HC Deb 04 July 1904 vol 137 cc553-600

Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [1st July], "That the proceedings in Committee and on Report of the Licensing Bill shall be brought to a conclusion in the manner hereinafter mentioned on six allotted days:

  1. (a) The proceedings in Committee on Clause 1 on the first allotted day.
  2. (b) The proceedings in Committee on Clauses 2 and 3 on the second allotted day.
  3. (c) The proceedings in Committee on Clause 4 on the third allotted day.
  4. (d) The proceedings in Committee on the remaining clauses of the Bill, and on any new Government clauses, and on schedules and any new Government schedules, and any other proceedings necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion o I the fourth allotted day.
  5. (e) The proceedings on Report on any new clauses and on Amendments to Clauses 1, 2, and 3 of that Bill, be brought to a conclusion on the fifth allotted day, and
  6. (f) The proceedings on Report be concluded on the sixth allotted day.

After this Order comes into operation, any day shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Licensing Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day.

At 11 p.m. on the said allotted days, or if the day is a Friday at 4.30 p.m., the Chairman or Speaker shall put forthwith the Question or Questions on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Amendments) and on every Question necessary to dispose of the allotted business to be concluded on the allotted day.

In the case of Government Amendments or of Government new clauses or schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made, or that the clause or schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.

At 12 midnight on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as first Order, or, if that day is a Friday, at 5.30 p.m., the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to conclude the proceedings on that stage of the Bill.

Proceeding to which this Order relates shall not be interrupted (except at an Afternoon Sitting at 7.30 p.m.) under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to Sittings of the House.

After the passing; of this Order, on any day on which any proceedings on the Licensing Bill stand as the first Order of the Day, no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor under Standing Order No. 10, nor Motion to postpone a clause, shall be received unless moved by the Minister in charge of the Bill, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith. Nor shall any opposed Private Business be set down at the Evening Sitting for consideration on any of the allotted days or on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as first Order.

If progress be reported, the Chairman shall put this Order in force in any subsequent sitting of the Committee."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Which Amendment was— In line 1, to leave out all the words after the word 'That,' and insert the words 'this House declines to consider a proposal to deprive the House of Commons, without any justification in the previous course of the debate, of all power of reasonable and adequate discussion in respect of a measure which seeks, in the absence of any authority from the country, to make fundamental and much controverted changes in laws vitally affecting the well-being of the people."—(Mr. Asquith.)

Question again proposed, "That the words 'the proceedings' stand part of the Question."


continuing his speech, said when the Prime Minister asked the House to consent to his proposal the right hon. Gentleman stated that every such appeal should be considered on its merits; if so, this Bill must not be rushed through. Had such a consideration governed business at the present time, no such attempt would have been made to limit the discussion on the Licensing Bill. The reason for the lack of time at this date was the want of skill and lack of courage on the part of the Government in not bringing in the Bill earlier. Having failed in that important particular, the right hon. Gentleman now sought to restrict the liberty of the House in respect to the most important subject that had been brought forward for discussion at the present time. The 12th of August and the attractions of the moors should not be allowed to weigh against the public interest, and the House, therefore, had a right to endeavour to prevent these proposals being carried into effect. Every Government had a right to rely on the loyalty of the Party supporting it; but if the right hon. Gentleman pressed his followers to give a Party vote on this question, the vote would be given against the better judgment of many hon. Members on the Unionist side of the House. That, of course, was no concern of the Opposition, whose clear duty was to oppose the proposal and the Bill to the utmost in their power, and if defeated, support the statement of their leader in the clearest manner and refuse to accept the Bill as a settlement of the licensing question. They must carry the question to the hustings and allow the constituencies to give their verdict in the ballot boxes—at any rate he for one would support the interests of the nation against that of the trade.

MR. SPEAR (Devonshire,) Tavistock

said that, having regard to the fact that the Government had passed the Childrens Bill, the Habitual Drunkards Bill, and the Scottish Licensing Bill, he had looked forward with the greatest hope to the measure now under consideration; and he was not even now without hope that there might be found in it the foundation of an enactment which would promote temperance by methods which would at the same time be just and equitable to the holders of licences. Nevertheless, he felt that there were grave difficulties in the measure, and he ventured to think that the time allotted by the right hon. Gentleman for its discussion was altogether insufficient for the purpose. It would not be in the interests either of temperance or of the trade that the measure should be passed through the House immaturely and imperfectly, with the result that it would be reconsidered with all the bitterness which was unhappily aroused by the question. He hoped that the Government would give more time, so that a final settlement might be secured. The Opposition had recognised the justice of compensation, and he had been hopeful that the Government would endeavour to meet the Opposition, and to seek to promote a lasting settlement. While not prepared by his vote to take any steps to destroy the Bill, he hoped that even yet time might be given to remove defects in it and to secure a permanent settlement of the licensing question.


said the speech to which the House had just listened might be taken correctly to reflect the private opinion of perhaps the majority of hon. Members sitting opposite. No reasonable man could doubt but that the time offered by the Government was wholly inadequate for the fair deliberation that Parliament was entitled to in such a matter as this. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted the precedent of Mr. Gladstone's Motion in 1893, when the Home Rule Bill was before the House, but there was no analogy between Mr. Gladstone's action then and that of the present Government now. When Mr. Gladstone proposed his closure Resolution in 1893 the House had been in Committee for twenty-eight days, but the Home Rule Bill had been under discussion in the House of Commons for no less than eighty-two days, whilst in this case the Bill had only been debated on Second Reading for two and a half days and before the Committee two days. He did not propose to compare in their intricacies and their far-reaching results the constitutional changes sought to be made by the Home Rule Bill of 1893 with the Licensing Bill of 1904, but, as had been pointed out by the right hon. Member for the Cambridge University, this matter affected the welfare of the people in their social, moral, and economic conditions to an extent which it was impossible to conceive any other measure would affect. This Bill would become law and the Leader of the House when bringing in a measure which he intended to pass into law was bound to take every care that deliberation and debate in this House on every clause were safeguarded. It was far different with regard to the Home Rule Bill of 1893. Mr. Gladstone knew it was doomed, and he would never have attempted to pass his closure Resolutions but for two reasons, one of which was that the Bill would not pass into law without a further appeal to the country and the other that there was a mass of domestic legislation which he desired to promote at the time. Speaking from a House of Commons point of view he asserted that any hon. Member who really considered this question fairly and squarely must undoubtedly come to the conclusion that justice had not been done to the honour and dignity of that Assembly nor had anything been done to secure its efficiency in the future. There were in this Bill a number of most complicated questions which required discussion; the discretion of the magistrate, a question not of principle but of modus, and the question of compensation and its incidence. There were scores of controversial topics of vast magnitude in this Bill. It would not be possible, even if the House agreed among themselves that certain Amendments should be adopted, for a Committee of twenty experts in local reform to come to a decision on the matter in the six days to be allotted, let alone a Chamber of 670 Members. He quite agreed that the tactics of the Opposition with regard to this Bill were obstructive, using that word in its legitimate and proper sense, because they regarded this as vicious legislation which should be opposed by all their power. But while that was the case the responsibility for affording full opportunities for discussion must still lie with the Government. Therefore it was that he joined in the appeal made by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to extend the absolutely inadequate amount of time in order that the Bill might be properly discussed.


said he found no difficulty in voting for the Resolution before the House because he had a very strong desire to see this legislation properly carried through. Many Members, like himself, disliked any attempts to infringe on the ordinary Rules of Procedure and to restrict the time for the discussion of business, but there were occasions like the present when it became necessary. It was an unpleasant duty, which had been occasionally forced on the Leaders on both sides, and hon. Gentlemen opposite had adopted a similar position in precisely the same way. The Motion was a necessity. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken gave the case away. He said he detested and hated the Bill, and thought it right to obstruct it in every way. He did not mention the word "obstruction"; but there were more ways than one of choking a dog. It was a very easy matter to smother a Bill with Amendments; but the business of the Government was to legislate. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would allow that without this Motion it would be impossible to get the Licensing Bill through in Parliamentary time. He had heard allusions to moors and shooting; but, as far as he knew, his hon. friends would be content to remain in attendance until the Bill were passed. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were determined that, if they could prevent it, the Bill should not be passed. What was the alternative? If they were unable to pass the Bill, they would have to resign; but with a majority of ninety they did not intend to resign. Why should they resign to please hon. Gentlemen opposite? Their intention was to pass such legislation as they thought fit. This Bill was a simple measure of justice; it would be productive of good results; and they were determined to pass it into law. He believed, with his hon. and gallant, friend that if speeches on both sides were curtailed, there would be more time available for the consideration of details; but he would not join in the appeal to his Leader to extend the period mentioned in the Motion. The Opposition, in that case, would, like Oliver Twist, ask for more. Any man who had the love of Parliament at heart must regret when an occasion like the present arose; but, nevertheless, they should not be prevented from passing a measure which they believed to be just.


said that although it was quite true that every additional day which might be given by the Government would pro tanto diminish the evil, still, that would not remove his objection to the Bill. The pitiable bleatings of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House for an extension of the time to be allotted were indications of uneasy consciences. It might be necessary in tertain circumstances to resort to such an expedient as closure by compartments, but the necessity had not arisen with the Licensing Bill. Much of the difficulty the Government had met with arose from mismanagement of business early in the session. On three conditions alone could such a Motion be justified. In the first place, there must be obstruction, and it had been admitted there had been none in the present case. The Prime Minister did not found his case on obstruction.


said he had not mentioned obstruction, and in that he had followed the precedents of his predecessors.


said Mr. Gladstone might not have used the word obstruction, but everybody would remember what took place in 1893, and his whole argument was directed to showing that, under the methods of opposition adopted, it would be impossible to get the Bill through.


