |
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), is not in order. The Committee has already decided against deferring the operation of the Clause, and the subject matter of the Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEOn a point of Order. May I ask whether, if I put in the words, "by Act of this Parliament," that would bring the Amendment within the Bill? An Act of Redistribution might be passed in this present Parliament.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat objection would apply equally, as it is quite outside the scope of this Bill.
§ Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI beg to move, after the word "Commons" ["passed by the House of Commons"], to insert the words, "voting by ballot on the Third Reading." This Amendment is one of very great importance, and it is that in the case of Bills which are sent up to the Crown without going to the House of Lords it would be necessary that the Third Reading in this House should be carried by ballot. I regard this as an absolutely essential point for the reason that we are setting up, as regards finance, absolute Single-Chamber Government. Of that there can be no doubt. Hon. Members below the Gangway cheer the sentiment because they want to see Single-Chamber Government as regards finance. If we do that we are setting up a system which is unlike any other system in the whole world. [An HON. MEMBER: "What does that matter?"] I do not suppose it does particularly matter to the hon. Member. So long as he gets what he wants he does not care what will happen to the Constitution. There is no other country in the world, either our own Colonies or foreign countries, which have got a Second Chamber which has got no control over finance at all. That being so, and having regard to the fact that there is no Second Chamber to check the question of finance, I say it is all important we should ascertain what is the real opinion of the Members of the First Chamber. We can only do that by taking a vote on the Third Reading by ballot.
It is absolutely notorious that Members very often do not vote according to their views. I know hundreds of occasions in which Members voted in this House in divisions on questions and they did not "even know what they were voting about. 2108 Besides that, it is absolutely the fact that because the voting is open and because the party system prevails and party discipline is so strong that Members frequently vote according to their party, although they do not approve of the manner in which they are voting. I remember very well in the year 1893, on the Home Rule Bill, I had a friend on the other side of the House who told me candidly he would not have voted for the Home Rule Bill except for the fact that his party had proposed it and he felt quite confident that the House of Lords would throw it out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] I could name several, but I am not going to give hon. Members away. I am going to afford them the protection of the ballot. Hon. Members opposite who are so keen on the ballot in the country invariably tell us at every election, and placard every hoarding, that the ballot is secret, and just as they are so keen for protecting electors in the country against unfair influences, so they ought to be protected in the House of Commons. If any hon. Member thinks this is unnecessary let me quote to him what was said in the House of Lords only last week by a Noble Lord who was a very well known Radical of this House. I mean Lord Weardale, who was known as Mr. Philip Stanhope. This is what he said showing the necessity of keeping free of the party system. After speaking as to the number of pledges a candidate had to give before he could get into this House, he said——
Mr. KINGOn a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in quoting from a Debate in the other place?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANAs the hon. and gallant Member knows, there is an ancient rule of this House that we do not quote Debates of the other House.
§ Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENSo I understand I am not allowed to quote words reported in every public newspaper and used by Lord Weardale in another place.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt is a well-known rule of the House.
§ Lord HUGH CECILMy hon. Friend is not referring to the House of Lords. He is referring to another place.
Mr. PEELIs it not the fact that the hon. Member for Kingston and the Prime Minister both yesterday quoted from a statement made by Lord Lansdowne in 2109 another place as to the action of the House of Lords, and that they were not called to order or prevented from speaking by the Chairman?
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI would like to ask whether you are aware that the other day, in the Debate on foreign affairs, the same question arose on a point of Order, Mr. Speaker in the chair, and that he gave this ruling that this ancient rule had fallen into desuetude of late. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]—and that the circumstances of the present day were such that it was impossible to avoid making such allusions.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI was in the House when that ruling was given. I understood it perfectly clearly that it is not possible in the case of announcements of policy by Ministers and matters of that kind to avoid quoting statements of policy made in the other House. But what the hon. Member was proposing to do was quite a different thing, namely, to quote merely a part of a speech in a Debate that took place in the other House.
§ Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI bow to your ruling, but at the same time I think it is very characteristic of hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they know the most damaging statements have been made by Lord Weardale in the other place, to shield themselves behind that ruling. It does not in the least matter that I cannot quote the actual words. The substance was that when Members got here they were tied and bound by party discipline, that many Members had part of their election expenses paid by the central organisation, and that the Whips said to them "If you do not take care and vote with the party we will remember it when the next election comes round." There is also the question of preferment and honours. There are peerages, baronetcies, and knighthoods to be given, and there is frantic competition at present to be among the "five hundred." Unless Members vote with their party they are marked men. That was the substance of what Lord Weardale said, and hon. Members know that it is absolutely true. I say, therefore, if we are to have Single-Chamber Government let it obtain the real opinion of the Single Chamber by getting rid of all this unfair pressure which is put upon Members by the discipline of the party system. If I am not allowed to quote what was said in another place I can at any rate quote something written by a prominent 2110 Member of the Labour party in this House. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), writing in the "Christian Commonwealth" in August last, pointed out with absolute truth the disability under which Members labour at present. He said:—
The will of the people as represented by the House of Commons is a patent delusion. Under the system of Party Government, the will of the people is the will of the Cabinet. Nine-tenths of the measures passed by the House of Commons would not be passed in the form in which they are passed if the House of Commons had free and unfettered power to express its will. The British Cabinet is a despotism wielding greater power than any crowned autocrat, and exercising authority in the name of democracy under the nominal sanction of a popularly elected House of Commons.The point of that quotation is that the House of Commons has not free and unfettered power to express its will. What I say is that we ought to give the House that power by enacting that in all cases where a Bill is to become law without the check of a Second Chamber the Third Heading shall be passed not by open voting but by means of the ballot. I cannot understand how hon. Members opposite can resist the proposal. Are they not the champions of the ballot? Are they not always telling us that the ballot is secret? Do they not suggest that we intimidate the people in the country? They are intimidated a great deal more in the House of Commons. If the people in the country want protection against their wicked landlords, so hon. Members opposite want protection against their wicked Whips. It may be said that the ballot is inapplicable to a Legislative Assembly. It is true that it has never been applied in this House, but it is not true that it has never been used in a Legislative Assembly. I find that the Scottish Parliament in 1662 carried their measures in their Assembly by the ballot, and we have always been informed that Scotland was one of the best-governed countries in the world.
§ Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI am informed that that statement is inaccurate. If it were true it would be an argument for adopting here the same system—namely, coupling the absence of the House of Lords with the ballot in the House of Commons. In France, from 1840 to 1845, the ballot was the method by which questions were decided in the Chamber of Deputies, and it is still the law in certain special cases. This Amendment will test the sincerity of the Government. If they really mean to obtain the will of the people they will take 2111 steps to secure that they really obtain the will of the representatives of the people. I believe that that can only be done by the proposal I am making, and it is with confidence that I move this Amendment.
Mr. J. W. WILSONOn a point of Order. I think it is customary in this House when an Amendment is proposed to see that all necessary consequential Amendments are on the Paper. The hon. Member has spoken about the ballot, but he has given no indication as to how the ballot should be taken or of the machinery that would be necessary. I have obtained the complete list of Amendments, but I can see no subsequent proposals on the subject.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think that in a case like this it is necessary to put the complete scheme on the Paper. Everybody understands what voting by ballot means.
§ The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel)In the course of the prolonged Debates which usually attend the passage of an important Bill to which the Opposition of the day is much opposed some strange Amendments usually find their way on to the Order Paper. But I think that within the experience of any of us a more remarkable or more unreasonable Amendment than this has never been known. It assumes that a Financial Bill, presumably of importance, which has passed its Second Reading when the voting is open and the names of Members who vote upon it are known, will be rejected on Third Reading under a system of secret ballot. In other words, that a number of hon. Members, having voted in the face of their Constituents for the Second Reading, will turn round with no public expression of their change of views and repudiate their own votes when they are under the protection of a secret ballot. I have no hesitation in saying it is a most gross reflection upon the honour of Members of this House, and I am sure that the speech with which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley moved this Amendment will be much resented by Members of this House. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman imagine the constituencies will not inquire into these circumstances? Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that constituencies keenly interested in the fate of a Bill that they find has been passed on the Second Reading and rejected on the Third 2112 Reading will not inquire from their representatives which way they had voted in the ballot? [HON. MEMBERS: "The ballot is secret."] Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman hold the view that Members of this House are entitled to conceal from their constituents how they have voted, and refuse to reply to inquiries as to the vote they have cast as representatives? It is true that the hon. and gallant Member can quote many ancient precedents in support of the concealment of the votes of Members of this House; for there was a time in earlier centuries when this House concealed with jealous secrecy the action of its Members, and punished, sometimes by severe penalties, any who presumed to publish the vote of those Members. But that was for the purpose—to use an old phrase—of "protecting the patriots from the displeasure of the Court." When the House of Commons was reformed, and the danger of that displeasure had passed away, four years after the great Reform Bill was passed, this House ordered that every vote of every Member should be printed and should be published freely on the following day. The hon. and gallant Gentleman desires to go back to a practice deliberately abandoned nearly seventy years ago. He proposes that this House nowadays should withdraw from constituencies all knowledge of the manner in which their Members vote on the final stages of important Bills. I sincerely trust that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will carry this Amendment to a Division in order that the House and the country may fully understand that among the new constitutional devices of the Unionist party is concealment of the votes of Members of Parliament.
