§ Order read, for resuming adjourned: debate on Amendment to Question [5th July]," That the proceedings in Committee and on Report of the Aliens Bill, including proceedings on the financial Resolution relating thereto, shall, unless previously disposed of, be brought to a conclusion at the times and in the manner hereinafter mentioned:—
- (a) The proceedings in Committee on the remaining part of Clause 1, and Clauses 2 and 3, and on the Committee stage of the financial Resolution, shall be brought to a conclusion on Monday, the 10th of July.
- (b) The proceedings on the Report stage of the financial Resolution, and in Committee on Clauses 4,5,6, and 7, shall be brought to a conclusion at the termination of the Afternoon Sitting on Tuesday, the 11th of July.
- (c) The proceedings in Committee on the remaining Clauses of the Bill, on any new Clauses or Schedules, and any other proceedings necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the termination of the Evening Sitting on Tuesday, the 11th of July.
- (d) The consideration of the Report of the Bill shall be appointed for Monday, the 17th of July, and shall be brought to a conclusion on that day.
- (e) At 11 p.m. on Monday, the 10th of July, and at 6. 30 p.m. on Tuesday, the 11th of July, and at 12 midnight on Tuesday, the 11th of July, and at 11 p.m. on Monday, the 17th of July, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put 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
1209 given (but no other Amendments), and on every Question necessary to dispose of the business allotted to the day or sitting.
- (f) 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.
§ The Third Reading of the Bill shall be put down for the Evening Sitting on Wednesday, the 19th of July, and at 12 midnight on that day the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to conclude the proceedings on that stage of the Bill.
§ The proceedings to which this Order relates shall not be interrupted except at the Afternoon Sitting at 7. 30 p.m. on the 10th and 17th of July, under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
§ After the passing of this Order, on any day or at any Sitting to which Business is allotted under this Order, no dilatory Motion on the Bill or Resolution, and no Motion to postpone a Clause of the Bill, shall be received unless moved by a Minister in charge of the Bill, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
§ No Motion under Standing Order 10 shall be received on the 10th, 11th, 17th, or 19th July, and no opposed Private Business shall be set down at the Evening Sitting for consideration on those days.
§ If Progress be reported, the Chairman shall put this Order in force in any subsequent sitting of the Committee."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
Which Amendment was—
In line 1, to leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, and insert the words' having regard to the small amount of time already devoted to the consideration of the Aliens Bill in Committee, and the failure of the Government to press forward the measure at an earlier period of the session, this House declines to assent to any proposal having as its object the prevention of legitimate discussion on matters vitally affecting the liberty of the subject.'"—(Mr. Dalziel.)
§ Question again proposed, "That the word 'the,' in line 1, stand part of the Question."
§ SIR CARNE RASCH (Essex, Chelmsford)
said he was quite unable to understand the meaning of the constant attacks made upon the Prime Minister on account of his alleged absence from the debates in that Chamber. Students of history would remember that when Lord North occupied the position of his right hon. friend the Prime Minister he also was constantly subjected to these attacks, but what was his reply when accused of being asleep during the course of a debate? Lord North said, "Asleep! I only wish to God I was." His right hon. friend was too polite to go to sleep, and had to absent himself on business connected with the nation, and that was the only reason why he absented himself from the House. He saw no reason why the Prime Minister should be expected to be in his place to listen to such frequent and frivolous attacks as those of the hon. Member for Oldham. Neither Mr. Gladstone, during the Home Rule Bill, nor Sir William Harcourt, during his Budget Bill, was present during the whole of the discussions on those measures. In point of fact, Sir William Harcourt on more than one occasion told him that he was obliged to go out sometimes because flesh and blood could stand it no longer.
§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member for Oldham made an animated attack on the Prime Minister for his absence; and the hon. and gallant Member for Essex has constituted himself the Prime Minister's defender. I think he ought to be allowed to make his defence.
§ SIR CARNE RASCH
said that the only remedy for the waste of time was to curb the exuberance of verbosity on both sides of the House. Every other Legislative Assembly and place of business had a time limit. Why should 1211 not this House have one? Also the House had adopted the principle on more than one occasion, but had never allowed a measure providing for a time limit to pass into law.
§ MAJOR EVANS GORDON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)
said that he had been charged by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean with having at the beginning of the session announced that the Government intended to make early use of the guillotine. That statement was without foundation. He had never had any communication with the Prime Minister on the subject, and he never said anything like the words attributed to him. He did express the hope that the Government would use all the machinery in their power to pass the Bill; and he rejoiced that that course had been adopted. He asserted that the Bill was widely supported by the public, as revealed in resolutions passed at public meetings, and especially in the East End of London, urging the Government to produce and carry a measure on the lines of that which was now before the House, resolutions which were supported, he might add, by many supporters of the Party opposite. He traversed the statement that insufficient time had been allotted for the discussion of this Bill. Clause 1 was the only controversial clause. With regard to the rest of the Bill there was practical unanimity. If the suggestion of the hon. Member for Carnarvon were adopted, and the amount of time to be allotted to each Bill were to
§ be decided by a Committee, would such Committee have given more than four days to the discussion of Clause 1? If so the proposal would not result in economising the time of the House He hoped the Government would not be alarmed by what was said by hon. Members opposite as to the feeling of the average man in the country with regard to the procedure that was now being taken. His belief was that the average man did not care two pence about the procedure of the House. Rather he looked with amazement on the rules of procedure, the extraordinary manner in which business was conducted, and on the outrageous waste of time that took place in discussing weekly Motions for adjournment and votes of censure, and goodness knew what besides, which resulted in matters of importance not being discussed at all. The country would rejoice that the closure had been enforced, and that the Government had determined to pass the Aliens Bill into law as quickly as possible.
§ Question put accordingly, "That the word 'the' in line 1, stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 146; Noes, 107. (Division List No. 242.)1213
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John||Duke, Henry Edward|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Brotherton, Edward Allen||Dyke, Rt Hn. Sir William Hart|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Brymer, William Ernest||Fellowes, Rt. Hn Ailwyn Edw.|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O||Bull, William James||Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.|
|Arrol, Sir William||Campbell, J H M (Dublin Univ.||Finlay, Sir R B (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John||Carson, Rt Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.||Forster, Henry William|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Chapman, Edward||Gardner, Ernest|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Coates, Edward Feethham||Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.||Gordon, Hn. J E (Elgin & Nairn|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manc'r||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Colston, Chas Edw. H. Athole||Gordon, Maj Evans(T'rH'mlets|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch||Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Goschen, Hn. George Joachim|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow||Greene, Sir E W(B'rySEdm'nds|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)||Hambro, Chas. Eric|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry|
|Bigwood, James||Dickson, Chas. Scott||Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)|
|Bill, Charles||Doughty, Sir George||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley|
|Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords NW||Milvain, Thomas||Scott, Sir S (Marylebone, W.)|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Helder, Augustus||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Morrell, George Herbert||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside||Morison, James Archibald||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside|
|Hozier, Hn. James HenryCecil||Mount, William Arthur||Spear, John Ward|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Hunt, Rowland||Nicholson, William Graham||Stanley, RtHn. Lord (Lancs.)|
|Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)||Stock, James Henry|
|Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred||Parkes, Ebenezer||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T (Denbigh)||Peroy, Earl||Talbot, Lord E (Chichester)|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col W.||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Kerr, John||Plummer, Sir Walter R.||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour||Pretyman, Ernest George||Tuff, Charles|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Randles, John S.||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Lawson, HnH. L. W. (Mile End)||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne||Vincent, Col Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield|
|Lee, A. H (Hants, Fareham||Reid, James (Greenock)||Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir Wm. H.|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Remnant, James Farquharson||Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)|
|Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Long, Rt. Hn Walter(Bristol, S||Renwick, George||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Ridley, S. Forde||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred||Ritchie, RtHn. Chas Thomson||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Wylie, Alexander|
|M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Marks, Harry Hananel||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Martin, Richard Biddulph||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Hammond, John||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Austin, Sir John||Harwood, George||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.|
|Baker, Joseph Allen||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Helme, Norval Watson||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Bell, Richard||Higham, John Sharp||Perks, Robert William|
|Benn, John Williams||Holland, Sir William Henry||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Boland, John||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Brigg, John||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Reid Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Burns, John||Jordon, Jeremiah||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Caldwell, James||Joyce, Michael||Russell, T. W.|
|Cameron, Robert||Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Kilbride, Denis||Shackleton, David James|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Langley, Batty||Sheehy, David|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Crean, Eugene||Levy, Maurice||Spencer, Rt Hn C R(Northants|
|Cremer, William Randal||Lundon, W.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Cullinan, J.||Lyell, Chas. Henry||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh||M'Crae, George||Weir, James Galloway|
|Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles||M'Kean, John||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Dobbie, Joseph||M'Kenna, Reginald||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Fenwick, Charles||Markham, Arthur Basil||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.||Wills, Arthur Walters (Dorset)|
|Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)||Mooney, John J.||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Muldoon, John||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Dalziel and Mr. John Wilson (Durham)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)|
|Grant, Corrie||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)
said he wished to move an Amendment and a consequential Amendment which would make the first paragraph read: "That the proceedings in Committee and on the Report of the Aliens Bill shall be set down as the first Order of the day." He thought that that would secure the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule and enable the House to revert to the old-fashioned dinner hour, which would be of considerable advantage.
