§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [20th March] as amended:—"(1) When a Bill has been read a second time it shall stand committed to one of the Standing Committees, unless the House, on Motion to be decided without Amendment or debate, otherwise order, and such a Motion shall not require notice, must be made immediately after the Bill is read a second time, may be made by any Member, and may, though opposed, be de-decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business. But this Order shall not apply to—(a) Bills for imposing taxes, or Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Bills; or (b) Bills for confirming Provisional Orders. (2) The House may, on Motion made by the Member in charge of a Bill commit the Bill to a Standing Committee in respect of some of its provisions, and to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of other provisions. If such a Motion is opposed the Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks fit, a briefexplanatory statement from the Member who makes and from the Member who opposes the Motion, shall without further Debate put the Question thereon." —(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
§ Question again proposed.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)moved as an Amendment to insert "or Bills involving any aid, grant, or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or out of money to be provided by the Public Revenue, or involving any charge upon the people." The rule proposed by the Prime Minister, he said, contained the general proposition to send upstairs to Grand Committees 404 as many Bills as possible, with the exception of Bills imposing taxes, or Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Bills. By the present procedure such a Bill was read a first time when there was practically no opportunity for discussion. On the Second Reading it was not strictly in order, as he gathered from reading the Standing Orders, to discuss in detail the charge to be placed upon public funds or upon the people, the charge appearing in blank or in italics in the Bill. According to the present practice, that portion of the Bill was reserved exclusively for consideration in Committee of the Whole House, which had the right, he might say the ancient privilege, of dealing with the method of raising the money. When the Bill came up on Report, he found it laid down by May that it was distinctly irregular, and not permitted in the House on the Report stage, to discuss the method of providing the money. Occasionally a Member was able to get in some observation on some of these points on Report; but, strictly speaking, criticism of the details of the ways and means of imposing the tax was the exclusive privilege of the Committee of the Whole House. Another point was that these matters were barred from consideration by the other House. Not only from the point of view of the other House but from the point of view of the House of Commons, Committee of the Whole House was the only place where this particular kind of subject could be fully discussed and dealt with. The effect of the rule, as proposed by the Prime Minister, was, as he gathered, that a considerable number of Bills which came within this category would be sent upstairs for the Committee stage to be dealt with in all the privacy and absence of discussion by Members of the House which the proposal involved. That was a point which was sought to be remedied by his Amendment. He desired to make clear by it that every kind of measure which involved any charge whatever upon the people should be taken in Committee of the Whole House. It might be replied that the Government by their proposal meant the same thing as he described by his Amendment. The words he had taken from Standing Order No. 71 405 which, he thought, contained the most reliable description of the kind of Bill which ought to be so considered. Standing Order 71 said:—"If any Motion be made in the House for any aid, grant, or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, or for any charge upon the people," and so on, "shall be referred to Committee of the Whole House." They had there the exact words of what was not to be sent up to a Committee, but following the present and ancient practice of this House should be reserved for consideration in Committee of the Whole House.
