HC Deb 17 February 1902 vol 103 cc267-99

Standing Order 31 read, as followeth:—

That when any Bill shall be presented by a Member, in pursuance of an Order of this House, or shall be brought from the Lords, the Questions "That this Bill be now read a first time," and "That this Bill be printed," shall be decided without Amendment or debate.

(9.0.) MR. GRANT LAWSON

said the next Amendment standing in the name of his right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury, which he proposed to move on the right hon. Gentleman's behalf, was that which proposed to amend Standing Order 31, which provided that if a Bill was received from the other House, there was no difficulty in getting it read a first time and getting it printed. Such a privilege was not afforded to the hon. Members of this House, who, if they desired to bring in a Bill, first had to rise in their place and obtain the leave of the House, and, having obtained leave and mentioned the names of the hon. Gentlemen who supported it, they had to leave their place for the purpose of walking up the floor of the House with a Bill in their hand, which was more often than not a dummy. There was no particular reason why hon. Members should be called upon to go through that proceeding for the purpose of getting a Bill read a first time and printed, when a Member of the House of Lords could not only get a Bill printed without any such formality, but could lay upon the Table of the House of Lords anything he liked, and get it printed at the public expense. It was not proposed that the Amendment would abolish altogether the formal introduction of a Bill, but he believed the House never remembered a case where the House divided against a private Member's right to introduce a Bill.

MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.)

Yes.

*MR. GRANT LAWSON

said there might have been one occasion when that occurred, but the Rule he ventured to lay down was that any Member should have a right to introduce a Bill in the same manner as Bills were introduced into the House of Lords. It was not proposed to take away the stage of First Reading of a Bill of any importance, but if this Rule were accepted by the House, then there would be three alternative ways of proceeding on the introduction of a Bill. It could either be brought in under the Amendment, in which case it would be laid on the Table of the House, taken as read a first time, and printed, or it could be brought in under what is called the Ten Minutes Rule, or it could be brought in, in the old formal way, with all pomp and ceremony, with a solemn debate on the First Reading of the Bill, before even the House had seen it at all. Those three systems would all be open to hon. Members, and therefore he failed to see that there could be any objection to the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Standing Order, to add the words: A Member may, if he thinks fit, after notice, present a Bill without an Order of the House for its introduction; and when a Bill is so presented, the title of the Bill shall be read by the Clerk of the Table, and the Bill shall then be deemed to have been read a first time, and shall be printed."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)

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

(9.5.) MR. CALDWELL

said he was surprised at the hon. Member who introduced this Amendment speaking of the difference between Bills coming from the House of Lords, and those introduced by Members of this House. There was one matter the hon. Member had not referred to, and that was that this House kept within its own hands the right to refuse even the introduction of a Bill which it did not consider to be a Bill which ought to be introduced in this House, and he had known cases in which a Bill was voted upon, and a division taken upon it. Nothing would be more dangerous than to say that hon. Members of this House should be allowed to come forward with a Bill, and print it as having been read a first time in this House, although it might be of a character which the House might not approve, and the House had had no opportunity to reject it. It might be the most absurd measure, yet it would be printed, and have the imprimatur of having been read a first time. No doubt it was possible to abolish all the ancient formalities altogether, but if they were to have a House with dignity, they ought to have these formalities. Why should not a Bill in this House be introduced in the usual way? With all the formalities of asking leave, and walking up the floor of the House, it took up no time. What time would it take up if taken at the commencement of public business, on Tuesday and Friday? Why, at seven o'clock, with the help of the closure, the House would be as far forward as if the Bill had not been introduced at all. He thought the Amendment was most ill-conceived, and he could not understand it being introduced by a Conservative Government.

(9.10.) SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said he did not share the fears of the hon. Member who had just spoken that Members would abuse this privilege of introducing Bills in this House. His objection to the Rule was rather upon the ground that it did not accomplish the purpose the Government had in view—that of getting rid of the unnecessary formalities which were an incumbrance and which took up a considerable amount of time in the aggregate. What they had to do when reforming the Rules was to reform those Rules which took up time for no definite purpose. The procedure of introducing Bills with all the old formalities on the average of 300 Bills in the session was 30 or 40 minutes, so that some time might be saved and profitably used, but the Rule did not accomplish that purpose. The hon. Gentleman had only assumed that when the Amendment was carried these formalities would not take place, but formalities survived a long time. The words of the Amendment were—"A Member may, if he thinks fit, present a Bill," and he proposed to amend the Amendment by striking out "present" and insert "propose."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the word "present" and insert the word "propose."—(Sir Albert Rollit.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'present' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

*MR. GRANT LAWSON

said he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed; its meaning was not very clear. The word "present" was the usual word, and he thought it could not make much difference if that word was changed to "propose," and in his opinion it was better to keep to the old original word.

(9.15.) MR. GIBSON BOWLES

agreed that there was practically no difference between the word "propose" and the word "present," and neither of them would get rid of what the hon. Member for South Islington was pleased to think were ancient and obsolete usages of no account, but which he considered were of considerable value. What was signified by the operation of walking up from the Bar to the Table? The ancient idea was that when grievances arose outside they were brought to the notice of Parliament in the form of a Petition. The Speaker then asked who would prepare and bring in a Bill to redress those grievances, and a certain Member was presumed to prepare a Bill. He went outside the House, outside the Bar, and, walking up to the Table, and making three obeisances, he presented it to the House. That ceremony, while it took very little time, was extremely valuable, for it reminded the House that its business was not that of a sort of Bill manufactory, but that of a high court for the redress of grievances felt outside.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(9.17.) MR. GIBSON BOWLES

looked upon the proposed alteration with great apprehension. It proposed to do what the House had never done before, viz., to infer a decision of the House without that decision being in any way formally taken. After certain things had been done the House was not to decide whether or not a certain Bill should be read a first time, but without any overt action on the part of the House, it was to be deemed to have so decided. That was respectful, neither to the Bill in question, if it was a proper Bill, nor to the House itself. It was absolutely necessary for the dignity, propriety, and order of the House that its decisions should be taken in such a manner that they could be challenged. There lay the importance of the matter. Where it was on a First, Second, or Third Reading that a decision was to be taken, or deemed to he taken, there ought to be an opportunity for challenging that decision. That was a duty Members owed to themselves, to the House, and to their constituents. Under such a Rule, a Member might bring in a Bill of any description whatever, whereupon it would be deemed to be read a first time. By a further Amendment it was proposed that on Second and Third Readings a decision should be similarly inferred. Under such a system the House might be in the horrible position of having read a measure a first, second, and third time without any formal decision whatever. The hon. Member for the Thirsk Division had really show a certain amount of levity in defending the proposal. He had declared that Bills coming from the House of Lords were read a first time without question, and, therefore, a Bill proposed by a Member of the House of Commons might also be read a first time without question. But he apparently forgot that all Bills coming from the House of Lords had been read a first, second, and third time, and had also passed through Committee.

