HC Deb 05 July 1904 vol 137 cc659-727

Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on 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 in 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 on 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.

Proceedings 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.)

Question again proposed.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

moved as an Amendment the omission from line two of the words "in Committee and." This was, he said, really in the nature of a protest against the destruction of the Committee stage of the Bill. He could have quite understood a proposal from the Government to limit the discussion on the Report stage, for they might have pointed out that questions having been fully threshed out in Committee it was rather unfair to go over them again on the Report stage. It would have been much more reasonable to give six days to the Report stage than to confine the Committee stage to that period. The Committee stage was the most important stage, and he did appeal to the Government to confine their guillotine Motion to the Report stage. He supposed it was quite futile for him to make the appeal, but he did not think the Opposition would be doing its duty if it did not protest on every possible opportunity against the virtual destruction of the Committee stage. He had gone through the Amendments thoroughly, and his Parliamentary experience enabled him to gather that the number of substantial ones on the Paper was so large that if they merely divided on each and did not attempt to discuss them, the Resolution did not allow sufficient time to deal with all of them. It was therefore perfectly preposterous to attempt to confine the discussion to six days; it was reducing their work to an absolutely absurd farce.

Amendment proposed— In line 2, to leave out the words 'in Committee and."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'in Committee and' stand part of the Question."

MR. DAVID MACIVER (Liverpool Kirkdale)

said that as one of the supporters of the Licensing Bill, which he believed to be a thoroughly good one, he objected to seeing it wrecked by a side wind. In his opinion the proposal of the Prime Minister would afford amply sufficient time for the honest consideration of the measure. He had no wish to say anything about obstruction, but hon. Members knew very well that in the Committee stage, as one Amendment was disposed of, another technically in order, and raising exactly the same point, was put on the Paper. Therefore he felt that unless the Government Resolution was agreed to in its entirety, there was considerable probability of the Bill being smothered in talk. He could not help feeling that in the interest of fair debate it was better the closure Resolution should be agreed to as it stood.


Order! order, the hon. Member is now dealing with the whole Question. The Amendment only raises a very small point.


said, as he understood it, the point was whether or not the Government Resolution should apply to the Committee stage. That was the point he was endeavouring to argue.


But the hon. Member was expressing his opinion that the whole Motion should be passed.


said he did think so. Continuing, the hon. Member said the question was whether the Committee stage should be prolonged indefinitely. Now his view was that it would be a great advantage if the speeches were terse and to the point, without being unreasonably prolonged. If that were secured there was a probability that reasonable Amendments would be carefully argued, and that the speeches would be listened to. The tendency was to reiteration, and the Government Resolution would prevent that. There was another point to be considered. Some hon. Members of that House had occupations outside, and it ought not to be made impossible for those who were not merely professional politicians to attend to those occupations. He for one looked on the House of Commons as the great Council of the Nation, and they ought to be able to listen to real debates, to argue real Amendments, and to have them discussed impartially. Too many of the Amendments now brought forward were mere repetition, and that afforded ample justification for closuring the debate on the Committee Stage.


said he viewed with considerable apprehension the application of this Resolution, which practically superseded the Rules recently adopted for the conduct of the business of the House. In his opinion the most useful stage in the progress of a Bill was the Committee stage; it was at that stage that the suggestions were made the adoption of which made a measure practicable and workable. Useful and fruitful work was done in Committee. But he desired to point out what would be one effect of the adoption of the Resolution as it now stood. It provided that the Committee stage on the Licensing Bill should be brought to a conclusion after so many days. Did hon. Members quite apprehend what that meant? What not unfrequently happened in the case of other Bills was not unlikely to happen on this measure. It might become necessary to recommit the Bill, and he doubted whether, supposing the Resolution were carried, Mr. Speaker would put a Motion for recommittal, inasmuch as there would be no Committee to which the Bill could be recommitted, because by the Resolution the Committee stage would have been concluded. His view was that in voting for this Amendment the House would be voting for the curtailment of its powers on the Report stage, and would deprive itself of the useful power of recommittal. In view of the fact that no plea either of urgency or of obstruction had been advanced in support of the Resolution, he deplored that the Government should, so soon after the new Rules had been passed, come before the House with a proposal of this nature.


said he would venture to point out that this Amendment really contradicted in substance the conclusion at which the House arrived at midnight last night. There was no speech which was made in favour of the Resolution which could not, with equal propriety of course, be made against this modification. The hon. Gentleman who moved must be perfectly aware, indeed he rather judged from his speech that he was aware, that to carry his Amendment would nullify the whole effect they might anticipate from the passage of the Resolution. It was on the Committee stage that they had the sixty-five pages of Amendments, it was on the Committee stage that they saw before them the actual means by which the proceedings on this Bill might be indefinitely postponed. And he had not the smallest doubt, when they had waded I through the sixty-five pages of Amendments, and the additions which the ingenuity of hon. Gentlemen would doubtless prompt before the end of the Committee stage, that all this would have to be gone through again on the Report stage. This Amendment, in truth, was not an Amendment, but the destruction of the Resolution; and he thought everybody who supported the Resolution last night was bound in common consistency to support the Government now in resisting it. This was substantially the question which was discussed yesterday, and under the circumstances he did not doubt that the House could without very prolonged debate come to the same conclusion as that at which it arrived a few hours previously on the main question.

MR. MIDDLEMORE (Birmingham, N.)

said the Prime Minister had parenthetically dealt with the question of the extension of the time for the Committee stage.


Order, order! That point will arise on a future Amendment.


declared that the House if it accepted this Amendment would nullify all the decisions at which it had arrived by huge majorities on the various stages of the Licensing Bill. The Amendment asked for more time for the consideration of the Bill. But he would like to draw the attention of the House to the time that had been already expended. More time was asked for the discussion of Clause 1, that clause dealt with the question of quarter sessions, and he would like to point out that the First and Second Reading debates were concentrated on the subject of the powers of quarter sessions.


Order, order! That question does not now arise. The point now is whether the Committee stage shall be expunged from the Resolution.


said he of course bowed to the ruling of the Chairman. What he was particularly anxious about was that the decisions arrived at by huge majorities should not now be nullified. The House must not stultify itself, and he hoped that the Government would rigidly adhere to their Resolution.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 220; Noes, 160. (Division List No. 189.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Fison, Frederick William MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Maconochie, A. W.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh,W
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O Flower, Sir Ernest M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Arrol, Sir William Forster, Henry William Malcolm, Ian
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.) Manners, Lord Cecil
Bagot, Capt, Josceline FitzRoy Galloway, William Johnson Massey-Main waring, Hn. W.F.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Gardner, Ernest Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H.E(Wigt'n
Bain, Colonel James Robert Garfit, William Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)
Baird, John George Alexander Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) Melville, Beresford Valentine
Balcarres, Lord Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
Beldwin, Alfred Goulding, Edward Alfred Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r) Graham, Henry Robert Milvain, Thomas
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) Mitchell, William (Burnley)
Balfour, Rt, Hn GeraId W. (Leeds Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Grenfell, William Henry Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gretton, John Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Groves, James Grimble Moore, William
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Gunter, Sir Robert Morpeth, Viscount
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Halsey, Rt, Hon. Thomas F. Morrell, George Herbert
Bignold, Arthur Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry Morrison, James Archibald
Bigwood, James Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford) Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Bill, Charles Hare, Thomas Leigh Mount, William Arthur
Blundell, Colonel Henry Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray G.
Bond, Edward Hay, Hon. Claude George Murray, Rt, Hon. A. G. (Bute)
Brassey, Albert Heath, James (Staffords., N.W. Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Heaton, John Henniker Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Brown, Sir Alex. H.(Shropsh.) Helder, Augustus Newdegate, Francis A. N.
Bull, William James Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Nicholson, William Graham
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hoare, Sir Samuel Parker, Sir Gilbert
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow Hogg, Lindsay Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside Pemberton, John S. G.
Cautley, Henry Strother Horner, Frederick William Percy, Earl
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Hoult, Joseph Pierpoint, Robert
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J. A. (Worc. Houston, Robert Paterson Pilkington, Colonel Richard
Chapman, Edward Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Charrington, Spencer Hudson, George Bickersteth Plummer, Walter R.
Clive, Captain Percy A. Hunt, Rowland Pretyman, Ernest George
Coates, Edward Feetham Jameson, Major J. Eustace Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Purkis, Robert
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Johnstone, Heywood, (Sussex) Rankin, Sir James
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh) Ratcliff, R. F.
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop. Reid, James (Greenock)
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Kerr, John Remnant, James Farquharson
Dalkeith, Earl of Knowles, Sir Lees Richards, Henry Charles
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green
Davenport, William Bromley- Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Denny, Colonel Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R. Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Dickson, Charles Scott Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) Robinson, Brooke
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. Llewellyn, Evan Henry Round, Rt. Hon. James
Doughty, George Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Royds, Clement Molyneux
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.) Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Lowe, Francis William Samuel, Sir Harrys.(Limehouse
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) Loyd, Archie Kirkman Sharpe, William Edward T.
Fardell, Sir T. George Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth Spear, John Ward
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Macdona, John Cumming Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset Valentia, Viscount Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.) Walker, Col. William Hall Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)
Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart Warde, Colonel C. E. Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. Webb, Colonel William George Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxfd Univ. Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Thorburn, Sir Walter Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Tollemache, Henry James Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne
Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Tritton, Charles Ernest Willoughby de Eresby', Lord Alexander Acland-Hood and
Tuff, Charles Wills, Sir Frederick Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Parrott, William
Allen, Charles V. Hain, Edward Partington, Oswald
Ashton, Thomas Gair Harwood, George Paulton, James Mellor
Barlow, John Emmott Hayden, John Patrick Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Barran, Romland Hirst Helme, Norval Watson Power, Patrick Joseph
Blake, Edward Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Price, Robert John
Boland, John Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Rea, Russell
Bowles, T. Gibson (Kind's Lynn Higham, John Sharpe Reckitt, Harold James
Brigg, John Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Broadhurst, Henry Holland, Sir William Henry Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. Rigg, Richard
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Jacoby, James Alfred Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Buchanan, Thoma Ryburn Johnson, John (Gateshead) Roche, John
Burke, E. Haviland Joicey, Sir James Rose, Cuarles Day
Buxton, Sydney Charles Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) Runciman, Walter
Caldwell, James Jordan, Jeremiah Russell, T. W.
Cameron, Robert Joyce, Michael Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W. Schwann, Charles E.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Kilbride, Denis Shackleton, David James
Causton, Richard Knight Kitson, Sir James Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Channing, Francis Allston Lambert, George Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Churchill, Winston Spencer Langley, Batty Sheehy, David
Condon, Thomas Joseph Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Slack, John Bamford
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Layland-Barratt, Francis Sloan, Thomas Henry
Crean, Eugene Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington) Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Cremer, William Randal Leng, Sir John Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Crombie, John William Levy, Maurice Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Cullinan, J. Lewis, John Herbert Stevenson, Francis S.
Dalziel, James Henry Lough, Thomas Strachey, Sir Edward
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Lundon, W. Sullivan, Donal
Daives, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) Lyell, Charles Henry Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Delany, William Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Tennant, Harold John
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Thomas, J. A. (GlamorganGower
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles M'Crae, George Tomkinson, James
Donelan, Captain A. M'Fadden, Edward Toulmin, George
Doogan, P. C. M'Hugh, Patrick A. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Douglas. Charles M. (Lanark) Mansfield, Horace Rendall Wallace, Robert
Elibank, Master of Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Ellice,Capt E.C.(SAndrw'sBghs Markham, Arthur Basil Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.) White, George (Norfolk)
Evans, Sir Fran. H. (Maidstone Mooney, John J. White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Murphy, John Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Field, William Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Nussey, Thomas Willans Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Fla in, Michael Joseph O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd
Flynn, James Christopher O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) Young, Samuel
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Yoxall, James Henry
Fuller, J. M. F. O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John O'Doherty, William TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Lloyd - George and Mr.
Grant, Corrie O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) M'Kenna.
Griffith, Ellis J. O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)

moved to omit from the Resolution the words "and on Report." He submitted that in view of the number of Amendments to be moved in Committee by the Home Secretary, and of The suggestions which had already been partially accepted by the Government, more than two days would be necessary for the revision of the Bill on the Report stage. Anybody who had been a Member of the House for any length of time would know that the Report stage was very essential in order to revise the patchwork legislation done in Committee. The Committee stage he looked upon as a work in mosaic, Amendments were suggested and forms of words brought forward and accepted hurriedly, and they certainly required prolonged examination on Report, so as to make the Bill a workmanlike piece of legislation.

Amendment proposed— In line 2, to leave out the words 'and on Report.' "—(Mr. Yoxall.)