§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Sir HENRY FOWLER, (Wolverhampton, E.)But that will remain as it is.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid if that was the case surely it would lead to confusion to have in the new Standing Order one description and to have a totally different description in Standing Order No. 71. The simplest course would be to accept his Amendment. But the Prime Minister had said that he absolutely declined to accept any of these Amendments. He wished for a moment to refer to the constitution of the proposed Committee to which the kind of Bill to which he referred would necessarily be referred. If every hon. Member had a right to sit upon the Grand Committee there would not be so much objection to the Standing Order as it was now proposed, but they had to be selected in a certain manner, and a large number of hon. Members would not have the right to sit upon the ' Grand Committee. All hon. Members who did not happen to be on a given Grand Committee dealing with a particular Bill a part of which involved a charge upon the people would be precluded from discussing in detail that portion of the Bill. That was a very serious matter, involving, as it did, a great constitutional change. He would like to remind hon. Members that the present Government might only be temporary. They all admired the high character of the present Government. A great man had said with great truth that—
Governments as a rule were standing conspiracies to rob and bamboozle.406 That was a quotation from Richard Cobden. They recognised in the Prime Minister and his colleagues lofty intelligence, the most honourable conduct, and marvellous honesty, but it was conceivable that in two or three years somebody very different might occupy their places. Only two years ago there sat on the Treasury Bench a Government which did not possess the galaxy of talent and virtue of the present Government, and two years hence there might be a Labour Government in power with one of the hon. Members below the Gangway as Prime Minister. Governments changed, and sometimes changed for the worse, and the Party opposite in adopting new procedure rules were apt to forget that they were not the only persons who might take advantage of the facilities afforded. If this rule were not amended it would give a power which might impose burdens upon the people without the right of complete detailed discussion in that House. It would place that power in the hands not only of the present Government but of any future Government. The right of adequate criticism by the people's representatives of matters involving financial burdens was being taken away by the Prime Minister. One of the cardinal principles of the British Constitution was that the elected representatives of the people had the right to criticise freely and to object to any suggested new burden, but these new rules, if amended, would deprive them of that right. There was a suggestion that in the procedure rules now under consideration it was intended to pack these Committees, and that the Government were going to take very good care that they would be a large preponderance of their own supporters. Such a Committee, packed by a majority of the Government's own servile supporters, might be presided over by an hon. Member who would not occupy the lofty and independent position of Mr. Speaker, nor even that of the Chairman of Ways and Means, who was so conspicuous for his ability, his judgment, and his fairness. Therefore the Committee, to which a Bill to impose a burden on the people might be sent, might be presided over by a more Party flunkey. [Cries of "Order."]
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I think the hon. and learned Member is 407 permitting himself too much licence in saying that about the future Chairman of a Committee.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he was only contemplating such a thing at some future day. He quite understood that the Chairman of such a Committee would not occupy the position of Mr. Speaker or of the Chairman of Ways and Means, who did not take any part in the political struggles and votes of the day. It was not proposed to extend that independence to the Chairmen of Grand Committees, and therefore he thought they would not be in such an independent and lofty position. To deprive hon. Members of the right to criticise and discuss in detail the imposition of a financial burden was an intolerable proposition. That was the effect of the proposal of the Prime Minister. On page 558 of Sir Erskine May's book there occurred the words "the Commons have for centuries faithfully maintained," and so on, referring to the rights and privileges of the Members of the House of Commons. After having been maintained faithfully for centuries, it was now proposed to abolish those rights and privileges. The Government were proposing to hand over the control and power of the House to a Committee upstairs. He would not labour this point further by entering into anything like a historical survey of the position, but he would like to state that the historian Green had pointed out that
the principle of all taxation granted by and all burdens imposed upon the people of this realm rested upon their voluntary consent given through their freely elected representatives.From Henry III. down to the Tudors, towns which did not send representatives to Parliament could not be taxed, and it was a breach of that privilege which he was endeavouring to explain to the House, because a large number of members would be precluded from participating in the discussion of proposals dealing with fresh financial burdens. No taxation and no financial burdens ought to be imposed without an opportunity for full, complete, and unrestricted discussion in Parliament by the whole of the accredited representatives of all those who were going to be called upon to pay those taxes or bear those burdens. The Standing Orders which at present related to this matter were 408 the oldest Standing Orders of the House. The Amendment was not a Party Amendment at all. It was simply a protest on behalf of the liberty, independence, and privileges of every Member of the House. He was afraid it was no use appealing to the Members of the Government to accept the Amendment, but he appealed for support to every Member of the House who was capable of being reached by argument or in any other way. He begged to move.
§ SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)seconded the Amendment. He concurred with the mover that if it were left to the judgment and the reason of the House the Amendment would be carried. It was a most important, and not in any way a Party Amendment. It was most unfortunate that such an Amendment should be considered in so small a House. The right to deal with questions of Supply had been a right of the representatives of the people since, as his hon. friend had said, the days of Magna Charta. All the disputes between the Crown and the House, in the days of Charles I., and also in preceding and succeeding times, arose on financial questions. The disputes were over the claim of the House to have the controlling power in matters of Supply. It had been understood that after what was in fact a Resolution the House obtained the power which it now possessed. It was never contemplated that it would of its own free will give up that power and put it into the hands of any Government, however wise they might be at any particular moment. It was not a question whether any given Government was capable or trustworthy. They were now deciding, probably for many years to come, a most momentous question. Private Members were asked to part with a right which they had won after many struggles, prolonged over a great number of years—to part with it to a certain number of men who happened by fortuitous circumstances to be the Government of the day. On questions of imposing or regulating taxes, or appropriating any part of the money raised by taxes, every private Member had as much right to be present and to record his vote as any right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton had stated in reply to an interruption of 409 his hon. friend, that the Order provided for money Resolutions being considered in the House. He did not see how the right hon. Gentleman was going to justify that proposition. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman would say that a Bill containing money clauses would have those clauses in italics, and that one part of the Bill would be referred to a Grand Committee, while the clauses in italics would be referred to Committee of the Whole House. But they must not take it for granted that because the present Government were prepared to do that, their successors would be prepared to do the same thing. They must see that the rules were so drawn that there would be no possible chance of a Government in the future avoiding the carrying out of the present intention of the right hon. Gentleman. The intention ought to be stated in the new Standing Order even if he was unable to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the West Derby Division. Though the Amendment would be a considerable advance on the Standing Order, it would not in his opinion meet the case at all. Supposing the Standing Order was amended and the clauses in italics must be considered by Committee of the Whole House, the only question that could arise would be as to taking the money out of the Consolidated Fund. The question whether it was advisable to do that or not could not arise. A majority of the Members of the House would not be able, when a Bill was in Committee upstairs, to express an opinion on it though it was in respect of the Bill that the money was to be obtained. That seemed to him to be an extremely important point, and he hoped the Government would not lose sight of it. Supposing the Standing Order was passed in the form in which it was introduced, and a Bill which did not impose a tax but took money from the Consolidated Fund—and it was practically the same thing—was sent upstairs to be dealt with by a Grand Committee consisting of sixty to eighty Members, how was that Committee to be chosen? He had been reading the debates which took place in 1882, when the Grand Committees were instituted. It was pointed out by, he thought, Lord Randolph Churchill, that the manner of choosing the Members of the Committees was open to considerable objection. It was pointed out that 410 the Committees were chosen practically by the Whips of the Parties. The Members put on the Committee by the Whips would be chosen because the Whips knew that they were not likely to give any great trouble
SIR F. BAN BURYsaid he understood why the right hon. Gentleman said "no." It was because the Members were nominated by the Committee of Selection. Of course the right hon. Gentleman paid no attention to the Patronage Secretary when he said that a certain Member should be on a Committee.
§ SIR J. BRUNNERHe never does it. It is done by the Committee of Selection, who represent the several Parties in the House.
§ SIR F. BANBURYpointed out that the Members of the Selection Committee were chosen by the Whips.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)They are chosen by the House. I am a Member of the Committee of Selection, and I am there in opposition to the Whips.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Gentleman might be the exception to the rule. It might have been impossible to keep him off the Committee. It was perfectly well known that the Members of the Committee of Selection were appointed with the approval of the Whips. That could not be denied. It was quite possible that the members of the Committee of Selection representing their Party might, from a Party interest, put on men on whom they could rely. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order."]
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member was anticipating discussion on the Amendment to Standing Order 48.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid when a Bill dealing with a money question or taking money out of the Consolidated Fund came before a Standing Committee no declaration was made by the members of the Committee, as in the case of private Bills, that they were not interested in it. 411 If a Bill went to a large Grand Committee, say of sixty Members, those Members would be chosen before it was known what Bills would be brought before them; and what was to prevent, quite by accident, of course, a large number of the Members being interested themselves or through their constituents in those Bills? That would apply especially to the Scottish Grand Committee. The money would have to be found by Members who were not on the Committee, and when the Bill came downstairs the opportunity of discussing the financial details would be gone. He thought that was a very important consideration, especially for English Members, for it must not be forgotten that they and their constituents paid the great bulk of the taxes and rates of the country, and, so far as he could see, the English Members would stand a very poor chance of exercising any control over those Bills if this Rule were passed. His lion, friend had observed that this Standing Order, unless amended, would place the whole power of Parliament in the hands of the Government of the day. He was rather inclined to agree with his hon. friend. It seemed an extraordinary result of the last general election that the Liberal Party, after all their declarations about the late Government having muzzled the House of Commons and taken the power out of the hands of private Members, should now come down and propose to take away from private Members this most important asset and privilege, which they had enjoyed from time immemorial. He sincerely hoped that the Government would reconsider their position. He begged to second the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed—
In line 9,after the word 'Bills,' to insert the words 'or Bills involving any aid, grant, or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or out of money to be provided by Parliament, or involving any charge upon the people.' "—(Mr. William Rutherford).