*MR. GRANT LAWSON

Not a first time.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said he would deal with the difference between the Rules of the House of Commons and those of the House of Lords afterwards. His present point was that Bills coming from the House of Lords came with all the authority of that Assembly after having received adequate consideration according to the Rules of that House. He was not so well versed as his hon. friend in the procedure of the House of Lords, but if, as he said, no division was there possible on the First Reading of a Bill, all he could say was that the House of Commons was not the House of Lords, and, whatever Rules the House of Lords might make for itself, it was not for the House of Commons necessarily to follow. He was prepared, however, to accept, as a proper Bill, without question on the First Reading, a Bill coming from the House of Lords, simply because it came from that august Assembly; but he was not prepared to allow a Member to bring in any Bill he pleased, and then for the House not to read it, but to deem it to be read, simply because that Member had introduced it. The First Reading stage was often one of considerable importance. There might be introduced a Bill of an amazing, scandalous, improper character. There was nothing a Member might not put into a Bill and have read a first time if this Rule were passed. It was absolutely necessary that the House should have in its own hands power to refuse even a First Reading to such a Bill. The First Reading was not a mere form. He remembered reading in the Journals of the House of a Bill which, when presented for the first time, was not only rejected, but ordered to be torn up and thrown on the floor of the House. Bills might be introduced which deserved that fate, but the House was not to have power to refuse even a First Reading. It was an extremely dangerous Rule, especially when coupled with a further proposal by which a Bill might be read also a second and third time without a formal decision of the House. Then, too, the First Reading of a Bill constituted the order of leave. The order of leave was the charter of a Bill, and marked out the limits within which it might work and beyond which it might not go. If this Rule were adopted, there would be no order of leave. He did not know whether the title would be regarded as an order of leave and impose the same limitations. He doubted whether, without another Standing Order, it could have that effect. The result would be that a Bill, introduced under a certain title, might spread and meander about in swamps of correlative subjects until it arrived at matters cognate indeed, but not properly covered by the title. It did not become the House to allow any Bill to be read without an opportunity for the decision to be challenged by a vote; it did not become the House to deem a Bill to be read without any formal decision; it did not become the House to permit the introduction of a Bill, however ridiculous or scandalous, without having the power to reject such a measure; and it was' very dangerous to get rid of the order of leave by which the limits within which a Bill must move were circumscribed.

(9.28.) MR. BLAKE

thought it better to walk in the accustomed ways unless good reason could be shown for alteration. One of those ways was that from the Bar to the Table, the history and importance of which procedure had been explained by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. Now, however, that the voices of the constituencies were directly expressed on the floor of the House, he did not know that much was gained by that procedure. On the other hand, very little was lost by it, and still less by the right to divide on a First Reading, as the time taken was so little as not to be worth talking about. There being so little to be gained, he thought the balance of convenience was against the change. How much time was lost in the course of a whole session through the maintenance of the existing right of claiming a division on a First Reading? None, for the right was not claimed. On the other hand, what danger did J they incur by abrogating this right and giving every individual Member, no matter how little his reverence might be for the honour of that House, the right to insist that a Bill should be read a first time and placed upon the Journals of the House notwithstanding any scandalous character which the title might have? Suppose, for example, it was a Bill to abolish the present law of marriage and to provide for polygamy. Would they not all shudder at such a Bill being placed as read upon the records of the House? Would they not all at once reject such a measure on the first opportunity? It was for that very reason that under the present arrangement such a measure would never be introduced. There was no loss of time and no inconvenience whatever under the present practice, for the liberty of the House to divide and so take up time was never used, and never would be used, upon the First Reading except in some scandalous case. Therefore, why should the House abrogate this security when they would not gain anything by it in point of time? He hoped the House would refuse to abolish this not very hurtful power. So far with reference to private Members' Bills. But there was a far more serious question involved as to Government Bills. He regarded the stage of the First Reading of a Bill in a formal manner, with an introductory speech, as an extremely important stage for serious and effective public business, and therefore he regarded it as most important upon the introduction of Government Bills. It was extremely important for the best result of the deliberations of this House, even if they did not have a full debate upon the First Reading, to have that explanation of the proposal by the Minister introducing the measure which had been thus usually given to the House and the country some time in advance of the Second Reading, so as to give time for judgment to mature and ripen upon the proposals. The Government had already taken under existing Standing Orders the power of diminishing discussion upon the First Reading by allowing only one short speech to the mover and one in reply. That power had been, in practice, greatly abused. But under this new Standing Order there was nothing to prevent any member of the Government from introducing any Bill whatever, no matter how important, by the process which was prescribed, without one word of explanation; and he thought that involved a real danger which ought to be guarded against. The Minister who propounded this Rule might say that was not intended. If that was not the intention, then why not say so plainly? Let them limit, at any rate, the privilege to the necessity of the case and to the object in view, and leave the question of Government Bills to be dealt with by the two methods which at present existed. There was nothing whatever in this Rule as it stood to prevent the most important Ministerial Bill being introduced without any statement or any debate at all. He did not think the Rule should be passed in that form, and he hoped hon. Members opposite would assist to guard against these evils. If the right hon. Gentleman did not do something to meet these difficulties, he shouldcertainlydivide the House against this Rule.