Question proposed, "That the words and on Report' stand part of the Question."


expressed surprise that it should have been thought necessary to move the Amendment. The main object of the Resolution was to deal with the Committee and Report stages.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

And the Third Reading.


said that to accept the Amendment would be to stultify the decision at which the House had already arrived. In support of the contention of the Opposition that there had been no obstruction, it was urged that the debates in Committee had been carried on practically under Report rules; that the same Member had not thought it necessary to exercise his right to speak more than once on the same Amendment. That only showed that the same time might be expended on the Report stage as on the Committee stage, and that the sixty-six pages of Amendments now down for the Committee stage might be transferred bodily and without modification to the Report stage without any Member suffering the least inconvenience from the fact that he could only speak once on each Amendment. In these circumstances he hoped the House would not accept the Amendment, which would not make a merely superficial change in the Government proposal but would absolutely destroy it.

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

thought the House would note with surprise the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman. It was not reasonable for him to say that there was no case to be made o t for eliminating the Report stage which might not equally well have been urged in favour of the cutting out of the Committee stage. There could be no doubt that the feeling of the House in regard to the Resolution was far from unanimous, and during the debate some of the most respected Members on the Government side of the House had expressed themselves in favour of some extension of the time to be devoted to the Bill. If they were to have more time, obviously it could best be given in connection with the Report stage, and therefore he should support the Amendment. If the Report stage was entirely eliminated the House would gain the opportunity of compromise. The Report stage was obviously the stage when a measure could be reconsidered and compromise arrived at. As the Resolution now stood there would not be any possibility of that because when it was reached the whole of that stage might be occupied in considering second-rate Amendments. This was one of those cases where it was of the utmost importance that the well-considered opinion of the House should be recorded. As the matter stood who would say that the Report stage would be anything but a farce. He therefore suggested that as some of the supporters of the Government desired more elasticity this was the time that they ought to bring pressure to bear on the Prime Minister. If this Amendment were carried it would leave the House a full opportunity to consider the Bill on Report, and if there were any conciliatory spirit shown on the Treasury Bench he ventured to say the Report stage would not occupy the time which the right hon. Gentleman anticipated; that only a few important Amendments would be taken. If there was to be no conciliation at any cost he could only say it would not redound to the credit of the Government or to the advantage of the Bill, and it was a ridiculous farce to occupy the time in discussing this Resolution if the right hon. Gentleman had made up his mind to shut his ears to every argument in favour of the Amendment. He, however, hoped that it was not yet too late to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to pay some heed to the unanimity of opinion in favour of this extension of time, and that the right hon. Gentleman would view with some favour this Amendment.

MR. McKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)

expressed the opinion that in curtailing the limits of debate in this House, the right hon. Gentleman was not entitled to go one step beyond what was necessary. One ground for the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman was that there were sixty-six pages of Amendments on the Paper for the Committee stage, and it was because the right hon. Gentleman did not see the possibility of getting through those Amendments at an early date that he moved this Resolution. But the right hon. Gentleman could not possibly know what Amendments would come up on Report and he submitted that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to adopt this drastic procedure with regard to Report until he saw how he stood. He asserted that if the Report stage was not curtailed the right hon. Gentleman would find that the Amendments put down would be inconsiderable and only deal with important phases of the Bill, and he contended that the House ought not to consent to the proposal to confine the discussion on Report to two days until they had seen what would happen in Committee. They did not know what the Bill was that would be brought before the House on Report. And if the right hon. Gentleman found he was being badly treated in the matter of Amendments he had two courses open to him, both effective. He could either move a Motion of this kind or move that all words down to a certain point stand part. This was a defence of the rights of the House which all private Members were entitled to claim. They were asked to limit the time for discussion before they knew what the Bill was they were to be asked to discuss and, having regard to the fact that only three lines of the Bill had been dealt with in Committee, he submitted that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was entirely without precedent, and that the right hon. Gentleman was going further than he was entitled to go. By consenting to the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman would give the House that opportunity to consider the various clauses of the Bill which they would be denied in Committee, without which the public at large would not accept the Bill in its final form as the considered judgment of the House of Commons.

Me. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid.)

thought that both the Committee and the Report stage should have been dealt with in this matter, but as the proposal with regard to the Committee had been carried he now submitted that the Amendment put down to keep the Report stage in the hands of the House without limitation was a reasonable Amendment. Only two days were to be allowed on Report, on new clauses as well as on all clauses amended in Committee. A full Report stage ought to be allowed for the new clauses alone, and for that very reason the Report stage ought to be extended. One very remarkable thing was that more than half the new clauses had been put down by supporters of the Government. The hon. Member for Hackney had one; the hon. Member for Wakefield had one, and the hon. Member for Hammersmith, who was a thick-and-thin supporter of the Government, also had one. There was actually one in the name of the hon. Member for North Kensington. What would he say when it was said that the Report stage was to be limited. If the Committee stage was to be swept away it was obviously the more important that the Report stage of the Bill should be carried out in accordance with the ordinary forms and rules of the House. As his hon. friend had pointed out they did not yet know what Amendments would be put down for Report. His hon. friend also suggested two remedies to the right hon. Gentleman for dealing with them; he would suggest another easy remedy. If it was found that there would have to be much discussion the right hon. Gentleman might suspend the operation of the twelve o'clock rule. That was always done at the end of a session in order to expedite business, and if the plan were adopted on the Report stage of this Bill it would eb passed in a short time because although men were willing to stay in the House until two or even three o'clock in order to conduct business they would not wait for the mere purpose of obstruction. Rather than the Report stage should be curtailed he would suggest that the Third Reading stage of a Bill, which had been contested as this had been, was, in his opinion, perfectly useless. They only had stale speeches which were of no value, and he thought an hour should be quite sufficient to dispose of the Third Reading. They would then have a brilliant oration from the Home Secretary replied to by an eloquent twenty-minutes speech from the other side and then the division might be taken. In his own interests the Prime Minister would do well to make some concession. Putting aside mere newspaper opinion, there was the opinion of the solid and respectable members of the community to the effect that the Prime Minister had been forced to bring forward this closure Resolution at the behest of the brewers.


intimated that that question could not be rediscussed upon every Amendment.


said he was merely trying to urge a reason why, having got the Committee stage, the Prime Minister should exempt some portion of the proceedings from the Resolution in order to indicate his contention that he was acting in the interests of eternal justice and not of the brewers.

SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs),

referring to the Prime Minister's complaint that first a Motion was made to exempt the Committee stage and then another to exempt the Report stage, said the reason was that six days were not too much for the Committee and might not be too much for Report, and that so long as the right hon. Gentleman remained inflexible, those who thoroughly disapproved of the proposed limitation would have to attempt to secure the exemption first of one stage and then of another. It would be much more pleasant to leave the Bill, and look forward to another Parliament to deal with the matter, but that was not really the duty of the Opposition. Their duty was to make the best of the existing circumstances, and so long as the right hon. Gentleman remained obdurate they were bound to try in turn to get every relaxation of the Resolution that was possible. If the Government intended to make any addition to the number of days allotted it would be advisable that they should say so at once.

MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)

thought the House had already been played with to a considerable extent. Even to-day the Prime Minister had put up one of his supporters to delay the division. ["No."] The noble Lord the Member for Chorley approached the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division obviously to prevail upon him to speak.

MR. J. P. HOPE (Sheffield, Brightside)

said the conversation to which the hon. Member referred had reference to a private Bill.


said he would be satisfied if the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division denied that the noble Lord asked him to speak on the Amendment.


said the noble Lord spoke to him with reference to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill, and nothing else.


asked whether he was to understand that the noble Lord said nothing with reference to taking part in the debate.


The noble Lord asked me how long the Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill was likely to take. The conversation had nothing whatever to do with any other matter.


said that on that statement he was quite willing to withdraw his remark, though he thought there must be some connection between the Mersey Docks Bill and the celebrated warming pan in "Pickwick."


This is really not relevant to the question before the House.


asked whether, inasmuch as time had on various occasions been wasted by deliberate obstruction on the other side, the Prime Minister would guarantee that nothing of the kind would be allowed during the short period allotted to the Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be quite willing to cut down the time, and at the same time to allow hours to be wasted by his own supporters at the commencement of the sitting and immediately after dinner. Many Members were perfectly prepared to sit after midnight to discuss the Bill, and that, he thought, was a very fair offer to make. But there was not much chance of the offer being accepted, as they all knew what happened in connection with the Budget when arrangements had been made for a late sitting. The Prime Minister's own supporters failed him—


I hope the hon. Member will address himself in a business-like way to the question before the House.


said that when there were other methods by which business could be got through it made one feel very strongly with reference to the course of action adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. However, it was no good arguing the matter with the Government; they had made up their minds that the Bill should not be discussed, but he thought the Opposition had given clear notice that they would not recognise any Parliamentary title whatever in the decisions come to under such circumstances.


pointed out that in connection with the Home Rule Bill two closure Resolutions were proposed—one dealing with Committee, and the other, moved when the Committee stage was concluded, with Report. That, he thought, was the more businesslike way of proceeding, because until the Committee stage had been dealt with, it was impossible to say how long was required for the consideration of questions left undiscussed. For instance, on Clauses 2 and 3, the most important Amendments would be at the end of Clause 2 and the beginning of Clause 3. They would all be left over, because the questions to be dealt with at the beginning of Clause 2 were of such substance that they could not be passed unnoticed. The Prime Minister was too apt to forget that, in addition to being the Leader of a Party, he was also the Leader of the House of Commons, in which position it was his duty, after the conclusion of the Committee stage, to go through the questions undiscussed, and to allot to their consideration such a period of time as, based upon an impartial consideration of their importance, would suffice for their proper discussion. But that could not be done until the Committee stage was concluded, and one could see what questions remained untouched. It was found in connection with the Home Rule Bill that a separate Resolution for the Report stage did not involve a great expenditure of time, but it enabled a much better use to be made of the period allotted to discussion, as the House knew exactly the questions they had still to consider. The Prime Minister said that the Opposition were making contradictory Resolutions, but the right hon. Gentleman appeared to forget that the Amendment to omit the Committee stage had been rejected. Consequently they were entitled to plead for freedom of debate at some stage of this Bill. If the Government had resolved that there should be no discussion on the Committee stage, surely they ought to allow ample discussion upon the Report stage. Even the hon. and gallant Member for Clare suggested that if the Members of the Opposition would wait until the Report stage the Government might consider it advisable to allow more time for that stage of the Bill. Seeing that the Government had not responded to that appeal, all they could do now was to protest at every stage of this Resolution and take the opinion of the House upon it with a view of afterwards taking the opinion of the country.

DR. HUTCHINSON (Sussex, Rye)

said he was returned as a Member of the House of Commons about fifteen months ago, and a licence was then given to h m to take part in the debates in the House. That licence was now being taken away from him by this Resolution for no ill-conduct, and he wanted to know what compensation the Prime Minister was going to give him for taking away his licence. A great many important sections of the community had been heard upon this Bill, including the representatives of the Bishops, the clergy, and also the teetotalers, sitting on the Opposition side of the House.


Order, order! The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment, and he is not at liberty to make a speech upon the Bill generally.


said that he had no intention of discussing the Bill generally, and all he wanted to bring in at the end was that there was another small section of the community in this country who had not had their say in regard to this Bill—he meant the medical profession. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laughed now at the mention of the medical profession,

but the moment would come to every Member of the House when he would not want either Prime Ministers or Colonial Secretaries, and when the one man he would want would be a medical man. Hon. Members would probably remember the lines of the poet:— God and the doctor men adore, When sickness conies, but not before When health returns and ills are righted, God is forgotten, the doctor slighted.

If there was one body of men more than another who were brought face to face with this question it was the medical profession, and he thought that ample time ought to be given so that the voice of that section of the community for whom he spoke could be heard upon this Bill.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 258; Noes, 188. (Division List No. 190).