That is what I said.


The right hon. Gentleman did not say a single word against the method of discussion.


said he had pointed out how the course followed made the passing of the Bill within a reasonable period practically impossible.


said the right hon. Gentleman did not say there had been anything inconsistent with Parliamentary usage.


Nor did Mr. Gladstone.


said it would be a large order to attempt to quote what Mr. Gladstone said. Those who remembered the debates of the period would know that on every occasion every question, however remote, was used as far as possible by the skill and diligence of the Opposition. Nothing of the kind had happened on the present occasion, and 171 Amendments had been given notice of by Members on the other side, certainly not with any desire to defeat the Bill. It would have been quite possible to get the Bill through in spite of the many Amendments in a reasonable time, considering how many Amendments were repetition and how they crumpled up under the Chairman's ruling. He could say with some confidence that the discussion on this Bill had been eminently a businesslike discussion. During the thirty-four hours consumed on the Second Heading and in Committee 115 speeches had been made on his side of the House and 135 on the other side. Where there was no obstruction and no abuse of the Rules of the House, it became unfair and tyrannical to impose upon the House a Resolution of this kind. If they set up this precedent, whenever a Government had neglected to pass their legislation and to use their time in the earlier part of the session, they would have nothing to do but to come to the House and propose a drastic Resolution of this kind on the plea that they must carry their Bills before 15th August. The second condition "was that there should have been adequate discussion. On that point he would only say that they had not got to the bottom of the principle on which compensation should be given, especially in the case of new licences; and if they stifled discussion on the principle on which taxation was to be imposed upon those licence-holders who would gain no benefit from the Government scheme they would leave behind a keen sense of injustice. The third condition was that the Bill should be one which the country did not disapprove of. The Government ought not to resort to an exceptionally severe process for putting a Bill through unless there was a reasonable moral certainty that the country was with them. They could not have more conclusive evidence than that afforded by a series of by-elections that the country was against this Bill and those who introduced it. The whole sentiment of the country, expressed in Petitions and public meetings, had been unequivocally against the Bill, and a large volume of the opinion of the clergy of the Church of England was also opposed to the Bill. The clergy of the Church of England did not regard this Bill as a great temperance measure. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Bill as a measure of eternal justice. Did eternal justice require double the value of the licensed premises? The right hon. Gentleman called the Bill a measure of great temperance reform. He could not forget that two years ago he told the House that the Education Bill was a great measure of educational reform. That was not now the opinion of the great majority in this country. If it were, the sooner the right hon. Gentleman gave them an opportunity of appealing to Caesar the better. He would not speak of Party results, although he was bound to say that if they wanted something to use in a Party sense they could desire nothing better than that the Bill should be passed by closure by compartments.

Two results must follow from the methods which the Government had followed. In the first place it would destroy the moral authority which this Bill would have had when it became an Act. If the Government ignored public opinion, public opinion would ignore their work. Public opinion would not have any respect for Bills passed by tyrannical methods. In the second place, the Motion struck a blow at the House of Commons itself. The House of Commons was the mainspring of the Constitution in this country. It enjoyed immense power. It was not like Parliaments in other countries bound by a written Constitution. It had no check except that imposed by its own traditions and the feeling of protection it owed to the country; and, therefore, it ought to be especially careful of its power. If the British Parliament was more trusted than the Parliaments of other countries, if it was free from restrictions to which other Parliaments were subjected it was because the traditions of the House of Commons had won the confidence of the country and had made the people believe that that Assembly would not misuse the powers entrusted to it. The greatest of all reasons for that confidence was that the House had been allowed freedom of debate, and if the security for that freedom were once destroyed the confidence and authority which the House of Commons had hitherto enjoyed would inevitably be weakened. The solidity and strength of the Constitution of the country depended largely upon the existence of perfect confidence between the House of Commons and the people. The people ought to trust the House of Commons, and the House of Commons ought to feel that it would never go beyond what it believed to be the will of J the people"; but if a temporary majority were allowed to disregard the indications of public opinion, to silence the minority and to pass its measures without proper discussion, the relations which had so happily existed in the past would be destroyed. Within the last twenty-five years the House had suffered a great deal. It had declined from the freedom of debate, the openness of spirit, and the happy flexibility which its rules of procedure gave to it. No doubt a part of the alteration had been rendered necessary by the changes of time; but much more had been done than was needed, and no one had done more by his changes in the rules of procedure to injure the efficiency of the House of Commons than the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The present proposal would strike a further blow at the freedom and authority of the House of Common—a blow which seemed to him to be the dernier ressort of Ministers who had got into a difficult position from which they were determined at all hazards to escape. It was an interference with the freedom of the House more violent and unjustifiable than had ever been made before, because it was the tyrannical exercise o f power by a temporary and accidental majority.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

I am anxious to say a few words on this Resolution, because my Parliamentary experience is so long that I recollect perfectly every successful attempt which has been made during the last 30 years to abridge the liberties of free speech in this House. The only complaint I make of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, to a portion of which I listened, is that it is a mere repetition of speeches which have been made alternately from both sides of the House. Upon every occasion when this subject has been brought before us, those who were opposed to the Bill which was the subject of the Resolution have got up and said it was destroying the efficiency of the mother of parliaments, that it was striking a fatal blow at the liberties of the United Kingdom, and so forth. The most remarkable of these attempts in my opinion, was the closure upon the Home Rule Bill. I opposed that measure, with certain qualifications, on the ground that the particular Bill under discussion had not been sufficiently discussed. We have heard that in the course of the present argument. I also opposed it on the ground that the Bill was an exceptional Bill in this sense—that whereas all other Bills before the House of Commons can, after they have been passed, if they prove to be failures, be repealed and the mischief undone, that was a Bill which, for good or for evil, was irrevocable if once it was accepted. You cannot pass a great constitutional change of that kind with any expectation of being able to retrace your steps. But we have been reminded by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that it will be in the power of that Party, when they, as they not unnaturally hope shortly to do, occupy the Benches on this side of the House, to repeal this Bill if they then believe it is open to all the objections they now take to it. That constitutes, I think, a very important distinction between the Home Rule Bill and any other Bill that we have had subsequently to deal with. But, after all, I am perfectly prepared to-admit that our action, on both sides of the House, in regard to this matter is actuated very largely by our Party sympathy and by our feeling in regard to the particular measure before the House. If we think the measure a good one we wish to-see it carried and we wish to remove all the obstacles to its progress. If we think the measure a bad one we wish to kill it and we do not care by what means. I invite the House to consider the matter from that extremely practical and common sense point of view.

The right hon. Gentleman delivered a very confident opinion with regard to the merits of this measure and the opinion of the country upon it-I differ from him in both respects. I think I have taken a more active part than the right hon. Gentleman in temperance reform. My first considerable speech in this House, now some twenty-eight years ago, was made upon this subject, and I have not changed in the slightest degree the opinions I then expressed in regard to it. I have an intense sense of the importance of temperance reform, and it has always been a matter of the deepest regret to me that during all period, and even for a longer period if we go back[to the origin of temperance reform, practically nothing of substantial importance has been done by legislation. I believe that most of that is due to the extreme views of men whose honesty and whose conscientious convictions I recognise as much as I wish that others should my own, but who have absolutely refused to adopt that great principle in politics that half a loaf is better than no bread. They refused in the time before I was in the House of Commons to accept the great reform proposed by Mr. Bruce, who afterwards become Lord Aberdare, and they refused to accept the reform, which I always thought was of the greatest importance, proposed by Mr. Goschen, and they are now opposing with perfectly fanatical opposition this Bill, which in many very important particulars, although it may not go as far as they desire, is an enormous advance in the direction of temperance reform. Following the right hon. Gentleman, let me ask him to carry his memory back. What have we been urging during all this period? I accept him as a colleague in temperance reform. One of the things we have been urging is that it would be desirable to reduce the the number of licensed houses.


Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman, although he says he is following the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, is doing something more. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen did express an opinion that this Motion ought to be opposed on the ground that the Bill was not popular in the country, but the right hon. Gentleman is now going into the history of temperance legislation which, I think, is beyond the Motion.


Mr. Speaker, I bow, as I always do, to your ruling, and your ruling prevents me from expressing, however, briefly, the reasons for my conviction that this Bill would be a great advance in temperance reform. At any rate, I may say this, that that is the honest conviction of many of us, who may perhaps agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill does not go as far as it might go, but who would be glad to accept it for what it does actually give us, for the advance which we think it makes.

Then I come to the next point of the-right hon. Gentleman, which is that this Bill is not popular in the country. He challenges us to test that by going to the country. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to assert when we go to the country that that is to be the issue? If it is we shall win. But if, on the contrary, it is "Chin, Chin, Chinaman," if it is "you wear a pig-tail?" then I really cannot say what result an appeal to the country upon that noble issue may produce. It is all very well to make these appeals to the country beforehand, these challenges, but I would remind the Committee of an occasion to which I have referred, when the closure was applied to the Home Rule Bill. I really do not recollect at this interval of time how the by-elections went on at that period, but I know we challenged the Government to dissolve on that particular issue. As a matter of fact, that was the issue at the election following, and we know the result, we know that the country gave a most distinct reply, and justified our opposition to the Home Rule Bill. That is in reply to these, I am perfectly prepared to admit, rather irrelevant matters I comeback to the question of the closure as applied to a great Bill upon which there is difference of opinion. I say it is perfectly natural for hon. Gentlemen opposite to attempt to destroy the Bill, taking the view they do, and we on our side, who take a different view of the value of the Bill, are bound to do everything we can to carry it. But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider what his great Leader said upon this subject in the course of those debates to which I have referred. Mr. Gladstone did not put the question of the closure upon the merits of the Home Rule Bill, but, curiously enough, not having the fears of the right hon. Gentleman as to the degradation of Parliament, he put it on the ground of the dignity and the efficiency of Parliament, and it is on that ground that I put the whole question-to the House. I am looking, perhaps as one is accustomed to do as one grows older, a little more into the future than younger men need do, and I am not thinking so much of this Bill as I am thinking of the general principle—how is the efficiency of Parliament to be preserved? What Mr. Gladstone said was that he regretted, and everyone believed him, to abridge the existing liberties of Parliament, but that he did so because without it the great foundations of its existence would be destroyed and the will of the majority would no longer prevail. Now there is a majority of Parliament, and—I take for granted the cheer which will follow this observation—there is a majority in the country, and the two may differ. But for the time, and whilst Parliament is sitting, our object as Members of Parliament should be to preserve Parliament as the representative, for the period, of the country, an to give to the majority of Parliament for the time being the weight that a majority ought always to have. That is a doctrine which I have always held, a doctrine which I have preached from time to time. The particular way of securing that the majority should prevail is, of course, a matter on which there may be difference of opinion.

Let me ask this: Which Party in the State has the greatest interest in this matter? I admit that there was time when I thought the there was a time when I thought the Liberal Party had the greatest interest in this principle, because I was brought up to think, and I thought, and I am not certain that it was not true, at any rate at that time, that it was to the Liberal Party that we were to look for social and legislative progress. Well, I very much doubt whether any impartial man can say that that is any longer the case. The Liberal Party has been engaged for a. long time [OPPOSITION interruption]—I do not want to weary the House ["Go on"]—but I was rather anxious to clear the way for nething I have to say in reference to what I believe is the real issue at stake. What I was going to say was that the Liberal Party, as every Conservative would recognise, has had a great work to perform, and has performed it; but that in regard to another port of our legislat ve work—namely, the work of social reform—I do not say why, I am not speaking in a controversial sense, but it has happened that most of our social legislation his been brought forward and carried by the Conservative and Unionist Party. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] I am not putting this forward as a Party argument, I am putting it forward to show that neither Party has any longer a special interest in preserving all the methods of obstruction. If there were a Party in this House, if the Conservative Party were a Party of pure reaction, of pure inactivity, of pure opposition to every reform, then it is they, not you, who would have a supreme interest in opposing every measure of closure, in opposing every restriction upon liberty of speech in this House. I say that is no longer the case, and, speaking to my friends around me, I say you have the same interest which those who call themselves the Party of progress have—I will not dispute it for the moment—in restoring and in increasing the efficiency of this House.

The efficiency of this House at this moment is nil. It is all very well to bring up these old arguments we have just heard from the Member for Aberdeen, which we of this Party produced at the time of the closure on the Home Rule Bill, and of every other closure. That is all leather and prunella. The real thing is that as long as we treat each of these questions separately of course we shall be divided into Parties. Those who oppose any particular Bill will be on one side and those who are in favour of it will be on the other. Cannot we take a wider view of the whole situation Can we not consider the necessities of the time? Can we not see, without attributing any special dose of original sin either to one Party or the other, that circumstances have so far changed that, whereas in the time of Pitt and Fox there were at the very most but fifty Members of the House who ever addressed it, there are now 670 Gentleman every one of whom thinks, and no doubt with good reason, that he is as well entitled and as well able to address the House as anybody else? Can you not see that in these circumstances if every man claims his right each Party in turn will be paralysed, that each Party in turn will be unable to give effect to its principles and secure for them a fair trial? My desire is that when Gentlemen opposite come in they shall have the fullest opportunity of carrying out every promise they have made. I would like nothing better. In existing circumstances do they think that would be the case? We shall be rising—perhaps I myself shall be rising from the opposite side repeating the arguments of the Member for Aberdeen, and imploring the House to consider the dignity of Parliament, and I know not what, because I am opposed to a Bill to repeal the Bill which is now under the consideration of the House. Are we to go on for ever playing this purely partisan game on one side equally with the other? Are we to go on doing this without considering the situation to which we are reduce 11 I agree with Mr. Gladstone [OPPOSITION laughter.] I do not understand hon. Gentleman who cheer ironically. I have quoted Mr. Gladstone. I agree entirely, and I always have agreed entirely, with what Mr. Gladstone said—namely, that the whole of this great constitutional system of ours, the existence of Parliament and everything else, is all machinery for securing peaceably that the will of the majority should prevail—the majority for the time. The business of the minority is to make itself into a majority and then in turn its will should prevail. Finally, we come to a state of things when what has been decided is accepted by both sides. But my real desire is that some measure should be devised which would give to each Party in turn—it is not, therefore, a partisan point—an opportunity of securing that the principles upon which it has gone to the country and secured the mandate of the country should prevail.

In my opinion our present system is unsatisfactory. At present, as I have said, each Party in turn resorts to this arbitrary method. When Gentlemen opposite are in power, it may be in a short time, they will have to resort to precisely the same measure and we shall oppose it. We shall say you are destroying the efficiency of Parliament. We shall say that it is tyranny of the worst kind; we shall challenge you to go to the country. We shall tell you that the people are against you. We shall say everything. We shall resort to every platitude and very commonplace which you have resorted to in the present debate. I know my observations will not have the slightest effect on the division to-night. It is not with that object that I am addressing them to the House. But I do think it desirable from time to time to recall the House to the fact that each Party in turn is paralysed under our present system, and that the time has come when both sides of the House if they Were wise —not in a time of excitement like this, but in some more peaceable hours—would attempt to devise some system by which the time of Parliament, necessarily limited, should be distributed so that, although there should be a fair amount of discussion, no Bill proposed by the majority and supported by a sufficient majority should be killed merely by time. It is not necessary to make any charge of obstruction. To my mind it is absurd that any one should try to conceal the fact that he has obstructed. I have obstructed, you have obstructed, we have obstructed, and, if I may put it in the future tense, I will say we shall obstruct. Therefore, that is not a charge that is to be brought in by either side against the other. On the present case all I have to say is, believing as I do that this Bill is a measure of temperance reform, believing firmly as I do that, if we could tike an issue upon this Bill alone, we should find that the majority of the people were entirely with us, and knowing as I do that, unler the existing circumstances of the House, it cannot be carried without the closure, I shall vote most heartily for the Resolution.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had told them that his first speech in the House was in favour of temperance reform. He had no doubt that it was a first-class speech, because that was in the right hon. Gentleman's Radical days. He fancied he remembered a notice in the Birmingham Daily Post of that time that Mr. Councillor Joseph Chamberlain, was to preside at a meeting to be addressed by Mr. George Trevelyan on the subject of the Local Veto Bill