§ Lord HUGH CECILI have listened with interest to the speech of the Postmaster-General, and I think it furnishes really a very good argument in favour of the Amendment. Let me first point out that this Amendment follows the sequence of the arguments from the two previous Amendments. We are face to face with a proposal to make the House of Commons supreme in finance. That is to say, no other power whatever is given of checking the House of Commons. We first asked that that power should be exercised under conditions of free debate, and next we asked that the matter should be decided by a substantial majority. In both of these cases the Committee decided against us. Now we ask that a question shall be decided independently and without fear of 2113 external pressure. Hon. Members of this House are so familiar with how the House of Commons votes that they perhaps do not realise how entirely unknown that method of voting is to the world outside. During the Wrexham election I was very much struck wherever I went with the fact that when I described the ordinary process of a Division in the House of Commons it was a cause of amazement. Meetings at which I spoke were always profoundly impressed with the defects of the system that now prevails. What is that system? Let me put it into words in order that hon. Members may see how much it is open to criticism. The Debate is commonly conducted in the House much less well-filled than it might be if all those Members who are in attendance about the building were in attendance at the Chamber. When a Division is called Members troop in. The other day, Sir, you had your attention called to the difficulty that they trooped in in such a mass that they could not get into the Lobby within the prescribed time. They come in at the door of the Lobby and they find the party Whips ranged in line. The Member asks the Whip or the Whip volunteers a statement as to how the Member is to vote.
10.0 P.M.
What is the relation of the Whip to the Member? The Whip is a person who is at once the judge and the informant to the leaders of the party as to the loyalty of the members of his party. Largely in accordance with the Whip's judgment the disposal of honours and offices depends. Absolutely in accordance with the Whip's judgment depends also whether the expenses of a Member are or are not paid out of the party funds at the next election. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] These are plain truths. Finally the Whip—I am not saying that hon. Members on either side——
Mr. J. W. WILSONThe Noble Lord is accusing every Member on this side of getting his expenses paid. That is a libel.
§ Lord HUGH CECILMany Members of Parliament have their election expenses paid. It is not part of ray argument that one party is worse than another. I am not blaming one party more than another. But the Whips control their expenses. Finally the Whips stir up all sorts of trouble in the constituencies. To give an illustration of what I mean. I remember that, in 1893, a question arose in the House of Commons in which many of us were voting against our party. We were met 2114 by a member of the then Government who said: "You will all lose your seats." What would be said if a voter, on going to the poll, was met by his landlord, who told him that if he voted in a certain way he would lose his cottage? It would be intimidation. It would certainly invalidate the election if agency could be proved. Therefore that attitude in the House of Commons, when applied to Members of Parliament would certainly be called "undue influence" if applied to voters at an election.
This is a matter of very great importance. I do not think that Members who live in the midst of this system realise how strange it is to those who are not familiar with it—how strange, and even how scandalous. Recently there has been published a very striking book by Mr. Belloc and Mr. Chesterton, entitled "The Party System." There are grave exaggerations in that book. There are also very great truths in it. But there is a particular part in which is described how the Whips influence members of a party, and, so far as I am able to judge, it is substantially true. Hon. Members really must try for a moment to think of how this Constitution they are setting up is going to work. They are going to give supreme power to the House of Commons. I say of the House of Commons as it is now constituted, that if you take together all these different points—how it decides by a bare majority, how it deliberates under the guillotine, how it votes influenced by the Whips, Members constantly not knowing what the question is as they go into the Lobby—take, I say, these points together, and I do not believe there is any human being who has not got his mind into a party groove who would not say that it is insane for an assembly so constituted to work in such away. Let us speak the truth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] Yes, if hon. Members opposite think I am inaccurate let them point out the inaccuracy. I am not conscious of having said a word more than is strictly accurate. I wish I could persuade the Press, who in these matters has immense influence, to speak the exact truth about the House of Commons, and to describe exactly to the public how it works—how Members do not listen to the Debates, but how, on the orders of the Whips, with all their great influence behind them, they Vote as they are told to vote. This House is not a deliberative Assembly. If you judge it by these things you must probably say in large measures it is a corrupt 2115 Assembly, for it is largely influenced by indirect motives and not by direct motives. Members vote because they are afraid of losing their seats. Because their prospects may be injured.
§ Mr. STEPHEN COLLINSOn a point of Order, Mr. Emmott, is it in order for the Noble Lord to call this Assembly a corrupt Assembly.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Noble Lord would not be in order in attributing financial corruption to individul Members. The Noble Lord is not doing that.
§ Lord HUGH CECILIt is the last thing I desire to do to make any imputation upon any individual Member. I do not want in the least to discuss this matter as between party and party. I wish to reiterate, I am not saying a word against hon. Members opposite that does not apply to hon. Members on this side as well. I am saying nothing against individual Members. What I am concerned about is the whole Assembly, which is in the future to exercise supreme power. Do hon. Members really think, and does the country outside really think that an Assembly which is so influenced and controlled by the party whips and by the party system is fit for the gigantic powers which are to be entrusted to it under this Bill. If by a miracle we could get the Electorate into the House for a few nights they would understand the position as it is. If they could see the House of Commons as it is, with all its levity and party feeling and disposition, with all its indirect motives, with its total indifference to argument and reason, they would not dream of making it the single supreme authority in the State. I do not think we realise what the danger is. The Postmaster-General said with perfect truth in his very interesting observations and contribution to the Debate, that in old times the proceedings of this House were secret. They were secret up to the beginning of the nineteenth century. The reason for that secrecy, as the right hon. Gentleman most truly said, was that the House of Commons desired to be protected, partly against the bribery and partly against the intimidation of the court. And let me say that upon certain things the House had recourse to an inner wall of secrecy. When matters of very great difficulty were to be decided they appointed a Secret Committee by ballot. For example, the Committee 2116 that was appointed to inquire into the conduct of Sir Robert Walpole was so appointed. It is not, therefore, a new thing to apply the ballot to proceedings of this House. The reason was, of course, to secure absolute secrecy to those who voted and to protect them against influence that might be used against them.