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A.(Worc) FitzRoy, Hon. Edward Algernon
Anson, Sir William Reynell Chaplin, Rt. Hon Henry Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O Chapman, Edward Flower, Sir Ernest
Arrol, Sir William Charrington, Spencer Forster, Henry William
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Clive, Captain Percy A. Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Coates, Edward Feetham Galloway, William Johnson
Bagot, Capt. Joseeline FitzRoy Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Gardner, Ernest
Bailey, James (Walworth) Coddington, Sir William Garfit, William
Bain, Colonel James Robert Coghill, Douglas Harry Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.
Baird, John George Alexander Cohen, Benjamin Louis Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Nairn
Balcarres, Lord Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc)
Baldwin, Alfred Colston, Chas. Edw. W. Athole Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Goulding, Edward Alfred
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. Graham, Henry Robert
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. Leeds Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Dalkeith, Earl of Grenfell, William Henry
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Dalrymple, Sir Charles Gretton, John
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Davenport, William Bromley- Greville, Hon. Ronald
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Denny, Colonel Groves, James Grimble
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Dewar, Sir T.R,(TowerHamlets Gunter, Sir Robert
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Dickinson, Robert Edmond Hall, Edward Marshall
Bignold, Arthur Dickson. Charles-Scott Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Bigwood, James Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry
Bill, Charles Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Hardy, Laurence(Kent Ashford
Blundell, Colonel Henry Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Hare, Thomas Leigh
Bond, Edward Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Doughty, George Hay, Hon. Claude George
Bowles, Lt. Col. H.F. (Middlesex Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.
Brassey, Albert Doxford, Sir William Theodore Heaton, John Henniker
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Helder, Augustus
Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh) Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford. W.)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A. (Glasgow- Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) Hickman, Sir Alfred
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Fardell, Sir T. George Hoare, Sir Samuel
Cautley, Henry Strother Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r Hogg, Lindsay
Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Horner, Frederick William
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Fison, Frederick William Hoult, Joseph
Houston, Robert Paterson Moore, William Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Moigan, David J.(Walthamstow) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Hudson, George Bickersteth Morpeth, Viscount Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Hunt, Rowland Morrell, George Herbert Smith, Abel H. (Hertford. East)
Jameson, Major J. Eustace Morrison, James Archibald Smith, H.C (North'mb. Tyneside)
Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred. Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Spencer, Sir E.(W. Bromwich)
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Mount, William Arthur Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Johnstone, Heywood (Su ex) Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Kennaway. Rt. Hn. Sir Tohn H. Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)
Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh) Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Kerr, John Myers, William Henry Stock, Jame Henry
Knowles, Sir Lees Newdegate, Francis A. N. Stroyan, John
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Nicholson, William Graham Strutt, Hon. Charle Hedley
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Parker, Sir Gilbert Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ)
Lawson, John Grant(Yorks N.R.) Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley Thorburn, Sir Walter
Lee, Arthur H.(Hants. Fareham) Pemberton, John S. G. Thornton, Percy M.
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Percy, Earl Tollemache, Henry James
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Pierpoint, Robert Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Llewellyn, Evan Henry Pilkington, Colonel Richard Tritton, Charles Ernest
Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Platt-Higgins, Frederick Tuff, Charles
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Plummer, Walter R. Tufnell, Lieut. Col. Edward
Long. Col. Charles W.(Evesham) Pretyman, Ernest George Valentia, Viscount
Long. Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol. S) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Walker, Col. William Hall
Lowe, Francis William Purvis, Robert Warde, Colonel C. E.
Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Webb, Colonel William George
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Rankin, Sir James Welby, Lt. Col. A.C.E. (Taunton
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.)
Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth Ratcliff, B. F. Wharton, Rt, Hon. John Lloyd
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Reid, James (Greenock) Whiteley, H.(Ashton und Lyne
Macdona, John Cumming Remnant, James Farquharson Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Maclver, David (Liverpool) Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Maconochie, A. W. Renwick, George Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Mr. Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh) Richards, Henry Charles Wills, Sir Frederick
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Ridley, S. Ford (Bethnal Green Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Malcolm, Ian Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Manners, Lord Cecil Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Wilson-Todd. Sir W.H.(Yorks.)
Martin, Richard Biddulph Robinson, Brooke Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W. F. Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Worsley-Tavlor, Henry Wilson
Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H.E(Wigt'n) Round, Rt. Hon. James Wortley. Rt. Hn. C.B. Stuart-
Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfresshire) Royds, Clement Molyneux Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Melville, Beresford Valentine Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Milvain, Thomas Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Mitchell, William (Burnley) Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Sir Alexander Acland-Hood
Molesworth, Sir Lewis Samuel, Sir Harry S.(Limehouse) and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Caldwell, James Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Cameron, Robert Dunn, Sir William
Allen, Charles P. Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Edwards, Frank
Ashton, Thomas Gair Causton, Richard Knight Elibank, Master of
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Channing, Francis Allston Ellice. Capt EC(S. Andrw's Bghs
Atherley-Jones, L. Churchill, Winston Spencer Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)
Barlow, John Emmott Condon, Thomas Joseph Emmott, Alfred
Barran, Rowland Hirst Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Evans,Sir FrancisH (Maidstone
Beaumont, Wentworth C.B. Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Farquharson, Dr. Robert
Bell, Richard Crean, Eugene Fenvick, Charles
Black, Alexander William Cremer, William Randal Ferguson, B.C. Munro (Leith)
Blake, Edward Crombie, John William Field, William
Boland, John Cullinan, J. Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond
Brigg, John Dalziel, James Henry Flavin, Michael Joseph
Broadhurst, Henry Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Flynn, James Christopher
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Foster, Sir Walter(Derby Co.)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Delany, William Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway) Fuller, J. M. F.
Burke, E. Haviland Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles Furness, Sir Christopher
Burt, Thomas Donelan, Captain A. Gladstone. Rt. Hn. Herbert J.
Buxton, Sydney Charles Doogan, P. C. Goddard, Daniel Ford
Grant, Corric M'Crae, George Shackleton, David James
Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick) M'Fadden, Edward Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Griffith, Ellis J. M'Hugh, Patrick A. Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton M'Kenna, Reginald Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Ham, Edward Mansfield, Horace Rendall Sheehy, David
Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Shipman, Dr. John G.
Harcourt, Rt Hn Sir W (Monm'th) Markham, Arthur Basil Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Harwood, George Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N.) Slack, John Bamford
Hayden, John Patrick Mooney, John J. Sloan, Thomas Henry
Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D. Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Helme, Norval Watson Murphy, John Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H. Norton, Capt. Cecil William Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Nussey, Thomas Willans Stevensonl Francis S.
Higham, John Sharpe O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Strachey, Sir Edward
Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) O'Brien Kendal(Tipperary, Mid Sullivan, Donal
Holland, Sir William Henry O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Horniman, Frederick John O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N) Tennant, Harold John
Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. 0'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.) Thomas, Sir A.(Glarnorgan, E.)
Jacoby, James Alfred O'Doherty, William Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Johnson, John (Gateshead) O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower
Joicey, Sir James O'Dowd, John Tomkinson, James
Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N Toulmin, George
Jordan, Jeremiah Parrott, William Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Joyce, Michael Partington, Oswald Wallace, Robert
Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W. Paulton, James Mellor Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.
Kitson, Sir James Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Lambert, George Power, Patrick Joseph Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Langley, Batty Price, Robert John Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.) Rea, Russell White, George (Norfolk)
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Reckitt, Harold James White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Layland-Barratt, Francis Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Leamy, Edmund Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington Rickett, J. Compton Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Leng, Sir John Rigg, Richard Wilson, Chas, Henry(Hull, W.)
Levy, Maurice Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)
Lewis, John Herbert Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Wilson, Henry J. (York. W.R.)
Lloyd-George, David Robson, William Snowdon Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Lough, Thomas Roche, John Woodhouse, Sir RT.(Huddersf d
Lundon, W. Rose, Charles Day Young, Samuel
Lyell, Charles Henry Runciman, Walter
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Russell, T. W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland) Mr. Yoxall and Mr. Samuel
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Schwann, Charles E. Evans.

stated that a number of Amendments of which notice had been given proposing alterations in line 2 of the Resolution were not in order. The next Amendment which was in order stood in name of the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire.

MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS (Lanarkshire, N.W.),

who had given notice of an Amendment to leave out "on six allotted days" in line 3, asked if he might move to leave out the word "on," reserving other questions to be dealt with by subsequent Amendments.


said the object of the hon. Member's Amendment, and also of several others, was really to get rid of the word "six."


said there was a more general object in the Amend- ment, namely, not to decide at this stage how many days were to be occupied, but to reserve that point for a later period.


The hon. Member's Amendment is to leave out "on six allotted days." The other Amendments are to leave out "six" and to substitute certain other numbers. In each case the object is to get rid of the word "six."


said he would not move his Amendment.


moved to leave out "six" in line 3, and insert "eighteen." He was most anxious that they should have an opportunity of pressing the Prime Minister to make some extension of the number of days. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that many of his supporters had very great misgivings in voting with him for closure by compartments, and with the exception of two they had strongly urged him to widen the scheme of compartments. The right hon. Gentleman had based his proposal to some extent on precedents set by his own and preceding Governments. But there was nothing in these precedents anything like so drastic as the scheme now proposed. In connection with the Crimes Bill of 1887 they had fifteen days in Committee before the closure by compartments scheme was brought forward. The Home Rule Bill had been twenty-eight days in Committee before closure by compartments was proposed. On the Education Bill of 1902 they were thirty-eight days in Committee before closure by compartments was enforced, and then seven days in Committee alone were given, and four days on Report, while the Third Reading was left entirely out of the time limit. After citing these facts he thought the right hon. Gentleman would see that there was no case in which the closure by compartments had been moved so soon and so closely, and with so short an amount of time between the Committee and Report stage. And there was no precedent for taking the closure on the Third Reading. In regard to this Bill, they had been told that it had been thirty-four hours in Committee. He thought that that was not quite correct. It had been only thirty hours in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to give four days more, one of which must be a Friday—which would only be five hours for that day—and two days for Report, and one of these days would also be a Friday, which would amount to twelve and a half hours. That would mean that thirty-seven and a half hours would be given for discussion under closure by compartments. Then, on the Third Reading there was to be one day, or seven and a half hours. The total time, therefore, occupied by the Bill from beginning to end, with the closure by compartments and prior to its being enforced, would, roughly speaking, be seventy-five hours. Could the Prime Minister honestly say that that was enough?


Do you include the First and Second Readings?


said no. But he would take twenty-five hours for the First and Second Readings and that would make 100 hours. Did the Prime Minister tell the House that 100 hours for all the stages for this Bill was anything approaching a reasonable time in which to discuss it? He moved his Motion because substantially every speaker, with the exception of two on the right hon. Gentleman's own side of the House, was in favour of a more generous extension of the time limit, and no precedent had been put forward for so drastic a scheme as this. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In line 3, to leave out the word 'six,' and insert the word 'eighteen."— (Dr. Macnamara.)

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

MR. EMMOTT (Oldham)

said he desired to second the Amendment. He was very glad to find that the hon. Member had increased the time of his proposal from ten to eighteen days, which made the Amendment equivalent to what he himself intended to have moved. The hon. Member had talked about precedents, but he was afraid that this was not so much a matter of precedent, as that the Government imagined that for their own sakes they must pass this Bill into law under conditions which would limit the session to the 12th of August. The conditions could leave no doubt in the mind of any clear-minded person that this discussion was to be crowded into an altogether inadequate period. The questions which had been raised were of enormous importance, and the idea of suppressing the discussion on Clauses 2 and 3 into one day was perfectly absurd. The questions arising on these clauses were of such far-reaching importance that the House ought to have several days in which to discuss them adequately. If the time fixed were ten days it would even then be inadequate, but if it were eighteen days it would give them a much better chance of adequate discussion.

MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)

said he had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for North Camberwell, with admiration, because the hon. Member had suggested what he thought would have been a valuable argument for a reasonable Amendment. But it was ridiculous to suggest that the extension of the time limit should be not from six to ten days, but to eighteen days. He himself hoped that the Prime Minister would extend the time limit proposed, but the Amendment of the hon. Member, if he insisted upon it, was calculated to defeat the end he had in view.

MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire,) South Molton

said they ought not to be afraid to ask the House of Commons to sit for twelve more days. They ought to understand really what they were passing. He did not believe that anyone who read the Bill through knew what it meant. The senior Member for Oldham had spoken of the discussion on Clauses 2 and 3 being pressed into one day. He had made a calculation as to how many hours they would have to discuss these two clauses of this revolutionary measure. They would have from three o'clock to 7.30, which was four and a half hours for the most important clause in the Bill, because it endeavoured to show what amount of compensation would be obtained for the refusal of a licence. It was perfectly evident to any fair-minded and reasonable man that it was absolutely impossible for the House to discuss that important clause in four and a half hours. Speeches might be limited as much as they pleased, but not half of the Amendments, even from the Government side of the House, would be reached. Seventeen of the Amendments on Clause 2 were proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. If each Gentlemen occupied a quarter of an hour the whole of the time would have been exhausted. He asked the Prime Minister himself if he quite knew how much this Bill was going to increase the value of the licensed property of the country. Nobody had been able to tell them. They had had various estimates ranging from £100,000,000 to over £300.000;000. The vital Amendment which would give some information as to the amount of compensation that was to be paid ought certainly not be scamped. Many good supporters of the Government, including its most pathetic supporters, the Member for Plymouth, the right hon. Member for Oxford, the hon. and learned Member for Stretford, and the right hon. Member for East Somerset, one of the most reasonable Members of the House, wanted an extension of time. But it was impossible for their Amendments to be reached if the Prime Minister's proposal to devote only four and a half hours to this compartment were carried. The whole thing was a mockery and a sham. He asked the Prime Minister in the interests not only of his own Bill but of the dignity of the House to give a fair amount of time for the discussion of this important matter. He was sure the right hon. Gentlemen's own constituents would not blame him if he said that he was going to make the House of Commons sit from the 12th to the 24th August in order to get me Licensing Bill discussed in a proper and workmanlike fashion. He therefore trusted the right hon. Gentleman would assent to the Amendment of his on. friend.


said that when the hon. Member talked about the absurdity of asking the House to pass such a Resolution, it showed that he was a very young Member of the House. He could not have taken part in the proceedings in regard to the closure on the Home Rule Bill.