My hon. friend will allow me to say that that is not a correct statement from my biography. I do not remember the Local Veto Bill. Mr. George Trevelyan did come down to address a meeting. But I was not councillor at the time; I was mayor.


said his recollection was that the object of the meeting was in support of the Local Veto Bill, but he might be wrong. At any rate he knew that the right hon. Gentleman had first said that if the Government of that day went to the country upon the Licensing Bill "We shall win." He distinctly remembered the right hon. Gentleman using that phrase. Now in detailing his policy at Greenock last Autumn the right hon. Gentleman said "On this we shall win." He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was quite so sure about that to-day, but the sooner the Government took the verdict of the country upon it the better. There was one important feature which ought not to be lost sight of by the Prime Minister. On Friday last there were about twenty speeches delivered upon this Motion from both sides of the House and only three of them were in favour of it. There had also been twenty speeches, that day, and again only three had been in favour of the Motion made by the Prime Minister. Upon this Motion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham took up rather a detached position, and therefore he put him into a class by himself. He was glad to be able to say that he found himself in happy agreement with one thing which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said. The right hon. Gentleman had asked them to remember what their great Leader Mr. Gladstone said upon the introduction of the closure on the 29th of June, 1893, on the Home Rule Bill. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember what his Leader the present Prime Minister—he believed he was the right hon. Gentleman's Leader at the present time—had said. He said in 1893— Whatever be the grounds for adopting this Resolution it is not one of necessity, but it is adopted upon the ground of expediency, and if I may say so, not of Parliamentary expediency but of Party expediency. The Motion before the House had been introduced for the very same reason. On the same occasion the Prime Minister complained very bitterly of the manner in which Mr. Gladstone had frittered away the early part of the session of 1893, and the right hon. Gentleman protested against the Government coming down at the beginning of July and asking the House to leave undiscussed the most vital provisions of the Home Rule Bill. He endorsed those views to-day. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said that circumstances altered cases, and the Prime Minuter had told them that they must take each of these cases upon its; merits. They could not do that upon the present occasion because this case had no merits. With regard to the Resolution of the Prime Minister, two painful considerations filled his mind. The first was that the Prime Minister, who should be the guardian of the liberties, privileges, and functions of Parliament, had ostentatiously raised indifference—indeed, he might go the length of saying contempt—for the deliberations of Parliament to a fine art. The second deplorable circumstance was that the Prime Minister had signally failed to utilise the enormous gifts and opportunities which had been placed at his disposal. Here was a man of unique intellectual distinction, who had behind him an unrivalled Parliamentary majority, docile and willing to do what he pleased, and that man, who with the gifts which God had bestowed upon him might hate written his name of the scroll of honour for some great work in the uplifting of the people and in the improvement of their social and moral well-being, had elected deliberately to be remembered by this Motion on behalf of this Bill. There was no censure which he could pass upon that action more bitter than the private censure which the right hon. Gentleman must ultimately pass himself, unspoken, on his own conduct.

MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N)

said that this Bill was one which hon. Gentlemen opposite had declared they would resist by every means in their power, and they were using the Committee stage for the purpose of defeating and destroying this measure. He was one of those who desired to see the Bill amended in important particulars, but he was not going to play the game of hon. Members opposite and use the Committee stage for the purpose of defeating the Bill. It would not be consistent with the honour and dignity of this House to allow the Committee stage of a Bill to be used for that purpose, because it would render their proceedings entirely nugatory. It seemed to him that one thing they had to consider was how much time they could allot to the consideration of this measure. The Amendment which had been proposed raised a question of principle, and therefore the Government were right in allotting the proper proportion of the time at their disposal to this measure. From the point of view of the business men in this House, to whom it was absolutely necessary that the length of the session should be confined within reasonable limits, the only business-like course for the House to adopt was to mark out the amount of time which the House could spend upon this particular measure.


said he was sure that everybody, without distinction of Party, would be glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in his place again. He was particularly glad to see him, because the right hon. Gentleman and himself were to a certain extent in the same boat. He wanted to see that Government turned out and go to the country; so did the right hon. Gentleman. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] The only difference between them was that he was able to express his opinion, and the right hon. Gentleman was for the present dissembling his. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] He thought the right hon. Gentleman had given a very odd reason why those who were opposed to this measure and other measures which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham would like to introduce should support the proposal which had been made by the Prime Minister. He had pointed out that the Conservative Party in the past had always been opposed to these violent methods of procedure, and that the Liberal Party had always been in favour of them. Now he said there had been a change, and he declared that on both sides they had definite positive ambitions to carry out which he suggested could only be carried out at the expense of their ordinary Parliamentary procedure. When he thought of some of the ambitious schemes which the right hon. Gentleman desired to carry he was not inclined to vote for making procedure much more drastic by the hope and belief that the present proposal might some day be imitated by the right hon. Gentleman in order to carry the tariff proposals which he had submitted it the country. [MINISTERIAL cries of: "Oh, oh" and "Divide."] He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman's foresight in this matter, because nobody could imagine how he could carry his tariff proposals without mutilating the procedure of the House of Commons.

This debate had provided them with a very excellent specimen of the Prime Minister's dialectical methods, for he was making a very important Motion, and asking the House to make a most momentous departure. This Motion had been the subject of a large amount of criticism from this side of the House and also from the Ministerial side, and in reply to that criticism the Prime Minister had made a fascinating speech which did not contain any justification of his proposal, but which was full of all sorts of animadversions upon precedents from other Governments established under totally different circumstances at other times. He would not delay the House by endeavouring to trace the resemblances between the procedure the Prime Minister had now adopted and the procedure which the last Liberal Administration adopted. It was true that there were points of resemblance between the procedure on the Evicted Tenants Bill and that which they were now asked to adopt. The principal point of resemblance was that both procedures were proposed as rather desperate measures by Governments in extremely difficult circumstances, on the eve of a dissolution which was to be followed by an election extremely disastrous to them. He could quite understand that some right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench had been a little embarrassed by the resemblance which might be traced between those two occasions, but that did not help the case of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman could not quote the precedents which had been referred to with any satisfaction, because no man had denounced with more vigour and sincerity the procedure which was adopted on those occasions. The House had to consider, in the first place, the situation and the causes leading to the present proposal, and, in the second place, whether it was, in fact, a reasonable thing to compress the proceedings in Committee on the Licensing Bill into six days. The hon. Member for Spen Valley, in his speech on Friday, went so far as to say that it would be ludicrous to attempt to discuss this Bill upon the time table which the Prime Minister proposed under this Motion, and the right hon Gentleman the Member for Montrose went further and said it would be a farce to discuss all the complicated provisions of this Bill within the six days provided by this time table. No one surely would deny that such a discussion, under such circumstances, so mutilated, so restricted, so arbitrarily curtailed, would be valueless and a useless waste of time. If that were so, he was astonished at the Prime Minister's moderation, because if he intended to pass this Bill without going through the formality of a Committee stage he wondered that the Prime Minister had allowed even six days. He would say to the Prime Minister, what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had no doubt often said to him in private, "Why not go the whole hog?"


I did not hear the hon. Gentleman exactly. Do I understand that he is quoting to the House something which he says I said to him in private?


said he was venturing to address an argument to the Prime Minister, who was not there, but would perhaps see it in the usual way, and asking him why he should take six days over this mutilated discussion upon this Bill in Committee, why not go the whole hog? He suggested that as advice which the right hon. Gentleman might have addressed to the Prime Minister at some time or other. He might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb; why not one day, one division, or, if it be thought right, why not take it without a division? What was to be gained by this "purposeless discussion"? Every argument he had used to justify this proposal would justify the much more convenient course he had just suggested. Nothing was gained, but something was lost. Candour was lost. Five days of Parliamentary time were lost which might be occupied in discussing some of those interesting questions which the House was prevented from discussing by blocking Motions. They might discuss Army reform, or take up the Prime Minister's vote of confidence in himself as an Amendment to what he was entitled to call the Black Resolution. He could only see one conceivable advantage the Prime Minister had to gain by the elaborate procedure he had adopted. He wanted to keep up appearances, to make the country treat the Bill as if discussed, to invest arbitrary and unconstitutional procedure with a sort of sham decorum. This desire to keep up appearances at all costs was very curious. He would venture to repeat a story he heard the other day. The editor of a newspaper in the Western States of America received a letter one morning from a n an whose acquaintance he had the privilege of enjoying, which began as follows— Dear Sir,—I regret to inform you that last night I had an altercation with Mr. Dawkins of this city, in the course of which I shot and killed him. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh" and "Divide."] He claimed the same courtesy that had been extended to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. [Renewed MINISTERIAL interruptions.]

MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N)

You have got to listen to it whether you like it or not. The hon. Member for Oldham is not on your side now."


said he did not wish to weary hon. Members opposite and he had no desire to continue his story if they did not wish to hear it. [OPPOSITION cries of "Go on "and "Why not?" and MINISTERIALIST cries of "Divide."] It was quite obvious that the amenities of debate could not be indulged in by anyone who had differed from colleagues on the Ministerial Benches, since all courtesy, chivalry, and even ordinary fair play were thus refused—thus ill-naturedly refused. He would confine himself strictly to the argument. He could understand the desire of the Prime Minister to invest his proceedings with a certain air of formality, but he asked why should the Opposition join in what the right hon. Member for Montrose described, and what could only be called, a dismal farce, the whole object of which was to delude the country into the belief that the Bill had been adequately discussed, to invoke the authority of the House of Commons for a piece of legislation which was nothing less than an act of Executive usurpation. It took a great Party to govern Great Britain by Parliamentary methods. One man might do it by unparliamentary methods. It was only when something had occurred to weaken the central principle, the inner life, of a Party that some particular interest in that Party laid hold of the machinery and mechanism of Government and used it to further its own special interests without regard to the welfare of the country as a whole. He thought those who had listened to the debates during the past few days must have noticed a more bitter element in them than had marked the ordinary discussions in this House They had been grappling with a great-trust. They were face to face with a great commercial organisation mobilised for the effective purposes of political warfare. They had seen it thrust its greedy fingers down the back of the Treasury Bench and pull the coat tails of Ministers, and when they reflected that the Prime Minister was dependent for his return to the House upon the votes of a certain class of liquor-sellers in his constituency [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, I no" and "Withdraw," and cheers.]


The hon. Member has not committed any breach of order.


said they had realised what it meant to fight against a great commercial combination which took a prominent part in political action, and the reflection occurred to hon. Members when they saw this great trust in working order, "Thank God, there is only one of them at present that we have to face. We have only one now, but when the Birmingham golden age is ushered in—"


The hon. Member is now travelling beyond the Motion.


continuing, said the Prime Minister had been largely responsible for the present situation. It was undoubtedly the case that the right hon. Gentleman had led the House by different methods to those of some of his predecessors. If there was some matter the House was anxious to discuss, on which the conduct of the Government was impeached, the Prime Minister did not prepare an elaborate answer to the charges. No, he put down a blocking Motion. [OPPOSITION cheers and MINISTERIAL cries of "No."]


The Prime Minister's action with regard to that, even if the hon. Member is correct, is one of those past actions of the Government which cannot have contributed to produce this Motion, and cannot now be commented upon.


said it was very difficult to bring any point within the Rules of debate in the face of such interruptions. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Divide."]

MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

Mr. Speaker, I rise to order. For the last ten minutes I have been endeavouring to listen to the speech of the hon. Member, and I have been unable to follow him. I think it is one of the privileges every hon. Member is entitled to that he should be heard. [Cries of "Order."] I do ask you, as Speaker of this House, to try to keep order for us. [Cries of "Oh, oh" and "Order."]


It is impossible for the Speaker to compel every Member to keep silence, but I trust every hon. Member will observe the Rules of the House.


speaking amid continued interruptions, said it would not have been strange if, when the House of Commons was unable to discuss the great question of the day, there should have been a resort to the rough-and-ready method of obstruction. But the Prime Minister had not alleged that there had been obstruction. The rights of the minority, he ventured to suggest to hon. Members opposite, were rights which they would perhaps have need to consider in days that were not far distant. He saw the Prime Minister in his place. Was it to be supposed that he was a consenting party to this uproar? [Cries of "Order."]


I cannot, of course, compel the silence of every hon. Member of this House, but I would remind them that the Orders of this House as they existed more than 250 years ago make it the duty of every Member to maintain silence whilst a Member is addressing the House. No Speaker can enforce that regulation, but I appeal to the House whether it is not more conducive to the dimity of the House when a Member is speaking, whether his opinions be popular or not, that he should be allowed to proceed.


I wish to ask, as a point of order, whether we have not the right to show our dissent from strong personal attacks made on the Leader of the House.


Personal attacks, so far as they are orderly, ought to be borne without disorderly interruption.


said he was quite at a loss to deal with these interruptions, differing as they did from those which took place at public meetings, the authors of them not being amenable to argument or appeals for fair play. But he did not desire to detain the House long. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the legislative programme of the session was not extensive Surely it was very remarkable that he had not been able to carry out the ordinary legislative programme by ordinary Parliamentary methods. The cause which had brought about the Parliamentary breakdown did not lie on the Benches of the Opposition, but on the Benches of the other side; and what they had witnessed that night was only another element in the demoralisation which had taken place in the great Conservative Party, a demoralisation which made Members perfectly willing to come down to shout down an unpopular speaker, perfectly willing to be in their places when the liberties of the House of Commons were to be voted away, but not willing, as the hon. Member for Spen Valley had said, to forsake their dinner, not willing to forego the pleasures of Ascot, or to sit in the House later than 15th August. He had finished the observations which he desired to make, and he was bound to say that he appealed to the good sense of the House of Commons to say whether he had received fair treatment—[Cheers and cries of "Divide"]—whether the carefully-organised attack upon the liberties of debate in which the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was an accomplice and a consent ing party—[Loud cries of "Order," "Withdraw," and cheers]—


said, Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of ordsr. [Cries of "No" and interruption.] I merely wish to know, Sir, whether it is in order [interuption and cries of "Order"] for the junior Member for Oldham to say that there is a conspiracy against him in which I am an accomplice—a statement which is absolutely untrue. [Cries of "Oh" and "Order" and cheers and counter-cheers.]


The hon. Member should not make charges of that kind. [Cheers and cries of "Withdraw."]


who was again received with cries of "Withdraw," said: Mr. Speaker, if I have said anything which passes in any degree the limitations of the order of debate [cries of! "Order" and "Withdraw"] I completely withdraw it. I have made my protest which I venture to commit to the good sense and calmer consideration of the House.

MR. CATHCART WASON (Orkney and Shetland)

, who spoke amid noise and interruption, said he was only going to say a few sentences. He was endeavouring to make his voice heard hundreds of miles beyond this House. The question now before the House was, in his opinion, one of the most important that had ever been submitted to any Parliament. They had long been accustomed in this country to point the finger of scorn at the ways of Tammany. They had been educated to jeer at the struggles of candidates for the Presidency of South American republics to secure place and power and profit for themselves. But surely the degradation of the House of Commons, the Mother of Parliaments, had reached full measure when hon. Members were brought here to vote closure by compartments on a Bill of such importance as this. In connection with Home Rule there was no question of this or that company's shares going up or down. During the discussion of this Bill the House had presented a deplorable spectacle. More than once a representative of the great brewing interest had been seen hanging over and directing the Premier of this country as to how he was to act, and they had had the same hon. Gentleman in the lobbies telling hon. Members how they were to vote. That was a humiliating position for Members of the House of Commons to be placed in. The people of the country were entitled to have some knowledge of the character of the legislation proposed, but this had been denied to them in respect of this measure at any rate. The Government did not seem to understand their own minds. In the course of the discussion which had taken place on the Bill it had been shown that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary did not understand the real character of the Bill.


said the hon. Member must confine himself to the question before the House.


said he only wanted to show that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary did not understand the Bill.


That is not the point now before the House.


May I allude to this point. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells moved an Amendment, and the Solicitor-General promised to give consideration to the point raised—


It is not in order for the hon. Member to refer to discussions that took place on Amendments.


said he only wished to allude to the matters to show the imbecility of the Government in regard to their own Bill. If this Bill were submitted to the constituencies in its nakedness and baldness it would be scouted from John O'Groats to Land's End. He would venture to make an appeal to hon. Members opposite with regard to the effect this measure would have on the social welfare of the people of the country. There was not a single day when millions of the King's subjects did not pray to the Almighty Father not to lead them into temptation. It was the duty of an Assembly like this to help the people, and to prevent them so far as possible from being led into temptation. That end would not be promoted by the passing of this Bill.