(9.36.) MR. JAMES LOWTHER

said there were grave reasons why the House should not adopt this proposal. The number of debates upon the introduction of Bills where any opposition had been offered was extremely small. He had known cases of this kind, and he remembered one in particular, where one of the greatest ornaments of this House in his own hearing made his maiden speech in opposition to the introduction of a Bill. He alluded to his right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire, who was then quite new to his legislative duties. He thought the House ought to preserve the opportunity of deciding whether a measure should appear on its Orders. He would be told that there were other opportunities for expressing opinions on a Bill, and it was true that there was no proposition for abolishing the Second Reading stage as yet. But he warned hon. Members that they would some day regret parting with their opportunities of scrutinising the measures brought in.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

My right hon. friend has been good enough to remind me of the days of my youth, more than a generation ago, when I exercised the right of a Member of Parliament to object to the First Reading of a Bill which materially altered the Parliamentary practice and constitutional principles of this House. I wish to point out that upon the occasion when the First Reading of a Bill is negatived it shortens debate and saves actually the time of the House. Ever since the time my right hon. friend has referred to, we have agreed very much in strengthening this principle and practice of the House of Commons. I think the House ought to maintain its power of objecting to a Bill on the First Reading. It may be a most objectionable Bill, which it is not to the credit of the House of Commons that it should even receive the sanction of being read a second time, or of going forward to the Second Reading, and the House ought to have the power to stop such a measure upon the First Reading. Why not reserve the power of rejecting such a measure at the outset, for the House has not suffered from this practice in the past? This is precisely what I complain of, for a great many of these new Rules are not founded upon any proved necessity or evil. For my own part, as far as I know, I have never known that this right has been abused, and I do not know that any real inconvenience has arisen from the present Rule. I can quite conceive of cases in which the House ought to have exceptional powers to refuse to allow a Bill to be read a first time, and I desire to adhere to the practice which the House has followed so long without any inconvenience.

(9.46.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I trust that the House will not follow the advice which has just been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire. The Rule we have proposed does away with one of the shams of the House. The First Reading of Private Bills is unquestionably an absolute sham, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite says that he would like to see the practice of his earlier Parliamentary days retained. That right apparently is to get up and make a speech leading to a debate on the First Reading of a Bill. Now, if that right is exercised in the case of the hundreds of private Bills which are introduced into this House, and if everybody follows the practice of the right hon. Gentleman in his earlier Parliamentary days, which he still looks back to with a longing regard, we should spend our whole time discussing private Members' Bills. If we are not to do that, then it is worth continuing this alleged right. If the right hon. Gentleman had signalised his early Parliamentary career by preventing some Bill which shocked the sense of decency, or the sense of constitutional propriety of the House; if he could have pointed to a case where he stepped into the breach and prevented on the First Reading such a Bill being printed, and which he prevented from being read a first time, then I could understand his argument. The example, however, which the right hon. Gentleman has chosen, I do not think is a very good one to choose. Judging from the phrase which fell from the hon. Member who spoke last, it seems to suggest that this proposed procedure might be very proper as regards private Members' Bills, but most improper as regards Government Bills. Many Departmental Bills certainly ought to come within it, but there is no chance of any Government abusing the Rule, nor do I think that there is any chance of the Rule being abused by any Government with a view to getting a stage by stealth on a Bill of great interest to the country. Recollect that in the case of a Bill upon which great hostility is likely to arise, it would be perfect folly on the part of the Government to cast such measures loose, without making their case out in the first instance. For example, we hope to bring in an Education Bill this session. What folly it would be for us to introduce such a Bill as that without endeavouring to make the country aware, not merely what its provisions were, but also what our reasons were for introducing it, and also what were the reasons which induced us to adopt this or that method of dealing with it.

Then there is the third objection which is taken, and it is that under this Rule, Bills of a scandalous character, such as Bills for the abolition of the monarchy or for the abolition of monogamy, may be introduced and read a first time, thus giving rise to a misconception. What control has the House at this moment over the First Reading of a Bill? The truth is that if you make this stage formal, as the House of Lords has already made it, and as we ought long ago to have made it, there is no chance of our action being misunderstood, either in this country or abroad. At the present time there is such a danger, because the right of the House, which is occasionally exercised, is retained. If a Bill of the kind to which objection has been made is read a first time, and printed and circulated here and in the Colonies as being a Bill which has been sanctioned a first time, what answer have we? Why, you have no answer at all. It is the primâ facie assent of Parliament, and gross misconceptions may arise from it. If you make your scheme rational and consistent, all that responsibility is upset; the Bill is printed and read a first time under this Rule, and the House has no responsibility for it. At the present time you have responsibility without the smallest means of making that responsibility effective, and for that reason, if for no other, I shall ask the House to condemn by this new Standing Order what has long been an utter delusion and an utter sham.

(9.53.) MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)

said the right hon. Gentleman had described the First Reading of a Bill as a sham—

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The First Reading of a private Bill.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

called attention to the provision in the Standing Order which provided— That the Bill should be deemed to have been read a first time. That was the case which arose now. [Cries of "No, No."] But it was argued that by a long practice of the House a sham stage had been substituted. He had been present in other legislatures where the First and Second Readings were actually voted, and where a Member rose and proposed that the Bill should be deemed to have been read a first time. He called attention to this in order to show that the change which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make was not a change which affected only what had been called the sham of a First Reading, but it permitted the introduction of a Bill without the order of the House. It had been urged on behalf of the Government that what was now proposed was already the practice in the case of Bills brought into the House of Lords. He knew that was the case, and he held that it was a bad practice, and he had known some very bad jobs perpetrated by Bills being brought before the House without any notice at all. His hon. friend behind him had raised a new point, namely, that there was nothing in this Order to exclude it from applying to Ministerial Bills. That point must be raised now by the House of Commons. The First Lord of the Treasury said that with regard to Departmental Bills, the Rule would be necessary, and it would never be applied to larger Bills. What Member of the House who had taken part in the proceedings for the last twelve or sixteen years did not know that one of the dangers of their procedure was that Departmental Bills were introduced at the last stages of the session? Ministerial Bills were covered by the Rule, and any hon. Members, including the right hon. Gentleman himself, might, After notice, present a Bill without an order of the House for its introduction; and when a Bill is so presented, the title of the Bill shall be read by the Clerk at the Table, and the Bill shall then be deemed to have been read a first time, and shall be printed Under the present Rule, Finance Bills and some other Bills must originate in Committee of the whole House. This change would enable Ministers to get a First Reading'of such Bills, including the Finance Bill, without discussion. Was any hon. Member going to assent to the abrogation of that Rule? All they had got to do under the new Rule was for any hon. Member to present a Bill, and it would be read a first time.