Certainly I did.


Do my ears deceive me? Does the hon. Gentleman say he was present and yet talk about the dignity of the House and the absurdity of the present discussion of two clauses in one day?


said he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would find a precedent in the Home Rule Bill discussion which compressed a single clause into four and a half hours.


said that when the hon. Gentleman talked about the dignity of the House of Commons and of the absurdity of asking the House to discuss the questions which would be included in these compartments within the limit of time proposed, he certainly could not have taken part in the proceedings on the great closure of the Home Rule Bill by Mr. Gladstone.


Oh, yes I did, and I voted for it.


And yet the hon. Member talks about the dignity of the House and the absurdity of compressing Clauses 1 and 2 of the Licensing Bill into one day.


I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will find a single precedent in the Home Rule Bill closure for compressing a single clause into four hours and a half.


said he thought the hon. Gentleman had quite forgotten what the closure on the Home Rule Bill did. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Home Rule Bill proposed to give a new Constitution not only to this country but to Ireland, and that among the things which were not discussed because they were stopped by closure was the composition of the Irish Legislative Chamber, and of the Irish Legislative Council, and what was to be done in the case of disagreements between those two hypothetical bodies. All that was in the first compartment. He had described yesterday what happened in the second compartment, in which no less than eighteen clauses, each one of which was a Bill in itself, were compressed into five days. The hon. Gentleman might truly say that that was a different arrangement from this. Mr. Gladstone, naturally enough, and he thought he should have done the same thing in his place, thought it more convenient to have big batches of clauses stuck into compartments of four or five days, rather than, as he had now done with a very limited Bill, to have the compartments more restricted in length and the subjects much smaller. But if the hon. Gentleman would do the simple sum in arithmetic to which he had called attention yesterday, he would see that to discuss eighteen clauses in five days was to require the discussion of more than three clauses per diem on an average, and those clauses were not unimportant; they were not machinery clauses, but clauses connected with the constitution of a wholly new organic law.


We had a mandate and you have not.


Does the hon Gentleman say that his Party had a mandate for squeezing all these clauses into five days?


A mandate for the Home Rule—


That is not what we are arguing; but whether the House can discuss a given subject in a given time. On that point, which was the only one before them, the hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that the Government had been totally regardless of the dignity of the House, and had made utterly absurd proposals. He was pointing out that if the dignity of the House was affected by this proposal ten thousand times more was Mr. Gladstone's closure open to the same charge.


We sat till September.


said the hon. Gentleman's point, as he understood it, was that they were restricting discussion, but he did not think he need deal with that part of the subject at greater length. In the speech in which he introduced this Motion he had even hinted that he thought this method of closure by compartments an extremely clumsy method of procedure, and it was his firm conviction that some day this question would have to be taken in hand, and they would have to find some more flexible and more convenient method by which the time of the House should be allocated as between the different elements of the Government programme. The difficulties were obviously enormous, because, to start with, they must have a Government programme which was reasonable in dimensions; he did not mean to say, of course, reasonable in substance, because to an Opposition no Government programme was reasonable in substance. Then they would have to find some mechanism for allocating the debates so that every question of importance should be debated and no trivial question debated. Alas, they were far from that now, and he did not deny that the evils inherent in this method of dealing with business affected the proposals he had made to the House, as they had affected the other proposals of a similar kind made in the past, and as they doubt-less would affect other proposals of that kind made in the future. Until that great reform or alteration which he had adumbrated was accepted by that Assembly, which he supposed was in some respects, as regarded its rules, the most conservative Assembly in the world, and, while admitting frankly that his proposals were open to objection, he asked whether they should not under the circumstances be passed. He had considered and reconsidered the matter, and he sympathised with the desire of some hon. Members that there should be an extension of time, though not to the extent proposed in the Amendment, which was extreme even to absurdity. Given that the House had already decided that there should be a time limit to this Bill, on the whole he was inclined to think that the House would be well-advised to adhere to the limits originally laid down by the Government. By the addition of a few hours he did not believe any advantage would be secured to the Opposition, who had already announced their intention of not feeling themselves bound by this Bill. He did not think that in any circumstances they would be bound, but at all events no change in their attitude could be expected in return for anything in the nature of a slight modification of the scheme, which, after careful thought, he had laid on the Table of the House. They must have regard to the whole circumstances of the session. As far as he was concerned he certainly did not wish to overburden the House, but. even with any diminution which he might be able to make in the Government programme, he did not think it would be possible for them to rise before the day on which as a rule they had been able to rise during the last eight years, and even then he thought he was understating the case. Having regard to all those circumstances, much would be lost and nothing gained by any attempt to modify the Resolution he had moved. He had come to the conclusion with reluctance, but he hoped at all events his friends on that side would feel that it was through no desire for rash and arbitrary proceedings that he had taken the course he had. He was convinced it was the course which, on the whole, would be most useful in the public interests, and in the interests of the House and of the Members.


said he would not follow the Prime Minister into his forecast as to the period of the session, nor with regard to the precedent of the Home Rule Bill. The right hon. Gentleman at the time expressed his disapproval in warm terms of that precedent; and what was the use of bringing it forward now, unless, as he did not believe, the Prime Minister was stating deliberately what he thought to be unjust, wrong, and unfair. The right hon. Gentleman apparently indicated, just now, that there might be some possible willingness on his part to make a concession, if an indication were given of any change of temper and disposition on the part of the Opposition. He had two thoughts in reference to the Licensing Bill in connection with the Prime Minister. The first was that, with all his avocations, the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to penetrate to the core of the Bill. It was only after considerable study of its voluminous and important innovations that one could understand how deep it struck, and how dangerous it might be. His other thought with regard to the Prime Minister was that he did not realise the state of feeling in reference to the Bill. It appeared to be an axiom with regard to licensing legislation that every teetotaler was an extreme man; but many who were not tetotalers regarded the Bill as full of the gravest possible dangers. If the right hon. Gentleman realised that, he would not have talked about a few days more or less in comparison with the convenience of the House. No one wanted to overwork Ministers, or to deprive Members generally of the opportunity of enjoying some part of the summer in the country; but nothing of that kind was comparable to the vast questions involved in the Bill. It touched the liquor traffic and the licensing system at every point, as all experts could assure the right hon. Gentleman. The question was whether the time proposed was sufficient to allow the House to properly discuss the Bill. The Prime Minister did not say that it was sufficient. He did not think that the Prime Minister, as a gentleman of honour and as one responsible to the House and the country for such an important change in the law, would say that he really believed that the time proposed was sufficient. The right hon. Gentleman, however, seemed to think that there was some overwhelming necessity for curtailing discussion in order to wind up the session. That was neither a statesmanlike nor a fair attitude on the part of the Leader of the House. In the first clause there were sixteen points of far-reaching importance, and they would have to be discussed in one day. Supposing the Committee wished to divide on these points, the divisions alone, without any discussion whatever, would take three hours. He excluded any suspicion, although he did not know why he should, that those who wished to prevent any changes in the tenor of the Bill would occupy their time in discussing earlier and less important points. That was a danger that had to be faced. All this had to be dealt with in one day, and the same observation might be made with regard to the other clauses as a whole. The whole Bill from beginning to end was to be passed through the Report stage in two days. Discussion was impossible under such conditions. The Prime Minister had, however, refused to make any concession, although for his part he thought eighteen days would be very usefully occupied in discussing the measure. He felt that there was at stake something even more serious than the Bill. The House of Commons would not remain a deliberative assembly of any practical value if a limitation of this kind upon its time was imposed. The Prime Minister had not said that he believed the time allowed was sufficient, and he had given no reason for his proposal other than the convenience of Members of the House. He ventured to submit that that was not an attitude which the Prime Minister ought to take up.

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)

agreed that the Prime Minister was not likely to win gratitude from the Opposition, no matter how much time he might give for the discussion of the Bill. But there was something else than the gratitude of the Opposition; there was the decency of debate and the satisfaction of the country. The majority of the people of the country consisted of moder- ate men, who would be much better satisfied with the Bill if they knew that it had been adequately discussed in the House of Commons. It would greatly assit hon. Members to explain to their constituents the attitude taken up by the Government if more time were allowed for discussion. Assuming that the Resolution were passed that day, to-morrow would be the first allotted day and Friday next would be the second allotted day, and they would have to dispose of Clauses 2 and 3 in four and a half hours. When Estimates were before the House Friday was never considered a whole day, and he submitted that it would not be fair to make it an allotted day in this case. Clauses 2 and 3 covered the whole question of compensation, a most debateable question, on which strong feelings were held throughout the country, and a question on which great doubt and obscurity prevailed in the House as to what the Bill itself actually meant. He asked whether the Prime Minister could not give one or two full days for that most important subject.


said the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had spoken in so moderate and temperate a manner that in an ordinary case they might have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would have made the concession for which he had been asked, but the House had to remember that the most important parts of the Bill had not been discussed, and when the right hon. Member for Somerset pointed out that Clauses 2 and 3 would be discussed on Friday next, he put his finger not on the weak but on the strong spot. They were not intended to be discussed. There was on the Paper an Amendment put down on the part of the Government in respect of compensation. Why was not that in the Bill itself? They could pretty well gather the reason why it was put down now. It was put down because of an election that was now taking place. In the request he had made, the right hon. Gentleman was asking the Government to forego the main ground for their proposal. The Prime Minister had guaranteed that the difficult question which might divide the publican from the brewer should not be raised, and that it should only be from bitter experience of the working of the measure, after the general election, that the publican should find out that it was disastrous to him. Six days only were to be given to the House to dispose of a great public property. A property estimated at £300,000,000 was to be given away to the trade, and the right hon. Gentleman suggested that that was a reasonable proposal to make. What sort of a title were the brewers to get under this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman quoted the precedent of the Home Rule Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman and his friends then relied on another place to reject the measure on the ground that it had not been adequately discussed. They could not rely on another place on this occasion, but they would ask the judgment of the people upon the Parliamentary title which the Prime Minister was giving the brewers to a great public property estimated at £300,000,000 sterling. He was satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman was doing a bad day's business for the brewers by this procedure, because he was giving the country, and a future Government, a reason for upsetting that Parliamentary title. The Prime Minister was going beyond all precedents; he was limiting discussion, taking away the liberties of Members, and transferring public property; and the effect of his action would be to destroy the value which had hitherto attached to a Parliamentary title.


expressed his regret that the debate had started and was being continued on the lines of Party recrimination. The Prime Minister had spoken of the proceedings of the House becoming "wearisome and nauseous." Personally, when he heard these accusations bandied about from one side to the other he felt not weariness, but attenuation, and not nausea, but the next disagreeable stage which sometimes followed upon it. He began to doubt whether, in any discussion whatever, it would be possible to keep Ministers to the merits of the question at issue; certainly these Party recriminations were not relevant, and they did not add to the usefulness of the debates. He was sorry to hear the Prime Minister predict another dose of new rules. He would have thought the right hon. Gentleman's ex- perience in that direction would have deterred him from making another attempt. It was because the new rules had failed in their purpose that the present Resolution had been brought forward. The proposal before the House was no ordinary "closure by compartments." No dates whatever were fixed; the days were to be chosen by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and might be sandwiched in wherever the Prime Minister pleased. There was no security that the allotted days would not go beyond even the sacred 12th August, which the right hon. Gentleman appealed to worship in his most secret devotions The Amendment proposed to treble the number of days on which Members were to be placed absolutely at the command of the Government; therefore he would prefer six to eighteen. If the word "six" were agreed to, it would be useless to urge any subsequent extension of time for a particular stage of the Bill, as whatever was added to one portion would have to be taken from another. But it was evident that the Prime Minister had finally determined that the number of days should be six and no more. Friday was not likely to be one of the allotted days, as the right hon. Gentleman's supporters were usually in the country on that day golfing or motoring. Monday also was likely to be exempt, as hon. Members were not generally in attendance with sufficient strength to save the Government without the assistance of the Peckham janissaries. The determination to adhere to the proposed number of days, and to the system of scattering those days at will over the remainder of the session, was an absolute avowal that there was no urgency for the passing of the Bill.

