PLURAL VOTING BILL—PROCEDURE.

HC Deb 26 November 1906 vol 165 cc1258-99

THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs)

I rise for the purpose of making the Motion which I at once say is an unusual Motion. I hope, however, before I sit down to make it plain that it is at once justifiable and necessary in the circumstances. We are now about to enter upon the Report stage of a Bill which in Committee was examined in most minute detail. This Bill, a short Bill, of a very simple principle, to attain which a somewhat difficult machinery is necessary, occupied six days in Committee, less by two hours and three-quarters on one occasion, when the adjournment of the House was moved. Of this time four or five days were devoted to Clause 1, which was debated down to the last line, and the closure on which was only moved at a quarter to seven o'clock on 30th October Of the Amendments of which notice has been given to the Report stage, nine Pages refer to this same clause, and out of 139 Amendments 111 are a repetition of those moved during the Committee Stage. Of the remaining twenty-eight very few differ greatly in substance from similar Amendments which were moved in Committee. There has been a change merely in the authors of the Amendments. The offspring is the same, but the father is different. Can there be any doubt whatever that the tabling of these Amendments show the intention with which the whole proceedings are conducted? I will not say anything offensive, but I will say that the intention is to occupy as much time as possible or as is decent on this stage of the Bill. Is this in accordance with the proper use of the privileges by Members of the House? For an answer to that question I will fall back on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who has had a long experience of these Motion, and is acquainted with all the circuitous methods by which business can be either accelerated or delayed in this House. The right hon. Gentleman in February, 1902, when he was First Lord of the Treasury, proposed a batch of new procedure rules. One of them embodied the right hon. Gentleman's idea of the proper method of treating the consideration of a Bill on Report. That proposed new Standing Order was as follows:— When a Bill is considered on the Report of a Committee of the Whole House, no Amendment may be moved, except Amendments moved by the Member in charge of the Bill and Amendments arising out of any changes in the Bill made in Committee. That new Standing Order was, however, never reached, and was therefore not considered. It may be said that that is a long time since, and that the right hon. Gentleman may have changed his mind. But in May of this year, when he kindly appeared before the Committee on Procedure, he stated his views with a frankness for which the Government are deeply indebted to him. The right hon. Gentleman then said his general idea was that the Report stage should revert to what it was originally intended to be— Not a re-discussion of the whole Bill, as if it were in Committee, but a procedure dealing with points which had been omitted in Committee, introducing Amendments which the Government had promised, and dealing with any subjects which were consequential on Amendments that had been introduced in the Committee stage of the Bill. I should like to see something of that sort tiled, and to give to the Member in charge of the Bill the sole right to make new proposals. There is the view of the highest authority I can quote. That is the deliberate opinion of the right hon. Gentleman. I entirely agree with those views, and if ever there was a case to which they apply with force and authority it is the case of the Plural Voting Bill, which does not come from a Committee upstairs, but has been amply considered by Committee of the Whole House. Recognising that if these multiplied and repeated Amendments are to be proceeded with in the ordinary leisurely fashion a great deal of public time which might be better employed will be purely wasted, I ask the House to prescribe a time limit of the kind which we are accustomed to see applied where a great Bill has lagged in its course and requires to be hurried towards a conclusion. I have said before that this is a clumsy and not very agreeable proceeding. It is unfortunate that it rests with the Leader of the House, who is of course a Party man, to make such a Motion. There will be immense advantage—if it can be accomplished— in setting up a dispassionate tribunal more or less of the nature and after the pattern of the Committee of Selection to decide with regard to a Bill, to each stage of the Bill, and possibly even to the parts of the Bill, what time ought to be allowed for discussion. That is what I hope we shall bear in mind, and endeavour to accomplish by-and-by if it can be accomplished. I am quite aware there may be difficulties in the way, but with good will they may be got over. In the meantime the Government has to do what it can, and if ever a Motion of this sort was justified, I think it is justified in this case by the repetition in the face of all that has happened of the same old Amendments which were discussed at such ample length a month ago. I wish to correct the idea implied in some statements in the Press that this day and Tuesday are the two allotted days. For the new clauses there will be allowed what remains of to-day and Tuesday, and the other Amendments will be taken on Wednesday. I beg to move.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That two allotted days be given to the Report stage of the Plural Voting Bill, and that the proceedings on new clauses, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on the first allotted day, and that the remaining proceedings on the Bill and the Schedule and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on the second allotted day. Any day after this Order comes into operation on which the Plural Voting Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, shall be considered as an allotted day for the purposes of this Order. At 10.30 p.m. on an allotted day, the Speaker shall, if the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on that day have not already been brought to a conclusion, put forthwith the Question or Questions on any new Clause, Amendment, or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next, so far as is necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded on that day, proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any new clauses or Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other clauses or Amendments), and on any other question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new clauses, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the clause be added to he Bill, as the case may be. At 11 p.m. on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, or if that day is a Friday, at 5 p.m., the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to conclude the proceedings on that stage of the Bill. Proceedings to which this Order relates shall not, on an allotted day, be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House. On an allotted day and on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion for re-commitment of the Bill, nor Motion for adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 shall be received unless moved by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without debate."— (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman).

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)