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon)

That is not the Standing Order.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said this new Rule would give to any Minister the power to take the First Reading of any Bill without going through the preliminary stages.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

pointed out that Standing Order No. GO would still subsist, and it would require that the Finance Bill should be introduced in Committee of the whole House.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said he did not know so much about that; but at any rate this point ought to be safeguarded, and he believed it was necessary that the right of the House with regard to Ministerial Bills should be safeguarded. If the First Lord of the Treasury could not withdraw the order altogether, he hoped he would consent to add to this Standing Order, as an addendum, the words— Provided that no member of the Government may present a Bill without the order of the House for its introduction. This was a point of the greatest importance, and he begged to move the addition of these words.

Amendment proposed, at the end of {the proposed Amendment, to add the words— Provided that no Minister of the Crown may present a Bill without an Order of the House of Commons for its introduction."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)

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

(10.5.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not think that the hon. Member has been felicitous in the drafting of his Amendment, and I think he is less felicitous in its substance. What can be more absurd than to say that Bills introduced by a Government, which presumably represents the views of the majority of this House, are to be specially burdened with difficulties from which all private Members' Bills are to be free? The thing is so childish, really, that I cannot understand anyone seriously proposing it. Already, by no deliberate intention, but by an unintentional evolution of our procedure, the Second Reading of private Members' Bills is taken practically after only four hours debate. Now may I ask what taint there is attaching to a Bill brought in by a body of gentlemen who, whatever their defects may be, have this advantage: that they have skilled draughtsmen to assist them, and that they represent the majority of the House which required that special obstacles should be put not only to its Second Reading, but to its First Reading? The thing is so indefensible and absurd that I do not think the hon. Gentleman, if he seriously thinks over his proposal, will press it on the House.

(10.8.) MR. DILLON

said that, with all due respect to the First Lord of the Treasury, the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee was neither childish nor absurd. He had been twenty years in the House, and had never seen a Government Bill brought in without some discussion on the First Reading. The object of the Amendment was simply to get some security that the Government would not depart from what had been the unbroken practice of the House. They had good ground for the belief that the Government intended to depart from it. A practice was introduced some years ago which came to be known as the Ten Minutes Rule. When that practice was first introduced, it was specifically stated by the Minister that the rule would only be used by the Government for Departmental Bills of a non-controversial character, and after the House had been induced to give its approval to the Rule on that undertaking, it was observed for a considerable number of years. However, the undertaking was departed from gradually year by year, and the Government went on introducing more and more important Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule. For example, when the Government wanted to introduce some Bill under the plea that it was a departmental measure, but which really concealed principles of great importance, such as the Irish Tithe Bill, which divided £2,000,000 of Irish money amongst the Government supporters, it was introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were asking by this Amendment to put Government Legislation under some special disability as compared with private Members' Bills. But there was a great difference between the two, which had always been recognised. The difference was that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred,privateMembers'Billswere never expected to pass, but were simply brought in to raise a discussion on a principle; and therefore it was not necessary to guard their various stages with the same precautions which were absolutely necessary to prevent surprises in the case of Government measures which were intended to pass. So far from the Government being justified in coming to the House and asking them to do away with one more stage in the passing of Bills, because several stages had of late years been swept away, he thought they had travelled a good deal too far on that road already. It had been something of a scandal to see of late years some Government Bills introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule. He had been perfectly amazed when the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he really contemplated that this New Rule should apply to the introduction of all Government Bills. At least, under the Ten Minutes Rule the House had adequate notice of the character of the Bill. The language of the right hon. Gentleman, so far from removing his objection to the Rule as it stood, raised the debate upon it to a character of real importance, and those who had taken an intelligent and close interest in the procedure of the House relating to the introduction of Bills would make a strong fight against it.

(10.14.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I confess I was surprised when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House contended that the same rule should apply to Bills introduced by the Government as to those Bills introduced by private Members. Everybody knows that Bills introduced by the Government are Bills of the most serious character, and excite great interest, and if they are Financial Bills they must be introduced in Committee. What is the object of the practice of having a statement, and generally a very full statement, of the character and the principles of Government Bills? It is that there should be notice to the country. You have it brought to the stage of Second Reading without the country or the House having had an explanation of the Bill. That is a most extraordinary proceeding. When the Government have had an important Bill, they have always made a pretty full statement of the character of the Bill, and in a week or two, when the House and their constituents had had notice of the Bill, and hon. Members had obtained their views upon that Bill, it came to Second Reading. It seems to me that the existing practices are founded on solid reason, and we ought not to depart from it except for some greater reason for abandoning it. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not to be applied to important Bills. I think we ought to ask him to put into this Rule a provision which will prevent it applying to important Bills, because I think by some other Government this Rule may be made to apply to all Government Bills, and, therefore, I think, if it is passed, a proviso ought to be inserted to prevent all important Government Bills being launched without the very important explanations which are usually being made.

*MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)

said he could not see any consistency in the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, or the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo. There were, evidently, two kinds of Bills in the minds of the right hon. Gentle-man and the hon. Gentleman opposite, objectionable Bills and unobjectionable Bills. The unobjectionable Bills were those in which they could not foresee any danger in their being introduced, and the objectionable Bills, those which they were afraid might be dangerous. He could not, however, help thinking that the House must be impressed with the irresistable argument of the First Lord of the Treasury, who had said that the introduction of Bills under the existing procedure invested them with the imprimatur of the House of Commons, therefore they were giving to objectionable bills an imprimatur, to which those who opposed them objected. Government 'Bills no doubt were constantly objectionable to a large portion of the House because they were generally controversial measures, but did the right hon. Gentleman ever recollect an important controversial Government Bill ever to be refused an introduction even after a division on the First Reading?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I did not say refused an introduction, but that it had often been the occasion of securing for the House an explanation of the character of the Bill when it was introduced on First Reading.

*MR. COHEN

admitted that Bills, upon their introduction, had sometimes resulted in a debate extending over two nights, and numerous divisions, but the House had never refused the introduction of a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had said the House had received explanations to the Bill, which were most valuable, but the best explanation of any Bill was the Bill itself, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman was too good a judge of Parliamentary Bills to acknowledge that anybody else's interpretation was as good as his own on the signification of the Bill, but if that suggestion was wrong, it was premature, if not unjust, to condemn a Bill, when nobody had the indispensable data of the language of it. He could see in this no surrender of the privileges of the House, which he was as jealous of and as anxious to preserve, as the right hon. Gentleman himself. They were giving up no privilege by consenting to the introduction of a Bill without these formalities, and he hoped his right hon. friend, the First Lord, would adhere to the proposal which he had made.