SIR EDWARD GREY (Northumberland, Berwick)

shared the impatience of the hon. Member for Lynn Regis with i regard to the use 3 of the tu quoque argument, especially on the part of I the Prime Minister. The tu quoque argument, to be effective at all, should compare like with like, but there was no comparison whatever between the Home Rule Bill, to which the right I hon. Gentleman had referred, and the measure now concerned. In the former I case the Opposition had made it perfectly clear that they would not seriously debate the measure before the House; in the present case nothing of the sort had happened. The speech of the hon. Member the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board alone was a justification for strong measures in connection with the Home Rule Bill. The Prime Minister persistently ignored the fact that so far as the Committee stage in the Licensing Bill had gone, the division of speeches was nearly equal between the two sides of the House, and that certainly was not the case with the Home Rule Bill. He had little hope of influencing the Prime Minister, as the Bill was not really in his mind. It was not the convenience of the House, but the convenience of his own side of the House, that the right hon. Gentleman was considering. The Bill had to be forced through while he could count on their support. It was that fact that created the great gulf between the Opposition and the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had not gauged what the opposition to the Bill really was. The measure filled the minds of many Members with despair. Its scope was not merely large; it was eternal; and for the consideration of such a measure a fixed limit of six days was to be allotted. If there was to be any discussion at all, six days was an absurdly inadequate period. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Somersetshire had made an appeal as a moderate man. Now, if ever, was the opportunity for moderate men to assert themselves. The country was beginning to feel that appeals from "moderate men" had fallen rather flat. The "moderate men" were coming to be looked upon as those who contented themselves with expressing their opinion but never enforcing it. One man might play a useful part, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Somersetshire had often done but moderate men were of no use unless they acted in bulk. Never had moderate men been at such a discount in public life as at present. Let them show the House what they could do in the way of securing time for the adequate discussion of this Bill. It was true that the Prime Minister would not gain the gratitude of the Opposition by extending the period by two or three days, but that was because he had shown no disposition to accept reasonable Amendments to the Bill. Further discussion was useless unless it was to be accompanied by a reasonable spirit in the conduct of the Bill. The rigid and ruthless attitude taken up by the Prime Minister made any gratitude on the part of the Opposition impossible. If the Government used their majority to pass this Bill as it stood in order to secure immunity from discussion, he agreed that under those circumstances the Opposition would not consider themselves bound by this Bill.


said his right hon. friend the Member for East Somersetshire addressed an appeal to him not to make Friday one of the allotted days.


Not to make Friday the second allotted day.


said there were certain Amendments on the Paper raising this question in which the right hon. Gentleman took a great interest. If it would meet the general views of the House, he would undertake that Friday should not be one of the allotted days.

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

said this was the most important Amendment they had got to discuss. With regard to the precedent of the Home Rule Bill, which had been quoted by the Prime Minister, he wished to point out that that was the twenty-sixth Home Rule Bill passed* by the House of Commons. There were twenty-five other Home Rule Bills before that, and none of them were closured. The effect of the last closure moved by the Prime Minister in regard to the Education Bill ought not to be overlooked. It had caused so much commotion in the country that they might almost say that they had been plunged into a small revolution. In consequence of the discussion having been cut short on the Education Bill 22,000 summonses had been issued under that Act, 1000 seizures of goods had been made, and twenty or thirty people had been sent to prison. He invited the Prime Minister to look at the important results which had been achieved by the discussion which had already taken place upon the first three lines of the Bill. During that discussion the character of the public-house as a place of refreshment had been entirely altered, and there had also been an Amendment put down by the Government dealing with the distribution of compensation. Every argument brought forward by the Opposition on these questions was rejected at first, and after the debate when the country and the Government came to consider the question they found a long Amendment down on the Paper which entirely altered the position. That result showed that large issues might arise when they came to a close discussion of the Bill. They were being asked to dispose of the whole Committee stage in four days, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to allow more time for the discussion of the details. He was aware that the right lion. Gentleman had to do his duty by the Party which supported him, but he had almost admitted that he was forcing matters too much and that the time was too short. Finally the right hon. Gentleman stated that his reason for not making any concession was that the Opposition would not be grateful. Why should they be grateful because they were constantly being around down by the Government. If the Prime Minister felt that the time he was allowing was too short and the speeches would be too long he owed it to the position he occupied to widen that time.

SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)

pointed out that if the six allotted days were adhered to there would be one matter which would not be discussed at all and that was the amount of compensation. That was a very vital question in the Bill, because it was giving away what was the property of the people themselves. Therefore, this was a question which ought not to be settled without adequate discussion. As matters stood now this important question would never be discussed at all. There were numerous Amendments down and nobody appeared to know what the Government proposal really meant. He was quite sure that few lawyers would be able to interpret what the clause meant. The Amendments put down to Clause 2 came at the end, and therefore they had no chance of being readied. This method of closure by compartments was a clumsy one; it did not secure that the time allotted for discussion should be devoted to the more important Amendments, and the whole of the time might be wasted upon Amendments of less importance. That was the usual result of the operation of the closure. On the first allotted day of the Report stage, the new clauses, and then Clauses 1, 2, and 3, were to be taken, and under those circumstances what chance was there of Amendments relating to compensation being discussed? If those Amendments were not discussed, the Bill would part with a valuable property belonging to the people of this country, and would vest that property in the trade — [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no!"] —and they would do that without the representatives of the people having had the opportunity of discussing or considering this question. That was what would happen, and it would be a perfect scandal. What the value of the property was which was going to be disposed of in this way nobody was able to say. Some eminent gentlemen estimated its value at £3,000,000, but, at any rate, the rise in the value of brewery shares, in consequence of the expectation that this Bill would pass, amounted to more than £1,000,000. Therefore, they might take it that the property at stake amounted to several millions, which was to be divided between the trade and the people, and the latter had a right to expect that their representatives would be heard upon it. He asked the Prime Minister to so modify the terms of this Resolution as to secure that part of the allotted time should be devoted to the discussion of this most important question, which he did not think the Government, or those who represented the interests of the brewers in this House, would deny was a matter of extreme importance. He had always supported the idea of doing perfect justice to those engaged in the trade, but surely the question of how much was to be given was one which ought to be discussed and upon which the representatives of the people ought to have the opportunity of expressing their views.


said that the discussion which had already taken place must have convinced everybody that the case against the Government was overwhelming. He did not think that the Prime Minister for a moment would suggest that the Bill could be adequately discussed in the time placed at their disposal under this Resolution. The issue they had to discuss now was whether there was any necessity to limit the discussion to six days. The speeches from both sides of the House must have convinced the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill could not be adequately discussed in the time at their disposal. He was not going to take part in the argument about precedents, except to say that the Prime Minister had used strong language on that subject. In 1894, speaking upon a similar Resolution, the right hon. Gentleman said— Indulge in this petty and sordid trafficking for votes if you like, but do not ask ns to help you to make the honour and the dignity and the traditions of this House counters in the sorry game you are playing for political support. Was this Bill not a petty sordid trafficking for votes? Why should the right hon. Gentleman expect them to assist him in arriving at a satisfactory agreement with brewers for whom this Bill was intended? There was no necessity resting upon the Prime Minister to compress the discussion into six days. His complaint against the Prime Minister was twofold—first of all that he did not begin the Bill early enough, and, secondly, that he would not go on late enough. The discussion was to be bounded on one side by Ascot, and on the other side by grouse shooting. That was the necessity which compelled him to limit the discussion to six days. There was really no necessity that the House should rise on the 12th of August. He noticed that in 1894 the present Prime Minister spoke of there being something more important than personal ease and convenience. He had not heard the right hon. Gentleman speak of anything so important as the ease and convenience of his own followers. He submitted that if the Prime Minister was in earnest in wanting a serious discussion of this measure the only way he could have it was to let the House sit a week or so beyond the usual allotted time. If he could get his own followers to do that he need not trouble about the Opposition side of the House in the event of his granting that concession. The right hon. Gentleman might depend upon their being at their posts.

MR. TRITTON (Lambeth, Norwood)

said many hon. Members thought six days too short a time for the discussion of this measure, and he would ask the Prime Minister to consider the appeal made to him by the hon. Member for East Somerset and to see whether he could not give one or two more days.


said he was afraid they must give up hope of getting any concession from the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had founded himself on what he was pleased to call precedent, and he had done so wisely because there was nothing in which he was happier than in defending the attitude he had taken up. Possibly he believed it made it right if he showed how it was parallel to actions which at other times he had condemned in the strongest terms. The Prime Minister said at an earlier stage of the discussion that they should take each case entirely on its merits. They had not got clearly from the Prime Minister what his opinion was of the merits of this case. The right hon. Gentleman had never argued throughout his speeches that this Bill could be adequately discussed in the time he had allotted for its discussion. They must make clear the ground on which they opposed his action. It was impossible for them to discuss the Bill in the time allowed to them. He would name a few of the subjects which still remained to be discussed. They were still discussing the delimitation of the spheres of the two licensing authorities. They had to consider a matter which in the Licensing Act for Scotland last year the Government did not think unworthy of attention—the introduction of a representative element into the licensing authority. They had to consider a matter which in the minds of temperance reformers had always been connected with any question of compensation—that was the statutory reduction of licences and the establishment of a maximum ratio of licences to population. Reference had already been made to the quite inadequate time allowed for the discussion of compensation. Nobody knew precisely what the proposal of the Bill was. They would certainly not have time to approach, in the days allowed by the Prime Minister, the questions that had to be dealt with under compensation, for the compensation method which this Bill adopted could not, as had already been made quite apparent in the discussion, be isolated, and taken by itself, and separated from the larger questions in relation to licences. The moment the question of compensation was introduced they came at once into contact with large social questions raised by our licensing system. The Bill raised questions which could not be settled within the narrow limits set down in the Resolution. Another set of questions on which there had been practically no discussion were those raised by Clause 4 as to the treatment and disposition of new licences. Under the Resolution these questions were to be dealt with in a single day. It was impossible to maintain that that was adequate time for their discussion. Then there were questions as to whether there should be a system of high licence, or whether a system of disinterested public management was to be adopted—questions which ought to be dealt with in a Bill which was to revolutionise and set up side by side with the old licences a different tenure for new licences. These were questions which the Government proposed they should deal with in perhaps four-and-a-half hours. It was impossible to legislate properly on these matters in the time allowed for discussion by the Resolution. On these grounds they felt bound to press for very different limits from those which were suggested.

On the Opposition side of the House they could not hope for concessions from the Prime Minister, but supporters of the Government should endeavour to obtain from him some concessions, for they had said in plain terms that they did not believe the time allowed to be adequate. Their methods were not sufficiently active to be successful with the Prime Minister. On the Opposition side of the House they had often regarded the supporters of the Government as good men struggling with adversity, but the complaint they felt bound to make now was that in the present instance they were not even struggling. They had object lessons before their eyes as to how the Prime Minister could be moved. They knew how different was the treatment accorded to hon. Members from Ireland and Scotland in matters relating to the management of the business of the House. He would take another instance. Let them compare the treatment accorded to tariff reformers with that given to free-traders. Let them remember the great precedent of what perhaps he might be allowed to call the "Wharton Amendment," when 112 staunch men sent a stern message to the Prime Minister and got their way. He did not know whether there were 112 temperance reformers on the other side, but a much smaller number would serve. He was quite sure that if they would let their minds be clearly known and make it appear that they had wills they would also get a little of their own way. He was afraid that they still harboured the delusion that the Prime Minister was amenable to kindness. Many of the lower animals were ruled by kindness, but the teaching of history; was that very few Prime Ministers indeed, and certainly not the present Prime Minister, responded to such treatment. He urged his hon. friends opposite not to be satisfied with the two hours they had already obtained so far, but to push for very much more in the direction of what was required.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

said he did not rise for the purpose of making any appeal to the Prime Minister. This debate had been left to moderate men, and he should be very anxious to see the result of it. He rose for the purpose of calling attention from the historical aspect to the futility of all these proceedings. Let them take the precedent of the Evicted Tenants Bill. The precedent of the Evicted Tenants Bill had been quoted. The Prime Minister resisted the closure of that Bill in 1895. It would be interesting for hon. Gentlemen who expended a great deal of eloquence against the closuring of that Bill to remember that this Government had as the result of that closuring settled the evicted tenants question nine years afterwards on far more liberal terms than had been proposed by the right hon. Member for Montrose. Take the Parnell Commission. That was closured by the right hon. Gentlemen on his own side of the House. It was discussed at great length—far longer than this Bill had been discussed—and those extreme proposals discussed at inordinate length he admitted did not serve any good purpose whatever. They settled nothing. They left everything unsettled and Mr. Parnell emerged from that scene absolutely triumphant. Take the Home Rule Bill. It was discussed for eighty-two days. This Bill had been discussed thirty-four hours. It was closured and the present Ministerialist Party resisted the closure. Could hon. Gentlemen devise a better means of bringing about Home Rule than by making that House into a machine. That was all they got by passing those closuring Resolutions. Take the Education Bill, discussed for thirty-eight days and closured at the end of that time. Did hon. Members on the Government side believe that the education question was settled by that closure? Did not everybody know that the education question would rise at the next general election and Members would have to answer for what they did? Not one of those violent measures produced the result that people thought they produced, and they might depend upon it that in this case it would be the same thing.