§ MR. SPEAKER
said that if that was the object of the hon. Member he thought it would be clearly outside the realm of relevancy.
§ MR. WHITLEY
asked if it would be in order to move the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule in the Standing Orders in order to devote more time to a particular Bill.
§ MR. SPEAKER
said that a Motion to suspend the twelve o'clock rule must be made under the Standing Orders of the House. What the hon. Member wanted to do by a side wind was to make an entire divergence from the Standing Orders of the House.
§ MR. WHITLEY
said he accepted Mr. Speaker's ruling on that point, and would raise the question in another form.
§ MR. DALZIEL moved the Amendment standing in his name, viz., in lines 1 and 2 to leave out "and on Report." The effect of this Amendment, he said, would be that the time devoted to the Report stage would not be included in the compartments and that the House would have more time to discuss the various matters which must come up on the Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean had shown most conclusively that there would not be adequate time to consider the question of political refugees and the victims of religious persecutions. The only two occasions on which the House could review the decisions of the Committee were on the Report stage and the Third Reading. The Government had taken an evening sitting for the Third Reading of the most important Bill of the session. That was a complete 1216 farce, and, therefore, they were bound to fall back on the demand to have more time on the Report stage. If the Government had made up their mind to shut their ears to all criticism it was just as well that the House should know it and proceed accordingly. He appealed to the Prime Minister, who knew that sometimes the Government gained by showing some conciliation, to give hon. Members additional time for the consideration of the most vital points of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman might say that, so far as he could see, the Committee would have an opportunity of considering all these points, but that it was not in the hands of any particular individual or of the Prime Minister himself. He besought the right hon. Gentleman to view this Amendment with favour. He begged to move.
In line 1 to leave out the words 'and on Report.'"—(Mr. Dalziel.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'and on Report' stand part of the Question."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he thought the hon. Gentleman must, if he reflected on the matter, see that the adoption of his Amendment would render nugatory the whole arrangements the Government had made to pass this Bill in the period mentioned in the Resolution. It was therefore impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
§ MR. McKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)
said that there were no fewer than twenty Amendments to the Bill standing on the Paper in the name of the Home Secretary. That was to say that the Bill when it passed through Committee would be in quite a different form from that which it now was. In these circumstances was it reasonable, before they had the amended Bill in print before them, to tie the hands of the House as to the action they might take on Report or as to the particular time which should be given to Report? He would also point out that it would be perfectly open to the Prime Minister, after the Bill had passed through Committee, to 1217 bring in a similar Resolution, which he could pass in half an hour if he treated the Opposition in a conciliatory spirit. He had no doubt that the House would take the Report stage reasonably if that concession were made; but it was treating the House with contempt to ask them to discuss a Bill which was not before them.
§ MR. WHITLEY
said he did hope that the right hon. Gentleman would exclude the Report stage, from his Resolution, or, in some other way, give more time than was now set down for the discussion of the vital points in the Bill. He would give one illustration which, unless they had the opportunity they desired, showed the kind of thing that would happen. He had brought up a question relating to one of his own constituents, a workman who desired to return to this country from the United States, but who would be excluded by the Bill as it stood. It was admitted by those in charge of the Bill that that was a perfectly just cause of complaint, and that it had not occurred to those who drafted the Bill. The Attorney-General had promised to meet that case, and also the case of the Irish-Americans, and on that promise being made they had withdrawn their Amendment. But in the course of the day the Attorney-General had given notice of an Amendment which was hopelessly unsatisfactory, and there would be nothing to prevent a British-born subject being treated as an alien, or even as an undesirable alien. Unless they had more time allowed to deal with the Report stage they would not be able to deal with the promise of the Attorney-General, and they would be obliged to accept whatever words he put down on the Paper. Personally, he should not be sorry, because every case which arose in his constituency would be a valuable asset, and he was sure it would be found to be the same all over the country. Two days in Committee was absolutely inadequate, and there was practically to be no Report stage at all. He warned the Prime Minister that if he forced the Bill through in this way he would be sorry in the future for laving treated legislation in this slipshod fashion.
MR. FLYNNS (Cork, N.)
reminded the House that in response to an appeal made to him by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford the Attorney-General consented to put in words which would meet the Irish case. Certainly the Report stage would be the place to make any alterations of proposals which would not have the effect desired. He did not think the framers of this Bill could have had the Irish case in mind at all.
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,) Inverness Burghs
The case which I promised to provide for was the Irishman who had become an American citizen and wished to visit Ireland.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)
said that the whole case raised by them on a previous occasion was that these Irishmen, who were naturalised Americans, should not be interfered with by this Bill in case they wished to return to their own country. The financial Resolution might take up the whole day. The Government had admitted that they had not considered this point.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
Then no provision has been made for it. Were they to run the risk of these people being interfered with? When a clear grievance was pointed out he thought they ought to be afforded time to discuss it.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
I do not think that this point is relevant to the Amendment, because it relates to a British subject who has gone to another country and then returns to his own country to remain. The point the other day was that of an Irishman who had become an American citizen and wished 1219 to visit Ireland, and I have now suggested words to meet that case.
§ MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)
said that the words which had been put down would not meet more than 5 per cent. of the Irish cases.
§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is proceeding to discuss a future Amendment, he must confine his remarks to the Amendment before the House.
§ MR. FLAVIN
said that quite 95 per cent. of the Irishmen who went abroad became citizens of the country to which they went, and according to this Bill they would be treated as aliens. That was what he wished to protest against, and they would use every means in their power on the Report stage to protect their own people from such treatment.
§ MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)
said that the Attorney-General gave them a distinct pledge during the Committee stage that words would be introduced on the Report stage to meet the Irish case.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said that what he stated was that he would see whether words could be introduced, without prejudice to the general principle of the Bill, to meet the particular case quoted, which was the case of an Irishman going to America, becoming naturalised there, and then returning to Ireland on a visit.
§ MR. SPEAKER
I must again point out that this point is out of order, and I really think that it must close now.
§ MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare, S.)
said the object of this Amendment was that they should be allowed more time for the Report stage. The Attorney-General had given them a promise that he would bring up words which would meet the case of the Irishman who had gone to America and become naturalised and who wanted to return to his native country and end his days in Ireland. The words suggested would not meet this case, and under the Bill these Irishmen would be treated as undesirable aliens.
§ MR. LUNDON (Limerick, E.)
said that any person under sixteen years of age going to America was entitled to become a citizen, and the majority of those who went from Ireland to America were under sixteen, and, consequently, they became citizens of the United States.