§ Question proposed, ''That those words be there inserted."
§ *SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that they had heard from the mover and seconder of the Amendment some 412 interesting references to the constitutional rights of the people of this country and their representatives in regard to taxation. If there was a shadow of a shade of reality in what the two hon. Gentlemen had said in reference to any possibility, on the part of the Government, of interfering with what they regarded as the most sacred principle of the Constitution, viz., the supremacy of the House of Commons over all the expenditure of public money, he would as strongly protest against it as they did. If the House would allow him he would explain the procedure. There was what was called a Money Bill, which imposed taxation for the use of the State. Such a Bill could only be introduced in Committee of the Whole House. No Money Bill could be introduced by a private Member; and the Government of the day could only bring in such a Bill in Committee of the Whole House with the previous sanction of the Crown. The late Prime Minister had candidly confessed that his opinion in regard to Money Bills did not coincide with that of Lord St. Aldwyn and the late Sir William Harcourt. There was another class of Bills which were not .Money Bills.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.)asked if the right hon. Gentleman before he went further would tell the House what he proposed to do with a Money Bill in its later course? His hon. friend had been dealing with what would happen on the Committee stage.
§ *SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that what the hon. Gentleman had argued was that the House was being deprived by this new Procedure Rule of some power which it now possessed over Money Bills. That was not so. The next kind of Bill was one which contained a money clause, and such a clause was always printed in italics to show that it would have to be referred to and discussed in Committee of the Whole House There were, therefore, two protections in regard to Money Bills. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer asked what they were going to do with those Bills at a future stage. The answer was that those Bills were outside the scope of 413 the proposed new Standing Order. That Order would not apply to Bills for imposing taxes, or taking money out of the Consolidated Fund, or to Appropriation Bills. Let him read what the law said—
If the main object of a Bill is to impose a charge upon the public revenues of the United Kingdom or of India, or upon the people, or to appropriate any money so charged, or to release or compound a sum of money due to the Crown, its introduction must be preceded and authorised by a Resolution of a Committee of the Whole House. This Resolution must be recommended by the Crown, and must be agreed to by the House before the Bill is introduced.There were no words in the English language which could be clearer than those.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that they did not touch a Bill which contained a money clause.
§ *SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he was dealing with the introduction of Money Bills. They could not be introduced unless they had been sanctioned by a Resolution passed by a Committee of the Whole House, and previously recommended by the Crown. The words of the Amendment of the hon. Member had absolutely no meaning, and the House had been occupied for a whole hour in discussing a fiction.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)said that with all respect he really thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had mistaken the argument of his hon. friend the Member for the West Derby division of Liverpool, and that he had also entirely mistaken the effect of the proposed new Standing Order. The tight hon. Gentleman had dwelt upon the precautions which had come down among other ancient traditions that any Bill which imposed charges on the public funds should be introduced in Committee of the Whole House. He had stated in evidence before the Committee upstairs that that was no protection but a mere embarrassment in these days. That, however, had nothing to do with the contention of his two hon. friends. Passing from the first stage of the Bill to the Second Reading, on that 414 point he had nothing to say, as it would be unaffected by this proposal. Then he came to the third stage, which was the Committee, and as to that he really; thought the right hon. Gentleman had left the House in a very dangerous condition of doubt. They all agreed that a Bill that imposed taxes, such as a Budget Bill, was one which could not go upstairs, but he would ask whether a Bill that was not one for imposing taxes, but which incidentally imposed taxes whether that would go upstairs.
§ SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that such a Bill would go to a Committee of the Whole House.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if that was the view of the right hon. Gentleman he must alter Sub-section (a) of the Standing Order and except Bills involving charges, and he was sure after the explicit statement which he had made on behalf of the Government he would be I content to accept such an Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had said that every Bill involving a charge must, in the nature of the case, in the Committee stage be discussed in the Whole House. If that was the view of the Government he admitted that they had gone a long way to meet their views, but they had not embodied that view in the Standing Order. He would, by way of illustration, take two concrete cases which would make it perfectly clear. The Army Bill which was now before the House had a clause which did impose a charge, and that clause could only be inserted after leave had been obtained in Committee of the Whole House; but as they read this original Resolution they were under the impression, in spite of that, that it would be in the power of the Government to send it upstairs, until the right hon. Gentleman assured them that that was not so. He saw on the front bench opposite one right hon. Gentleman nodding assent and another negativing the suggestion, while the Prime Minister had so far maintained a discreet immobility. At all events, it was quits clear to anyone who heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy that, in his opinion, neither the Army Bill of this year nor the Education 415 Bill of last could have been sent to a Committee upstairs. But was that the meaning of the Standing Order? If they had not passed the words he would like to move a slight verbal alteration which would make it quite clear that no Bill in which there was a clause involving a charge should go upstairs, and he thought that would meet the views of the mover and the seconder of the Amendment. He thought the Government would see with the Chancellor of the Duchy that that policy was really the right one, and he would tell the House why. Under the Standing Orders of the House it was possible for the Committee of the Whole House to make alterations in the money part of a Bill and those changes could not be touched upon Report. Supposing the money provision of a Bill imposing a charge upon the people was brought in Committee and that Bill was sent upstairs under the Standing Order, as he read it it would then be in the power of the eighty Members composing that Committee or such a quorum as attended, to transfer the whole of that charge from the taxes to the rates, and when it came back to the House and was discussed upon Report it would not be competent for the Whole House to discuss the matter and re-transfer that charge from the rates to the taxes. There were a great many other limitations on the Report stage which did not apply to the Committee stage. He had given one of a striking character, and he thought everyone would admit that they ought not to give up to a Committee of eighty Gentlemen power to do that with a Bill which the Whole House could reverse only by recommitting the Bill and going through the elaborate machinery which had been gone through upstairs. He thought that was a most dangerous condition in which to leave the matter, but he would not elaborate the point as he believed he was forcing an open door. As the President of the Board of Education shook his head, he I thought it would be only fair to him if he were informed from the Treasury Bench whether the policy he was to deal with was that of the Chancellor of the Duchy or that of the Minister for Education. He could not speak again and he would hand to his right hon. friend near him, the late Chancellor 416 of the Exchequer, the duty of continuing the debate, having regard to the difference of view between the Chancellor of the Duchy and that of the Minister for Education. If the view of the Chancellor of the Duchy was right their views were met, and it would be impossible to send to a Committee upstairs any Bill imposing a charge. That was all they asked for, and the discussion might at once come to an amicable termination if the Prime Minister, sitting in discreet immobility, like Aaron, between his two supporters, would get up and decide which was the correct view.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,) Stirling BurghsWas it not Solomon?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo; not Solomon. The right hon. Gentleman has many resemblances to Solomon, but Solomon had to do not with two supporters but with two babies. [Cries of "No; one baby."] The right hon. Gentle-man continuing said he must apologise to the House for having shown that simple Bible teaching was still necessary. What they wanted from the Prime Minister was a statement of whether it was the view of his colleague on his right or the view of his inestimably valuable colleague on his left that was to be given effect to.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,) Monmouthshire, N.said the right hon. Gentleman professed to have discovered a discordance between his right hon. friend and himself in regard to this subject, but it did not exist. The question was a very simple one. The difference arose between the two classes of Bills: those which involved a charge and those which imposed a tax. Bills which imposed a tax were exempted from the operation of the Standing Order, but Bills which involved a charge were not. The reason for this was obvious. Let them take, for instance, an ordinary Factory Act Amendment Bill in which there were fifty provisions dealing with the intricate provisions of the Factory Law which everybody would at once agree should go upstairs, and 417 which would go upstairs. But the Bill might and probably would contain a clause providing for the appointment of an inspector, and that would involve a charge. The Bill itself did not provide the money; it did not impose any taxes which would do so, but the House would have the fullest opportunity of criticising that charge in Committee of the House when the money was voted on the Estimates. The Bill itself did not impose that charge, it merely provided for the appointment of a particular official who would subsequently be appointed and paid for by a Vote of the House which could be fully discussed in Committee. The whole case put forward by the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment was really founded on a misapprehension of the facts. It. was absolutely true as stated by his right hon. friend that a particular class of Bills which involved a charge must be introduced in Committee of the Whole House, and therefore he agreed that in regard to that class the House would have an opportunity in Committee and on Report of criticising the particular charge. The House had these two opportunities of discussing the matter, and if its attention was called to any wicked action of the Government, when the charge came before the House on the Estimates they could refuse to find the money. Even if such a Bill were carried through Report and Third Reading, if there was any element of surprise in it and hon. Members thought they had not had an opportunity of raising any question they could state their objections upon the Estimates.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDasked what guarantee they had of any discussion.