In the few words it will be my duty to address to the House I shall endeavour to; follow the good example propounded and exhibited by the Leader of the House on Friday when he introduced his Motion. He said that he would avoid saving anything which might add to the excitement which very naturally prevailed on such an occasion, I think that is the duty of all Members of the House at this time, perhaps in a larger degree than in the case of some others on the part of those who have some authority over individual sections of the House. It I is not that I do not feel strongly the nature of the Vote that is going to be taken and the effect of it, as I believe, upon the general estimate by the world of this House and its deliberations; but above all things let us do what we have to do with dignity and in order. If I try? to avoid saying anything of an irritating character, though one cannot altogether avoid controversial topics, I trust that my efforts will be responded to by hon. Members opposite. My intention is perhaps rather ambitious; it is to say something new, or at all events to bring the House back to the argument the Leader of the House used when he proposed this Motion. We have had a pretty full discussion on the general question of these Motions, their nature, their use, and their abuse. We have had instances drawn from previous occasions fully analysed and discussed, and we have had all the influence that can be brought to bear on the mind of anyone going to vote in relation to the Bill itself and its position in Committee at this moment; but I am going to take up the plea on which the right hon. Gentleman founded this Motion. He, based his case for guillotining the Bill on the first clause on the time and the business of the session; he challenged examination of the course of business during the session and a comparison with other sessions; in fact, his case was practically a vote of censure on the Opposition; and from that point of view I will make a few observations. He said— If the House insists on spending night after night in criticism the time given to legislation must be curtailed. Before Easter, he said, one afternoon only was given to legislation. Again, he says— I say, and say emphatically, if you are going to allow the Government"— but who does he mean by "you"? I thought the Government were in charge of business— If you are going to allow the Government to have one afternoon before Easter and seven between Easter and Whitsuntide, you are making an apportionment of time which is not enough for legislation and too much for criticism. But my answer is, it is not we who made the apportionment of time, it is he. He then went on to challenge a comparison between this session and other sessions, and this challenge I reply to. It involves not the merits of this particular Bill, not the question what may be the demand for the Bill or the effects that may result from it not passing; we hear very little of that part of the case, for, indeed, there is no demand. As has been pointed out, petitions—which after all are an old-fashioned way of testing public opinion somewhat fallen into discredit and disuse of late years—petitions have been all on one side, there being but a solitary one on the other. For myself I have, since the Bill was introduced, received copies of 4,000 resolutions passed at public meetings and by public bodies in opposition to the Bill, and as these Resolutions were accompanied by an intimation that copies had been sent to the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman must be equally well aware of the state of public opinion. There is nothing connected with the Bill, or the feeling of the country towards it, its urgency or its necessity, in the case of the right hon. Gentleman; but that the business of the session, including the proceedings on this Bill, would have been in an advanced and favourable position if the disposition of the Government had not been thwarted and brought to confusion by the Opposition—that is the case upon which I am challenged. I am very glad to look into it and I will tell the House what I find. I find so far has it been from the fact that an exaggerated amount of time has been occupied with criticism during the session, the time so occupied has been relatively and absolutely insufficient. To begin with, let us consider this—was there reason for criticism, was there more or less ground for it this session? The occasion for it was unprecedented, just as the measures adopted for closing the mouth of the House of Commons were also beyond precedent. The Government were unable to settle their own policy in regard to two of the most important questions before us—namely, the fiscal question and the Army question. With regard to the public service, they were spending money like water without producing any justification. They are still groping about for the true function of the Army. No one has found it except the Secretary of State for War, who tells us that he feels, and knows, and sees exactly what ought to be done. Then why does he not tell us what ought to be done? That would save a great deal of the time of the Government, and would have saved a still larger amount of time if it had been done two or three months ago. Then, with regard to the Navy, a great deal of time has been spent in reconciling a two-Power standard of strength with three and a half-Power standard of expenditure. Then there are, blunders like the Somaliland campaign, and such incidents as the adventure of the peaceful Mission to Tibet and the importation of Chinese labour. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] I am analysing the causes, and I am within my right. The real matter for criticism, however, is the presence of the right hon. Gentleman on that Bench, notwithstanding that they have lost, as we say and as they can hardly deny, the confidence of the country and also their due authority in this House. Look at their position. They are a band of fiscal reformers reduced to positive incoherence the moment any one gets up and tries explain his views. That furnishes ground for criticism for nearly a whole session.

I have been speaking of the necessity, or excuse, or reason for criticism. Now let us come to the dimensions of it. One day has been allowed to a vote of censure on Chinese labour. Three Motions for the Adjournment of the House have been made from the Opposition Benches and two from the Government Benches. And these are the only inroads that have been made upon Government time. There have been private Motions possibly, but they have been in private Members' time. Let me dissect the session. Eighty-two days up to and including last Friday—the very number of days spent on the Home Rule Bill in Committee when strong measures were taken in 1892–93—eighty-two days have been at the disposal of the Government in whole or in part for their business. Of these two whole days and three evenings were devoted to criticism outside the usual routine in the way I have spoken of. Is it claimed that the vote of censure was wantonly or unnecessarily moved? No, Sir. The amendment of the Finance Bill took two days. Is this complained of? The two days spent on the consideration of the Finance Bill were just as much a part of the legislative work of the session as the days spent on the Licensing Bill itself. There was the usual debate on the Address, of which no complaint was made by right hon. Gentlemen. Two days of it were spent in discussing "the grave negligence and mismanagement of the Ministry, whereby the duration, magnitude, and cost of the war were greatly increased." That was the Motion of my hon. and learned friend the Member for South Shields. Was two days too long for a Motion of that importance, founded upon the Report of the Commission on the War, which had attracted universal attention and excited strong feeling in the country? At any rate, the Government and the late Colonial Secretary made two interesting contributions to that debate. They did not appear to resent it, but were rather glad of the opportunity of defending themselves. Two days were given to Chinese labour on the understanding laid down by the Government that this would be the only opportunity before the Ordinance took effect. Six days were spent in the forlorn hope of endeavouring to piece together into an intelligible and authoritative shape the conflicting and irreconcilable views of the distracted colleagues of the Prime Minister on the fiscal reform question. Was that time wasted? In one sense I admit it was wasted, because we did not succeed, after all, in arriving at a know ledge of what their policy was. That was not our fault. The reason of it was that a great question was suddenly and rashly raised and that the Government were found, after all, to have not only unsettled convictions, but conflicting and irreconcilable opinions. The natural consequence of that state of things was the occupation of a great part of Parliamentary time. But let me follow the time-table. There were fourteen days on the Address, three days on votes of censure, and three evenings on adjournments. That is twenty days, which leaves the Prime Minister sixty-two days, in whole or part, for Supply or legislation. Of these, four days, the same which he allows for the consideration in Committee of this most complicated and far-reaching Bill, were spent on the Supplementary Estimates, which the Government themselves introduced, which were on a scale absolutely without parallel and which really constituted, for the Army and Navy, a sort of new Army and Navy Budget. There were no obstructive tactics here. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the conduct of this Army business has been such as to disarm criticism? The time so spent was given to the country. If time was wasted it was owing to the manner in which information was either communicated in some part to, or withheld in the greatest part from, the House. The Licensing Bill could have been introduced before Easter, if it was ready, but it was evidently not ready. Six Bills came before the House—the Labourers (Ireland) Bill, Police Superannuation, Scotch Education, Penal Servitude, Aliens, and Dogs, those twin measures which seem to be complementary to each other, treating the dog as an alien and treating the alien as a dog. There was also a Bishopric Bill, and there was an innocent and uncontroversial Bill, which has yet to come on, called the Local Authorities (Default) Bill. But how absurd to charge the Opposition with bringing about a waste of time, or at any rate such an expenditure of time as leads to a deadlock and makes closure by compartments on a Bill of first-class importance necessary, when dogs and aliens, bishops and Irish labourers, convicts, Scotch schools, and policemen were given priority ! And when the Bill had got into Committee on 6th June, as we all remember, progress was suspended in order that stalwarts of the Government should be able to go to Ascot, and then, a little further on, it was again suspended in order that the tobacco trade should be able to recover from the confusion into which the Government had plunged it.