(10.22.) MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

said the thing most patent in debate was that the cat had been let out of the bag, and the Government did not know that the cat was in the bag. These proposals were very much important then, the right hon. Gentleman thought, and he would be glad to have a declaration from the Leader of the House that when this proposal was put forward it was the intention of the Government that the First Reading stages of all Government Bills was going to be abolished.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No, Sir, it was not, and it is not now.

MR. DALZIEL

asked why, in the name of common sense, if it was not, could the Government not accept the Amendment of his hon. friend?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

There are some Government Bills which ought to be introduced under this Rule.

MR. DALZIEL

said that now they were getting a little nearer the facts of the case. What was the matter with Clause 31? There were some Government measures which ought to be introduced which raised no opposition at all, and there was no objection to those. Then there was the Ten Minutes Rule, which was a most unfortunate Rule. He did not think it was right to dissect Bills,. and say which ought to come into the Ten Minutes Rule and which ought not. What was the objection to the proposal as it stood 1 The House must understand if this Rule was once passed it was good-bye to the First Reading of Government Bills. The Rule would be used by every Leader of the House who succeeded him, and therefore they could take no comfort in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman said they would deal with only second, third, and fourth-rate Bills by means of this Rule, that was an interpretation the House could accept; but if they consented to the Rule going through as it was they would give away one of the most important safeguards they had against bad legislation. The Home Rule Bill on its introduction gave rise to three or four nights very useful discussion, and other Bills had occupied almost as long a time. The real value of a First Reading discussion was to the Minister himself who brought in a Bill, for which he desired the support of two sections of the House. The result of a discussion of a First Reading then was that he got the drift of the opinion of the House, and he could either withdraw his Bill, or so amend it in the drafting of it, as to make it acceptable to the House as a whole. He hoped, therefore, the House would not give up the safeguard they possessed against bad legislation without full consideration of its importance.

(10.30.) MR. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

said he was in favour of the Amendment, because he thought it was most important that there should be a First Reading stage to Government Bills. He might in future have a Minister who might not take the same view as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord, and who would not be bound by his declaration. And the temptation of the Minister would be very great to bring in Bills under this Rule. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

MR. BRYCE

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite understands this Amendment. The question is not in any sense a Parliamentary question. We are now considering what is to be done by future Governments. quite independently of the stand taken by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that what we desire to do is to place obstacles in the way of bringing in Bills; that is not our intention in the least. It is the rarest thing in the world for divisions to be taken on the introduction of Government Bills, and we have not consumed more than a reasonable limit of time in the discussions on First Readings. What we desire is not to challenge a division and oppose the Government, but to give an opportunity for discussions which shall call attention to these Bills in the country. The hon. Member for East Islington said the best explanation of a Bill was the Bill itself, but the statements made with regard to a Bill are read in the country, and the real use of a discussion on First Reading is to call attention to a fact that might otherwise escape the public, and the real value of First Reading discussions is the value to the Government itself. I have known the passage of a Bill much eased and facilitated by the personal explanation of a Member. The right hon. Gentleman said that would refer to a first-class measure, but of course a first-class measure would be debated in the House. I am speaking of what the right hon. Gentleman calls Departmental Bills of secondary importance but which excite a good deal of interest among different sections of the public and which may require a reply from this side of the House. I am speaking, of course, particularly with regard to what are called ten minute Rule Bills. Under the Rule of the right hon. Gentleman it can not be doubted that these Bills will be dropped.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Now really that is not the fact, and it is a little hard on me, because in putting new Rules on the Paper I distinctly pointed out that the existing procedure would be left in operation; that this was new procedure added. It is evident that important Bills ought to be introduced with all the old paraphernalia; that others ought to be intro-duced under the ten minutes Rule; and then there are much smaller and less important Bills which ought to come in without discussion.

MR. BRYCE

I am glad of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, but I based my views on the statements of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for East Islington. The right way to deal with this would be to place in the Standing Order words which would explain its relation to the ten minute Rule. If it was made plain that this Rule was not to abrogate the Rule which exists, but to confine it to the class of Bills to which it now applies, there would be no objection. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will insert some words in the Amendment to the Standing Order to prevent the abuse in future times in a manner which he now says he does not intend it to be used.

(10.38.) MR. VICARY GIBBS

said he thought the new Rule would not save any time at all. All it would mean, in the case of private Bills, would be that Mr. Speaker would not be compelled to ask who was prepared to back a Bill. If it was to apply to Government Bills it was a very important thing and might save a material amount of time, but at the cost of a further reduction of the power of the House over legislation. On that ground he objected to the Rule and should record his vote against it. He had every confidence in his right hon. friend, but he felt that if he lived a normal length of time he would see another Government in power in whom he would not have that confidence.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said it would seem that hon. Members were just beginning to appreciate the Rules which they were now discussing. When he read the Rule on the Blue Paper he was under the same impression as the hon. Member for East Mayo, that this was a very unimportant change, which it was not worth while to discuss, but when he came to the House and heard the right hon. Gentleman's explanation he discovered the importance of it. Everybody thought this Rule referred to private Members' Bills, and if that were so it was a matter of no importance and need not be discussed, as the, time which would be saved would be infinitesimal, but there had been some addenda to the original proposal. The right hon. Gentleman had said over and over again that this was not to apply to large Government Bills but to unimportant Government Bills. Who was to make the destination between the important and unimportant Government Bills? He had always understood that the Conservative policy was to surround with every possible safeguard the introduction of anything in the nature of new legislation. But that was all being changed, and the Leader of a Conservative administration was engaged in removing from every class of Bill one of the safeguards and obstacles that had hitherto existed. It was suggested that theRule would apply only to unimportant measures. When the so-called ten minutes Rule was introduced, exactly the same statement was made, but, as everybody knew, Bills of a most contentious character had been introduced thereunder. If the present proposal were adopted, some day or other a Minister embarrassed by the quantity of legislation he desired to pass, by the hostility of a strong Opposition, and perhaps by complaints of his own supporters, would, under the cry of emergency, bring in under the Rule measures which he would describe as trifling, but which the rest of the House would regard as important. If the right hon. Gentleman could give a guarantee which would have the perennial power of a statute it would be all right. But it was by the words of the Rule and not by the guarantees and pledges of the Minister that the proceedings of the House would be regulated. He wished to make no complaint against the right hon. Gentleman; no man could try to carry out the arrangements of the House with more regard for the feelings of Members; but he seemed to be a from hand-to-mouth philosopher, and, so far as the Rules of the House were concerned, did not appear to realise the full force of the proposals he was making. The House had been distinctly warned that the Rule might and would be applied to a certain class of Government measures, viz.. Departmental measures, A Departmental measure was often a very nice mask and cloak for a job, and there was no class of measure which required to be more carefully guarded and closely scrutinised by the House. Every Government whether Liberal or Conservative, always had something to conceal, and it was only by the vigilance of the representatives of the people that scandals were brought to light. He warned the House that if this proposal were carried it would be put into operation not with the guarantees which passed away with the breath of the Minister who gave them, but according to the words of the Rule which would remain long after the Minister had ceased to exist.