I say that the interval between 1832 and a few years back was a time in which there were many courses working for independence that do not now operate. A great many Members were returned for boroughs over which they and their friends had great influence. A great many Members were also returned for county constituencies, and were elected upon a franchise more restricted than the present, and over which they exercised great personal influence, so that they were not at all over-pressed by their constituents. That gave a large nucleus of independent Members in the House of Commons, and it gave a tone of independence to the House now altogether lost. I was not in the House, indeed I was a child, but I recollect very well what was said about Mr. Gladstone's Parliament of 1880 and 1885. It was a matter of common observation that a large number of Members of the Liberal party would vote against their party on particular occasions. There was a large independent body in that majority and they fulfilled a very important place in the politics of the time. Now Members vote absolutely with their party—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]—and if they dissent from their party at all, if they are driven to dissent from their party, they find it easy to dissent by being rather more extreme. If they are more extreme they have behind them the stalwarts. If they are more modern and inclined to the party opposite they have against them the stalwarts and the strong party feeling. We want to revive, against the new danger, the old safeguards used in the eighteenth century against intimidation by the Court; we want to provide against intimidation by the caucus. I am quite sure if hon. Members would see these things as they are most hon. Members would agree with me that there is grave danger in the power of the party system reducing the House to a position which will make it a danger and not a service to the public.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Noble Lord is travelling much too wide of the Amendment. He is treating the position too generally.
§ Lord HUGH CECILI will confine what I have to say strictly to the finance question before us. The Postmaster-General said that where a Second Reading of a Finance Bill was carried by a majority, on the Third Reading it might be negatived by, perhaps, the vote of Members who voted differently on the Second Reading. The Government have rejected previous Amendments which propose to deal with the question of a majority of a few votes. Theoretically it might be one vote. You have only to suppose one man influenced to give his vote for the Second Reading because of the Whip's throat, or because he was afraid his Constituency or the caucus in his Constituency would not return him again. You have only to suppose one man in that position to make this Amendment a necessary and desirable change. Having regard to the grave dangers which threaten the position of the House, having regard to the force and the influence brought to bear on Members to vote according to the party system, it is very desirable in these financial matters in which the House of Commons is to be absolutely supreme to secure by means of a secret vote that we should have a free and independent vote.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe Noble Lord has a very bad opinion of the institutions of his country. He is not only in favour of reforming the House of Lords, but he shows us, in speech after speech, in Amendment after Amendment, on subject after subject, that he would like to accompany and precede that operation by abolishing the existing House of Commons. The Noble Lord has the worst possible opinion of His Majesty's Ministers, and he has frequently expressed that view in terms which have secured the utmost enthusiasm in the Opposition part of this Assembly. His opinion of this Assembly is quite on a par with his opinion of His Majesty's Government, but his bad opinion of this Assembly is limited to the time when there is a Liberal Government in power. It is only the Liberals who are corrupt; it is only when a Liberal Government is in power that voting by ballot must be instituted. I remember the Noble Lord in years gone by, when the Conservative party was in power, never thought it was necessary to introduce this provision of voting by ballot. Does this not illustrate a characteristic in the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to the discussion of this question? We are asking for political equity under the Constitution. 2118 Every speech of the Noble Lord shows that he regards the forces which we represent in the country as unworthy of political equality, and that when there is a Liberal majority in the Division Lobby it is corrupt, and is bullied by the Whips. That is a gross libel upon hon. Members of this House. The Noble Lord says hon. Members are coerced under the threat that their election expenses would not be paid if they vote according to their own consciences.
§ Lord HUGH CECILI did not say anything against your party which I do not say against my own. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIf I have said anything unparliamentary I will withdraw it, but, after all, there ought to be freedom of debate. Let those hon. Gentlemen opposite who applaud those sentiments set the example. I never complain of hard words across the floor of the House, but I claim to be allowed to match them with arguments equal to the attack which has been made. I think it is to the general advantage that these things should proceed on both sides with composure. I say that the view of the Noble Lord and those who support him is that voting by ballot will be necessary after the House of Lords have been deprived of the right of rejecting Budgets in order to make sure that Liberal Members do not vote contrary to their convictions. It never was thought to be necessary in the long years when we had Single-Chamber Government under the Tory party, when we had Single-Chamber Government under the party opposite, to propose voting by ballot. If it had been many important things might have been decided under the ballot. One of my earliest recollections on coming to this House was that an Amendment to the Address was moved from the Conservative Benches complaining of the undue proportion of offices in the Government allotted to Members of the Noble Lord's family. Nobody got up then and suggested that there should be voting by ballot.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYHow did you vote?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI protest against the Noble Lord's view that our institutions are rotten and corrupt. I think it is an insult to hon. Members of this House that it should be assumed that they cannot rise superior to the pressures, the ordinary working pressures of our Parliamentary system. I think it has been shown over 2119 and over again on both sides of the House that individual Members have stood up against Governments, that groups have done the same, and have not hesitated to voice effectively their views, and defeat the ordinary Parliamentary pressures which are at work.