§ MR. LUNDON
said that all he wished to point out was that a very small part of the men affected by this Bill would be those who came home to see their friends in Ireland.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 174; Noes, 145. (Division List No. 243.)1223
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Bnownaggree, Sir M. M.||Chapman, Edward|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bignold, Sir Arthur||Coates, Edward Feetham|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O.||Bigwood, James||Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.|
|Arrol, Sir William||Bill, Charles||Cohen, Benjamin Louis|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John||Compton, Lord Alwyne|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Brotherton, Edward Allen||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Brymer, William Ernest||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Bull, William James||Cross, Herb Shepherd (Bolton)|
|Balfour, Rt Hn A. J. (Manch'r.)||Butcher, John George||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Balfour, Rt. HnGeraldW(Leeds||Campbell, J. H M(DublinUniv.||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Carson, Rt Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Dickinson, Robert Edmond|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cautley, Henry Strother||Dickson, Charles Scott|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph|
|Doughty, Sir George||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Ridley, S. Forde|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Lawson, Hn. H L W (MileEnd)||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Dyke, Rt Hn. Sir William Hart||Lee, Arthur H (Hants Fareham||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Finlay, Sir R. B(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol. S||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Fison, Frederick William||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Flower, Sir Ernest||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Scott, Sir S (Marylebone, W.)|
|Forster, Henry William||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Shaw-Stewart, Sir H(Renfrew)|
|Gardner, Ernest||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Smith, H C(North'mbTyneside|
|Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||Marks, Harry Hananel||Spear, John Ward|
|Gordon, Maj Evans(T'rH'mlets||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-||Middlemore, J. Throgmorton||Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs)|
|Goschen, Hn. George Joachim||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Stewart, Sir Mark J M'Taggart|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Milner, Rt Hn Sir Fredk G.||Stock, James Henry|
|Greene, Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds||Milvain, Thomas||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Hall, Edward Marshall||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Hambro, Charles Eric||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry||Morpeth, Viscount||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)||Morrell, George Herbert||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Morrison, James Archibald||Tuff, Charles|
|Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Heath, Sir James(StaffordsNW||Mount, William Arthur||Vincent, Col Sir CEH(Sheffield).|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Helder, Augustus||Nicholson, William Graham||Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.|
|Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Welby, Lt.-Col A C E (Taunton)|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury||Welby, Sir Chas. G. E (Notts.)|
|Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside||Parkes, Ebenezer||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Percy, Earl||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.|
|Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Plummer, Sir Walter R.||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Hunt, Rowland||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart|
|Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred||Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward||Wylie, Alexander|
|Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Pym, C. Guy||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hn. Col. W||Randles, John S.|
|Kerr, John||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Knowles, Sir Lees||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Lambton, Hn. Fredk. Wm.||Renwick, George|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Churchill, Winston Spencer||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Allen, Charles P.||Cogan, Denis J.||Freeman-Thomas, Captain F|
|Austin, Sir John||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Fuller, J. M. F.|
|Baker, Joseph Allen||Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Crean, Eugene||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Cremer, William Randal||Grant, Corrie|
|Bell, Richard||Cullinan, J.||Griffith, Ellis J.|
|Benn, John Williams||Dalziel, James Henry||Hammond, John|
|Black, Alexander William||Davies, M. Vaughan(Cardigan||Harwood, George|
|Boland, John||Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Brigg, John||Dewar, John A (Inverness-sh.)||Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles||Higham, John Sharp|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Dobbie, Joseph||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Burns, John||Donelan, Captain A.||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)|
|Burt, Thomas||Doogan, P. C.||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar||Edwards, Frank||Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.|
|Caldwell, James||Emmott, Alfred||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)|
|Cameron, Robert||Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Fenwick, Charles||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire|
|Cawley, Frederick||Ffrench, Peter||Jordan, Jeremiah|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, NE.)||Joyce, Michael|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W|
|Kilbride, Denis||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)||Stanhope, Hn. Philip James|
|Lambert, George.||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Langley, Batty||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W||Sullivan, Donal|
|Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe|
|Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||O'Dowd, John||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Levy, Maurice||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Partington, Oswald||Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gowe|
|Lundon, W.||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Tomkinson, James|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Perks, Robert William||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Pirie, Duncan V.||Weir, James Galloway|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Power, Patrick Joseph||White, George (Norfolk)|
|M'Crae, George||Reddy, M.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|M'Kean, John||Redmond, John E. (Waterford||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Roche, Augustine (Cork)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Roche, John (Galway, East||Wills, Arthur Walters(NDorse|
|Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N||Runciman, Walter||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Mooney, John J.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen||Schwann, Charles E.||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Moss, Samuel||Shackleton, David James||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.|
|Muldoon, John||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Murphy, John||Sheehy, David||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Flynn and Mr. T. W. Russell.|
|Nannetti, Joseph P.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Spencer, Rt. Hn CR(Northants|
§ MR. EMMOTT
, in moving to withdraw proceedings on the financial Resolution from the operation of the Motion, contended that the time allotted to the various compartments was far too short for the adequate discussion of the clauses concerned, and that to require in addition the financial Resolution to be discussed, or passed without discussion, was a demand which ought not to be made upon the House. The question of expense was one of considerable importance, about which no information whatever had been given. Last year, although it was admitted that representations had been made to the Treasury on the point, the House were not informed what amount of money was asked for. It would be scandalous if the House were again treated in that way without being allowed adequate time for the discussion of the financial aspect of the Bill He begged to move.
In line 2, to leave out the words 'including proceedings on the financial Resolution relating thereto.'"—(Mr. Emmott.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. WHITLEY
, on a point of order, asked whether it was necessary for such an Amendment to be seconded, and pointed out that the mover of the previous Amendment was not called upon for a seconder.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the Amendment was an impossible one as it would stultify what the Committee had already passed. In fact, he would have thought it was on the verge of being out of order. It was clearly impossible to take Clause 4 unless the money Resolution had been passed, and to put that Resolution outside the Order would be practically to make the whole rule unworkable. That was a technical but a conclusive answer to the Amendment. Moreover, the inclusion of the money Resolution was a part of the general scheme, but it was not an important part, and if he agreed to exempt anything from the rule it certainly would not be that which was more in the nature of a formal Resolution than many of the questions that would arise on the Bill.
§ MR. WHITLEY
said the right hon. Gentleman had taken an extremely narrow technical ground, and all it amounted to was that a day should be given for the passage of the financial Resolution between the days fixed for the first and second compartments of the guillotine. It was evidently the intention of the Prime Minister that that Resolution should be passed in Committee and on Report without there being any opportunity afforded for pressing the Department to disclose their estimate of the cost of the working of the Bill. That was an important matter, as they did not know whether the cost would be £10,000 or £100,000. The probability was that the financial Resolution would never be discussed at all.
§ MR. WHITLEY
pointed out that that was only on Report, which meant that it would be impossible to cross-examine the Home Secretary on the matter. He submitted that it was both unusual and unfair to include both stages of a financial Resolution in the compartments of a guillotine Motion.
§ MR. BRIGHT (Shropshire, Oswestry)
said that one of the arguments against the Bill was that it would cost a great deal of money for which the country would get very little in return. Under the Resolution there would be practically no opportunity of discussing the financial question in Committee, as in the first compartment it was preceded by Clauses 1, 2, and 3. He hoped, therefore, that on the Report stage the Prime Minister
§ would grant some relaxation to meet the circumstances of the case.
§ MR. RUNCIMAN (Dewsbury)
hoped the Prime Minister would not prove obdurate in this matter. Much of the opposition to the Bill of last year was due to the absence of any information as to the cost of the scheme, and this year, again, no estimate was forthcoming. Before the financial Resolution was dealt with the House ought to be told for what amount an estimate had been sent in to the Treasury as to the cost of the present scheme. This important matter had been thrown with four important clauses into one compartment, so that adequate discussion was impossible. He submitted that to include such a Resolution with clauses in one compartment was entirely unprecedented, and only another evidence of the slackness with which financial burdens were thrown upon the country.
§ MR. STUART SAMUEL (Tower Hamlets, Whitechapel)
asked whether at some period of the discussion the Prime Minister would inform the House as to the probable cost of putting the Bill into operation.
§ Question put.