(10.52.) MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

was altogether opposed to the new Rule. It had been said that the introduction and First Reading of private Members' Bills was a mere matter of form. That might be so nowadays, but it used not to be the case. Over and over again he had seen the First Reading of Bills opposed. So far from it being an uncommon practice, it was a course which was often taken, and a very good thing it was. Nowadays, more than one-half, probably nine out of every ten, of the private Bills introduced were never expected to go beyond their First Reading, with the result that there was an immense waste of printing and a great expense to the State for no purpose whatever. Hundreds of these Bills were never heard of again, and, though they might serve the useful purpose of advertising the Members who introduced them, they did not, as far as he was aware, do any other good to the world. But with regard to the Bills that did proceed further, there was a new danger which ought to be guarded against under this Rule. In future, private Members' Bills would be introduced on Fridays instead of Wednesdays. All those Members who were ardently interested in pet fancies of their own would stick together on Fridays for the purpose of keeping a House, while the great mass of Members were certain to take the opportunity of going away for a holiday, and thus Fridays would be a glorious time for all the faddists in the House of Commons, with the possibility of much mischief being done. With regard to the saving of time, many of these Bills were introduced without any discussion whatever, and consequently no time would be saved. But as to the Bills that might be introduced by the Government, there was a great point of objection which did not appear to have been recognised by His Majesty's Ministers. Take the case of a Bill which the Government might regard as Departmental, but which many Members would look upon as of great importance. What was to be the position of a Bill introduced at the will of the Government under this Rule? No question was to be put, and the House of Commons, however much it might object to the measure, would absolutely not have the power or right of saying "Aye" or "No." There were many objections that could bo urged against the proposal, and for the life of him he could not see what was to be gained by it except the infinitesimal amount of time at present occupied by the introduction of private Members' Bills.

(10.58.) MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

pointed out that when the Rules were originally introduced no one had the slightest idea this proposal would apply to Government Bills. The ten minutes Rule, at the time of its introduction, was thought to be very severe, and, as had already been stated, a distinct pledge was then given that it should not apply to important measures. The way in which that Rule had been administered by the present Government was a convincing proof of the manner in which the one now proposed would be used. He would give the House some examples of what had occurred within his own experience in connection with the ten minutes Rule, and it would be seen that not merely Departmental Bills, but measures of a highly contentious nature, had been introduced under it. In 1900 the then Home Secretary proposed to bring in under that Rule the Companies Act Amendment Bill and a Bill for the Regulation of Railways. The hon. Member stated that in the past contentious measures of first class importance, such as the Companies Bill, had been introduced under the ten minutes Rule. This was contrary to what the House intended when it passed the Rule, which was to apply only to Bills of minor importance. On one occasion he took exception to the use which was being made of the ten minutes Rule, and the Speaker replied that it was entirely in the discretion of the Government what Bills they would introduce under that Rule. He mentioned this for the purpose of showing that the Government in breach of faith and of a solemn undertaking had misused the Rule. The right hon. Gentleman said there was no difference between a minor Bill introduced by the Government and that introduced by a private Member, but that argument would not hold water. A private Member introduced a Bill with the support of himself and those who backed the Bill, but a Government Bill was introduced with the full support of the Government. It was necessary that these Bills should be fully explained for the information of the House and the public. These safeguards were absolutely destroyed by the First Lord of the Treasury. He had used his position to destroy the usages of the House of Commons, and the rights of private Members.

(11.5.) COLONEL DENNY (Kilmarnock Burghs)

said he did not see what was to be gained by this Rule. It would save no time. He foresaw, however, that this alteration of procedure might in the future, play into the hands of a Government, with which he should not be so much in sympathy as he was with the present Government. He had great respect for any body of men who were clever enough to form a Government, but he believed that they were all worth watching. He regretted that he could not support the Amendment.

MR. REGINALD LUCAS (Portsmouth)

said the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had stated that the First Reading of a Bill gave Ministers an admirable opportunity of amending the measure before going further. He did not think that was the usual practice, and he ventured to think that it would be a dangerous practice. The statement of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy was not a serious objection to the Amendment. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division opposed the Amendment, because he wanted more legislation. His answer to that, was that a Bill had a better chance of passing by diminishing the length of discussion than by increasing it. The Rules were devised for the purpose of expediting business and curtailing the laborious processes by which it was at present impeded. Of all the proposals brought forward by the Government, this was the most sensible and the most reasonable.

SIR ROBERT MOWBRAY (Lambeth, Brixton)

said there was a large class of Bills which ought to be introduced without any discussion at all. He sympathised with the view of the Government that they should not be put into a worse position under the new Rules than private Members. At the same time, he did not like to see discretion in this matter put into the hands of the Government. He quite understood that the First Lord of the Treasury had no intention that this Rule should be used for anything but the most unimportant Bills, but it had been pointed out, over and over again, that other people would rise up who might not apply the Rule in the way that was intended. Notice of an Amendment had been given by the hon. Member for the Stretford division of Lancashire, who was not now in his place. It seemed to him that Amendment would put the question on the right basis, that was to say, the general rule should be that the First Reading stage of Bills should be passed without discussion or debate, subject to the provision, "unless the House otherwise determine."