What was the plain statement made by right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Opposition Bench? It was said that afternoon by one of the ablest and most far-seeing men who sat on the Bench that this Bill in itself was bad enough, but disposed of as it had been and was proposed to be disposed of further by this Resolution, they owed it no allegiance whatever. Why should hon. Members on the Government Benches proceed to those methods of throttling debate without sufficient discussion? Why should they resort to those methods when the whole history of those things told them that they were absolutely futile and that the people of England could not be controlled as the Government controlled their obedient majority. For his part he had no reason to make any appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, and he rejoiced to think that none of those who were called extreme temperance men had risen that afternoon to make any. He thought the time allotted to the Bill inadequate. He did not believe any Member of the House would contend that six days was adequate for the discussion in Committee. And what followed? Hon. Gentleman were taking upon themselves now, with the funeral knell tolling at every by-election, the responsibility of closuring a Bill without adequate discussion, and they imagined that the people of England were not looking on. What better evidence could the people of England give than they were giving that the Government had outstayed their welcome and that the Government had no moral right to do what they were doing? When the people spoke out like that, not once or twice, but for twelve long months, whenever they got a chance, the best thing the Government could do was to closure themselves and make way for other people.

SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELL (Glasgow, College)

said that this debate was the most dismal he had ever heard in the House. The Prime Minister had no concession to make and there was no expectation of any. In these circumstance, he would like to know whether, if the debate closed now, the Prime Minister would allow them this evening in addition to the six allotted days for the Committee stage. He was quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman had done everything for what he thought was the best, but it was quite impossible to vote for the Resolution for six days, which he believed was quite inadequate for a discussion of that importance.


said he was glad that the hon. Gentleman opposite had come to the conclusion that it was useless to make any further appeals to the Prime Minister on this point, for the simple reason that the right hon. Gentleman was not considering for a moment the time that ought to be allotted from the point of view of the merits of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was allowing external considerations to influence him. The Prime Minister was giving the House the number of days in which the whole clauses of the Bill were to be discussed; but had the right hon. Gentleman really discovered how much time he was giving to the discussion of each clause? He could hardly think so. Take the last day of all in Committee. What was proposed to be discussed was five clauses and two schedules—one of which was in the Bill, and one to be moved by the Home Secretary, which was down on the Amendment Paper. That was practically seven clauses, and how long did the House get to discuss them? Six-and-a-half hours. Supposing they had only one division on each of these clauses—there would be at least one Amendment on each clause—that left five hours for discussion, after one-and-a-half hours had been spent in divisions. Five hours for seven clauses was under fifty minutes' for each clause. The right hon. Gentleman worked himself up into a pitch of righteous indignation because the late Government only allowed a day for each clause. What did he think of himself for only allowing fifty minutes for each clause There was no comparison. He thought they were entitled to ask the Prime Minister, did he mean, upon his authority as Leader of the House, to say that, in his judgment, fifty minutes per clause was adequate? Clause 3 was in the same position. The right hon. Gentleman allowed two or three hours for discussion of Clause 2, and two or three hours for discussion of Clause 3, and for each of the rest of the clauses fifty minutes. They were entitled to ask one simple question. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean sincerely to say that in his judgment fifty minutes was sufficient and adequate? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was exercising a wise discretion in refusing to give an answer. He took it by the silence of the Prime Minister that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that there was no answer to be given; but he was entitled to an answer to the question.


No, no! I do not think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to an answer. It is not a question to be answered across the floor of the House.


They were not entitled to ask the one question which was relevant to the whole discussion! Surely that was the whole point they were discussing. Were these six days adequate or were they not? The Prime Minister said not merely must they not discuss the point, but that they had no right to ask the question whether the right hon. Gentleman thought the time was adequate or not. He thought that was treating the House of Commons with a measure of contempt that certainly no Leader of the House had ever treated it with before. The only thing he could say was that the mere fact that the House of Commons had stood this sort of thing for session after session, and year after year, showed that the Prime Minister had taken the right measure of the House he led, and it deserved the contempt with which its Leader treated it.

MR. MALCOLM (Suffolk, Stowmarket)

said he thought that the House of Commons had a right to say that if the question of the hon. Member for Carnarvon Burghs was the only revelant question, it ought to have been asked earlier in the afternoon. He was in complete agreement with the Prime Minister in the action he had taken. He thought he had a right to tell hon. Gentlemen opposite how much they were responsible for the impasse in which they found themselves at the present time. The hon. Gentleman made a great deal of the fact that Clauses 2 and 3 would have to be discussed on Friday afternoon; but supposing the present Motion had been finished last night, as had been expected, then Clauses 2 and 3, could have been discussed to-morrow. Another way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible was by not taking trivial Amendments off the Order Paper, and then proceeding to the discussion of the more important Amendments. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Berwick Division, who said that all this recrimination was unnecessary. Experience showed that if a Party were determined to kill a Bill, they would succeed, even if thirty days were allowed for the Committee stage. He congratulated his right hon. friend on his Motion; and he hoped he would not accept any Amendments to it. It was perfectly obvious that whether the Opposition had three days, or thirty days, or three months their only desire was to bury the Bill. They had no desire to better it. They had proclaimed that in the parks; their newspapers were full of their undying hostility to the measure; and yet they now asked the Prime Minister for three or four days more, with which, forsooth, they would be satisfied. It seemed to him that it was all the utmost cant. Hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to kill the Bill; its promoters wanted to pass it into law. He most earnestly hoped that, that being the position, his right hon. friend would stick to his guns. The speeches on the other side had been very businesslike; but the business was to kill the Bill. The only Amendment he should like to see accepted was the Amendment suggested by the junior Member for Oldham, to strike out six days and substitute one day.


said that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had mistaken the position of hon. Gentlemen on that side. They did not ask for three or four more days; they demanded proper time for the discussion of the Bill. The Prime Minister would get no gratitude for doing what they considered to be his duty as Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had taken away all their privileges and he expected gratitude because he might offer a few more days. The right hon. Gentleman would not get it. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken refrained from discussing the only test as to whether he was doing his duty; and that was whether the days allotted were enough. The Prime Minister refrained from saying anything on that point. In these allotted days, six new clauses put down by the Government, and twenty other new clauses, eleven of which were put down by supporters of the Government, would have to be discussed. The hon. Gentleman did not appear to know that. He had not even attended the debate, because he himself had stated the fact previously. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University was the only Member on the other side who had taken a right attitude on this question. But he did not put the case against the Government as strongly as it could have been put. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Amendments to Clause 2 could not be completed; but Clause 3 was also to be taken on the same day; and, therefore, Clause 3 could not be discussed at all, although it contained the financial clauses. They were getting tired of the moderate speeches which were being delivered on the other side. There should be a little mutiny. It was no use asking: for days. Why not sit to the end of August, or else resume in September or October. Personally, he derived very little comfort from what had been said by his right hon. friend the Member for the Berwick Division. If they allowed the Government of the day with its sheep-like, servile majority, to act in this way, the next Liberal Government would have nothing to do but to repeal statutes. That was a very serious situation. It would not suffice to have to undo the wrongs of the present Government. Another matter was that the Liberal Party did not know whether it would or would not be supported by the Irish Members. If the Liberals tried to repeal this Bill, they would not be supported by the Irish Members. Considerations such as that ought to be taken into account when they were discussing the period of time to be allowed. Every hon. Member who had the right spirit should demand from the Prime Minister an adequate extension of time.

SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)

said he thought that opinion outside the House would be that instead of discussing the number of days to be allotted, they had better get on with the business and not have speeches delivered over and over again. Thirty years ago, having returned from foreign service, he was told by a leading Member of the Party opposite that they would have to do away with the twelve o'clock rule if they wanted to get business through.


Order, order! The question before the House is whether the number of days should be six or eighteen.


said he would only say in conclusion that if they were to get to business, in his opinion six days were quite sufficient to discuss this Bill.

MR. RENWICK (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

said he had no hesitation in saying that six days were ample for the discussion of this Bill. Hon. Members opposite did not think so, but he thought he could suggest a means whereby six days would be found adequate and that was by all lawyers keeping quiet during the debate on the Bill, leaving the discussion to business men. Business men would then acknowledge that six days were long enough. One of the Members of the Opposition twitted some of the supporters of the Government with having gone to Ascot. But all of them did not deserve that taunt. He did not go to Ascot. [Loud ironical cheers.] The fact that he did not go to Ascot deserved no cheering. Instead of going to Ascot he remained in the House and attended to his duties. What was more, he entered the House yesterday morning at 11.30 and did not leave it until 12.30 that morning. Thirteen hours he remained in the House listening to speeches, and at the end of it no business had been done. The House was suffering from a plethora of speeches. [Ironical cheers.] It might be that that ironical cheer arose because it was thought he intervened often in debate, but he had never said a word in regard to the Licensing Bill. He spoke very rarely in the House and whenever he did he never exceeded fifteen minutes. He ventured to say, as a business man, that if the business of the House were conducted on business lines, and the speeches restricted to fifteen or twenty minutes, six days would be ample to deal with the Bill in Committee and on Report.

SIRCHARLESDILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

protested against the hon. Member's doctrine that no lawyers should take part in this debate. The only Government speeches that were of value in this Bill, when they were allowed to discuss it, were those of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, who all, friend and foe alike, would admit had conducted this Bill so far as it had been left in his charge with great mastery of detail and great courtesy. The hon. Member for Stowmarket and other hon. Members who had spoken seemed to think that the whole object of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was to obtain a reasonable discussion on the Bill. The scheme of the right hon. Gentleman on the contrary made a reason able discussion of the vital portions of this Bill an impossibility, as was seen if they took the example of Clauses 2 and 3 which were grouped together all through the Bill. Those were the clauses dealing with that important question compensation. The end of Clause 2 dealt with the question of who was to get compensation, and the beginning of Clause dealt with the question of who was to pay it, and the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman made it impossible to discuss these vital questions, and one reason why an extension of time was asked for was to enable Clause 3 to have a day to itself.

MR. THEODORE TAYLOR (Lancashire, Radclifie)

contended it would be absolutely impossible to discuss the Bill within the time suggested by the Prime Minister. They had the same experience two years ago on the Education Bill, the result being that that Act was unworkable and required amendment. He ventured to say there never was a greater exhibition of the impotence of Parliament to do its work than what was then going on. He had described to his children that the House of Commons was engaged in talking about what they should talk about. It only showed the absolute necessity, if Parliament was to regain control of its business, of having some means of ascertaining the general sense of the House. If there was necessity for closure by compartments there could be smaller compartments than those proposed by the Prime Minister. It was said that many Members of the Opposition were opposed to the main provisions of this Bill, but that was no legitimate reason why the Opposition should be closured. If that were legitimate it would be a reason for closuring all contentious Bills. If they we e to pass good practical legislation they would have to find out the general feeling of the House, and, to do that Bills must be properly discussed. To have no better means of carrying on its business than the system of closuring proposed by the Government reflected upon the intelligence of the House of Commons.