§ Tae House divided:—Ayes, 194; Noes, 161. (Division List No. 244.)1229
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Bignold, Sir Arthur||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bigwood, James||Compton, Lord Alwyne|
|Arnold-Forster, RtHnHugh O.||Bill, Charles||Corbett, T.L. (Down, North)|
|Arrol, Sir William||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bowles, Lt-Col. HF(Middlesex)||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Brotherton, Edward Allen||Davenport, William Bromley|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Brymer, William Ernest||Denny, Colonel|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Bull, William James||Dickinson, Robert Edmond|
|Balcarres, Lord||Butcher, John George||Dickson, Charles Scott|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manc'r||Campbell, JHM(Dublin Univ.||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph|
|Balfour, RtHnGeraldW (Leeds||Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Doughty, Sir George|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch||Cautley, Henry Strother||Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.||Duke, Henry Edward|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Chapman, Edward||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart|
|Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin||Coates, Edward Feetham||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.||Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas|
|Fellowes, Rt Hn. Ailwyn Edward||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.||Leveson-Gower, Frederick. N. S.||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Finlay, Sir RB. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Fison, Frederick William||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Flower, Sir Ernest||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Forster, Henry William||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)||Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse).|
|Gardner, Ernest||Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn||M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)|
|Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'mlets||Marks, Harry Hananel||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East|
|Goschen, Hn. George Joachim||Maxwell, RtHn. Sir H. E(Wigt'n||Smith, HC(North'mbTyneside)|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Middlemore, J. Throgmorton||Spear, John Ward|
|Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm'nds||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.||Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.).|
|Hall, Edward Marshall||Milvain, Thomas||Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart|
|Hambro, Charles Eric Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry||Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)||Stock, James Henry|
|Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Morpeth, Viscount||Talbot, RtHn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ)|
|Heath, Sir J. (Staffords. N. W.)||Morrell, George Herbert||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Morrison, James Archibald||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Helder, Augustus||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.||Mount, William Arthur||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)||Tuff, Charles|
|Hope, JF(Sheffield, Brightside)||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Nicholson, William Graham||Tumour, Viscount|
|Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury||Vincent, Col. SirCEH. (Sheffield|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Parkes, Ebenezer||Walker, Col. Wm. Hall|
|Hunt, Rowland||Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)||Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.|
|Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Percy, Earl||Welby, Lt-Col. ACE. (Taunton)|
|Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Welby, Sir Chas. B. E. (Notts.|
|Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh||Plummer, Sir Walter R.||Whiteley, H(Ashton und Lyne|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hn. Col. W.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.|
|Kerr, John||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Keswick, William||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Kimber, Sir Henry Pym C. Guy||Wortley, RtHn. C. B. Stuart|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour||Randles, John S.||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Knowles, Sir Lees||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne||Wylie, Alexander|
|Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.||Reid, James (Greenock)||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)||Renwick, George|
|Lee, Arthur H(Hants, Fareham||Ridley, S. Forde|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Elibank, Master of|
|Allen, Charles P.||Cawley, Frederick||Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Channing, Francis Allston||Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan|
|Austin, Sir John||Cheetham, John Frederick||Fenwick, Charles|
|Baker, Joseph Allen||Cogan, Denis J.||Ffrench, Peter|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond|
|Bell, Richard||Crean, Eugene||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Benn, John Williams||Cremer, William Randal||Flynn, James Christopher|
|Black, Alexander William||Cullinan, J.||Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.|
|Boland, John||Dalziel, James Henry||Fuller, J. M. F.|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)||Gladstone, RtHnHerbert John|
|Brigg, John||Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Grant, Corrie|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Griffith, Ellis J.|
|Burns, John||Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles||Hammond, John|
|Burt, Thomas||Dobbie, Joseph||Harcourt Lewis|
|Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)||Donelan, Captain A.||Harwood, George|
|Caldwell, James||Doogan, P. C.||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Cameron, Robert||Edwards, Frank||Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Moss, Samuel||Shackleton, David James|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.||Moulton, John Fletcher||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Higham, John Sharp||Muldoon, John||Sheehy, David|
|Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)||Murphy, John||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Newnes, Sir George||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Spencer, RtHnC. R. (Northants|
|Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Stanhope, Hn. Philip James|
|Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe|
|Jordan, Jeremiah||O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.|
|Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W||O'Dowd, John||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Kilbride, Denis||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Thomas, David Alfred(Mer. thyr|
|Lambert, George||O'Mara, James||Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower|
|Langley, Batty||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Tomkinson, James|
|Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)||Partington, Oswald||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Paulton, James Mellor||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)||Perks, Robert William||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Levy, Maurice||Pirie, Duncan V.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Power, Patrick Joseph||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.|
|Lundon, W.||Priestley, Arthur||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Reddy, M.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)||Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset|
|M'Crae, George||Roberts, John H(Denbighs.)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|M'Kean, John||Robson, William Snowdon||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Roche, Augustine (Cork)||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Roche, John (Galway, East)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N|
|Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Runciman, Walter|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Russell, T. W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr Emmott and Mr. Churchill.|
|Mooney, John J.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Schwann, Charles E.|
§ MR. McKENNA moved an Amendment the object of which was, without altering the amount of time allowed by the Resolution for the completion of the discussion of the Bill, to throw it into one compartment only, leaving the House to use the allotted time as it pleased on any particular stage. He pointed out that there were still ninety-eight Amendments standing on the Paper in the names of fifteen hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side and forty-six in the names of hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side. If hon. Gentlemen opposite had put down their Amendments seriously, they could not support the Resolution. The alternative was that they had put them down in order to give the Order Paper the appearance of a vast mass of business and to consume all the allotted time by the discussion of their own Amendments. There was no possibility, therefore, of the reasonable discussion of the Bill. Probably they would read to-morrow in the Unionist Press that the Government had become tired of the dilatory tactics of the Opposition, although two-thirds of the Amendments stood in the names of hon. Gentlemen opposite.1230
In line 3, to leave out all the words after the word 'thereto,' and add the words, 'shall be deemed to have been concluded, and the Question on the Third Reading of the Bill shall be put, and the Bill shall be passed in such form as, subject to Amendments, the Secretary of Stare introduced the Bill, as soon as the proceedings, if not previously disposed of, have been under discussion during three Afternoon Sittings and four Evening Sittings.'"—(Mr. McKenna)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Question."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he was greatly puzzled to know what the exact effect of this Amendment would be. If he rightly understood the hon. Member he proposed practically to abolish both the Report stage and the Third Reading. It seemed to him to be such a great innovation that he should like first of all to hear from Mr. Speaker whether it was in order to discuss it as a serious proposition.
§ MR. SPEAKER
The Amendment does not appear on the Paper in the form in which it is now proposed, and it has been rather sprung upon me. I do not think it would be possible to over-rule the common practice of Parliament.
§ MR. MCKENNA
said the wording of his Amendment might not be particularly happy, but all he asked for was that the Report stage should be taken without Question put, and the Third Reading in the same way.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that even supposing that the ninety-eight Amendments standing in the names of hon. Members on his side of the House were put down with the view of preventing discussion—a fantastic hypothesis—the plan which the hon. Member opposite proposed to counteract this object would be inefficacious, because it was quite evident that but half the ingenuity which the hon. Member suspected in the supporters of the Government would be sufficient, if exercised in speaking to the other Amendments on the Paper, to keep the discussion going for three days and a half, and, therefore, nothing would be gained by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. If the danger was not imaginary, the remedy proposed would have no effect whatever in dealing with the evil sought to be remedied.
§ MR. CHURCHILL
said he was in favour of the principle of the time-table being applied to Bill, but he considered that the application of the guillotine closure to this particular Bill was not justified by the circumstances of the session, the character of the measure, or the discussions which had already taken place upon it. If the principle of the time-table was to be applied to Bills, he submitted that it was of the essence of such a scheme that the time should be apportioned by some nonpartisan Committee or body, and not by the Prime Minister of the day. The Prime Minister of the day was a partisan pure and simple. He did not in any 1232 sense of the word occupy an impartial position in regard to the course of business in the House. No one had more clearly identified himself with one particular Party and had more definitely associated himself with the mere political aspects of his office than the present Prime Minister. If they were discussing a time-table which had been framed by some non-partisan body, it would be very difficult for hon. Members to vote against it, but having regard to the fact that the Resolution proposed a purely partisan allocation of time, and having regard to the statement of his hon. friend that that allocation of time had the appearance of favouring a great number of Amendments put down by hon. Members on the other side of the House—though he did not for a moment suggest that the right hon. Gentleman had been actuated by motives unduly favouring these Amendments—he was inclined to prefer the proposal that the time to be allowed for discussion should not be definitely allocated by the Government. Under those circumstances he would vote for the Amendment. The Prime Minister had referred to the Amendment of his hon. friend as one which appeared to introduce some great innovation and a departure from the common usage of Parliament. Considering that the right hon. Gentleman was the greatest precedent maker, considering that he was the grand inventor of instruments of Parliamentary torture and suppression, considering that the curtailment of Parliamentary liberties which had marked the last ten years would go down to history associated with his name, his hardihood in talking about Parliamentary innovation was a thing of which his supporters might approve, but to which the country would not assent.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W. R. Pudsey)
said he was not quite sure whether his hon. friend intended to proceed to a division, but he was bound to say that, although he recognised the excellence of his intentions, the Amendment, if carried out, was one which might prove dangerous to discussion in the House of Commons. His hon. friend's proposal was that the whole of the time which the Prime Minister 1233 was willing to give for the consideration of the Bill should be devoted to the Committee stage, and that the Report stage and the Third Reading stage should be cut out. He was not sure whether such a proceeding would be constitutional, but, whether it was or not, he considered it was absolutely necessary that they should have both those stages on any Bill presented to the House. The House should consider most carefully before it consented to any such Amendment. He suggested that his hon. friend should not press the Amendment.
§ MR. TENNANT (Berwickshire)
said he understood that under the new rules it was not competent to move on the Report stage an Amendment which had not been moved in Committee. Would it be competent for any hon. Member to move on the Report stage an Amendment which had not been reached in Committee owing to the operation of the guillotine? Was he not right in his first thesis?
§ MR. LOUGH
said the Resolution proposed by the Prime Minister would strictly limit the time available for the discussion of some of the most important parts of the Bill. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool had argued that already in the discussions on the Bill they had raised many of the most important points. He was unable to agree with the hon. Member. If they had three more days free from any compulsion they might manage to discuss most of the important points. Let them have three and a-half days for the discussion of the Bill, to be used as they liked, instead of chopping them up into pieces as the Resolution proposed.
§ MR. RUNCIMAN
said he could not support his hon. friend's Amendment. It was necessary to divide the time into portions, and if the Amendment were adopted probably the House would not reach the financial Resolution to which much importance was attached. His hon. friend had referred to the Machiavellian schemes of hon. Members on the other side of the House who had Amendments on the Paper. He had 1234 only to call attention to the names o the Gentlemen to show how far wrong that assertion was. The names included those of the Members for Thanet, Greenwich, the West Derby Division of Liverpool, Hull, Stretford, Bethnal Green, and Shoreditch, and he was sure that they would not associate themselves with a Machiavellian scheme.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. WHITLEY moved an Amendment substituting for the proposal of the guillotine by compartments the old-fashioned remedy of continuing the sitting of the House after midnight. Hon. Members on his side of the House were prepared to give up something of their comfort and rest in order to give adequate consideration to this measure. He thought it was a fair offer to make to the First Lord of the Treasury in order that important points in the Bill might not be entirely left without consideration. In the small hours of the morning long speeches were not the rule, and they would be able to devote themselves then to points which might seem of minor importance but which were exactly the points on which the Bill was going to break down in working if passed without Amendment. During the discussions which had already taken place in Committee they had been told over and over again that they must raise certain points on Clause 5 or Clause 8, but if the Motion was passed these clauses would come up on days when Members were marching through the division lobbies. He begged to move.
§ MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)
seconded the Amendment. He did so because it offered an alternative to the guillotine proposal of the Prime Minister. He understood the right hon. Gentleman in moving the Resolution to say that it might be of advantage in some instances if Party spirit were absent from the debates in the House. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would recognise that it was not in any Party spirit that his proposal had been discussed that day. On his side of the House they thought 1235 that more time should be allowed for the discussion of the Aliens Bill, and they appealed to the Prime Minister to give more time than was proposed. The use of force did not facilitate business in this House or anywhere else. The right hon. Gentleman had that day confessed that legislation was practically impossible even under the new rules which he had devised. The use of the closure in a drastic way did not facilitate legislation and it did not increase the authority of legislation in the country when carried. The Prime Minister had pleaded that it was the only way by which business could be carried through, but from 1869 to 1874 Mr. Gladstone carried through a series of measures of importance, and passed in the course of that five years more legislation dealing with great principles and touching important interests than had been carried during the last twenty-five years by the use of the closure. What had the closure done? It was utilised in the cases of the Home Rule Bill and the Evicted Tenants Bill and what had become of them? The Education Bill was closured and the whole country was in revolt against it. There were 32,000 cases of passive resisters.
§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! The hon. Member must address himself more to the Question before the House.
§ MR. LEIF JONES
hoped it would be in order to argue that if the Prime Minister would use methods of persuasion they would be just as effectual in paving time and the measures passed would have more weight in the country. During this session they had had a two days discussion on the Resolution to guillotine the debate on Supply, and he put it to the Prime Minister that if when he introduced that guillotine Resolution he had made at the beginning of the two days' debate the conciliatory speech which he made at the end of the second day he would have got his Supply through without the necessity for any such Resolution. The Prime Minister had admitted that they had a right to discuss the Bill, and, if they had a right to discuss it, surely it was wrong to deprive them of that right. If the twelve 1236 o'clock rule were suspended they could discuss the important Amendments and questions raised by the Bill, and if there was not then sufficient time why should they adjourn on August 11th? By adjourning on August 18th there would be ample time provided for discussion. He would also suggest that they might carry over legislation from session to session.
§ MR. LEIF JONES
said he only desired to find time for the legislation that the Prime Minister said he had no time for. He was pleading in all seriousness for further time in which to discuss a measure which he regarded as of the utmost importance and which raised questions which went to the very foundation of our Constitution and history. If they were to close the door against people coming and going freely—which had been one of our greatest glories in the past and which was a freedom which no other country possessed—they should not do it light-heartedly, but only after full consideration and in order to give effect to the will of the House, and of the country.
In line 3, to leave out all the words after the word 'shall' and insert the words 'if under consideration at Twelve o'clock not be interrupted under Standing Order Sittings of the House."'—(Mr. Whitley.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 4, stand part of the Question."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he would not follow the mover and seconder of the Amendment into the wide field of discussion, as he had already dealt with the question of all-night sittings or late sittings. Such a course would not meet with favour in any part of the House, nor would it conduce to wise legislation. It was absolutely inconsistent with the scheme that had been laid down. He would simply say that the whole essence of this Resolution was that they should have the power to closure by compart- 1237 ments, whether that course was right or wrong. At all events that was too late an hour to discuss something which was not an Amendment but an alternative to that proposal.
§ MR. JOSEPH WALTON (Yorkshire, W. R. Barnsley)
said the Prime Minister's statement appeared to amount to this, that for the consideration of most important and complex matters only three and a-half days were to be allowed, and seeing that the guillotine was to fall at half-past six at a morning sitting and eleven at the evening sitting it followed that all they would have for the discussion of the whole Bill was five hours and a half per day for three days and one evening sitting. No one could contend that it was not the duty of the House to adequately and sufficiently discuss every clause of a Bill which involved most important and fundamental changes in the principle of the admission of aliens from abroad into this country. Surely this was an occasion when they had a right to demand that adequate opportunity should be given for a proper discussion of every clause in the Bill. At any rate it was right that the country should know that in this important question the whole of the responsibility of refusing that right of freedom of discussion which the House of Commons ought to enjoy rested upon the Prime Minister. Whether his docile followers supported him or not, on this occasion the discredit would rest upon his shoulders and the shoulders of the Government, and the measure, if forced through by those means, would not attain that permanency in the legislative enactments of the country which it would otherwise attain. Why was it necessary for the House of Commons to rise on August 11th or 12th? It was high time that the nation should know that the convenience of Members on the Government side of the House and the interests of grouse-shooting were regarded as paramount and above the legislative needs of the nation, and know that, in addition to the inefficient legislative character—
§ MR. JOSEPH WALTON
concluded by saying that he considered the rights of the House to full freedom of debate and discussion on an important measure proposed by the Government had been abrogated by the Prime Minister.
§ MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W. R. Elland)
thought the Prime Minister did not recognise what his hon. friend wished to obtain by the Amendment. He had been listening to the debate and the thing that struck him was the absence of discussion of one particular alternative to the proposals of the Government—the discretionary closure by the Prime Minister. The Amendment would permit that to be done. It would require a certain amount of energy to be displayed by the supporters of the Government, and it might be necessary for them to stay occasionally until two o'clock in the morning. If there was any unnecessary obstruction the right hon. Gentleman could use his discretion to apply the closure in the ordinary way. He could not help feeling that that way was a far better method to adopt than to closure the Bill by compartments. Under certain circumstances he agreed with the policy of closure by compartments, but in a Bill of this kind, where there remained fifteen important points to be discussed, that could not be regarded as a proper policy, and if the Prime Minister were to use his discretion to closure at the right moment, a number of unimportant Amendments, very many of which had been put down by Members on the Government side, would be struck out, and the House would have a real chance to discuss those questions it wanted to debate. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that there was no real obstruction to the Bill. The truth was that he dared not accept this Amendment because he had no sufficient following on his own side in favour of the Bill, which had been discovered to be of very little use as an electoral Bill. Last Monday there was a demonstration of Labour Members against the Bill, and in the country a "rot" was setting in among the Tory Party. The hon. Member for Oldham had given them an instance of a meeting in Manchester—
§ MR. TREVELYAN
said the reason why the Prime Minister dared not accept the Amendment was because he could not depend upon the energy of his followers in attending at the House while the Bill was discussed.
§ MR. CHURCHILL
said the Amendment raised the very wide and important issue of whether it would not be much better not to have a fixed hour for the termination of the debate than to fall back upon the drastic methods of a time-table. He confessed that he was in favour of a time-table if it was a scientific, fair, logical, and reasonable time-table. But if they were not to have a time-table with those characteristics there was a great deal to be said for the process of exhaustion which attended late sittings. Naturally the Prime Minister, who was burdened with too much work, and had to reconcile his divergent forces, objected to late sittings, and he was quite ready to admit that it would be a great disadvantage to the country for the right hon. Gentleman to be kept up very late night after night. The debate on this Bill would be of a very different character to the debate of the other night, which was of the nature of a protest against the improper treatment received by the House at the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There were many Amendments to be considered, and many people in the country who followed the progress of the Bill with the greatest interest. After all, what had the Government to lose by allowing the debate to run on into the night? They would get the session ended on any day they chose and yet could give more discussion on urgent and vital points of the Bill. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consent, whatever might be the disadvantage of an all-night sitting. To extend the hours of debate meant extending the number of days allocated for the discussion of the Bill.