It seems almost ungracious after the speech to which we have just listened for me to rise and criticise either the Motion or the apology for the Motion which has just been made by the Prime Minister, for he has been good enough to say that I am the highest possible authority upon all questions of Parliamentary procedure, and he has discovered merits in those proposals and suggestions which I have from time to time made to the House with regard to the conduct of public business which I never remember him to have uttered when those proposals were made by me from the Ministerial side of the House and when it was the right hon. Gentleman's business to criticise and appraise their value from this side of the House. The Prime Minister has quoted with great eulogy two speeches which I have made upon subjects connected with the matter now under discussion. I observe that he carefully forebore to quote with or without eulogy any speeches made by himself upon the same subject. If I had time and the inclination and had I foreseen the particular line of defence of the right hon. Gentleman I think I could have discovered some gems of eloquence, not less pure and bright than those which he has spread before us, from an authority which the reciprocal character of common courtesy requires me to describe as the highest authority in the House upon matters of business—at all events next to myself. I was greatly surprised, I must frankly admit, at the line which the right hon. Gentleman took, for more than one reason. I was surprised among other reasons because one of the grounds on which he asked the House and the country to place him in the position he now adorns was that he wished to restore to the House of Commons that liberty which a tyrannical Government had taken from it. But that is not the only or even the chief cause of my surprise. What was the right hon. Gentleman's defence? In the first place he said that the proper time for discussing a Bill was during the Committee stage and not the Report stage, which ought to be restricted somewhat in the manner in which I have from time to time suggested it should be restricted. On that point I should like to ask how that is consistent with the very Standing Order which he is going to propose for the future conduct of our business. I have always thought, and still think, that the Committee stage in this House should be the stage in which all Members are invited to take part. I do not think you will ever get a substitute for this House in any Committee upstairs, but I have always recognised that if the right of fully discussing a Bill in Committee of this House is insisted upon, it would probably be desirable to lay down some general principle for restricting discussion on the Report stage. But that is not the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. That is not the Standing Order which he and his friends are proposing, for they are now proposing to abolish the Committee stage altogether, and throw all the weight of the discussion on the Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted my authority for saying that there ought to be certain kinds of restrictions upon discussions on the Report stage of a Bill. The advantage of the plan I suggested, however, is that, though the area of discussion would be limited, in that area the freedom of debate would be complete; all the new proposals and their consequences would be discussed, and there would be no limitation on the freedom of debate except the broad principle that only certain things should be discussed. Under the proposals of the Government, on the contrary, there is sure to be a repetition of discussions which take place at the Committee stage, the Bill being one on which feeling runs high, and it is very likely that the lengthy and elaborate proposals made on behalf of the Government will not be reached in time to be debated. May I remind the House that they have only two days to discuss this Bill, and as the right hon. Member in charge of the measure has put down in his own name Amendments greater in length and greater in space on the Notice Paper than the whole of the original Bill, it is very expedient that we should have full opportunity of discussing that which by the admission of the Prime Minister is a proper matter to discuss on the Report stage. I cannot think that in quoting me the right hon. Gentleman could have understood exactly what my proposal was, because he really has violated it in all its essential particulars. All that is good in it he has omitted, and all that may be bad in it in the way of curtailing debate he has now sedulously retained. We have great reason to complain both of the matter and the manner of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. As regards the manner of it surely we might have had—I will not say the courtesy for I am sure that he is never lacking in courtesy—but the Government might have so arranged that this Motion should have been put down when Amendments could have been put on the Paper. There is nothing new in the condition of the Order Paper with regard to the matter. The Government knew perfectly well where they stood on Thursday as well as on Friday. If the Resolution had appeared last Friday morning it would have been possible for my friends to put down Amendments if they desired to do so, instead of having the Motion thrust at our heads on Monday morning when it was quite impossible to give the House any opportunity of discussing alterations which it may be proposed to make in the body of the Resolution. So much for the manner which the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to adopt. Now as regards the substance. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, while he is from time to time moving these gagging Resolutions, and while he has asked the House after a fairly laborious session in the earlier months of the year to meet for a prolonged autumn session, he has never condescended to give the House an account of the way in which he proposes to use the time at his disposal? He has had plenty of opportunities for doing so. He might have done so on the Motion for the adjournment in August, or during the present session, or this afternoon. We do not know now how he means to dispose of the time, or why he means to dispose of it in this way. This is vital and relevant to the Resolution before us. He cannot give us three or four days to discuss the Report stage of this Reform Bill, because, I presume, the pressure of public business is so great. If it is absolutely impossible to give more than two days, what is the pressure of public business? How does he mean to occupy the time that still remains to him before Christmas? Does he mean to stop at Christmas? He has given no outline of the scheme of the Government such as every other Minister in his place asking for these exceptional powers has always given to the House. When we consider in more detail how he is treating the House as regards time, the astonishment, and, I am bound to say, the indignation at the way we have been treated in this matter increases instead of diminishes. I will explain why I say so. He is giving only two days to discuss this Bill instead of three or four. [An HON. MEMBER: Three days.] He is giving only two complete days instead of three or four days which might reasonably be asked for. Why this limitation? He has announced to the House that he means to take the Second Reading of a very contentious Bill which he does not mean to pass—which he does not mean to carry further—namely, the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill. That is a Bill which embodies a principle which may be right or wrong, but it is of the most contentious description, and it is inconceivable that any debate on the Second Reading of that Bill should take less than two days, and it will probably take more. I do not suppose that the most sanguine of Government Whips would suppose that it would take less than two days. These two days are not going to lead to legislation, because, by the admission of the Government, that Bill is not to proceed further in the course of this session. Why cannot we have those days given to the discussion of this Bill? Why cannot we have one of them? Can any reason be assigned for refusing? Have we been brought up for an autumn session, not to discuss Bills that are to be passed, but to have abstract discussions of great principles embodied in Bills which are never to be carried further, at all events, in the course of the present year? That is one of the questions on which I should like to get some satisfaction from the Government. But observe, that is not the only thing. They have occupied the autumn session not with their own Bills, but with other people's Bills. The Labour Members have more than once, indeed on several occasions, begged the Government that one of their own Bills, which I understand must be passed, should be pressed forward, and I am sure that I personally desire to see it passed—I mean the Workmen's Compensation Bill. It never has been pressed forward, whether because the Government and the Labour Members cannot come to an agreement, I do not know. At any rate, it is not there. The time of the House will be occupied not with Bills which the Government themselves have prepared, not with Bills for which the Government are ready to be responsible, but with Bills brought in by other people, drafted by other people, which the Government have adopted, largely for the purpose of throwing them over when debated, and at all events, with no benefit, so far as I can see, either to the dignity of the House, or the propriety of the methods by which we carry on legislation. Are these circumstances under which it is fair or proper to ask this House to have its liberties curtailed on an important stage of what is a great disfranchising Reform Bill? I should have thought that if there was a Bill in this House with regard to which the Government would be careful not to ask the Opposition unnecessarily to surrender any of its rights of debate, it would be a Bill of the character of that with which this Resolution is concerned. Consider what this Bill is. In the first place it is a Reform Bill—the kind of Bill to which as yet no man has ever attempted to apply the closure by compartments. That is not all. It is a Bill avowedly and plainly directed against a small section of this House—a section whose numerical power in this House is by universal admission very much less than that of the constituencies which they represent in the country. We are relatively a small number in this House—and no doubt that is a matter on which the Government will legitimately congratulate themselves —but I venture to think that when a Government with a majority of 300 at its back brings in a Bill intended for no other purpose than to diminish that already numerically small band; when clearly and manifestly they are not animated or moved by any broad principles as to the manner in which the franchise should be distributed, either among classes or among sexes; when they have narrowed the whole issue to one in which they think that their own friends will not suffer, and that if there be a loss that loss will be confined to political opponents—then I am bound to say that I should have thought that any Government having to deal with that situation would have relaxed rather than tightened the opportunities for discussion in this House. When I think how easily that opportunity might have been given without sacrificing a single Government measure, without at all diminishing the discussion of any Bill intended to pass, without losing caste among their own friends or popularity in the country, I am amazed at the policy and the motives which seem to have animated the Prime Minister and his friends. It is of course impossible for us to make any successful opposition in the division lobby to this, or indeed any other Motion by which the Government choose to curtail the opportunities of debate which the small party to which I belong still possess. They have the power, they can use it, but at all events let it be remembered that the manner in which they have chosen to use it on the present occasion is not in accordance with the principles which, quoting from me, they say are the principles which ought to govern our behaviour on the Report stage, and let it also be remembered that they are applying this tyrannical method to a measure which is directed by an overwhelming majority against the interests of those who are in a small minority in this chamber.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,) Fife, E.

said he could not refrain from congratulating the right hon. Gentleman upon the unexhausted and apparently inexhaustible capacity of his reservoir of Parliamentary indignation. Constant and copious as were the drafts which he had of late made upon it, the supply seemed to be as unfailing as the widow's cruse. When they remembered during the course even of this short autumn session the terrible things the right hon. Gentleman had said, first about the Trade Disputes Bill—the history of which he thought was a significant commentary upon the reality and genuineness of these blood and thunder displays— then upon the Bills of private Members which the Government, with parental care, had adopted and adapted to the stress of Parliamentary life—he did not think that on Friday last there was a very great or formidable array of opposition— and when they remembered further all the right hon. Gentleman had said about the Prime Minister's notorious slipperiness and chicanery in the management of Parliamentary business——

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I never said that.