MR. TOMKINSON (Cheshire, Crewe)

while admitting that it was the hope of the Opposition that this Bill might yet be defeated, absolutely denied that they were averse to any amendment of the measure. There were innumerable provisions which required the closest investigation, such for instance as the manner in which the compensation should be decided, and the procedure to be adopted when the whole of the licences were in the hands of one owner; and Amendments were necessary to make the Bill less objectionable. The absolute refusal of the Prime Minister to extend the allotted time justified the suspicion that there were causes for this Resolution which did not appear on the

surface. The truth was that the Government were afraid of a full discussion of the Bill; they shrank from a thorough investigation of details, and the Opposition would fail in their duty if they did not make every possible protest against the manner in which the Bill had been brought forward, and the means by which it was being forced through against the manifest will of the country.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 260; Noes, 202. (Division List No. 191.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R. Hardy,Laurence (Kent, Ashford
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Hare, Thomas Leigh
Aird, Sir John Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)
Allhusen,Augustus Henry Eden Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. Hay, Hon. Claude George
Arnold Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O. Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley)
Arrol, Sir William Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Heath, James (Staffords.N.W.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cust, Henry John C. Heaton, John Henniker
Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hn. Sir H. Dalkeith, Earl of Holder, Augustus
Austin, Sir John Dalrymple, Sir Charles Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford,W.)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Davenport, William Bromley- Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Davies,Sir HoratioD.(Chatham Hickman, Sir Alfred
Bain, Colonel James Robert Dewar,Sir T.R.(TowerHamlets Hoare, Sir Samuel
Balcarres, Lord Dickinson, Robert Edmond Hogg, Lindsay
Baldwin, Alfred Dickson, Charles Scott Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside
Balfour, Rt.Hon.A.J.(Manch'r) Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Horner, Frederick William
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Balfour,RtHnGerald W.(Leeds Dixon-Hartland,Sir FredDixon Hoult, Joseph
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Dorington.Rt.Hn. Sir John E. Houston, Robert Paterson
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Doughty, George Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm
Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Doxford,Sir William Theordore Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil
Beach, Rt.Hn.Sir Michael Hicks Duke, Henry Edward Hudson, George Bickersteth
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Hunt, Rowland
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Dyke, Rt.Hon. Sir WilliamHart Jameson, Major J. Eustace
Bignold, Arthur Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse
Bigwood, James Faber, Edmund B. (Hants,W.) Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.
Bill, Charles Fardell, Sir T. George Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)
Bond, Edward Fergusson, Rt.Hn.Sir J(Manc'r Kennaway, Rt.Hn.Sir John H.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Kenyon,Hon.Geo. T.(Denbigh)
Bowles,Lt.-Col.H.F(Middlesex) Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)
Brassey, Albert Fison, Frederick William Kerr, John
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose. Keswick, William
Brotherton, Edward Allen Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Knowles, Sir Lees
Bull, William James Flannery, Sir Fortescue Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Butcher, John George Flower, Sir Ernest Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Campbell, Rt.Hn.J.A (Glasgow Forster, Henry William Lawson, John Grant(Yorks.NR
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Foster,Philip S.(Warwick,S.W. Lee,Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham
Cautley, Henry Strother Galloway, William Johnson Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire) Gardner, Ernest Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Garfit, William Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Gordon, Hn.J.E.(Elgin &Nairn) Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)
Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A (Wore. Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.
Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton Goulding, Edward Alfred Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Graham, Henry Robert Lowe, Francis William
Chapman, Edward Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Charrington, Spencer Gretton, John Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth
Clive, Captain Percy A. Groves, James Grimble Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Gunter, Sir Robert Macdona, John Cumming
Coddington, Sir William Hall, Edward Marshall Maclver, David (Liverpool)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry Maconochie, A.W.
M'Iver,SirLewis(Edinburgh,W Quitter, Sir Cuthbert Stock, James Henry
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Rankin, Sir James Stroyan, John
Majendie, James A. H. Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Malcolm, lan Ratcliff, R. F. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Martin, Richard Biddulph Reid, James (Greenock) Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G(Oxf'dUniv.
Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Remnant, James Farquharson Thorburn, Sir Walter
Melville, Beresford Valentine Renwick, George Thornton, Percy M.
Milvain, Thomas Richards, Henry Charles Tollemache, Henry James
Mitchell, William (Burnley) Ridley, S.Forde(Bethnal Green Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Molesworth, Sir Lewis Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas. Thomson Tuff, Charles
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Moore, William Robinson, Brooke Valentia, Viscount
Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Morpeth, Viscount Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Walker, Col. William Hall
Morrell, George Herbert Round, Rt. Hon. James Warde, Colonel C. E.
Morrison, James Archibald Royds, Clement Molyneux Webb, Colonel William George
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.
Mount, William Arthur Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne
Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Samuel, Sir HarryS.(Limehouse Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Myers, William Henry Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.
Nicholson, William Graham Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Seton-Karr, Sir Henry Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)
Peel, Hn.Wm. Robert Wellesley Sharpe, William Edward T. Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Pemberton, John S. G. Simeon, Sir Barrington Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Percy, Earl Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Pierpoint, Robert Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East) Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Pilkington, Colonel Richard Smith,H.C(North'mb.Tyneside Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Platt-Higgins, Frederick Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.) Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Plummer, Walter R. Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Pretyman, Ernest George Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset Alexander Acland-Hood and
Purvis, Robert Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.) Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Pym, C. Guy Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Dalziel, James Henry Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Griffith, Ellis J.
Allen, Charles P. Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Ashton, Thomas Gair Delany, William Hain, Edward
Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway) Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Barlow, John Emmott Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Donelan, Captain A. Harcourt,RtHnSir W(Monm'th
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Doogan, P. C. Harwood, George
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Hayden, John Patrick
Black, Alexander William Duncan, J. Hastings Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.
Blake, Edward Dunn, Sir William Helme, Norval Watson
Boland, John Edwards, Frank Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Elibank, Master of Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Brigg, John Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Higham, John Sharpe
Broadhurst, Henry Emmott, Alfred Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Esmonde, Sir Thomas Hobhouse, Rt. Hn H(Somers't,E
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Evans, Sir Fran.H. (Maidstone Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Horniman, Frederick John
Burt, Thomas Eve, Harry Trelawney Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.
Buxton, Sydney Charles Farquharson, Dr. Robert Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Caldwell, James Fenwick, Charles Jacoby, James Alfred
Cameron, Robert Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Field, William Joicey, Sir James
Causton, Richard Knight Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Jordan, Jeremiah
Channing, Francis Allston Flavin, Michael Joseph Joyce, Michael
Condon, Thomas Joseph Flynn, James Christopher Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Kilbride, Denis
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Kitson, Sir James
Crean, Eugene Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. Lambert, George
Cremer, William Randal Fuller, J. M. F. Langley, Batty
Crombie, John William Furness, Sir Christopher Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.
Crooks, William Goddard, Daniel Ford Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)
Cullinan, J. Grant, Corrie Layland-Barratt, Francis
Leamy, Edmund O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) O'Malley, William Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Leigh, Sir Joseph O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Strachey, Sir Edward
Leng, Sir John Parrott, William Sullivan, Donal
Lewis, John Herbert Partington, Oswald Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)
Lloyd-George, David Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Tennant, Harold John
Lough, Thomas Perks, Robert William Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Lundon, W. Philipps, John Wynford Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Power, Patrick Joseph Thomas,J.A.(Gl'morgan,Gower
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Price, Robert John Tillet, Louis John
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Priestley, Arthur Tomkinson, James
M'Crae, George Rea, Russell Toulmin, George
M'Fadden, Edward Reckitt, Harold James Trevelyan, Charles Philips
M'Hugh, Patrick A. Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Tritton, Charles Ernest
M'Kean, John Reid, Sir R. Threshie( Dumfries Ure, Alexander
M'Kenna, Reginald Rickett, J. Compton Wallace, Robert
Mansfie,d, Horace Rendall Rigg, Richard Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)
Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Markham, Arthur Basil Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Middlemore, In. Throgmorton Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)
Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh,N.) Robson, William Snowdon White, George (Norfolk)
Mooney, John J. Roche, John White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthon) Rose, Charles Day Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Moss, Samuel Russell, T. W. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Moulton, John Fletcher Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Newnes, Sir George Schwann, Charles E. Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Shackleton, David James Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk,Mid.
Nussey, Thomas Willans Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) Wilson, John* (Falkirk)
O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Woodhouse,Sir J.T(Huddersf'd
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Sheehy, David Yoxall, James Henry
O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Shipman, Dr. John G.
O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Slack, John Bamford TELLERS FOB THE NOES—Mr.
O'Doherty, William Sloan, Thomas Henry Herbert Gladstone and Mr.
O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Smith, Samuel (Flint) William M'Arthur.
O'Dowd, John Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Main Question again proposed.


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:—Ayes, 265; Noes, 201. (Division List No. 192.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Bigwood, James Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Bill, Charles Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.
Aird, Sir John Bond, Edward Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Bowles, Lt,-Col.H.F(Middlesex Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge
Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O. Brassey, Albert Craig, Charles Curtisf Antrim,S.
Arrol, Sir William Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Cross, HerbertShepherd(Bolton
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Brotherton, Edward Allen Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Aubrey,Fletcher,Rt.Hon.SirH. Bull, William James Cust, Henry John C.
Austin, Sir John Butcher, John George Dalkeith, Earl of
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy Campbell, Rt.Hn.J.A.(Glasgow Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Bailey, James (Walworth) Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H Davenport, William Bromley.
Bain, Colonel James Robert Cautley, Henry Strother Davies,Sir HoratioD.(Chatham
Balcarres, Lord Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire Dewar, Sir T.R.(Tower Hamlets
Baldwin, Alfred Cayzer, Sir Charles William Dickinson, Robert Edmond
Balfour, Rt.Hon. A.J.(Manch'r Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Dickson, Charles Scott
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds Chamberlain, Rt Hn.J.A(Worc. Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton Dixon-Hartland,Sir Fred Dixon
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Dorington, Rt.Hn. Sir John E.
Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor) Chapman, Edward Doughty, George
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Charrington, Spencer Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers
Beach,Rt.Hn.Sir Michael Hicks Clive, Captain Percy A. Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Duke, Henry Edward
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Coddington, Sir William Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin
Bignold, Arthur Coghill, Douglas Harry Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants.,W.) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Fardell, Sir T. George Llewellyn, Evan Henry Round, Rt. Hon. James
Fergusson.Rt.Hn.Sir J.(Manc'r Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Royds, Clement Molyneux
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Long, Col.CharlesW.(Evesham) Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Fison, Frederick William Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S.) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford.
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Lonsdale, John Brownlee Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon Lowe, Francis William Samuel,Sir HarryS.(Limehouse
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Loyd, Archie Kirkman Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Flower, Sir Ernest Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth Saunderson, Rt. Hn.Col.Edw. J.
Forster, Henry William Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.) Macdona, John Gumming Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Galloway, William Johnson Maclver, David (Liverpool) Sharpe, William Edward 1.
Gardner, Ernest Maconochie, A. W. Simeon, Sir Barrington
Garfit, William MTver,Sir Lewis(Edinburgh,W Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin&Nairn Majendie, James A. H. Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East)
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Malcolm, Ian Smith.H. C. (Nort'mb.Tyneside
Goulding, Edward Alfred Martin, Richard Biddulph Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)
Graham, Henry Robert Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) Milvain, Thomas. Stanley, Edward Jas,(Somerset
Gretton, John Molesworth, Sir Lewis Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.)
Groves, James Grimble Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Hall, Edward Marshall Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry Moore, William Stock, James Henry
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Stroyan, John
Hare, Thomas Leigh Morpeth, Viscount Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th Morrell, George Herbert Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich) Morrison, James Archibald Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G(Oxf'dUniv.
Hay, Hon. Claude George Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Thorburn, Sir Walter
Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley Mount, William Arthur Thornton, Percy M.
Heath, James (Staffords., N.W. Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Tollemache, Henry James
Heaton, John Henniker Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Helder, Augustus Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Tuff, Charles
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Myers, William Henry Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Hickman, Sir Alfred Newdegate, Francis A. N. Valentia, Viscount
Hoare, Sir Samuel Nicholson, William Graham Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Hogg, Lindsay O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Walker, Col. William Hall
Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside Peel, Hn.Wm. Robert Wellesley Warde, Colonel C. E.
Horner, Frederick William Pemberton, John S. G. Webb, Colonel William George
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Percy, Earl Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.
Hoult, Joseph Pierpoint, Robert Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Houston, Robert Paterson Pilkington, Colonel Richard Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne
Howard, Jn.(Kent, Faversham Platt-Higgins, Frederick Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Howard, J. (Midd.,Tottenham) Plummer, Walter R. Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hudson, George Bickersteth Pretyman, Ernest George Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.
Hunt, Rowland Purvis, Robert Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Jameson, Major J. Eustace Pym, C. Guy Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Rankin, Sir James Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Wortley,Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Kennaway, Rt. Hn.Sir John H. Ratcliff, R. F. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Reid, James (Greenock) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop. Remnant, James Farquharson Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Kerr, John Renwick, George
Keswick, William Richards, Henry Charles Tellers for the Ayes—Sir
Knowles, Sir Lees Ridley, S.Forde(Bethnal Green Alexander Acland-Hood and
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Ritchie, Rt. Hn.Chas. Thomson Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R Robinson, Brooke
Abraham, William (Cork, X.E.) Barlow, John Emmott Blake, Edward
Ainsworth, John Stirling Barran, Rowland Hirst Boland, John
Allen, Charles P. Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Bolton, Thomas Dolling
Ashton, Thomas Gair Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Bowles, T.Gibson(King's Lynn
Asquith, Rt. Hn.Herbert Henry Black, Alexander William Brigg, John
Broadhurst, Henry Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Partington, Oswald
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Helme, Norval Watson Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Perks, Robert William
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Philipps, John Wynford
Burke, E. Haviland- Higham, John Sharpe Power, Patrick Joseph
Burt, Thomas Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) Price, Robert John
Buxton, Sydney Charles Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Priestley, Arthur
Caldwell, James Horniman, Frederick John Rea, Russell
Cameron, Robert Hutchinson, Dr Charles Fredk. Reckitt, Harold James
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Reddy, M.
Causton, Richard Knight Jacoby, James Alfred Redmond, John E.(Waterford)
Cavendish, R. P. (N. Lanes.) Johnson, John (Gateshead) Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Channing, Francis Allston Joicey, Sir James Rigg, Richard
Condon, Thomas Joseph Jordan, Jeremiah Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Joyce, Michael Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Crean, Eugene Kilbride, Denis Robson, William Snowdon
Cremer, William Randal Kitson, Sir James Roche, John
Crooks, William Labouchere, Henry Rose, Charles Day
Cullinan, J. Langley, Batty Russell, T. W.
Dalziel, James Henry Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal,W.) Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Schwann, Charles E.
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) Layland-Barratt, Francis Shaw, Charles Edw.(Stafford)
Delany, William Leamy, Edmund Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway) Leigh, Sir Joseph Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Leng, Sir John Sheehy, David
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lewis, John Herbert Shipman, Dr. John G.
Donelan, Captain A. Lloyd-George, David Slack, John Bamford
Doogan, P. C. Lough, Thomas Sloan, Thomas Henry
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Lundon, W. Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Duncan, J. Hastings Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Dunn, Sir William MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Strachey, Sir Edward
Edwards, Frank MacVeagh, Jeremiah Sullivan, Donal
Elibank, Master of M'Crae, George Tayler, Theodore C.(Radchffe)
Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) M'Fadden, Edward Tennant, Harold John
Emmott, Alfred M'Hugh, Patrick A. Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Evans, Sir Fran. H. (Maidstone M'Kean, John Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) M'Kenna, Reginald Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower
Eve, Harry Trelawney M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin Tillet, Louis John
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Mansfield, Horace Rendall Tomkinson, James
Fenwick, Charles Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Toulmin, George
Ferguson, R. S. Munro (Leith) Markham, Arthur Basil Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Field, William Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.) Ure, Alexander
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Mooney, John J. Wallace, Robert
Flavin, Michael Joseph Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Walton,John Lawson(Leeds,S.)
Flynn, James Christopher Moss, Samuel Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Foster,Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Moulton, John Fletcher Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Murphy John Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney
Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. Newnes, Sir George White, George (Norfolk)
Fuller, J. M. F. Nolan Joseph (Louth, South) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Furness, Sir Christopher Nussey, Thomas Willans Whiteley, George (York.W.R.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Grant, Corrie O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wilson Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)
Griffith, Ellis J. O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.)
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W.) Wilson, Henry J.(York. W.R.)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Doherty, William Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Hain, Edward O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Woodhouse,SirJT. (Huddersf'd
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. O'Dowd, John Yoxall, James Henry
Harcourt,Lewis V.(Rossendale) O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N
Harcourt,Rt.Hn.SirW(Monm'h O'Malley, William TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Harwood, George O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Hayden, John Patrick Parrott. William Mr. William M'Arthur.