MR. WILLS (Dorsetshire, N.)
supported the Amendment and urged upon the Prime Minister that it would conduce to a spirit of conciliation, and there 1240 were numerous points to be considered in which that spirit would be of enormous benefit to the country. There were two schools amongst the right hon. Gentleman's own followers who supported the Aliens Bill; one could be described as the Birmingham School and the other as that of the right hon. Gentleman. These schools themselves held different views as to the proper purpose of the Act. He had been asked to support the British Brothers League—
thought if the twelve o'clock rule were to be suspended the debate could be carried on in a spirit of conciliation, but if the Amendment were not accepted the time of the House might be wasted in discussing unimportant Amendments, and the more important ones would be reached too late to allow of discussion. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would make some concession in this matter.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid.)
said the Prime Minister would probably find, if he cared anything at all about the House of Commons, that he was dealing with it in such a way as to lose his influence in the country. Students of history would find that the twelve o'clock rule gave rise to a great deal of obstruction in the House in the good old days. Mr. Disraeli on one occasion, when at three or four o'clock in the morning an adjournment of the debate was moved, said—It is a very pleasant morning. Why go to our homes at this very early hour of the morning? You are destroying the usages of Parliament.If they sat late the bores would get tired, the unimportant Amendments would disappear, and the House would apply itself to the really serious Amendments to the Bill. They should deal with this matter as if they were referred back to the old days, and they would then get through the Bill without difficulty. The Prime Minister did not care whether they discussed the important Amendments or not. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to have the legislation in his own hands, with the assistance of the hon. 1241 Member for Peckham, and the silent assistance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; so that so far as this Bill was concerned the House of Commons must give the right hon. Gentleman that power. He did not believe in obstruction in this House, whether on this Bill or on any other; but he believed strongly in the efficacy of the House of Commons, and if they wanted to do real business they ought to sit at four o'clock and have no twelve o'clock rule, or sit at nine or ten o'clock in the morning, and finish their business in reasonable time. So far as this Motion was concerned, it would be better to adopt the good, old-fashioned rule. All that the Prime Minister wanted was to pass the Bill in its present form, and if he had the courage to carry out what he desired the right hon. Gentleman would completely closure the Bill, and allow his followers to go to the country and take a holiday. He believed the proposition of his hon. friend was the right course for the House to adopt.
§ MR. DALZIEL
said he would not have risen but for the speech just delivered by his hon. and learned friend. For his part, he thought it would be disastrous if they went back on the twelve o'clock rule. To suspend that rule made everything uncertain, and interfered with the progress of business. Sitting up late never could conduce to the efficient discharge of Parliamentary duties. But the Amendment raised the point whether it was better to support the compartment closure or to sit up after twelve o'clock. He thought the latter preferable to the proposal of the Prime Minister, because it was shown beyond doubt that the important matters in the Bill could then be discussed. He would vote for the Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 190; Noes, 157. (Division List No. 245.)1245
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Coates, Edward Feetham||Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Hambro, Charles Eric|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn Hugh O.||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry|
|Arrol, Sir William||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Davenport, William Bromley||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham||Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Denny, Colonel||Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords. N. W|
|Balcarres, Lord||Dickson, Chas. Scott||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Balfour, Rt Hn A. J. (Manch'r.||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.|
|Balfour Capt. C. B(Hornsey)||Doughty, Sir George.||Hogg, Lindsay|
|Balfour, Rt. HnGeraldW(Leeds||Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside)|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Dyke. Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Hudson, George Bickersteth|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas||Hunt, Rowland|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edw.||Jameson, Major J. Eustace|
|Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin||Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manch'r||Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Kenyon, Hn. Geo T. Denbigh|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Kerr, John|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs.||Keswick, William|
|Bigwood, James||Fisher, William Hayes||Kimber, Sir Henry|
|Bingham, Lord||Fison, Frederick William||Knowles, Sir Lees|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.|
|Bowles, Lt.-Col H F (Middlesex)||Flower, Sir Ernest||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)|
|Brassey, Albert||Forster, Henry William||Lawrence, Sir J. (Monmouth)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John||Galloway, William Johnson||Lawson, Hn. H. L. W(Mile End)|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Gardner, Ernest||Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)|
|Bull, William James||Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)|
|Butcher, John George||Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Campbell, J. H M(Dublin Univ.||Gordon, Hn J E (Elgin & Nairn||Llewellyn, Evan Henry|
|Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||Long, Col Chas. W. (Evesham|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol S|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.||Goschen, Hn. George Joachim||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Lucas, Reginald J(Portsmouth|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Graham, Henry Robert||Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn JA (Worc.||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Chapman, Edward||Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)||MacIver, David (Liverpool)|
|M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)|
|Malcolm, Ian||Plummer, Sir Walter R.||Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart|
|Marks, Harry Hananel||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Martin, Richard Biddulph||Pretyman, Ernest George||Stock, James Henry|
|Maxwell, RtHn Sir HE(Wigt'n||Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Melville, Beresford Valentine||Pym, C. Guy||Talbot, RtHn J G(Oxf'dUniv.)|
|Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Randles, John S.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Middlemore, J. Throgmorton||Rankin, Sir James||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Fredk. G.||Reid, James (Greenock)||Tuff, Charles|
|Milvain, Thomas||Remnant, James Farquharson||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine||Tumour, Viscount|
|Montagu, G (Huntingdon)||Ridley, S. Forde||Vincent, Col Sir CEH(Sheffield)|
|Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. T.||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.|
|Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Morpeth, Viscount||Round, Rt. Hon. James||Welby, Lt-Col A C E(Taunton)|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne|
|Morrison, James Archibald||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Mount, William Arthur||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R|
|Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart|
|Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Nicholson, William Graham||Skewes-Cox, Thomas||Wylie, Alexander|
|Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Parkes, Ebenezer||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington||Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside|
|Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley||Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks|
|Percy, Earl||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.||Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Allen, Charles P.||Flavin, Michael Joseph||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)|
|Austin, Sir John||Flynn, James Christopher||M'Crae, George|
|Baker, Joseph Allen||Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.||M'Kean, John|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Fuller, J. M. F.||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|Bell, Richard||Furness, Sir Christopher||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)|
|Black, Alexander William||Gladstone, Rt Hn Herb. John||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Boland, John||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Mooney, John J.|
|Brigg, John||Griffith, Ellis J.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.||Moss, Samuel|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Hammond, John||Muldoon, John|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Harcourt, Lewis||Murphy, John|
|Caldwell, James||Harwood, George||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Hayden, John Patrick||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Helme, Norval Watson||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Higham, John Sharp||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Cawley, Frederick||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Holland, Sir William Henry||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Hope, John Deans (Fife. West)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||O'Dowd, John|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Malley, William|
|Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||O'Mara, James|
|Crean, Eugene||Jordan, Jeremiah||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Cremer, William Randal||Joyce, Michael||Partington, Oswald|
|Cullinan, J.||Kennedy, Vincent P(Cavan, W.||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Kilbride, Denis||Pearson, Sir Weetman D.|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||Lambert, George||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Lamont, Norman||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Langley, Batty||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Law, Hugh Alex(Donegal, W.)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Doogan, P. C.||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Priestley, Arthur|
|Duffy, William J.||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Reddy, M.|
|Edwards, Frank||Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington||Redmond, John E. (Waterford|
|Elibank, Master of||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Ellice, Capt E C (SAndrw'sBghs)||Levy, Maurice||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Ellis, John Edward (Notts)||Lewis, John Herbert||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Emmott, Alfred||Lough, Thomas||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||Lundon, W.||Runciman, Walter|
|Fenwick, Charles||Lyell, Charles Henry||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Ffrench, Peter||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Seely, Maj JEB (Isle of Wight)||Tennant, Harold John||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.|
|Shackleton, David James||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Sheehy, David||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr||Wills, Arthur Walters(NDorset|
|Shipman, Dr. John G.||Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)||Tomkinson, James||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Slack, John Bamford||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)||Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersfd|
|Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR Northants||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Stanhope, Hn. Philip James.||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan||TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Mr. J. H. Whitley and Mr. Samuel Evans.|
|Strachey, Sir Edward||Weir, James Galloway|
|Sullivan, Donal||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Taylor, Theodore C (Radcliffe)||White, Luke (York, E. R.|
§ MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight)
said the object of the Amendment he was about to move was to withdraw Clause 3 from the first compartment, so that the discussion on Monday, July 10th should be confined to Clauses 1 and 2. There was a general agreement of opinion that Clause 3—the expulsion clause—should be added to the Statute-book if possible, but Clauses 1 and 2 raised matters of the utmost controversy. It might be said that if there was general agreement as to Clause 3 it did not matter where it was placed for discussion. That, however, was not the case. Although there was agreement as to the principle, numerous questions of drafting would require consideration, and therefore it was only reasonable to suggest that Clause 3 should come in with Clauses 4, 5, 6, and 7. Clauses 1 and 2 embodied the most contentious parts of the Bill and their adequate discussion would require the whole of one day.
§ MR. EMMOTT
, in seconding, said that for the discussion of Clauses 1 and 2 one day was wholly insufficient, and to include Clause 3 was really an insult to Members who desired to discuss the Bill reasonably. There were forty-two Amendments to Clauses 1 and 2 on the Paper in the names of supporters of the Government, and twenty in the names of Members of the Opposition, while of the forty-two no fewer than eleven were to be proposed by the Home Secretary himself, mainly in acknowledgment of the justice of the criticisms that had been made. It was perfectly clear that more time was required, and therefore he seconded the Amendment.
In line 6, to leave out Clauses 2 and 3, and insert Clause 2"—(Major Seely)—instead there.