MR. ASQUITH

Well, something very like it.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken as to what I said. It never occurred to me to suggest, and I never did suggest, that the right hon. Gentleman was guilty of chicanery or that he is a slippery customer. I never said it, and I never thought it. I did think, and said more than once that statements have been made which had, although unintentionally, the effect of deceiving the House as to the prospects of its business. That is quite a different matter.

MR. ASQUITH

said he was glad to have elicited that statement. His words were not used in the sense supposed. He was only recalling the various previous occasions on which the right hon. Gentleman had used language very much like that to which the House had just listened. He would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman had now almost reached the end both of his faculty of reprobation and of his vocabulary of protest. But that was not the case. Here he was again, in a fresh coat of war-paint, not satiated himself, however his audience might be, by the constant display of his Parliamentary indignation, and if he might without offence, say so, imbued with a double portion of the spirit of Jonah and Jeremiah combined, delivering once more to the House his now well-worn message of denunciation and of warning. He asked again, as he asked once before, what was it all about? What did it all come to? What was this terrible innovation for which the Prime Minister had made himself responsible? He said without fear of contradiction that this Parliamentary institution of the guillotine, discovered by the right hon. Gentleman himself and now nearly attaining its majority, had never been applied so gently, so tenderly, and so considerately as in the Resolution now before the House. So far as his memory served, there had never been an occasion of the application of the guillotine by the right hon. Gentleman opposite when it had not been applied to the Committee stage as well as to the Report and Third Reading stages. In this case the Government had deliberately waited until the Bill had been exhaustively discussed in Committee with the minutest detail. Now, on the Report stage, they asked to give not two days, but part of three (because, if they chose to pass the Resolution, they would have that evening), to the revision of proceedings in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had complained of a new method. What was the new method which the Government had introduced? It consisted in this, that, the new matter introduced by the First Commissioner of Works being for the most part merely in fulfilment of undertakings given in Committee to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, the time had been distributed so as to suit what was believed to be the convenience of the House. As to the general complaint that the Government had not given sufficient indication as to how they were going to dispose of the time of the House, the right hon. Gentleman knew very well that the Workmen's Compensation Bill was to follow. It was in order to proceed with that Bill effectively, and at the earliest possible moment, that the Government, on seeing the enormous crowd of Amendments to the Plural Voting Bill on subjects already disposed of in Committee, thought it necessary, in the interests of both measures, to bring the Report stage of this Bill to an early conclusion. The Government could not say how the remainder of their time would be spent until they knew what took place in a different atmosphere and under different conditions for which they had no responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman could be sure that it was the earnest intention of the Government to carry into effect their legislative programme, and, in particular, to pass into law the Workmen's Compensation Bill. They believed that when this Plural Voting Bill—the principle of which had been decided on the Second Reading, and the details of which had been thoroughly threshed out in Committee — had, in three more days, reached its final termination as far as this House was concerned, there would be time left for the passing of those measures without the passing of which they would not consider that they had done their duty to the House and the country.

MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford)

said that after listening to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he certainly thought the right hon. Gentleman had no right to make use of the argument that this Resolution ought to be adopted in order to give time for the Workmen's Compensation Bill. That Bill, it was very well known, was a Government Bill, which the Government meant to pass, and the time given to the Land Tenure Bill and the Irish Town Tenants' Bill should have been taken for it. After the evidence given before the Procedure Committee, and the argument used by himself, as to the proposal to remove all Bills, except those which the Government chose, from consideration at Committee stage in the House itself, a Party majority voted down any suggestion of dealing with the Report stage after the manner adopted now by the Prime Minister. He thought it was necessary for independent Members to rise and protest against this Resolution. If the House allowed the procedure to be pursued in regard to this Bill, they might find next year a Resolution introduced that on certain Government Bills the Report stage should be reduced, and the general and detailed discussion of the Bills removed from the House. The very danger of the argument used by the Prime Minister compelled him to protest against it, because the Chairman of the Procedure Committee had said that there was nothing in the mind of the Government which would impel them to cut short discussion on the Report stage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the Amendments might be roughly divided into two parts —one half to new clauses, and one half to Amendments, to which a day and a half were to be given. And one day was to be given to the Third Reading. The Report stage was of peculiar importance to hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, and it was impossible to discuss in one day all the Amendments put down for that stage as well by the Government as by private Members. Whatever might be the merits or demerits of the Resolution, he contended that it was a very strong one; and, moreover, it was the first guillotine Resolution which had been applied to a Reform Bill. If they could not make any impression with regard to the general rule itself he earnestly urged upon the Government that they should give them further time to consider the clauses so that the proposals of the Government might be open to further consideration.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (City of London)

agreed that the defence of this Motion by the Prime Minister called for a strong protest by all the Members of the House. The Leader of the Opposition had pointed out that when their Party was in power, not only the Prime Minister but all his supporters in the Press were continually saying that the tyrannical action of the then Tory Government had flouted the House of Commons, deprived Members of their rights, with the result that no one except the Tory Government had any power of action. The first action on the part of the Liberal Party, if they come back, it was said, would be to restore to the House of Commons the supremacy which the Tory Party had taken away. But instead of, restoring the supremacy of the House of Commons, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had treated the Opposition with a greater want of consideration than, during the fourteen years he had been in Parliament, he had ever seen exhibited by any Party towards its opponents. The Prime Minister said that his reason for this Motion was that he thought the Report stage should be very much curtailed, but if the right hon. Gentleman thought that he should have made certain rules with that object, and should have brought those rules forward and applied them to all Bills. The right hon. Gentleman had not done that, but had taken this one particular Bill, and at the commencement of the Report stage, before the Bill had ever been discussed, moved the guillotine, on the ground that his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition had made some proposals sometime ago which had never been discussed. Instead of being curtailed he thought the proceedings on Report should be extended, and that Members should be permitted on that stage to speak not only once but twice or thrice upon any particular subject. That, however, was not what the right hon. Gentleman proposed. The Prime Minister merely said that there would be two allotted days, and that whatever Amendments came up in those two short days would be discussed and if Amendments did not come up they would not be discussed. To take a Bill of this sort, a disfranchising reform Bill, and to prevent Members on that side of the House who would be affected by it, while hon. Members opposite would not be so affected, from discussing it was unfortunate. It was a Bill for diminishing a very small Party, and to take away from the people who by their ability and energy had acquired a stake in the country what little power they had, simply because they did not support hon. Members opposite. The Prime Minister might have paused before he made this particular Motion on this particular Bill. As to the Amendments on the Paper, they were nearly as long as the Bill itself. As a matter of fact, he believed that the Amendments moved by the First Commissioner of Works covered 117 lines, while the Bill itself, as originally drawn, covered only sixty-seven lines. The very fact that the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill had nearly to double it on the Report stage showed that the Bill was not well drafted. It was all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the Amendments meant nothing, and that they were brought forward in deference to pledges given to hon. Members of the Opposition. That did not mean anything and did not alter the nature of the Bill, which was only brought forward as a sop to hon. Members below the gangway. He had never before heard such a ludicrous defence. If these Amendments were unnecessary and did not mean anything, why should they be brought forward at all? He contended that these Amendments or series of Amendments were vital, because they dealt with the machinery of the Bill. As the Bill was originally introduced it was impossible to carry it out without disfranchising a very large number of people whom he really believed the Government had no intention of disfranchising, and in order to remedy the defects of the Bill they had been obliged to bring in these new Amendments, which would take up a large portion of the time allotted to future discussion. Was the fact that they had been obliged to do that any reason why the Amendments of the Opposition should not be dealt with, and that they should be prevented from expressing their opinions upon a Bill which affected them so vitially? They were told that some of the Amendments had been moved on the Committee stage, and that was true, but it was the first time that he had heard that because an Amendment had been moved on the Committee stage it might not be moved on the Report stage. It was quite possible that between the Committee and the Report stages more mature consideration might have changed the opinions of those who objected to an Amendment. It was not only useful but necessary to bring up Amendments which had been moved in Committee. The Prime Minister had given no reason for moving the guillotine before the discussion had commenced, and, as far as he remembered, in all cases in which the guillotine had been moved it had always been after the Committee or Report Stage, whichever it was, had been entered upon, and had been in existence for some time. He could not see what justification there was for moving the guillotine at that moment. There never had been a case in which a Government had commanded such an immense majority, and yet they had not been able to carry on their business without sitting up all night, suspending the eleven o'clock rule, or moving a guillotine Motion. A more striking commentary upon their proceedings in this House he could not conceive, more especially as when the Party opposite were returned they said they were going to manage business in such a way that members of the Opposition and private Members would have an opportunity of expressing their opinions, which opportunity it was said they had not before had. Yet the Opposition, small as they were, had been treated in such a way that their opportunities of expressing their opinion and of criticising had been curtailed and their privileges diminished.

MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)

said that one of the most significant points about the alliance of the Nationalist and Ministerial Parties was the conspiracy of silence between the two benches. They were indeed becoming accustomed to silent and absent Ministers or to Ministers who were unwilling or unable to reply to the arguments advanced. A still more serious aspect of the question was the muzzling order which it was now sought to apply, not only to hon. Members above the gangway, but to those below the gangway, who used to be the most ardent supporters of liberty of speech. Where were those Members now? They had all of them become miserable slaves of the closure. He asked hon. Members below the gangway to shake off this yoke which he knew must be galling to all of them. He appealed to the Prime Minister in the name of freedom of debate and of common humanity to take the muzzle off and to put an end to the conspiracy of silence.

SIR FRANCIS LOWE (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

agreed with the remark of the Prime Minister that this was an unusual Motion. It was unusual as regards both the Bill to which it related and the time at which it was brought forward. The time was most inappropriate, for the reason that a Reform Bill which was to alter very materially the electorate of this country ought to be brought forward in the lest session of an old Parliament rather than in the first of a new one. Not only was this the first session of a new Parliament, but it was an autumn extension of a first session, a thing which in itself was almost unprecedented. Therefore to bring forward a Reform Bill in an unusual autumn session in the first year of a new Parliament was an unprecedented proceeding, and if a course so unprecedented was adopted at all it ought to be adopted in a broad-minded, fair, and reasonable manner. There were many anomalies in the present electoral system which ought to be carefully considered and if possible removed, and if this anomaly of plural voting had been embodied in a Bill dealing with all the anomalies of our electoral laws he was not prepared to say that he would not have voted for it. But the Government had picked out this one anomaly and embodied it in a Bill which they wished to pass into law in order that they might gerrymander the constituencies, and especially the county constituencies, in their own interests. If the Bill were passed it would have the effect of taking away a great many voters in constituencies already small, while other constituencies which were a good deal larger than they ought to be were left alone. That the present electoral system worked unfairly was made quite clear by a Question addressed to the Prime Minister earlier in the afternoon. Those who sat in opposition represented three times as many electors as those who sat on the Ministerial benches below the gangway, and under these circumstances the Plural Voting Bill was the last Bill in the world to which such a Resolution as this should be applied. Another reason why further time should be allowed for the consideration of this Bill was the admission of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of it, during the earlier stages of the Bill, that a large portion of it was unworkable and that a great many Amendments would have to be made in it. The right hon. Gentleman had found it necessary practically to redraft the measure—to bring before the House on the Report stage such a largo number of Amendments as practically to alter its character. That was an unanswerable reason why a larger amount of time should be allowed for the Report. It was, he supposed, quite impossible now to persuade the Prime Minister to withdraw the Motion, but he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to allow a little further time, and suggested that if three or four days were allowed instead of two they would be able at once to get to the discussion of the Bill itself.

MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)

said that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer took the unusual course of immediately following his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition everybody supposed that he was prepared with a case that would shatter the arguments of his right hon. friend, but that was not so. The Prime Minister in moving his Motion relied on authority because there was no precedent for the course which he pursued. Never before had closure by compartments been applied by any Government to more than one Bill in one session. It had been applied originally only when urgently needed. Then it was applied to the principal measure of the year when it became evident that that measure could not be carried even with an autumn session, and it was against such a case that no one so violently protested as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. The right hon. Gentleman talked about blood and thunder, but if anybody contrasted the closely reasoned and courteously presented speech of the Leader of the Opposition with the method which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought applicable to totally different circumstances when such procedure was necessary in order to prevent the whole legislation of the House being brought to naught at the end of the session, they would see that there was no blood and thunder so far as his right hon. friend was concerned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1904 did not condescend to arguments.

MR. ASQUITH

What was the Bill?

MR. WYNDHAM

said the Bill was the Licensing Bill. The right hon. Gentleman devoted several long passages of his speech to showing how important the Bill was and how it affected the whole country; that it was the Bill of the session; and he complained of this procedure being applied to it but he did not condescend to argue the matter.

MR. ASQUITH

At what stage of the Bill was the closure applied?

MR. WYNDHAM

After it became evident that no other business could be done and that that business could not be done.

MR. ASQUITH

It was in the early stages of the Committee.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the interruptions of the right hon. Gentleman did not refute his (Mr. Wyndham's) argument that this method of procedure should be applied once only in the course of a Parliamentary year and to the principal Bill of the year. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman described it as "an outrage to the dignity of the House of Commons," but when the Leader of the Opposition in a moderately worded speech pointed out that this was not directed against a principal, but a secondary Bill, the right hon. Gentleman accused his right hon. friend of indulging in blood and thunder. When the right hon. Gentleman was confronted with a far less drastic interference with the liberty of debate when in opposition, he said the Government could not complain of any difficulty in getting through their business because criticism must bear come proportion to the area of criticisable matter. The Government were now dealing with a far more drastic procedure, and he (Mr. Wyndham) also said that their criticism must bear some proportion to the criticisable matter. What did that matter consist of? It consisted of an adopted, or as the right hon. Gentleman termed it, an adapted Bill which, the Government had taken over from a private Member.

MR. ASQUITH

said the right hon. Gentleman knew quite well that this Bill would have been taken two or three weeks ago had it not been for the unfortunate illness of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. WYNDHAM

asked whether they were to understand that the Land Tenure Bill and the Town Tenants Bill would not have been carried through by the Government if the right hon. Gentleman had been present to conduct this Bill.

MR. ASQUITH

said he was explaining why it was they took them before this Bill.