§ The CHAIRMANI must point out to the right hon. Gentleman, as I pointed out to the Noble Lord in regard to his speech, that he is treating the matter in a much too wide and general way.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIf I have strayed, I have erred in consequence of the speech of the Noble Lord, and I do not propose to follow in his steps any further. This question of a vote by ballot is a very important change in our Parliamentary proceeding. It is really a fundamental change, because it does away, from another point of view, with the representative character of the House of Commons, We remain in a central position, whether it is against the Vote by Ballot or whether it is against the Referendum. Both derogate from the representative character of the Member of Parliament and the work he should do. We consider a Member of Parliament should act responsibly in the full light of day under the scrutiny of his constituents. We believe that in the great majority of cases, and overwhelmingly so far as the House of Commons as a whole is concerned, Members of Parliament undoubtedly face the difficulties with which they are confronted, withstand them, and rise superior to them, and that not merely the will of the country but the knowledge of the House of Commons is imprinted upon our legislation and proceedings. It would be a very important change to leave a system which has been in vogue for so many years, and go to a system of vote by ballot—a very important change indeed—but there is nothing to prevent the House of Commons in the future from amending its proceedings, if it chooses to do so. If, after the Veto Bill has passed through, the House of Commons is inclined to think vote by ballot would be an improvement, there is no reason why they should not occupy the discussions of a Session in deciding that important point. Of course, once the Veto of the House of Lords is removed, a great barrier and an impediment to legislative effect being given to any decision we may come to on this or any other subject will have been effectively removed. I only rose to make my 2120 protest against the air of superiority assumed by the Noble Lord opposite. That air of superiority only arises from superior advantages under the Constitution. When those superior advantages have been removed, we shall meet him on equal and even terms.
Major WHITEI was not much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was interrupted in the middle of his speech, because he certainly raised questions wide of the Amendment, and none wider than when he imputed to my Noble Friend the intention of attributing to Members on the other side of the House corruption as compared with Members in other parts of the House. He distinctly disclaimed that on several occasions. Is there anyone on that side of the House, whether be is on the Front Bench or not, who conscientiously believes in his heart that every Division in this House shows exactly what each individual Member thinks? Members opposite have jeered when we have mentioned the autocracy of the Cabinet and the despotism of the party Whips. I should like to quote the opinion of a very distinguished Liberal on the question of the system of the party Whips. This is what Mr. Whiteley said:—
Any Chief whip worth his salt has no political conscience whatever, nor does ho hold Ute political conscience of his party in his hands. … He is a very valuable piece of party mechanism. He does what he is told. When he is instructed to go he goeth; when he is instructed to come he cometh. and when he is told he must whip for any self-evident proposition such as that black is white, he does so with the same alacrity as if he believed it."'The author of those words was the Chief Liberal Whip, and is one of the numerous Members of the party who, no doubt from motives of patriotism, have accepted a peerage. I cannot see why the Government should have any objection to accepting this Amendment. It refers not to one party, but to both parties in this House, and to all questions in the future affecting Money Bills. The party opposite are very fond of praising the ballot and its secrecy; surely they ought to be prepared to accept the same principle in this House. They very often speak of the opinion of the chosen representatives of the people: if that is really their opinion they ought to be pleased to have its expression unfettered and unbiassed.