§ Question proposed, "That the words posed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said it must be a matter of opinion, incapable of demonstration, whether it was better that Clause 3 should be discussed on Monday or on Tuesday, it being understood that it must be discussed on one of those days. He adhered to the view that the allocation of time in the Resolution was better than that now proposed. As the mover of the Amendment had admitted, there was no serious difference of opinion with regard to the principle of Clause 3, though it did not follow that no drafting Amendments would be raised. He would be sorry, however, to crowd up Tuesday by adding to the clauses set down for that day. Probably the greater part of Monday would be devoted to finishing Clause 1, and, though Clause 2 was more important than Clause 3, he did not think Clauses 2 and 3 together were too much to fill up the remainder of the day. He thought, therefore, the House would be well advised to adhere to the Resolution.
§ MR. RUNCIMAN
said the suggestion that Clause 3 was uncontroversial applied only to the principle. The machinery of the clause was extremely important, and could not be properly discussed unless the clause were taken up first on Tuesday. Already the discussion on Clause 1 had caused the Government to put down several important Amendments, and he believed the consideration of Clause 2, if sufficient time were allowed, would be equally productive. There was no intention of over-burdening Tuesday by the transfer of Clause 3 to that day, as a Motion would subsequently be submitted to relieve Tuesday of some of the work allocated to it.
§ MR. CHURCHILL
understood that the Prime Minister was not unwilling to leave the particular allocation of the clauses between these two days to the convenience of the House. Was he right in that?
§ MR. CHURCHILL
said he understood the Prime Minister to say that although he thought the allocation in the Resolution was better than that proposed by the Amendment, he would not absolutely resist the alteration, if such an alteration were generally desired. In the absence of the Prime Minister it was impossible to ascertain whether the concession would be granted. A mere redistribution of the clauses between the two days, however, would not be sufficient. There would need to be some extension of time also.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE
submitted that, considering the social and moral issues involved, the whole of Tuesday could advantageously be occupied by the discussion of Clause 3. He thought some assurance ought to be given to the House that the time available for the discussion of Clause 3 would be lengthened and not shortened by the proposal which was now before the House. Unless they got some very graceful concession from the Front Ministerial Bench they might find themselves in a worse plight than ever. MR. MCKENNA pointed out that they had only got one day to discuss Clauses 1, 2, and 3. There were no less than forty-two Amendments to Clauses 1 and 2 standing in the names of hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, and under those circumstances how was it possible that Clause 3 could be discussed? He was aware that Clause 3 was a part of the measure upon which the House was more or less agreed, but, nevertheless, it required some little discussion because it gave the power to the Secretary of State to make an expulsion order against an alien who had been in receipt of parochial relief within three months from the time at which proceed- 1248 ings for the certificate were commenced. That question could not be reached on the Report stage because the new clauses would be taken first, so that the only operative clause which was going to have any effect at all was really one which could not be discussed at all unless the Government would give more time and allow it to be put first on Tuesday.
§ MR. STUART SAMUEL
said he thought the allocation of the time which had been suggested would be of little value unless the Government would give them a little more time for the consideration of the clauses. When one considered the effect of the legitimate criticism which the proposals of the Government had received during the brief discussions which had already taken place, he was not at all surprised at their shyness in not giving further opportunities for discussion upon the remaining portions of the Bill. Nothing could be more deplorable than the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that 75,000—
§ MR. STUART SAMUEL
said it could not possibly make any difference to the Government where Clause 3 was discussed, but they had apparently made up their minds not to make the slightest concession.
§ MR. DALZIEL
said the question was whether they ought to take Clause 3 first on Tuesday. He thought they were entitled to ask at this stage what suggestions the Prime Minister had got to make upon this question of granting an extension of the time to be allowed for discussion. Could the right hon. Gentleman give them any hope that at any period he intended to make any concession at all. Now was the time to make any concession that he intended to offer, and if he did not intend to meet them he should let them know at once and then they could address themselves more in detail to some of the proposals which they had to put forward.
§ Question put.1250
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 172; Noes, 134. (Division List No. 246.)1251
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||Mount, William Arthur|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH m'ts||Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)|
|Anson, Sir Wm Reynell||Goschen, Hn. George (Joachim||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Arrol, Sir William||Graham, Henry Robert||Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury||Percy, Earl|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.||Plummer, Sir Walter R.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Hambro, Charles Eric||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Balfour, Rt Hn. A J(Manch'r)||Hamilton. Marq of (L'donderry||Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. Hornsey)||Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)||Randles, John S.|
|Balfour, Rt. HnGeraldW Leeds||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Rankin, Sir James|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch||Hay, Hn. Claude George||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin||Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords. NW||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Heaton, John Henniker||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Ridley, S. Forde|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hogg, Lindsay||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Bingham, Lord||Hope, J F(Sheffield, Brightside)||Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Bowles, Lt-Col H F (Middlesex)||Hunt, Rowland||Rutherford, John (Lancashire|
|Brassey, Albert||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John||Jeffreys, RtHn. Arthur Fred||Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. Denbigh||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Butcher, John George||Kerr, John||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Campbell, JHM Dublin Univ.)||Keswick, William||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Kimber, Sir Henry||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Knowles, Sir Lees||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. Derbysh.||Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.||Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn J A(Worc.)||Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)||Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk|
|Chapman, Edward||Lawson, Hn H L W (Mile End.||Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)|
|Coates, Edw. Feetham||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Legge, Col. Hn. Heneage||Stock, James Henry|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North||Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.||Talbot, Rt Hn J G Oxf'd (Univ|
|Cross, Herb Shepherd (Bolton)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lucas, Reginald J (Portsm'th)||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Davenport, W. Bromley||Lyttelton, Rt Hn. Alfred||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Davies. Sir Horatio D (Chatham||Macdona John Cumming||Tuff, Charles|
|Denny, Colonel||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Turnour, Viscount|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Malcolm, Ian||Vincent, Col Sir C E H(Sheffield|
|Doughty, Sir George||Marks, Harry Hananel||Walker, Col William Hall|
|Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-||Maxwell, RtHn Sir H E(Wigt'n||Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir Wm. H.|
|Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edw.||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Warde, Colonel C. E|
|Fergusson, RtHn SirJ (Manc'r)||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Welby, Lt.-Col ACE (Taunton)|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Middlemore, J. Throgmorton||Whiteley H. (Ashton-und Lyne|
|Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'gs)||Milner, RtHn Sir Frederick G.||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Milvain, Thomas||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart|
|Flower, Sir Ernest||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Forster, Henry William||Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Gardner, Ernest||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Gordon. Hn J E (Elgin & Nairn)||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Black, Alexander William||Bright, Allan Heywood|
|Allen, Charles P.||Boland, John||Burke, E. Haviland|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.||Brigg, John||Caldwell, James|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Joyce, Michael||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Kilbride, Denis||Priestley, Arthur|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lambert, George||Reddy, M.|
|Charming, Francis Allston||Lamont, Norman||Redmond, John E. (Waterford|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Langley, Batty||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Crean, Eugene||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Cremer, William Randal||Levy, Maurice||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Cullinan, J.||Lewis, John Herbert||Shackleton, David James|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Lough, Thomas||Sheehy, David|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||Lundon, W.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Devlin, Joseph Kilkenny, N.)||Lyell, Charles Henry,||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Sack, John Bamford|
|Dobbie, Joseph||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Spencer, Rt. HnCR(Northants)|
|Doogan, P. C.||M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)||Stanhope, Hn. Philip James|
|Duffy, William J.||M'Crae, George||Sullivan, Donal|
|Edwards, Frank||M'Kean, John||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe|
|Elibank, Master of||M'Kenna, Reginald||Tennant, Harold John|
|Ellice, Capt ECS(Andrw'sB'ghs||J M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan||Markham, Arthur Basil||Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||Mooney, John J.||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Fenwick, Charles||Morgan, J Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower|
|Ffrench, Peter||Moss, Samuel||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.||Muldoon, John||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Murphy, John||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||J Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Gladstone, RtHn Herbert John||O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.|
|Hammond, John||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Harcourt, Lewis||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Harwood, George||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Dowd, John||Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset|
|Helme, Norval Watson||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.|
|Higham, John Sharp||O'Malley, William||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.||O'Mara, James||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddrsfi'd)|
|Jones, David B. (Swansea)||Partington, Oswald|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Pearson, Sir Weetman D.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Major Seely and Mr. Emmott.|
|Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Jordan, Jeremiah||Philipps, John Wynford|
§ Main Question again proposed.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
said he thought it was about time to some to some understanding as to the future course of the proceedings that night, and for that purpose he begged to move the adjournment of the debate. Hitherto the discussion had been convicted with perfect equanimity and good temper, but if it were to be carried beyond a certain point a different feeling night arise, and he thought the time had arrived for him to ask if the Government could not make some concession to the desires of his hon. friends and grant some extension of time for the consideration of the Report stage and the Third Read- 1252 ing of the Bill. Attempts had been made to induce the Government to make some alterations as to the clauses. Those attempts had proved futile, and he suggested that the Prime Minister ought to give additional time for the discussion on the later stages of the Bill.