MR. WYNDHAM

said they would have been taken after. Having dealt with all the Government business the House was then to be invited on the eve of Christmas to deal with private Members' Bills. They had to deal with facts as they found them. Here were measures introduced by private Members, which had to be re-drafted from the first line to the last, occupying their attention day after day and week after week, and then the Government said they were under the necessity of allowing only two days to the Report stage of one of their own Bills. It upset all one's notions as to the conduct of parents, and if parents had so behaved towards their offspring in days past Solomon's wisdom could not have rested upon the incident that was connected with his name. The Government had added to the time allocated for the discussion of two Bills brought in by private Members, but when the Government came to their own child the Chancellor of the Exchequer said they were prepared to deal with it in a rough and ready manner. It appeared that the Government cared more for the two private Members' Bills than for their own Bill. He thought that was rather ungracious of the Chancellor of the Exchequer towards his colleague. In this Bill there was a considerable area of criticisable matter. The Prime Minister had urged against them that they were quarrelling with Amendments put down to meet their wishes. That was not so at all— at least it was not so in any great measure. The bulk of the Amendments, or at any rate the voluminous Amendment, was called for by the fact that the Government found their original Bill would not work at all. They talked about a Plural Voting Bill, but when it was discussed in Committee it turned out to be not a Plural Voting Bill but a Bill to deal with a man who had a dual qualification, and because they had drafted the Bill upon those lines they found that they would disfranchise altogether a number of men who had a vote. The Government discovered that a man with one vote, if he subsequently secured another vote, would be disfranchised altogether and lose, not one vote out of two, but the vote he had originally. It was because of the fundamental objection to the method in which the Government treated the problem that they had to recast their measure and put down this voluminous Amendment which they wished to be hurried through without adequate discussion. Since the Amendments had been put down not as a favour to the Opposition, but because the Government Bill was not much better drafted than the private Members' Bills for which they had made themselves responsible, and since the Government were applying a method to a Reform Bill for which there was no precedent, he wished the Opposition could emulate the indignation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed on a previous occasion. He would conclude as the right hon. Gentleman concluded, but for far better reasons— Is the House prepared at the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman to take this last step on the road to humiliation and impotence? I trust it is not. At any rate, it is to save ourselves from an ignominous surrender of our privileges and to save those who come after us from a disastrous precedent that the right hon. Gentleman moved the Amendment. He trusted the Opposition would have equal courage with far greater cause.

MR. STANLEY WILSON (Yorks, E. R., Holderness)

protested against the procedure of the Government. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given the slightest reason for forcing on the guillotine; nor had they disclosed the business they intended taking during the remainder of the autumn sittings. He could not help thinking the reason for this was that the Government intended to make an early appeal to the country, and before the next general election they wished to disqualify a few voters who were opposed to them. It might be that the reason was the health of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. They had all regretted his absence, and were glad to see him back among them; but he did not see why the right hon. Gentleman's health should be a reason for applying the guillotine to the measure. There were the names of other right hon. Members on the back of the Bill. There was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for instance. He had taken a part in the discussion and he probably might be able to sit up with them for one or two nights while they thrashed out a few little details. The way the Bill was going to be forced through the House was an example of how legislation should not be carried out. The measure was probably one of the worst drafted that had ever been before the House of Commons. When the Report stage was concluded the Bill would become nearly twice as long as it was when first introduced. He very much doubted whether it ever would be made a workable Bill. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of it had had to put down Amendment after Amendment in the effort to make it workable—a most extraordinary proceeding. He would suggest that for the benefit of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman should accept a few of the Amendments which he had put on the Paper. At any rate they would make the Bill much more workable. The measure as it stood imposed a penalty upon men who owned property. It had always been said that taxation should go with representation, but the policy of the Government in this Bill was to make it a crime for a man who owned property and paid taxes in two places, to vote in two places. The reason the Government had introduced the measure and were forcing it through the House by guillotine was solely political; it was an endeavour to disfranchise political opponents. Their policy was the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade who had been going up and down the country in the capacity of a private Member inveighing against the House of Lords. The Government were following the policy dictated by the President of the Board of Trade, namely, that of piling up the agony against the House of Lords, but he hoped the Upper Chamber would show no fear.

* MR. LEIF JONES (Westmorland, Appleby)

appealed to the sense of humour of Members, more especially of those who sat upon the Front Benches on both sides. This was the second time this session they had listened to this debate. It was always the same when the guillotine was proposed: the Prime Minister invariably gave as his reason, apart from the state of the business, the precedent of former speeches of the Leader of the Opposition when he was in office; the Leader of the Opposition then followed and spoke against the Motion which when. Prime Minister he had urged in exactly similar language to that used by his successor in office. The speeches were always the same for and against the Motions whichever Party was in power. This was true, but it was not very impressive, and seeing that they all knew how this debate was going to end surely they might be allowed to spend all the time in considering the Bill itself. He intended to vote against the Resolution, because he did not think it was the proper way to deal with legislation. He voted against closure by compartments on the Education Bill. This was not perhaps a very strong case; for 111 Amendments had been put down dealing with questions which had already been discussed in Committee. He thought that that matter required to be dealt with, but instead of taking steps to meet that difficulty the Government had adopted this clumsy method. Under the system of closure important matters would leave the House wholly undiscussed, and it was the duty of the Government to see that all measures were fully discussed and all important Amendments dealt with. The responsibility could not be thrown upon the Opposition. It was the duty of the Government of the day so to revise the rules of procedure that their measures might be properly dealt with by the House, and so long as they relied upon closure by compartments so long would he feel constrained to vote against them. The case of the closure of the Licensing Bill had been properly described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as an outrage, for that Act would never have been passed without the closure, and he thought the present Bill could have been got through without resorting to this Resolution. He hoped this clumsy weapon would not be used another session, and in order to impress that matter upon the Government, he intended to go the full length of voting against the Motion, and he appealed to the Government not again to place him in that unpleasant position.

SIR. E. CARSON (Dublin University)

said the hon. Member who had just spoken had appealed to the sense of humour of the House, but he could hardly have done that unless his own sense of humour had also been appealed to. The chief reason he had put forward why this discussion should be closed was that they knew how it was going to end. The hon. Member's idea of how the Opposition should act seemed to be that they ought to consider how a debate was going to end, and the moment they made up their mind on that point they ought to stop all discussion. In that case the Members of the Opposition might as well all go home. No doubt that would be a convenient thing for the Government, and it might suit those who like the hon. Member opposite supported the Government upon all occasions except when they knew how the debate was going to end. Upon such occasions the hon. Member for the Appleby Division appeared as a valiant defender of the rights of the House. But even that show of strength the hon. Member opposite displayed with a good deal of misgiving, because he was afraid that the Opposition had not got a very strong case. He contended that they had a very strong case, and he would like the hon. Member opposite to recall any occasion upon which the Government of the day had ventured to closure by compartments two Bills in the same session. During the time he had been a Member of Parliament he did not recollect such a proceeding. In all cases up to the present it had always been laid down that the drastic measure of closure by compartments and the consequent stifling of debate was only justified in relation to the main measure of the session. Those who were laying down this new procedure should not forget that, although they were now in a majority, the time might come when they would be in a minority, and then they would find this weapon used against them in a manner which would make them regret the new precedent they were now creating. It was the very first time a Government had applied this drastic remedy for the second time in one session. He had never known a case before where the Government had thought it necessary on the Report stage to more than double the length of their Bill. The Government Amendments alone would take very nearly the whole time allotted to the Report stage. Seldom, if ever, had there been brought forward a measure which took the form this Bill would assume by the number of new clauses which had been put down on the Paper by the Government. No doubt he would be told that these Amendments had been put down to meet certain objections raised in Committee, but he could not believe that the Government had put them all down simply for the convenience of their opponents. They had been put down because the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill knew perfectly well that without such Amendments the Bill would be not only absolutely unworkable but unfair. When the Bill was discussed in Committee it was treated as a measure merely to put an end to plural voting, but they had now discovered that it was a Bill to disfranchise all those who by good or bad luck happened to possess two qualifications. The right hon. Gentleman had been compelled under stress of criticism to put these Amendments down. The first clause to be proposed showed clearly that six or seven different matters had been purposely omitted from the Bill as originally introduced, and they were all points which would have disfranchised a man because he happened to be the owner of two qualifications. Under those circumstances what was the use of the hon. Member opposite telling the House that the Opposition had not a strong case? When these points were raised in Committee the Government promised to see what could be done on Report, and when the Opposition pressed the right hon. Gentleman to put down his Amendments during the Committee stage he told them to wait until the Report stage. And now when they had reached the Report stage they were told that ample opportunities had been given them during the Committee stage, and that was good enough for them. By the guillotine process, or by what was called the curtailment of debate, the Government were going to prevent them discussing those very matters which they had promised the Opposition would be dealt with upon the Report stage In reference to private Member's Bills the Government deprived the House of the Committee Stage, and in relation to their own Bills they were going to deprive the House of the Report stage. He and his friends resented this curtailment of their right of discussion of a Bill of this kind in all its stages and to the fullest extent. At the best it was an aggravating Bill. It was idle to tell them that the people of this country were going to sit down and allow them- selves to be disfranchised without the fullest opportunity being given for the discussion of the Bill. If there was any course the Government could take which was more likely than another to irritate the people it was to tell them at the same time that their purpose was to diminish even the small numbers which their opponents already had in this House though they represented a large body of electors in the country, and that they were determined to perform this task by making use of their commanding majority to stifle debate on a question which of all others should be fully discussed.