SIR CHARLES WELBY (Nottinghamshire, Newark)

said he understood the main objection felt to this Rule was that it might be applied to measures of first-rate importance. He did not share that apprehension, but to obviate it would suggest the following proviso—

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork N. E.) Delany, William Labouchere, Henry
Allan, William (Gateshead) Denny, Colonel Lambert, George
Ambrose, Robert Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Layland-Barratt, Francis
Asher, Alexander Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington
Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry Dillon, John Levy, Maurice
Atherley-Jones, L. Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Lewis, John Herbert
Banbury, Frederick George Donelan, Captain A. Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Doogan, P. C. Lundon, W.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Duncan, J. Hastings MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.
Bell, Richard Esmonde, Sir Thomas Macnamara, Dr. James J.
Blake, Edward Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Boland, John Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan) M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)
Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn Farquharson, Dr. Robert M'Crae, George
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Farrell, James Patrick M'Fadden, Edward
Broadhurst, Henry Fenwick, Charles M'Govern, T.
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Ffrench, Peter M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh Field, William M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James Flynn, James Christopher Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Burke, E. Haviland- Galloway, William Johnson Murphy, John
Burns, John Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans) Nannetti, Joseph P.
Buxton, Sydney Charles Gilhooly, James Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)
Caine, William Sproston, Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Caldwell, James Goddard, Daniel Ford Norman, Henry
Carew, James Lawrence Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Norton, Captain Cecil William
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Hammond, John O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Causton, Richard Knight Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Harmsworth, R. Leicester O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Churchill, Winston Spencer Harwood, George O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Cogan, Denis J. Hayne,Rt.Hn. Charles Seale O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Holland, William Henry O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Jameson, Major J. Eustace O'Doherty, William
Craig, Robert Hunter Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Crean, Eugene Jones, D. Brymnor (Swansea) O'Dowd, John
Cremer, William Randal Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)
Crombie, John William Jordan, Jeremiah O'Malley, William
Cullinan, J. Joyce, Michael O'Mara, James
Dalziel, James Kearley, Hudson E. O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Kennedy, Patrick James O'Shee, James John

"Provided always that the above procedure shall not apply to any Bill referred to in the King's Speech." He was perfectly aware that this might be regarded in some quarters as an invitation to the Government not to include some of their most important measures among those enumerated in the King's Speech. He could hardly conceive that any Government, in setting forth the work of the session, would think it worth while to dissemble and conceal some of their principal intentions merely for the purpose of saving a few hours debate.

(11.17.)Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 151;Noes, 221. (Division List, No. 33.)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Pease, Sir Jos. W. (Durham) Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) White, George (Norfolk)
Percy, William Soares, Ernest J. White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Power, Patrick Joseph Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Rea, Russell Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Reddy, M. Sullivan, Donal Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Thomas, J A (Gl'morgan, Gower Young, Samuel
Roche, John. Thompson, Dr. E C(Monagh'n, N
Roe, Sir Thomas Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Runciman, Walter Trevelyan, Charles Philips Robert Wallace and Mr.
Russell, T. W. Ure, Alexander M'Kenna.
Schwann, Charles E. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Doxford, Sir William Theodore Hoult, Joseph
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Duke, Henry Edward Johnston, William (Belfast)
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Kenyon-Slaney, Col W. (Salop.)
Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton Keswick, William
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas King, Sir Henry Seymour
Bain, Colonel James Robert Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lambton, Hon Frederick Wm.
Baird, John George Alexander Fergusson, Rt Hon. Sir J(Manc'r Law, Andrew Bonar
Balcarres, Lord Finch, George H. Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A J.(Manch'r Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lawson, John Grant
Balfour, Captain C. B. (Hornsey) Firbank, Joseph Thomas Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W(Leeds Fisher, William Hayes Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)
Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.) FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Flower, Ernest Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.
Bignold, Arthur Forster, Henry William Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Bigwood, James Foster, Sir Michael(Lond. Univ. Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W. Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.
Bond, Edward Fuller, J. M. F. Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Gardner, Ernest Lowe, Francis William
Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John Godson, Sir Augustus Freder'k Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)
Bull, William James Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth
Bullard, Sir Harry Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'ml'ts Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Butcher, John George Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop Macartney, Rt. Hn. W.G. Ellison
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edwd. H. Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.) Macdona, John Cumming
Cautley, Henry Strother Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon Maconochie, A. W.
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) Goulding, Edward Alfred M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs
Cavendish, V C. W.(Derbyshire Gray, Ernest (West Ham) M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Green, Walford D (Wednesb'ry) Majendie, James A. H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. Greene, Sir E W(B'rySEdm'nds) Manners, Lord Cecil
Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) Martin, Richard Biddulph
Chapman, Edward Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs. Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfries-sh.
Charrington, Spencer Grenfell, William Henry Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Gretton, John Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fred. G.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Guthrie, Walter Murray Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Hambro, Charles Eric Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Compton, Lord Alwyne Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hamilton, Marq of (Lond'derry) Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)
Cranborne, Viscount Hare, Thomas Leigh Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Harris, Frederick Leverton Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)
Crossley, Sir Savile Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Morrell, George Herbert
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Hay, Hon. Claude George Morrison, James Archibald
Cust, Henry John C. Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Dalkeith, Earl of Heath, James (Staftords., N. W. Muntz, Philip A.
Dairymple, Sir Charles Heaton, John Henniker Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Dewar, T R (T'r H'mlets, S. Geo.) Henderson, Alexander Myers, William Henry
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Hoare, Sir Samuel Nicholson, William Graham
Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield Hogg, Lindsay Nicol, Donald Ninian
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Parker, Gilbert Round, James Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Parkes, Ebenezer Royds, Clement Molyneux Thornton, Percy M.
Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Valentia, Viscount
Peel, Rt. Hon. W. R. Wellesley Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Vincent, Col. Sir C. EH (Sheffield
Penn, John Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Walker, William Hall
Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J. Warr, Augustus Frederick
Platt-Higgins, Frederick Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Plummer, Walter R. Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) Webb, Col. William George
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (I. of Wight) Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.)
Purvis, Robert Seton-Karr, Henry Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne
Pym, C. Guy Sharpe, William Edward T. Willoughby do Eresby, Lord
Randles, John S. Simeon, Sir Barrington Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)
Rankin, Sir James Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Skewes-Cox, Thomas Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Ratcliff, R. F. Smith, AbelH. (Hertford, East) Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Reid, James (Greenock) Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Remnant, James Farquharson Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Renshaw, Charles Bine Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Renwick, George Stanley, Lord (Lanes.) Wylie, Alexander
Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge) Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Stock, James Henry Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier William Walrond and Mr.
Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Anstruther.