Mr. BALFOURI am sorry I was not in the House when the Postmaster-General addressed the Committee. I understand he made a violent speech. I did not hear it, and I will not therefore 2121 comment on it. But I did hear the speech of the Home Secretary, and I confess that though I am not in sympathy with the general conclusions arrived at by my Noble Friend (Lord Hugh Cecil), I thought his speech extremely interesting, and I thought also that it was absurdly dealt with by the Home Secretary. Anybody who listened to the speech of my Noble Friend must have realised that, well founded or ill-founded, it was directed against no special section. My Noble Friend chose for the subject of attack the whole system of House of Commons Government as we know it now, and as even the oldest of us have experienced it in our Parliamentary life. The speech certainly was nothing but serious, and although I do not agree with the conclusions of my Noble Friend, I recognise the absolute sincerity with which he endeavoured to put his criticism with admirable impartiality against the occupants of every bench, and perhaps not least against the bench on which I sit. Certainly no charge was made against the other side which was not equally levelled against us. I do think the view he has put is one which does deserve, when brought forward in so able and serious a speech, more respectful treatment than that given by the Home Secretary. I think the view of my Noble Friend confined no doubt according to the Amendment to Money Bills, but capable naturally of expansion to all subjects which come before this House is a superficial view, and I do not agree with the theory that this House has gone through a process of deterioration within the memory of living individuals, or indeed in an historic sense. Some people hold the view that we are far inferior to our fathers, not merely in the superficial graces of eloquence, but also in the honesty of purpose which animates us on whichever side of the House we sit. I do not honestly agree with that. I have been in this House since the year 1874. Possibly it was the year in which my Noble Friend was born—it was there or thereabouts, and it is a great mistake to suppose that the Whips of either party, wicked and unscrupulous as no doubt they are, are more unscrupulous and more wicked in the year of Grace 1911 than they were in the year 1874, or 1784 or 1684. I remember talking over with Sir Charles Dilke this question of general Parliamentary practice and management, and he said and I agree with him that there had been no deterioration, neither in his nor in my Parliamentary experience. But what says 2122 my Noble Friend and what say the critics of this House outside the House who attack our methods of doing things which may be open to criticism, and I have no doubt are open to criticism. My Noble Friend seems to think that the Press are always engaged in covering our deficiencies by a decent veil of constitutional fiction. In my opinion I confess when our actions are represented by outside critics they are represented in far too unfavourable terms. He referred to a book which I have never read, but I hope some day to give myself the pleasure of reading, and which is called "The Party System." I looked at the first two pages of it, and it has given me an appetite which as yet has not been satisfied for reading the remainder. I noticed in those first two pages that it was recorded as a fundamental quality of this House that everything we did was done by the two Front Benches in concert, and all the Debates across the floor of this House so far as the two Front Benches are concerned was a mere sham fight; there was no substantial difference of opinion, and, as I understood the book, we were engaged in exploiting in common the credulity of the other 640 Members, or whatever the number may be who compose the rest of the House. I thought that a book which began in that way might have a great deal to amuse, but could not have anything to instruct, as it is most distantly remote from anything with which we are acquainted. I think there is a fundamental fallacy underlying all the criticism to which my Noble Friend gave powerful expression to-night. The fallacy is that in this House the business of each man is simply to judge on the value of each argument as it conies up and to act upon it, absolutely irrespective of any collateral effect which the vote he may give may have. I do not believe it is possible for the most ingenious casuist to lay down a demarcation between that which is mere subservience to party pressure and that which is an honest determination to keep in office—I speak for the majority—or to turn out of office, as the case may be, a Government of which they respectively approve or disapprove. There is a distinction—not a distinction which may be laid down in a book, but not a distinction which can be ignored because it cannot be laid down in a book—that under our system—and it is the most extraordinary part of our system—the Ministry of the day are not merely the guides of legislation, they are also the people responsible 2123 for the administration, foreign and domestic, and they cannot keep in office a day unless they are supported. Therefore, evidently a vote which does not support them is a vote which is not given upon one question alone, but on the most complicated issues.
My Noble Friend said, "Let us look at the facts of the situation." I do not think critics who follow usually at some distance, and with much less ability in the steps of my Noble Friend, when they say, "Look at the real facts of the case," do look at the real facts of the case. They do not face the facts of the case. They take a theory and say, "Of course Members of the House of Commons are sent to listen to arguments, and vote as the arguments tell them to vote." If they are sent to do that, I admit that they do their duty extremely badly—if that is the beginning, the middle and the end of all they have to do, because, as my Noble Friend most truly pointed out, often there are arguments of immense importance addressed to practically empty benches, and when the division comes it is quite true from the smoking room, the library, the dining room, and the rest, people stream in who have not heard a word of the argument and give their votes as is suggested by those in whom they have confidence. They are a very easy target for satire, and I do not say the satire is not very often deserved, because it is deserved. All that my Noble Friend has said is true, and it is a real criticism upon our procedure. But nevertheless, it is a great mistake to suppose that argument does not tell in this House. There is no greater fallacy than to suppose that it is useless to argue well or to speak well. It makes the whole difference. The difference may not be at the moment. Any case brought forward in this House which day after day gets hammered, and to which there is no reply, and to which the Government or the Opposition, as the case may be, who support the particular case, never get the best of it, and in which all impartial spectators know they do not get the best of it—do not tell me that has no effect in this House. It has such an effect, and the idea that our Debates are perfectly useless, never resulting in any difference in the Division Lobby, never resulting in any change of public opinion, I believe to be a gross, though profoundly unintentional, misrepresentation of the real facts of the case. When my Noble Friend talks as if all the evils which he so eloquently and admirably 2124 described will be cured by the ballot——
§ Lord HUGH CECILI said it would be a mitigation.
Mr. BALFOURThat is all we can expect from medicine. When he brought forward as an illustration of that, an episode which I very well remember, it seemed to me that his illustration led to the precisely opposite conclusions to that which he desired us to draw. He reminded my Friends on this bench of the time, eight years ago, when we sat on that bench—it was before the fiscal controversy arose—when there was something in the nature of a dead set against a particular Member of the Government. There was an organised attack made upon that Member of the Government. Well, how could that be dealt with by the ballot? That was not a case of coming into the House and listening to arguments and settling how you are going to vote after you have heard the arguments. It seems to me that against an organised attack of that sort the party system is a very good protection, a very necessary protection, and a very desirable protection, and I do not see that any change for the better would have been made then, or in a recent Debate in the course of this Session, when something very similar, if I mistake not, occurred on the other side of the House, if the votes had been taken by ballot. Depend upon it, the Parliamentary system as worked in this country has many defects, it is open to many criticisms, but I do not believe those defects would be cured, or those criticisms met, by substituting vote by ballot for the vote we have now. I think the root principle which lay at the base of my Noble Friend's brilliant argumentation was a mistaken premise.