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

said the debate had been a delightful contrast to the debates they had had in the last two or three sessions. The Opposition were now getting a dose of the medicine prepared from their own prescription. Where were the Unionist Members when in the last Parliament the then Opposition protested against closure by compartments? Where then were their cares about the freedom of debate? Everyone of them voted for the the guillotine proposals introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. He and other Liberal Members had told hon. Gentlemen opposite that they were forging a weapon which would one day be used against them, but it had no influence whatever, and on every occasion they voted for the right hon. Gentleman's closure Motions irrespective of the merits of the proposal. [OPPOSITION cries, of "No."] Therefore he had little sympathy with these belated appeals for freedom of debate. Personally, he had never favoured the principle of the guillotine. It was a bad principle. Some vital points in a great measure were bound to be shut out of discussion. But what wore the alternatives? The Liberal Party had suggested that as the House was too congested to discuss in detail the great measures the country expected them to consider, local affairs should be delegated to local assemblies, and that the House of Commons should be kept for purely Imperial questions. There would then be no need for the guillotine. But the Opposition would not discuss that solution. The other alternatives were to sit up all night, or drop the Bill. The first proposal was not satisfactory, and he thought the Government must go on with the Bill. If they did not carry out the programme which they were returned to fulfil, the country would hold them responsible. He did not think the Government could do anything else than bring forward this proposal. The present Bill was not a complicated Bill, but he would have preferred a simpler measure of one or two lines at most. The Amendments raised no new subject; they were simply a rehash of what had been discussed in Committee. He thought the Government had been ill-advised in not giving time to put down Amendments to the Motion, but after all, the Leader of the Opposition used to do the same thing. He believed the great mass of the people were in favour of the principle of the Bill, and the House ought to support the Government in carrying it through.

MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

asked whether the Government could not give one more day to the Report stage. The Prime Minister in introducing the Motion stated that the principle of the Bill was simple, but that the machinery was difficult. It was because the machinery was so difficult that hon. Members had fought the Bill as they had done. Why could not the First Commissioner of Works have brought in a simple measure? He could have brought in a Bill stating that it would be illegal for an elector to vote twice. In his speech on the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman himself said that he did not anticipate that plural voters would break the law by voting twice. If that was so, why have all the complicated machinery which the Bill proposed to set up? There were on the Order Paper eighteen pages of new clauses and Amendments, and he found that fifteen pages of Amendments circled round the question of "notice." The reason for that was that hon. Members were anxious to protect the lights of voters. Voters were careless, and they expected their votes to be looked after for them. The machinery of the Bill made it obligatory for the voter to look after himself, and if he did not do so he would run the chance of losing his vote altogether. The Leader of the Opposi- tion had appealed to the Prime Minister to tell the House what the programme of the Government was for the rest of the session. It would be convenient if they knew what time was to be given for future Bills. He could say for the Opposition that they would not obstruct the Workmen's Compensation Bill. That measure was based largely on the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the last Government. It was not contentious, and he did not think that it ought to occupy more than three or four days. He hoped the Government would state some reason why one more day could not be given to the Plural Voting Bill. It was of importance that a Bill which they considered a disfranchising Bill should be thoroughly discussed. They were only doing their duty to their constituents and to working men who were entitled to vote in more than one constituency when they asked that their rights should be safeguarded.

MR. FELL (Great Yarmouth)

said that the Prime Minister had stated that the principle of the Bill was simple, but that the machinery was complicated and presented great difficulties. He agreed, and if anyone consulted election agents and returning officers, he would find that in their opinion the proper working of the Bill was impossible. What he complained of in the Resolution was that a great many of the Amendments which hon. Members had put down, including one by himself, would never be reached, discussed, or even divided upon. That was a great hardship to the Opposition [Cries of "Divide."]

MR. LAURENCE HARDY

moved to amend the Resolution so as to give four allotted days to the Report stage instead of two. The Government did not seem to have been impressed by the arguments of their own supporters. It should be remembered that most of even the Governments Amendments came in at the end of Clause 1 of the Bill, and the time allotted did not give hon. Members an opportunity of seeing whether those Amendments really carried out the intentions of the House. He seriously appealed to the Government to give more time for the Report stage. He by his Amendment asked for two more days; but if that was too much to aspire to, the right hon. Gentleman might grant one day. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In line 1, to leave out the word 'two' and insert the word 'four.' "—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)

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

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)

on a point of order, asked whether an hon. Member could make a speech on the principle of a Resolution and then make another speech on the principle on an Amendment.

* MR. SPEAKER

said that practice was in order and had been followed in all cases of debate on the procedure of the House.

MR. ASQUITH

said he was sorry that the Government could not respond to the appeal which the hon. Gentleman had made with moderation. They had considered most carefully all the Amendments and were quite satisfied that if any Amendments which had been already discussed at length in Committee were not pressed there would be ample time to discuss all the new clauses and Amendments on the Report stage. It was very disagreeable for any Government or Minister to bring forward Resolutions of this kind.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.)

thought the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting a rather novel form of procedure when he said that the Government in deciding how much time should be accorded for discussion of Amendments on the Report stage considered that certain Amendments had been fully discussed in Committee, and that if they were not pressed there would be ample time for the discussion of the other Amendments. Large questions of principle were properly brought under review at the Report stage no matter whether or not they had been fully discussed in Committee. The discussion of these matters had not been unduly prolonged having regard to the large number of electors who were going to be disfranchised and the complicated nature of the machinery of the Bill.

* SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

said that in previous discussions he had found some fault with the machinery of the Bill and had offered some suggestions making it automatic in a large number of cases, leaving the system ingeniously invented by his right hon. friend to work only in a small number of cases. The reason why he did not press his plan was that he recognised it would involve the reconstruction of the Bill. He did not like the enormous length of the Amendments of his right hon. friend dealing with the principle on which the Bill was to be worked, but he thought that they were an absolute redemption of the promises made by the right hon. Gentleman to hon. Members on both sides of the House. There was an alternative plan of dealing with the Amendments which he confessed the Government would have done well to follow, although for some time past that system had dropped out of use. It was that when such a Bill was passed through Committee the Government should immediately ask leave to have it recommitted pro forma in order to incorporate all their Amendments in the Bill and have the Bill printed with them inserted. In that way the House was able to see more easily than now whether the promises the Government had made in regard to Amendments had been carried out. He could not oppose the course the Government had taken merely because the principle of his suggestion had not been frankly accepted. He repeated that he regretted that the Government did not take the simple course of passing the Bill through Committee pro forma and incorporating their Amendments, but he did not in consequence oppose the policy which they had adopted, because he was sure that their Amendments redeemed the promise they had made. The not effect of the Bill would be that while, on the one hand, it was most ingeniously framed for carrying out the scheme of the light hon. Gentlemen, on the other hand, its enforcement would take place chiefly in the case of those electors who yielded to the law, because it would be very difficult to enforce in the case of those who resisted it. His objection to the Bill was that it would be even more costly to work effectively than it was before the Amendments were introduced. The extreme complications caused by even the very excellencies of the scheme were their real objections to the Bill. But he could not expect support for his own views, because they were more hostile to the

opinions of hon. Gentleman opposite than the provisions of the Bill. Therefore he end his friends could not do more than accept the Bill and the Amendments of the Government in the belief that they had fully redeemed by them the proposals they had made.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 316; Noes, 88. (Division List No. 434.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R	Gibb, James (Harrow)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Clarke, C. Goddard	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Agnew, George William	Clough, William	Glendinning, R. G.
Alden, Percy	Clynes, J. R.	Glover, Thomas
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)	Goddard, Daniel Ford
Ambrose, Robert	Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Gooch, George Peabody
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Cogan, Denis J.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Collins, Stephen (Lamboth)	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Astbury, John Meir	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Halpin, J.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Cory, Clifford John	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Barker, John	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)	Cowan, W. H.	Hart-Davies, T.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Cox, Harold	Harwood, George
Barnard, E. B.	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Barnes, G. N.	Crean, Eugene	Haworth, Arthur A.
Beauchamp, E.	Crombie, John William	Hayden, John Patrick
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B.(Hexham)	Crooks, William	Hedges, A. Paget
Bellairs, Carlyon	Dalziel, James Henry	Hemmerde, Edward George
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)	Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Benn, W. (T'w'r H'mls, S. George)	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)
Berridge, T. H. D.	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	Henry, Charles S.
Bertram, Julius	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Higham, John Sharp
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)	Hobart, Sir Robert
Billson, Alfred	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Hogan, Michael
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)	Dillon, John	Horniman, Emslie John
Boland, John	Donelan, Captain A.	Horridge, Thomas Gardner
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Duffy, William J.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Brace, William	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Hudson, Walter
Bramsdon, T. A.	Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Hyde, Clarendon
Branch, James	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Idris, T. H. W.
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Illingworth, Percy H.
Brodie, H. C.	Elibank, Master of	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Brunner, J. L. F. (Lancs., Leigh)	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.	Erskine, David C.	Jardine, Sir J.
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen	Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Jenkins, J.
Bryce, J. A (Inverness Burghs)	Essex, R. W.	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Evans, Samuel T.	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Everett, R. Lacey	Jowett, F. W.
Burke, E. Haviland-	Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Joyce, Michael
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Fenwick, Charles	Kearley, Hudson E.
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Ferens, T. R.	Kekewich, Sir George
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.	Findlay, Alexander	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Byles, William Pollard	Flynn, James Christopher	Laidlaw, Robert
Cairns, Thomas	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Lambert, George
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Fuller, John Michael F.	Lamont, Norman
Cheetham, John Frederick	Fullerton, Hugh	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Layland-Barratt, Francis	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)	O'Malley, William	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Lehmann, R. C.	O'Mara, James	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Lewis, John Herbert	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Lough, Thomas	Parker, James (Halifax)	Strauss, E. A (Abingdon)
Lundon, W.	Paul, Herbert	Sullivan, Donal
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Paulton, James Mellor	Summerbell, T.
Lyell, Charles Henry	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Mackarness, Frederic C.	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Maclean, Donald	Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Thomasson, Franklin
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Thompson, J. W. H.(Somerset, E.)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)	Pollard, Dr.	Thorne, William
MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	Power, Patrick Joseph	Torrance, Sir A. M.
M'Callum, John M.	Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)	Toulmin, George
M'Crae, George	Priestley, W. E. B.(Bradford, E.)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Radford, G. H.	Ure, Alexander
M'Micking, Major G.	Raphael, Herbert H.	Verney, F. W.
Mallet, Charles E.	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Wadsworth, J.
Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Marnham, F. J.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Wallace, Robert
Massie, J.	Redmond, William (Clare)	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Meagher, Michael	Rees, J. D.	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Meehan, Patrick A.	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Menzies, Walter	Rickett, J. Compton	Ward, W. Dudley (S'thampton)
Micklem, Nathaniel	Ridsdale, E. A.	Wardle, George J.
Molteno, Percy Alport	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Mond, A.	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Money, L. G. Chiozza	Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradford)	Waterlow, D. S.
Montagu, E. S.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Watt, H. Anderson
Mooney, J. J.	Robinson, S.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Whitbread, Howard
Morley, Rt. Hon. John	Rogers, F. E. Newman	White, George (Norfolk)
Morrell, Philip	Rose, Charles Day	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Morse, L. L.	Rowlands, J.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Runciman, Walter	Whitchead, Rowland
Murnaghan, George	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Murray, James	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Myer, Horatio	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Napier, T. B.	Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne)	Williamson, A.
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Sears, J. E.	Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)
Nolan, Joseph	Seaverns, J. H.	Wilson, J. H (Middlesbrough)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Seely, Major J. B.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Nussey, Thomas Willans	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Nuttall, Harry	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Winfrey, R.
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Young, Samuel
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Sinclair, Rt Hon. John	Yoxall, James Henry
O'Doherty, Philip	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)	Soares, Ernest J.
O'Grady, J.	Spicer, Sir Albert
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Stanger, H. Y.
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Cave, George	Fell, Arthur
Ashley, W. W.	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Fletcher, J. S.
Balcarres, Lord	Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)
Baldwin, Alfred	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.)	Hamilton, Marquess of
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lord.)	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Courthope, G. Loyd	Hay, Hon. Claude George
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Hervey, F. W. F.(Bury S. Edm'ds)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Craik, Sir Henry	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Dixon, Sir Daniel	Hills, J. W.
Bowles, G. Stewart	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Houston, Robert Paterson
Boyle, Sir Edward	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.
Bull, Sir William James	Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan)	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Faber, George Denison (York)	Kimber, Sir Henry
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Fardell, Sir T. George	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham)	Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)	Thornton, Percy M.
Lowe, Sir Francis William	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Magnus, Sir Philip	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)	Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)
Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Salter, Arthur Clavell	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Moore, William	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Morpeth, Viscount	Sloan, Thomas Henry	Younger, George
Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)	Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East)
Nield, Herbert	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.
Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Starkey, John R.
Percy, Earl	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

moved to omit the words "or if that day is a Friday, at 5 p.m." His reason for moving the Amendment was that in regard to such an important Bill they should have a full Parliamentary day of seven hours in which to consider the Third Reading, especially in view of the fact that the Report stage would have been curtailed to such short dimensions. Not only was it desirable to have a full Parliamentary day, but Friday was a very inconvenient day, as they knew, and especially in the case of autumn sittings, hon. Members found it convenient to leave the House at two or three o'clock.