(11.27.)Question put, "That the words 'A Member may, if he thinks fit, after notice, present a Bill without an order of the House for its introduction; and when a Bill is so presented, the title of the Bill shall be read by the Clerk at the Table,

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Finch, George H.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r) Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne
Anson, Sir William Reynell Chapman, Edward Firbank, Joseph Thomas
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Charrington, Spencer Fisher, William Hayes
Atkinson, Rt. Bon. John Cohen, Benjamin Louis FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Fitzroy, Hon. E. Algernon
Bain, Colonel James Robert Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Forster, Henry William
Baird, John George Alexander Compton, Lord Alwyne Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.
Balcarres, Lord Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Fuller, J. M. F.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J (Mane'r Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Gardner, Ernest
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Cranborne, Viscount Godson, Sir A. Frederick
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Nairn)
Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christen.) Crossley, Sir Savile Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) Cubitt, Hon. Henry Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Cust, Henry John C. Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)
Bignold, Arthur Dalkeith, Earl of Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon
Bigwood, James Dalrymple, Sir Charles Goulding, Edward Alfred
Blundell, Colonel Henry Dewar, T. R.(T'rH'mlets, S. Geo. Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Bond, Edward Dickinson, Robert Edmond Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ySEdm'nds
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)
Bull, William James Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.
Bullard, Sir Harry Doxford, Sir William Theodore Grenfell, William Henry
Butcher, John George Duke, Henry Edward Gretton, John
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw'd H. Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Guthrie, Walter Murray
Cautley, Henry Strother Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Hambro, Charles Eric
Cavendish, R. P. (N. Lanes.) Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G.(Mid d'x
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'd'nderry)

and the Bill shall then be deemed to have been read a first time, and shall be printed' be there added."

The House divided:—Ayes, 216; Noes, 147. (Division List, No.34.)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd Molesworth, Sir Lewis Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Hare, Thomas Leigh Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Harris, Frederick Leverton Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.) Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Seton-Karr, Henry
Hay, Hon. Claude George More, Robert J. (Shropshire) Simeon, Sir Barrington
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Heath, James (Staffords., N. W. Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Heaton, John Henniker Morrell, George Herbert Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Henderson, Alexander Morrison, James Archibald Smith, H. C (N'r'h'umb.T'n'side
Hoare, Sir Samuel Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Hogg, Lindsay Muntz, Philip A. Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)
Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Nicholson, William Graham Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Hoult, Joseph Nicol, Donald Ninian Stock, James Henry
Johnston, William (Belfast) Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop) Parker, Gilbert Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley
Keswick, William Parkes, Ebenezer Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
King, Sir Henry Seymour Pease. Herbert P. (Darlington) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Peel, Hn. W. Robert Wellesley Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.
Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth) Penn, John Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Lawson, John Grant Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard Thornton, Percy M.
Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) Platt-Higgins, Frederick Valentia, Viscount
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Plummer, Walter R. Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield)
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Walker, Colonel William Hall
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Purvis, Robert Warr, Augustus Frederick
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Pym, C. Guy Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Llewellyn, Evan Henry Randles, John S. Webb, Colonel William George
Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) Rankin, Sir James Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Ratcliff, R. F. Willoughby de Eresby (Lord)
Lowe, Francis William Reid, James (Greenock) Wilson, A. Stanley,(York, E. R.)
Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Remnant, James Farquharson Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsm'uth Renshaw, Charles Bine Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Renwick, George Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge) Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Macdona, John Cumming Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Maconochie, A. W. Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Wylie, Alexander
M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B (Cambs. Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.) Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Majendie, James A. H. Round, James
Manners, Lord Cecil Royds, Clement Molyneux TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Martin, Richard Biddulph Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Sir William Walrond and
Max well, W J H (Dumfriesshire) Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Mr. Anstruther.
Mildmay, Francis Bingham Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Caldwell, James Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Allan, William (Gateshead) Carew, James Laurence Dillon, John
Ambrose, Robert Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph
Asher, Alexander Causton, Richard Knight Donelan, Captain A.
Atherley-Jones, L. Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Doogan, P. C.
Banbury, Frederick George Churchill, Winston Spencer Duncan, J. Hastings
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Cogan, Denis J. Esmonde, Sir Thomas
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Coghill, Douglas Harry Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)
Blake, Edward Condon, Thomas Joseph Farquharson, Dr. Robert
Boland, John Craig, Robert Hunter Farrell, James Patrick
Bowles, T. Gibson (Kings. Lynn) Crean, Eugene Fenwick, Charles
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Cremer, William Randal Ffrench, Peter
Broadhurst, Henry Crombie, John William Field, William
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Cullinan, J. Flynn, James Christopher
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Dalziel, James Henry Galloway, William Johnson
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)
Burke, E. Haviland- Delany, William Gilhooly, James
Burns, John Denny, Colonel Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.
Came, William Sproston Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Goddard, Daniel Ford
Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) Russell, T. W.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Murphy, John Schwann, Charles E.
Hammond, John Nannetti, Joseph P. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.) Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Harmsworth, R. Leicester Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Soares, Ernest J.
Harwood, George Norman, Henry Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R.(North'nts
Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Holland, William Henry O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid. Sullivan, Donal
Jameson, Major J. Eustace O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings
Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.) Thomas, J A (Glam'rgan, Gower
Jordan, Jeremiah O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N
Joyce, Michael O'Doherty, William Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Kearley, Hudson E. O'Donnell, T. (Kerry W.) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Kennedy, Patrick James O'Dowd, John Ure, Alexander
Labouchere, Henry O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Lambert, George O'Malley, William Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Layland-Barratt, Francis O'Mara, James White, George (Norfolk)
Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Levy, Maurice O'Shee, James John Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Lough, Thomas Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent) Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Lundon, W. Percy, Earl Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Power, Patrick Joseph Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Rea, Russell Woodhouse, Sir J T. (H'ddersf'd
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Reddy, M. Young, Samuel
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
M'Crae, George Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
M'Fadden, Edward Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Mr. M'Kenna and Mr.
M'Govern, T. Roche, John Herbert Lewis.
M'Hugh, Patrick A. Roe, Sir Thomas
M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Runciman, Walter

Standing Order 31(Introduction and First Reading of Bills), as finally amended, is as follows:—

That when any Bill shall be presented by a Member, in pursuance of an Order of this House, or shall be brought from the Lords, the Questions "That this Bill be now read a first time," and "That this Bill be printed," shall be decided without Amendment or Debate. A Member may, if he thinks fit, after notice, present a Bill without an Order of the House for its introduction; and when a Bill is so presented, the title of the Bill shall be rend by the Clerk at the Table, and the Bill shall then be deemed to have been read a first time, and shall be printed.