Question put accordingly.

As the House was being cleared for the division,

MR. CROOKS (Woolwich)

seated, said; I do not want to seem unruly, Sir, or disobedient to the rules of the House. I feel that the best thing I can do is to ask you to suspend me from the service of the House. If I am to be closured in this manner without an opportunity of speaking, I think it would be better if it were done forthwith. I shall be rejoiced to be relieved of the responsibility of marching through the Lobby and doing nothing at all.


The hon. Member is asking me to do what I have no power to do. I cannot suspend him. It is for the House to suspend him if he does what I hope he will not do, and that is to show disrespect to the rules of the House. The hon. Member has made his protest openly, and no doubt notice will be taken of the fact; and if he goes through the Lobby he will make his protest in a legitimate and proper way.


I agree, Mr. Speaker, that is the proper way. But what can one do when we are closured down? I want to be respectful to you and to the House, but this is the only way in which, one has a chance of bringing before the public the iniquitous act of the Government over this Bill.


I hope the hon. Member will see that what he is doing is really not in the nature of a protest; it is merely acting obstructively to the House.

The House divided; Ayes, 262; Noes, 207. (Division List No. 193.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Graham, Henry Robert
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Coddington, Sir William Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Aird, Sir John Cohen, Benjamin Louis Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)
Allhusen,Augustus Henry Eden Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R. Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Gretton, John
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Groves, James Grimble
Arrol, Sir William Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hall, Edward Marshall
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim,S. Hamilton, Marq of (L'donderry
Austin, Sir John Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Hardy, Laurence( Kent, Ashford
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Hare, Thomas Leigh
Bailey, James (Walworth) Dalkeith, Earl of Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Dalrymple, Sir Charles Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich)
Balcarres, Lord Davenport, W. Bromley- Hay, Hon. Claude George
Baldwin, Alfred Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(Manch'r) Dewar, Sir T.R.(TowerHamlets Heath, James (Staffords., N, W,)
Balfour, Capt. C. B.(Hornsey) Dickinson, Robert Edmond Heaton, John Henniker
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds Dickson, Charles Scott Helder, Augustus
Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch. Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford,W.)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Hickman, Sir Alfred
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Dorington,Rt. Hn. Sir John E. Hoare, Sir Samuel
Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks Doughty, George Hogg, Lindsay
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Doxford, Sir William Theodore Horner, Frederick William
Bignold, Arthur Duke, Henry Edward Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Bigwood, James Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Hoult, Joseph
Bill, Charies Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Houston, Robert Paterson
Blundell, Colonel Henry Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham
Bond, Edward Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith. Fardell, Sir T. George Hudson, George Bickersteth
Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F.(Middlesex Forgusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r Hunt, Rowland
Brassey, Albert Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Jameson, Major J. Eustace
Brotherton, Edward Allen Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse
Bull, William James Fison, Frederick William Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.
Butcher, John George FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Kennaway,Rt. Hon. Sir John H.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw, H. Flannery, Sir Fortescue Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh
Cautley, Henry Strother Flower, Sir Ernest Kenyon-Slaney. Col. W. (Salop.
Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire Forster, Henry William Kerr, John
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Foster, Philip S.(Warwick.S.W. Keswick, William
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Galloway, William Johnson Knowles, Sir Lees
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Gardner, Ernest Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J.A.(Worc.) Garfit, William Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks. N.R.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin&Nairn) Lee, Arthur H.(Hants. Fareham
Chapman, Edward Gore, Hon.S. F. Ormsby-(Linc) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Charrington, Spencer Goschen,Hon.George Joachim Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Clive, Captain Percy A. Goulding, Edward Alfred Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Pemberton, John S. G. Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham Percy, Earl Spencer, Sir E. (W.Bromwich)
Long, Rt.Hn.Walter (Bristol,S.) Pierpoint, Robert Stanley,Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Pilkington, Colonel Richard Stanley, Edward Jas(Somerset)
Lowe, Francis William Platt-Higgins, Frederick Stanley,Rt.Hon. Lord (Lanes.)
Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Plummer, Walter R. Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Stock, James Henry
Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth Pretyman, Ernest George Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Purvis, Robert Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Macdona, John Cumming Pym, C. Guy Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G(Oxf'd Univ
Maclver, David (Liverpool) Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Thorburn, Sir Walter
Maconochie, A. W. Rankin, Sir James Thornton, Percy M.
M'Iver,SirLewis(Edinburgh W. Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Tollemache, Henry James
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire' Ratcliff, R. F. Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Majendie, James A. H. Reid, James (Greenock) Tuff, Charles
Malcolm, lan Remnant, James Farquharson Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Martin, Richard Biddulph Renwick, George Valentia, Viscount
Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F. Richards, Henry Charles Walker, Col. William Hall
Milvain, Thomas Ridley,S.Forde{Bethnal Green) Warde, Colonel C. E.
Molesworth, Sir Lewis Ritch'ie,Rt,Hn.Chas. Thomson Webb, Colonel William George
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Welby.Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.
Montagu, Hon J. Scott (Hants. Robinson, Brooke Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Moore, William Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne
Morgan,David J.(Walthamst'w Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Morpeth, Viscount Round, Rt. Hon. James Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Morrell, George Herbert Royds, Clement Molyneux Wiiloughby de Eresby, Lord
Morrison, James Archibald Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Wilson.A. Stanley (York.E.R.)
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Mount, William Arthur Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Wilson-Todd,Sir W.H.(Yorks.)
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Murray,RtHn A.Graham(Bute Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse) Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B.Stuart-
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Saunderson, Rt.Hn.Col.Edw.J. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Myers, William Henry Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Newdegate, Francis A. N. Seton-Karr, Sir Henry Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Nicholson, William Graham Sharpe, William Edward T.
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Simeon, Sir Barrington TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Parker, Sir Gilbert Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Sir Alexander Acland-Hood
Peel, Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley Skewes-Cox, Thomas and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.) Crean, Eugene Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Cremer, William Randal Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Allen, Charles P. Crooks, William Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Cullinan, J. Fuller, J. M. F.
Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry Dalziel, James Henry Furness, Sir Christopher
Barlow, John Emmott Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Goddard, Daniel Ford
Barran, Rowland Hirst Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Grant, Corrie
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Delany, William Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E.(Berwick)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Devlin, Chas.Ramsay(Galway Griffith, Ellis J.
Black, Alexander William Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Blake, Edward Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Boland, John Donelan, Captain A. Hain, Edward
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Doogan, P. C. Haldane, R. Hon. Richard B.
Bowles,T.Gibson(King's Lynn Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale
Brigg, John Duncan, J. Hastings Harcourt,Rt Hn.SirW.(Monm't
Broadhurst, Henry Dunn, Sir William Harwood, George
Brown, George M.(Edinburgh) Edwards, Frank Hayden, John Patrick
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Elibank, Master of Helme, Norval Watson
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.
Burke, E. Haviland- Emmott, Alfred Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Burt, Thomas Evans,SirFraneisH.(Maidstone Higham, John Sharpe
Caldwell, James Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Hobhouse, C.E.H. (Bristol, E.)
Cameron, Robert Eve, Harry Trelawney Hope, John Deans (Fife,West)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Farquharson, Dr. Robert Horniman, Frederick John
Causton, Richard Knight Fenwick, Charles Hutchinson, Dr.CharlesFredk.
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)] Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Channing, Francis Allston Field, William Jacoby, James Alfred
Condon, Thomas Joseph Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow Flavin, Michael Joseph Joicey, Sir James
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Flynn, James Christopher Jones, D. Brynmor(Swansea)
Jordan, Jeremiah O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid Slack, John Bamford
Joyce, Michael O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Sloan, Thomas Henry
Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary N.) Smith,H.C(North'mb.Tyneside
Kilbride, Denis O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.) Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Kitson, Sir James O'Doherty, William Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Labonchere, Henry O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Langley, Batty O'Dowd, John Strachey. Sir Edward
Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal,W.) O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N Sullivan, Donal
Lawson,Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) O'Malley, William Taylor, Theordore C.(Radcliffe
Layland-Barratt, Francis O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Tennant, Harold John
Leamy, Edmund Parrot, William Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Leigh, Sir Joseph Partington, Oswald Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Leng, Sir John Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Thomas,JA(Glamorgan, Gower
Levy, Maurice Perks, Robert William Tillet, Louis John
Lewis, John Herbert Philipps, John Wynford Tomkinson, James
Lloyd-George, David Power, Patrick Joseph Toulmin, George
Lough, Thomas Price, Robert John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lundon, W. Priestley, Arthur Tritton, Charles Ernest
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Rea, Russell Ure, Alexander
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Reckitt, Harold James Wallace, Robert
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Reddy, M. Walton, John Lawson(Leeds,S)
M'Crae, George Redmond, John E.(Waterford) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
M'Padden, Edward Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
M'Hugh, Patrick A. Rickett, J. Compton Wason,John Cathcart(Orkney)
M'Kean, John Rigg, Richard White, George (Norfolk)
M'Kenna, Reginald Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
M'Laren, Sir CharlesBenjamin Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Whiteley, George (York,W.R.)
Mansfield, Horace Kendall Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Robson, William Snowdon Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Markham, Arthur Basil Roche, John Wilson.Charles Henry(Hull,W.
Middlemore, John Throgmorton Rose, Charles Day Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk,Mid.)
Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.) Runciman, Walter Wilson, Henry J.(York,W.R.)
Mooney, John T. Russell, T. W. Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd's'd
Moss, Samuel Schwann, Charles E. Yoxall, James Henry
Moulton, John Fletcher Shackleton David James
Murphy, John Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Newnes, Sir George Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Mr. William M'Arthur
Nussey, Thomas Willans Sheehy, Davin
O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Shipman, Dr. John G.

Ordered, 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 on the fourth allotted day.
  5. (e) The proceedings on Report on any new clauses and on Amendments 726 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 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.

Proceedings 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.