Amendment proposed,—

"In line 24, to leave out the words ' or if that day is a Friday, at 5 p.m.'"—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. ASQUITH

said he accepted the Amendment. He quite agreed that Friday would be an inconvenient day upon which to take the Third Reading of so important a measure.

Question put, and negatived.

Words omitted.

Main Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 320; Noes, 87. (Division List No. 435.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Bethed, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Billson, Alfred	Clarke, C. Goddard
Agnew, George William	Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Clough, William
Alden, Percy	Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)	Clynes, J. R.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Boland, John	Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.)
Ambrose, Robert	Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Cobbold, Felix Thornley
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Bowerman, C. W.	Cogan, Denis J.
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Brace, William	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Bramsdon, T. A.	Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W)
Astbury, John Meir	Branch, James	Condon, Thomas Joseph
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Brocklehurst, W. B.	Corbett, CH.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Brodie, H. C.	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Cory, Clifford John
Barker, John	Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.
Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)	Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen)	Cowan, W. H.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Bryce, J. A.(Inverness Burghs)	Cox, Harold
Barnard, E. B.	Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)
Barnes, G. N.	Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Crean, Eugene
Beauchamp, E.	Burke, E. Haviland-	Crombie, John William
Beaumont, Hn W. C. B.(Hexham)	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Crooks, William
Bellairs, Carlyon	Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Dalziel, James Henry
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)	Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.	Davies, David(Montgomery Co.)
Benn, W (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Byles, William Pollard	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)
Berridge, T. H. D.	Cairns, Thomas	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)
Bertram, Julius	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)	Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N)	Jowett, F. W.	Paulton, James Mellor
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Joyce, Michael	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Kearley, Hudson E.	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Dillon, John	Kekewich, Sir George	Pearson, W. H. M.(Suffolk, Eye)
Donelan, Captain A.	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)
Duffy, William J.	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Laidlaw, Robert	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)	Pollard, Dr.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Lambert, George	Price, Robt. John (Norfolk, E.)
Elibank, Master of	Lamont, Norman	Priestley, W. E. B.(Bradford, E.)
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Radford, G. H.
Erskine, David C.	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)	Raphael, Herbert H.
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Lehmann, R. C.	Pea, Russell (Gloucester)
Essex, R. W.	Levy, Maurice	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Evans, Samuel T.	Lewis, John Herbert	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Eve, Harry Trelawney	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Redmond, William (Clare)
Everett, R. Lacey	Lough, Thomas	Rees, J. D.
Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Lundon, W.	Rendall, Athelstan
Fenwick, Charles	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)
Ferens, T. R.	Lyell, Charles Henry	Rickett, J. Compton
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs)	Ridsdale, E. A.
Flynn, James Christopher	Markarness, Frederic C.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Maclean, Donald	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Macnamara, Dr, Thomas J.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Fuller, John Michael F.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Robinson, S.
Fullerton, Hugh	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Gibb, James (Harrow)	M'Crae, George	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Rose, Charles Day
Glendinning, R. G.	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Rowlands, J.
Glover, Thomas	M'Micking, Major G.	Runciman, Walter
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Mallet, Charles E.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Gooch, George Peabody	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Marnham, F. J.	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Massie, J.	Sears, J. E.
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Meagher, Michael	Seaverns, J. H.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Meehan, Patrick A.	Seely, Major J. B.
Halpin, J.	Menzies, Walter	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Micklem, Nathaniel	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Molteno, Percy Alport	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Mond, A.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Hart-Davies, T.	Montagu, E. S.	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Harwood, George	Mooney, J. J.	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Spicer, Sir Albert
Haworth, Arthur A.	Morley, Rt. Hon. John	Stanger, H. Y.
Hayden, John Patrick	Morrell, Philip	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Hedges, A. Paget	Morse, L. L.	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Hemmerde, Edward George	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Murray, James	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Myer, Horatio	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Henry, Charles S.	Napier, T. B.	Sullivan, Donal
Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Summerbell, T.
Higham, John Sharp	Nolan, Joseph	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Hobart, Sir Robert	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Hogan, Michael	Nuttall, Harry	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Holden, E. Hopkinson	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Thomasson, Franklin
Horniman, Emslie John	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Horridge, Thomas Gardner	O'Doherty, Philip	Thorne, William
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Hudson, Walter	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)	Toulmin, George
Hyde, Clarendon	O'Grady, J.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Idris, T. H. W.	O'Hare, Patrick	Ure, Alexander
Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Verney, F. W.
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)	Wadsworth, J.
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	O'Malley, William	Walker, H. Do R. (Leicester)
Jardine, Sir J.	O'Mara, James	Wallace, Robert
Jenkins, J.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Parker, James (Halifax)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Paul, Herbert	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Wardle, George J.	White, Luke (York, E.R.)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)	Whitehead, Rowland	Winfrey, R.
Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)	Young, Samuel
Waterlow, D. S.	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer	Yoxall, James Henry
Watt, H. Anderson	Williams, T. (Glamorgan)
Wedgwood, Josiah C.	Williamson, A.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Whitbread, Howard	Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)
White, George (Norfolk)	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Faber, George Denison (York)	Percy, Earl
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Fardell, Sir T. George	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Ashley, W. W.	Fell, Arthur	Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Balcarres, Lord	Fletcher, J. S.	Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Baldwin, Alfred	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (CityLond.)	Hamilton, Marquess of	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury, S. Edm'ds)	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Bockett, Hon. Gervase	Hills, J. W.	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Bowles, G. Stewart	Houston, Robert Paterson	Starkey, John R.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Bull, Sir William James	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Keswick, William	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Cave, George	Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.	Thornton, Percy M.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareh'm)	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc)	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. A. E.	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Magnus, Sir Philip	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Courthope, G. Loyd	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Younger, George
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Craik, Sir Henry	Moore, William	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.
Dixon, Sir Daniel	Morpeth, Viscount
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Nield, Herbert
Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved: —"That two allotted days be given to the Report stage of the Plural Voting Bill, and that the proceedings on new clauses, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on the first allotted day, and that the remaining proceedings on the Bill and the Schedule and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on the second allotted day. Any day after this Order comes into operation on which the Plural Voting Bill is put down as the first Order of the day, shall be considered as an allotted day for the purposes of this Order. At 10.30 p.m. on an allotted day, the Speaker shall, if the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on that day have not already boon brought to a conclusion, put forthwith the Question or Questions on any new clause, Amendment, or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next, so far as is necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded on that day, proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any new clauses or Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other clauses or Amendments), and on any other question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new clauses, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the clause be added to the Bill, as the case may be. At 11 p.m. on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as the first Order of the day, the Speaker shall put forthwith any question necessary to conclude the proceedings on that stage of the Bill. Proceedings to which this Order relates shall not, on an allotted day, be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House. On an allotted day and on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as the first Order of the day, no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion for recommitment of the Bill, nor Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 shall be received unless moved by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without debate."