I think I said earlier in my speech that I might venture to conclude that the action which each of us takes on our own responsibility, in the face of our Constituents, and in the face of the country, is a responsibility which goes far beyond the individual controversy of the moment. The way this House now modifies and affects policy is shown in the first instance in the Lobby, but, of course, everybody knows that if this Government are, or that we on this Bench when we were a Government were, subject to the kind of attack which moves their own followers, these followers do not go and necessarily vote against them in the Lobby. But there is the pressure of opinion which modifies the policy 2125 of the Government, and that is immediately and directly due to the force of the arguments used in public debate. I do not believe you can seriously improve our existing system if you do not maintain what it is absolutely necessary to maintain, namely, some stability of administration, some probability in the face of our countrymen, and still more in the face of foreigners, that the Government which is brought into existence at the will of the people is not a mere leaf driven about with every gust of wind and of doctrine, but that the policy they are carrying out shall be a coherent and consistent policy—coherent and consistent because those who carry it out know that they have the solid support of an organised party. Organised party has its defects, and they are great, but I am sure that if he shattered them my Noble Friend would be the first to discover the new evils that would arise in their place far exceeded in magnitude those which they had displaced.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI only rise to say one or two sentences. In the first, I think this Amendment, if it were adopted, would imperil the responsibility, indeed the representative power, of the House of Commons. In the next place—a very rare experience—I agree with every word the right hon. Gentleman has said. I think his speech is one of the finest vindications of the representative and independent character of the House of Commons that has ever been made in this House.
§ Lord HUGH CECILAs I am against both Front Benches, may I be allowed to say a few words. I quite agree with the very generous tribute which the Prime Minister has paid to my right hon. Friend and desire to associate myself with it. But my answer is quite a simple one. In the days of Mr. Gladstone's Government, from 1868, in those of Lord Beaconsfield's, from 1874, and in those of Mr. Gladstone's, from 1880 to 1885, the Government were repeatedly defeated, and there were not produced any of those evils of instability which militated against the proper use of the party system in any degree whatever. Since that day defeats of the Government have become rarer and rarer. My right hon. Friend does not remember small details; he does not remember how often the Government of which he was a Member was defeated; he was never defeated, except in an unreal Division, that is to say, a Division that took place when there was a garden party at the Sovereign's palace, or something of that sort. His Government, 2126 from 1895 to 1905, was never defeated on a real Division, except once, and that was on an Amendment in Committee on a factory Bill, a very secondary point. It is not credible that there cannot have been at work causes for that change in the character of the House, that there was not some change, a change which I think is still operating. The party system is stronger now than it was ten years ago; Members are becoming less and less independent. I think my right hon. Friend, as too often happens, thinks he is still living in the world of his youth. He thinks there has been no change. There has been a great change. There was a time when many Members of Parliament would venture, not upon great questions which involved the life of the Government, but on subordinate matters, to vote against their party. There was more real independence. I think it a pity that it is gone.
I do not want to say anything controversial, but I suggest, at the same time, it is hardly possible to believe that the present Government and the late Government were both so ideally more perfect than Mr. Gladstone's and Lord Beaconsfield's Governments, that whereas they were often defeated, my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour), the present Prime Minister, and the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman were never, or almost never, defeated. There must have been some cause for this change by which the independence of the House has become much less common than it was, and I believe that this influence was that of the Whips, backed up by the stronger influence to which I have called attention. There is a practical question before us, whether we are to divide on this Amendment. I am very anxious to divide. I am not at all sure whether, in view of the agreement of the two Front Benches—which, by the way, exactly vindicates this criticism—it can be done. I shall certainly divide if I can get anybody to tell with me, as I really believe that this is a very serious vote, and that, quite irrespective of any party point whatever, the House of Commons is steadily becoming less independent. I believe that a ballot would be a mitigation of the evils of the party system, and for its introduction this Amendment provides the first opportunity.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 84; Noes, 363.