The Prime Minister has invited this scrutiny which I have given of the mode in which he has managed and distributed the time of the House. Is he proud of this leisurely, dilettante, haphazard conduct of business, with here a little and there a little, a nibble at this and then a bite at that? I do not think the record has been satisfactory, for that is not the way to force along business. The Government started with several episodes in their external policy which seemed to be incredible—at least, we cannot obtain from them a clear explanation or intelligible excuse—and with a great domestic revolution, for it is nothing less, put forward without rhyme or reason, on which they do not know their own mind. And then they complain, having begun in this way and having gone floundering and blundering along in the way I have described, forsooth, to the House and say that it is we who have driven them to the strong measures now to be employed. The whole responsibility is laid on the Opposition, and we are told that the credit of Parliament will be destroyed unless this measure, profoundly distasteful to at least very large sections of the people of this country, unheard of when the Government were put in power, un-thought of even two years ago when they were dealing with this question of licensing, and on which we have just raised enough of the curtain in the few days that the Bill was in Committee to see how complex and serious are the questions it involves—that Parliament is to be discredited unless it is forced through this House without Amendment. The Government even this very day have put a number of new Amendments on the Paper in explanation of their views. I repudiate the responsibility the Government seek to put on us. It is not we who have allowed this or allowed that. It is the right hon. Gentleman who has managed the business of the House in a way which has led to this necessity. If this Bill had been a measure which we thought would be a good one, one likely to accomplish its object, and one which the people of this country desired, even then it would have been a strong order to invite us to treat a measure of that kind in this way. When, however, it is a Bill which we think will be disastrous to the country in its present shape, a Bill that will require immediate Amendment by Parliament, if it is passed, when opportunity offers—when that is the kind of Bill then, of course, we oppose this proceeding with the utmost willingness and with all the strength we possess. I have endeavoured to meet the right hon. Gentleman's plea, not, I can well imagine, to his satisfaction, but, at any rate, to the information of a good many people who heard the plea urged—and when that plea which he has put forward is so wrapt up in his own conduct of the business of the House we are entitled to explain to the country that we have no art nor part in this proceeding, and shall discharge our duty in voting against the Motion he has brought forward. This proceeding, while it will do no credit either to the Government which proposes it, or the Parliament which adopts it, will also tend to strengthen the public opinion as to the reputation of the Government in whose favour it is made.

MR. BELL (Derby)

said he did not think any one in this House could charge him with having obstructed the Government in any debate. During the discussion he had got up on several occasions but was unsuccessful in catching the eye of either the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees. He had not complained of that, because in most instances some one else had spoken what was in his mind. But he could not allow this Motion to go by without expressing, during the few minutes at his disposal, his opinion, humble as it might be, but which he knew had the support of his constituents. He had always held in great esteem the Prime Minister, and believed the right hon. Gentleman to be a man of great sincerity, although he had not always agreed with him in all the right hon. Gentleman had said and done. But that conviction had been dispelled out of his mind, because he really believed that the right hon. Gentleman was not sincere in thrusting this Bill down the throats of the hon. Members and the country. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members might dissent, but he had a right to enjoy his opinion as they had theirs. He felt strongly on this question. While this was a Bill to compensate brewers for putting arsenic in their beer, it made no provision to give compensation to those who were poisoned by drinking their beer. The number of days and hours set apart for the Bill was certainly, in his opinion, insufficient to adequately discuss a measure of this magnitude and importance. He agreed with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham for once, that when he was on that side of the House in opposition, and the Liberals were in power, if the Liberal Party adopted such a monstrous proposal as this, he would join with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham in opposing it. At any rate, in the experience he had had, he had never known any Party, either Tory or Liberal, to have done anything of this kind in thrusting a Bill of this character down the throats of hon. Members with insufficient discussion. He wanted to make it distinctly clear that he would only be a passive resister that night, and should vote against the closure; but he would

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen. Bull, William James
Allhusen, August us Henry Eden Banbury, Sir Frederick George Burdett-Coutts, W.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor) Butcher, John George
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O Bartley, Sir George C. T. Carlile, William Walter
Arrol, Sir William Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Cautley, Henry Strother
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire
Austin, Sir John Bignold, Arthur Cayzer, Sir Charles William
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Bigwood, James Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Bailey, James (Walworth) Bill, Charles Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Blundell, Colonel Henry Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.
Baird, John George Alexander Bond, Edward Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J.A (Worc.
Balcarres, Lord Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Baldwin, Alfred Bousfield, William Robert Chapman, Edward
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r Bowles, Lt.-Col. H.F (Middlesex Charrington, Spencer
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Brassey, Albert Clare, Octavius Leigh

become a very active resister after that night and should take no part in closure by compartments. [MINISTERIAL interruptions and cries of "Oh, oh!"] He did not say that with a view of convincing hon. Members opposite, because many of them were convinced of the advantages of a Bill which would put money into their own pockets. [MINISTERIAL ironical laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he had his convictions, and he hoped he understood a little bit, as well as some people who were interested, what the position really was. He had listened to a great many debates in this House, and he recognised that it was sometimes necessary to have the closure, but only after some reasonable time had been given to the discuss on of the point at issue. But insufficient time had been given for the discussion of this Bill, and whatever might be the consequences he would not allow the closure by compartments to be enforced without some active resistance, and he hoped they would let the country know that there were some persons in this House who had some regard to the dignity of Parliament. The Prime Minister had reduced the House to a very undignified position.

And, it being midnight, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the business.

Whereupon Mr. A. J. BALFOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided; Aves, 303; Noes, 223. (Division List No. 187.)

Clive, Captain Percy A. Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th) Morrison, James Archibald
Coates, Edward Feetham Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich) Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hay, Hon. Claude George Mount, William Arthur
Coddington, Sir William' Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Heath, James (Staffords., N.W. Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R. Heaton, John Henniker Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Helder, Augustus Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Compton, Lord Alwyne Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Cook, 8ir Frederick Lucas Hickman, Sir Alfred Myers, William Henry
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hoare, Sir Samuel Newdegate, Francis A. N.
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Hogg, Lindsay Nicholson, William Graham
Cripps, Charles Alfred Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Horner, Frederick William Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Parker, Sir Gilbert
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Hoult, Joseph Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Dalkeith, Earl of Houston, Robert Paterson Pemberton, John S. G.
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham) Percy, Earl
Davenport, William Bromley Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham) Pierpoint, Robert
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham Hosier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Pilkington, Colonel Richard
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Hudson, George Bickersteth Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Dickson, Charles Scott Hunt, Rowland Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Jameson, Major J. Eustace Pretyman, Ernest George
Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C. Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Purvis, Robert
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Pym, C. Guy
Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex) Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Doughty, George Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Rankin, Sir James
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop. Ratcliff, R. F.
Duke, Henry Edward Kerr, John Reid, James (Greenock)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Keswick, William Remnant, James Farquharson
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Kimber, Henry Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Knowles, Sir Lees Renwick, George
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Richards, Henry Charles
Fardell, Sir T. George Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r Lawson, John G.(Yorks., N.R.) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Robinson, Brooke
Fisher, William Hayes Llewellyn, Evan Henry Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Lockwood, Licut.-Col. A. R. Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Ropnor, Colonel Sir Robert
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Round, Rt. Hon. James
Flower, Sir Ernest Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.) Royds, Clement Molyneux
Forster, Henry William Lonsdale, John Brownlee Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.) Lowe, Francis William Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Galloway, William Johnson Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Gardner, Ernest Loyd, Archie Kirkman Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Garfit, William Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse)
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Nairn) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.
Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets) Macdona, John Gumming Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc) MacIver, David (Liverpool) Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Maconochie, A. W. Sharpe, William Edward T.
Goulding, Edward Alfred M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W Simeon, Sir Barrington
Graham, Henry Robert M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Malcolm, Jan Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury Manners, Lord Cecil Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) Martin, Richard Biddulph Smith, H C (North'm b. Tyneside
Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F. Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Grenfell, William Henry Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H.E (Wigt'n Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Gretton, John Melville, Beresford Valentine Spear, John Ward
Greville, Hon. Ronald Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Groves, James Grimble Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Guthrie, Walter Murray Milvain, Thomas Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Hain, Edward Mitchell, William (Burnley) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.
Hall, Edward Marshall Molesworth, Sir Lewis Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Hambro, Charles Eric Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.) Stock, James Henry
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Stone, Sir Benjamin
Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Stroyan, John
Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford) Morpeth, Viscount Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Hare, Thomas Leigh Morrell, George Herbert Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G (Oxf'd Univ. Warde, Colonel C. E. Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H. (Yorks.)
Thorburn, Sir Walter Webb, Colonel William George Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Thornton, Percy M. Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E (Taunton Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Tollemache, Henry James Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Wentworth. Bruce C. Vernon- Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Tritton, Charles Ernest Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Tuff, Charles Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Ly'ne Wyndham-Quin, Col. W.H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Valentia, Viscount Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H (Sheffield Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Alexander Acland-Hood and
Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) Wills, Sir Frederick Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Walker, Col. William Hall Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.
Wanklyn, James Leslie Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Eve, Harry Trelawney Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Farquharson, Dr. Robert MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Allen, Charles P. Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Ambrose, Robert Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Flavin, Michael Joseph M'Crae, George
Asquith Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Flynn, James Christopher M'Fadden, Edward
Atherley-Jones, L. Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Barlow, John Emmott Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry M'Kean, John
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. M'Kenna, Reginald
Benn, John Williams Furness, Sir Christopher M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Black, Alexander William Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin
Blake, Edward Goddard, Daniel Ford Mansfield, Horace Rendall
Boland, John Grant, Corrie Markham, Arthur Basil
Brigg, John Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick) Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)
Broadhurst, Henry Griffith, Ellis J. Mooney, John J.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Moss, Samuel
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale Moulton, John Fletcher
Burns, John Harcourt, Rt Hn. Sir W (Monm'th Murphy, John
Buxton, Sydney Charles Harwood, George Newnes, Sir George
Caldwell, James Hayden, John Patrick Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Cameron, Robert Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Norman, Henry
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Helme, Norval Watson Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir Hr Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Nussey, Thomas Willans
Causton, Richard Knight Hobhouse, C.E.H. (Bristol, E.) O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) Holland, Sir William Henry O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)
Channing, Francis Allston Horniman, Frederick John O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Churchill, Winston Spencer Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Jacoby, James Alfred O'Doherty, William
Crean, Eugene Johnson, John (Gateshead) O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Cremer, William Randal Joicey, Sir James O'Dowd, John
Crombie, John William Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)
Cullman, J. Jordan, Jeremiah O'Malley, William
Dalziel, James Henry Joyce, Michael O'Mara, James
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Kearley, Hudson E. O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W. Parrott, William
Delany, William Kilbride, Denis Partington, Oswald
Devlin, Chas, Ramsay (Galway Kitson, Sir James Paulton, James Mellor
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N Labouchere, Henry Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.) Lambert, George Perks, Robert William
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Langley, Batty Philipps, John Wynford
Donelan, Captain A. Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) Power, Patrick Joseph
Doogan, P. C. Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Price, Robert John
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Layland-Barratt,. Francis Priestley, Arthur
Duncan, J. Hastings Leamy, Edmund Rea, Russell
Dunn, Sir William Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) Reckitt, Harold James
Edwards, Frank Leigh, Sir Joseph Reddy, M.
Elibank, Master of Long, Sir John Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Ellice, Capt E.C (S Amdrw's Bghs Levy, Maurice Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Lewis, John Herbert Rickett, J. Compton
Emmott, Alfred Lloyd-George, David Rigg, Richard
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Lough, Thomas Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Evans, Sir Fran. H. (Maidstone) Lundon, W. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Lyell, Charles Henr Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Robson, William Snowdon Stevenson, Francis S. White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Roche, John Strachey, Sir Edward Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Rose, Charles Day Sullivan, Donal Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Runciman, Walter Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Russell, T. W. Tennant, Harold John Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr) Wilson, Fred, W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isle of Wight Tillet, Louis John Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Shackleton, David James Tomkinson, James Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Toulmin, George Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh., N.)
Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) Trevelyan, Charles Philips Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd
Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Ure, Alexander Young, Samuel
Sheehy, David Wallace, Robert Yoxall, James Henry
Shipman, Dr. John G. Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)
Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Slack, John Bamford Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) Bell and Mr. Henderson.
Smith, Samuel (Flint) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Stanhope, Hon. Philip James White, George (Norfolk)