§ Question proposed, "That the debate he now adjourned."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that in order to prevent unnecessary friction he wished it to be thoroughly understood that although a certain time had been allotted to the discussion of the Bill there was no disposition on the part of the 1253 Government to unnecessarily curtail the discussion. From the point of view of the general convenience of the House and the general desire of hon. Members he was willing to make a concession. The complaint was that the Report stage was too short, and that it was confined to one day, i. e., Monday week. If hon. Members were prepared to accept the evening sitting of the following day and to make no objection to the Third Reading being taken at the conclusion of the Report stage, that course would add a material period for the discussion of the Bill. Having made that concession it must be understood that he had done all within his power, and, in fact, he had proposed more than some of his hon. friends would approve of. If the concession was taken in the spirit of the offer and would be the means of terminating the proceedings for that night, it was one which he was prepared to make, although he might be reproached by hon. Gentlemen at a later stage for making it, and he trusted that it would be received in the same spirit.
§ MR. McKENNA
was of opinion that this was a reasonable concession and ought to be accepted. The chief objection to the Government's proposals was that the time allotted to the Report stage was altogether too short. They were now offered the Tuesday evening and that might be regarded as satisfactory.
§ Mr. LOUGH
agreed that the Prime Minister had met them in an admirable manner, but he thought that the Committee stage, to which only two days had been allotted, could not be adequately treated. He had an Amendment on the 1254 Paper that one day more should be allotted to the Committee stage. The difficulties seemed to be more in connection with the Committee than with the Report stage, and seeing that there were such a number of Amendments on the Paper by the members and supporters of the Government, it was really on the Committee stage that the extension of time should be given.
§ MR. J. A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden)
asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether on the following day the Third Reading was to be taken at the evening sitting, or whether it, was to be taken at both the morning and[evening sitting?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he had suggested that there should be three, additional hours given to the Report stage. The Third Reading would remain exactly as at present, and be taken on the Wednesday at the evening sitting.
§ MAJOR SEELY
said there seemed to be a general consensus of opinion that this was a reasonable arrangement. He did not wish to prolong the proceedings, but he regarded the Bill itself as intolerable, and with the solitary exception of Clause 3, it ought not to have been discussed in the House. If he stood alone he would protest against the Bill in every way.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)
said he did not intend to interfere to prevent this arrangement from being carried out; but he must be allowed to say that he considered the concession of three, hours was ridiculous, and was practically of no value at all. If, however, the regular Opposition chose to consider it as 1255 a concession, he had no business to interfere.
§ MR. DALZIEL
said he wanted it to be clearly understood, so far as he was concerned, that he did not regard the concession of the right hon. Gentleman as satisfactory. Instead of three hours, they ought to have three days.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Main Question again proposed.1256
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that though he gathered there was not absolute unanimity, he understood that it was felt on all sides that it was better to come to the arrangement he had suggested. He had now to move two or three Amendments in the Resolution which would carry into effect the arrangement he had pat before the House.
§ Amendment made.
§ Main Question, as amended, put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 149; Noes, 113. (Division List No. 247.)1257
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Doughty, Sir George||Lawson, Hn. H. L. W(Mile End|
|Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell||Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-||Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.||Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Arrol, Sir William||Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r||Long, RtHn Walter (Bristol, S|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Finlay, SirR. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fisher, William Hayes||Macdona, John dimming|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)||Forster, Henry William||MacIver, David (Liverpool)|
|Balfour, Capt C. B. (Hornsey)||Galloway, William Johnson||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds||Gardner, Ernest||Malcolm, Ian|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.||Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Marks, Harry Hananel|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.||Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H E (Wigt'n|
|Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Gordon, J (Londonderry, S.)||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Gordon, Maj Evans(T'rH'mlets||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Fredk. G.|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Goschen, Hn. George Joachim||Milvain, Thomas|
|Bingham, Lord||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)|
|Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Brassey, Albert||Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John||Hambro, Charles Eric||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Hamilton Marq of (L'donderry||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Butcher, John George||Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords NW.||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn JA(Worc)||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley|
|Chapman, Edward||Hogg, Lindsay||Percy, Earl|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.||Hunt, Rowland||Plummer, Sir Walter R.|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col Edward|
|Cross, Herb Shepherd (Bolton)||Kerr, John||Randles, John S.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Keswick, William||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Davenport, W. Bromley||Kimber, Sir Henry||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)||Knowles, Sir Lees||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Ridley, S. Forde|
|Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs)||Warde, Colonel G. E.|
|Robertson, Herbert (Hackney.||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.||Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton|
|Round, Rt. Hn. James||Stock, James Henry||Whiteley, H. (Ashton undLyne|
|Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool||Tollemache, Henry James||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R|
|Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw M.||Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart|
|Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Tuff, Charles||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Skewes-Cox, Thomas||Tuke, Sir John Batty||Wylie, Alexander|
|Sloan, Thomas Henry||Turnour, Viscount|
|Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)||Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Smith, HC (Northmb. Tyneside||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William|
|Abraham, William Cork, N. E.||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Allen, Charles P.||Jordan, Jeremiah||Priestley, Arthur|
|Barry, E. J. (Cork, S.)||Joyce, Michael||Reddy, M.|
|Black, Alexander William||Kennedy, Vincent P, (Cavan, W.||Redmond, John E (Waterford)|
|Boland, John||Kilbride, Denis||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Brigg, John||Lamont, Norman||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Caldwell, James||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Runciman, Walter|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Levy, Maurice||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Lewis, John Herbert||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lough, Thomas||Shackleton, David James|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Lundon, W.||Sheeny, David|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Slack, John Bamford|
|Crean, Eugene||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Spencer. Rt Hn CR(Northants.)|
|Cremer, William Randal||M'Crae, George||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Cullman, J.||M'Kean, John||Sullivan, Donal|
|Dalziel, James Henry||M'Kenna, Reginald||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Markham, Arthur Basil||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Mooney, John J.||Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan, Gower|
|Duffy, William J.||Muldoon, John||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Edwards, Frank||Murphy, John||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Elibank, Master of||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Ellice, Capt E C (SAndrewsB'ghs||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Fenwick, Charles||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Ffrench, Peter||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Dowd, John||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Hammond, John||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Harcourt, Lewis||O'Malley, William||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Mara, James||Woodhouse. Sir J T (Hudd'rsf'd|
|Helme, Norval Watson||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Higham, John Sharp||Partington, Oswald||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.|
|Jones, David B. (Swansea)||Pearson, Sir Weetman D.|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
§ Ordered, That the proceedings in Committee and on Report of the Aliens Bill, including proceedings on the financial Resolution relating thereto, shall, unless previously disposed of, be brought to a conclusion at the times and in the manner hereinafter mentioned:—
- (a) The proceedings in Committee on the remaining part of Clause 1,
1258 and Clauses 2 and 3, and on the Committee stage of the financial Resolution, shall be brought to a conclusion on Monday the 10th of July.
- (b) The proceedings on the Report stage of the financial Resolution, and in Committee on Clauses 4,
1259 5, 6, and 7, shall be brought to a conclusion at the termination of the Afternoon Sitting on Tuesday the 11th of July.
- (c) The proceedings in Committee on the remaining Clauses of the Bill, or any new Clauses or Schedules, and any other proceedings necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the termination of the Evening Sitting on Tuesday the 11th of July.
- (d) The consideration of the Report of the Bill shall be appointed for Monday the 17th of July, and for the Evening Sitting of the 18th of July, and shall be brought to a conclusion on that day.
- (e) At 11 p.m. on Monday the 10th of July, and at 6. 30 p.m. on Tuesday the 11th of July, and at 12 midnight on Tuesday the 11th of July, and at 11 p.m. on Tuesday the 18th of July, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put 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 business allotted to the day or sitting;
- (f) In the case of Government Amendments, or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall
1260 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.
§ The Third Reading of the Bill shall be put down for the Evening Sitting on Wednesday the 19th of July, and at Twelve midnight on that day the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to conclude the proceedings on that stage of the Bill.
§ The proceedings to which this Order relates shall not be interrupted except at the Afternoon Sitting at 7. 30 p.m. on the 10th and 17th of July, under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
§ After the passing of this Order, on any-day or at any Sitting to which Business is allotted under this Order, no dilatory Motion on the Bill or Resolution, and no Motion to postpone a Clause of the Bill shall be received unless moved by a Minister in charge of the Bill, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
§ No Motion under Standing Order 10 shall be received on the 10th, 11th, 17th, 18th, or 19th July, and no opposed Private Business shall be set down at the Evening Sitting for consideration on those days.
§ If Progress be reported, the Chairman shall put this Order in force in any subsequent sitting of the Committee.
§ And, it being after One of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at twenty-two minutes before Two o'clock.