2129| Division No. 112.] | AYES. | [10.50 p.m. |
| Archer-Shee, Major Martin | Hambre, Angus Valdemar | Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Perkins, Walter F. |
| Ashley, W. W. | Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington) | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) | Helmsley, Viscount | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hills, J. W. | Rawson, Colonel R. H. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hoare, S. J. G. | Rolleston, Sir John |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Hohler, G. F. | Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby) |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Horner, Andrew Long | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid) | Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.) | Stanier, Beville |
| Boyton, J. | Joynson-Hicks, William | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Burgoyne, Alan Hughes | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Kerr-Smiley, Peter | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Kirkwood, J. H. M. | Sykes, Alan John |
| Cator, John | Knight, Captain E. A. | Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Cautley, H. S. | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Larmor, Sir J. | Thynne, Lord Alexander |
| Clay, Captain H. Spender | Lawson, Hon. H. (T. Hmts., Mile End) | Touche, George Alexander |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | White, Major C. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Courthope, George Loyd | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Croft, Henry Page | Malcolm, Ian | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Moore, William | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Achburton) | Younger, George |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Newdegate, F. A. | |
| Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Newman, John R. P. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Col. Griffith Boscawen and Lord Hugh Cecil |
| Goldsmith, Frank | Newton, Harry Kottingham | |
| Grant, J. A. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | |
| Greene, Walter Raymond | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Campion, W. R. | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Carlile, Edward Hildred | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) |
| Adamson, William | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Essex, Richard Walter |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Esslemont, George Birnie |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Falconer, J. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Chancellor, H. G. | Farrell, James Patrick |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Fell, Arthur |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Chapple, Dr. W. A. | Fenwick, Charles |
| Alden, Percy | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | Clancy, John Joseph | Ffrench, Peter |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Dough, William | Field, William |
| Anderson, A. | Clynes, J. R. | Fitzgibbon, John |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Fitzroy, Hon. E. A. |
| Armitage, R. | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Flavin, Michael Joseph |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | France, G. A. |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Furness, Stephen |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Corbett, A. Cameron | Gardner, Ernest |
| Barlow, Montagu (Salford, S.) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Gelder, Sir W. A. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Cory, Sir Clifford John | Gill, A. H. |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) | Cotton, William Francis | Glanville, H. J. |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) | Cowan, W. H. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Barry, Redmond John | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Goldstone, Frank |
| Barton, W. | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) | Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Crean, Eugene | Greig, Colonel James William |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward |
| Benn, W. (T. H'mts., St. George) | Crooks, William | Griffith, Ellis J. |
| Bentham, G. J. | Crumley, Patrick | Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish | Daiziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) |
| Beresford, Lord C. | Davics, E. William (Eifion) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. |
| Bird, A. | Davies, Timithy (Lincs., Louth) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hackett, J. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) |
| Boland, John Pius | Dawes, J. A. | Hail, Marshall (E. Toxteth) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Delany, William | Hancock, J. G. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Brace, William | Devlin, Joseph | Hardie, J. Keir |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Dickinson, W. H. | Harmsworth, R. (Leicester) |
| Brigg, Sir John | Doris, William | Harris, Henry Percy |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Duffy, William J. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.) | Harwood, George |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) | Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Byles, William Pollard | Elverston, H. | Hayward, Evan |
| Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Morrell, Philip | Samuel, J. (Stockton) |
| Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor | Muldoon, John | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Munro, R. | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Hill, Sir Clement | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. |
| Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter | Needham, Christopher T. | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Hill-Wood, Samuel | Neilson, Francis | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Hinds, John | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B. |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Hodge, John | Nolan, Joseph | Sheehy, David |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Norman, Sir Henry | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Hughes, S. L. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Hume-Williams, William Ellis | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Smyth, Thomas F. |
| Hunter, Wm. (Lanark, Govan) | O'Doherty, Philip | Snowden, P. |
| Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | O'Donnell, Thomas | Soares, Ernest Joseph |
| John, Edward Thomas | O'Dowd, John | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Johnson, W. | Ogden, Fred | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Grady, James | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Summers, James Wooley |
| Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | O'Malley, William | Sutton, John E |
| Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Swift, Rigby |
| Jowett, F. W. | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Keating, M. | O'Shee, James John | Tennant, Harold John |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | O'Suilivan, Timothy | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Palmer, Godfrey | Thomas, James Henry (Derby) |
| Kilbride, Denis | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| King, J. (Somerset, N.) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Lamb, Ernest Henry | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) | Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. | Toulmin, George |
| Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd, Cockerm'th) | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Logan, John William | Pirie, Duncan V. | Walters, John Tudor |
| Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Pointer, Joseph | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Low, Sir F. (Norwich) | Pollard, Sir George H. | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Lundon, T. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Power, Patrick Joseph | Wardle, George J. |
| Lynch, A. A. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Waring, Walter |
| Lytlelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Mackinder, Halford J. | Primrose, Hon. Neil James | Watt, Henry A. |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Pringle, William M. R. | Webb, H. |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Radford, G. H. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| M'Callum, John M. | Raffan, Peter Wilson | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| M'Curdy, Charles Albert | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) | Reddy, M. | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| M'Wicking, Major Gilbert | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Redmond, William (Clare) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Marks, George Croydon | Remnant, James Farquharson | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Marshall, Arthur Harold | Rendan, Athelstan | Williams, P. (Middlesbrough) |
| Martin, Joseph | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Meagher, Michael | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Winfrey, Richard |
| Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Menzies, Sir Walter | Robinson, Sidney | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Millar, James Duncan | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Molloy, M. | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Money, L. G. Chiozza | Roe, Sir Thomas | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Rose, Sir Charles Day | |
| Mooney, J. J. | Rowlands, James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Morgan, George Hay | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | |
| Morpeth, Viscount | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
§ And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
§ Committee report progress; to sit again I to-morrow (Wednesday).