Question put accordingly, "That the words 'the proceedings' stand part of the Question."

The House divided; Ayes, 301; Noes, 228. (Division List No. 188.)

Hoult, Joseph Morpeth, Viscount Simeon, Sir Barrington
Houston, Robert Paterson Morrell, George Herbert Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Howard, John (Kent, Favers'm Morrison, James Archibald Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Mount, William Arthur Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Hudson, George Bickersteth Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Hunt, Rowland Muntz, Sir Philip A. Spear, John Ward
Jameson, Major J. Eustace Murray, Rt HnA. Graham (Bute Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred. Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Myers, William Henry Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Newdegate, Francis A. N. Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Nicholson, William Graham Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Stock, James Henry
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Kerr, John Parker, Sir Gilbert Stroyan, John
Keswick, William Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Kimber, Henry Pemberton, John S. G. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Knowles, Sir Lees Perey, Earl Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Pierpoint, Robert Thorburn, Sir Walter
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Pilkington, Colonel Richard Thornton, Percy M.
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR. Platt-Higgins, Frederick Tollemache, Henry James
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Pretyman, Ernest George Tritton, Charles Ernest
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Tuff, Charles
Llewellyn, Evan Henry Purvis, Robert Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Pym, C. Guy Valentia, Viscount
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield
Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Rankin, Sir James Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S) Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Walker, Col. William Hall
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Ratcliff, R. F. Wanklyn, James Leslie
Lowe, Francis William Reid, James (Greenock) Warde, Colonel C. E.
Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Remnant, James Farquharson Webb, Colonel William George
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Renwick, George Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Richards, Henry Charles Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Macdona, John Gumming Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
MacIver, David (Liverpool) Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Maconochie, A. W. Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
M'lver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W Robinson, Brooke Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Wills, Sir Frederick
Malcolm, Ian Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Manners, Lord Cecil Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Martin, Richard Biddulph Round, Rt. Hon. James Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H. (Yorks.)
Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Royds, Clement Molyneux Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Max well, Rt Hn Sir H.E. (Wigt'n Rutherford, John (Lancashire Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Melville, Beresford Valentine Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H.M. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford) Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Milvain, Thomas Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Mitchell, William (Burnley) Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Molesworth, Sir Lewis Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Montagu, C. (Huntingdon) Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J. TELLERS FOE THE AYES—
Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Sir Alexander Acland-Hood
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Seton-Karr, Sir Henry and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow Sharpe, William Edward T.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Blake, Edward Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Boland, John Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.
Allen, Charles P. Brigg, John Causton, Richard Knight
Ambrose, Robert Broadhurst, Henry Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Channing, Francis Allston
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Churchill, Winston Spencer
Atherley-Jones, L. Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Condon, Thomas Joseph
Barlow, John Emmott Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Burns, John Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)
Bell, Richard Buxton, Sydney Charles Crean, Eugene
Benn, John Williams Caldwell, James Cremer, William Randal
Black, Alexander William Cameron, Robert Crombie, John William
Cullinan, J, Labouchere, Henry Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Dalziel, James Henry Lambert, George Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Langley, Batty Rickett, J. Compton
Davies, M.Vaughan (Cardigan Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal W.) Rigg, Richard
Delany, William Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway Layland-Barratt, Francis Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Leamy, Edmund Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Robson, William Snowdon
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Leigh, Sir Joseph Roche, John
Donolan, Captain A. Long, Sir John Rose, Charles Day
Doogan, P. C. Levy, Maurice Runciman, Walter
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Lewis, John Herbert Russell, T. W.
Duncan, J. Hastings Lloyd-George, David Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Dunn, Sir William Lough, Thomas Samuel, S.M. (Whitechapel)
Edwards, Frank Lundon, W. Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Elibank, Master of Lyell, Charles Henry Seely, Maj. J.E.B. (Isle of Wight
Ellice, Capt EC (S. Andrw's Bghs Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Shackleton, David James
Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Emmott, Alfred MacVeagh, Jeremiah Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas M'Crae, George Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone M'Fadden, Edward Sheehy, David
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) M'Hugh, Patrick A. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Eve, Harry Trelawnoy M, Kean, John Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert M'Kenna, Reginald Slack, John Bamford
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Smith, HC. (North'mb. Tyneside
Fitzmauriee, Lord Edmond M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Flavin, Michael Joseph Mansfield, Horace Rendall Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Flynn, James Christopher Markham, Arthur Basil Stevenson, Francis S.
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Middlemore, John Throgmorton Strachey, Sir Edward
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.) Sullivan, Donal
Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. Mooney, John J. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Furness, Sir Christopher Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen Tennant, Harold John
Goddard, Daniel Ford Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Moss, Samuel Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Grant, Corrie Moulton, John Fletcher Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick) Murphy, John Tillet, Louis John
Griffith, Ellis J. Newnes, Sir George Tomkinson, James
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Toulmin, George
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Norman, Henry Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hain, Edward Norton, Capt. Cecil William Ure, Alexander
Haldano, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Nussey, Thomas Willans Wallace, Robert
Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Harcourt, Rt Hn Sir W (Monm'th O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Harwood, George O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Hayden, John Patrick O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) White, George (Norfolk)
Helme, Norval Watson O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. O'Doherty, William Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W,) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Hobhouse, C.E.H. (Bristol, E.) O'Dowd, John Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Hobhouse, Rt Hn H. (Somers't, E O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Holland, Sir William Henry O'Malley, William Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)
Horniman, Frederick John O'Mara, James Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. Parrott, William Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Partington, Oswald Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Jacoby, James Alfred Paulton, James Mellor Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Johnson, John (Gateshead) Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Woodhouse, Sir JT. (Huddersf'd
Joicey, Sir James Perks, Robert William Young, Samuel
Jonos, David Brynmor (Swansea Philipps, John Wynford Yoxall, James Henry
Jordan, Jeremiah Power, Patrick Joseph
Joyce, Michael Price, Robert John TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Kearley, Hudson E. Priestley, Arthur Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W. Rea, Russell Mr. William M'Arthur.
Kilbride, Denis Reckitt, Harold James
Kitson, Sir James Reddy, M.

Main Question again proposed.

And, it being after Midnight, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

Adjourned at twenty-three miuntes before One o'clock.