§ MR. MCKENNAsaid he supposed the hon. Member meant that the Government might move the closure, but the hon. Member had this guarantee. Estimates were put down by arrangement with hon. Gentlemen opposite, and if there was any case of surprise or of the other side being taken unawares all they had to do was to ask the Chief Government Whip to put down for discussion the particular Estimate raising the question. There was no doubt that under this Resolution as it 418 stood the House would be given an opportunity of expressing its opinion as to the charge. If on the other hand the House were misled into accepting the Amendment by the entirely imaginary dangers alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, it would mean that the very class of Bill which ought to go upstairs, such as a Factory Bill involving the appointment of inspectors or a Local Government Bill full of numerous details and involving the appointment of some medical inspector, would be precluded from being so dealt with. They might usefully take the course suggested by the Government. The hon. Gentleman had put forward a case of a charge on the taxes in the original Bill being altered upstairs into a charge on the rates and then said, with some truth, that any change of that character could not be altered on Report. But the Bill could be recommitted. It was perfectly open to move that the Bill be recommitted; the same questions would then arise, and the merits of the question would be discussed. Therefore he did not think the statement of the hon. Gentleman was strictly accurate. The Bill could either be recommitted upstairs on that particular clause or it could be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDWhere is that preserved?
§ MR. MCKENNAThe new Standing Order doe that.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDI did not see that.
§ MR. MCKENNAsaid it was there, and that being so there was no danger. He thought therefore the House could accept this Resolution without hesitation.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.)said the House was indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his clear and lucid explanation, but anyone who followed the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and heard also that of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would see that one statement was a flat contradiction 419 of the other. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education had divided Bills imposing a charge on the public into two classes, Bills which imposed taxes, which the new Standing Order would retain in the House, and Bills which incidentally, without raising a tax, imposed a charge without providing the means by which that charge was to be met. That was in flat contradiction to what was stated by the Chancellor of the Duchy, who objected to the words moved by the hon. Member on the ground that they were surplus age. The words were not surplus age if the interpretation of the new Standing Order given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education was correct. It would be as well perhaps, if the Prime Minister would enlighten the House on this point. Was it the intention of the Government that such a Bill as the Army Bill should go upstairs? He asked the Prime Minister to give the House a definite statement, such as only the righthon. Gentleman himself could give, as to who was right, the Chancellor of the Duchy, or the President of the Board of Education. Did the Government intend that Bills imposing a charge in a clause printed in italics should be sent upstairs, or did they not? Certain of such Bills, no doubt, should go upstairs, but the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, had instanced a Factory Bill, involving the appointment of additional inspectors, and creating a charge for that purpose, and had said that such a Bill ought to be sent upstairs. Was it the intention of the Government that such a Bill should go upstairs? He quite agreed that such a Bill might go upstairs, but he did not agree that every such Bill should go up automatically. That was, however, a very simple illustration of a Bill involving a small charge of which the House would not take much notice. But the Army Bill involved a charge of £2,000,000. If that had a clause in italics to say that funds should be paid to the county associations throughout the country it surely was not a Bill that should go upstairs automatically. That Bill ought to be referred only after full discussion as to whether it should be referred upstairs or not. In the case of all such Bills the procedure in the future ought to 420 be the same as at present. A Motion ought to be made, and the House ought to be allowed to discuss it before dividing on it. That was the case raised by the; right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education. But when that case had been swept out of the way larger cases of real financial responsibility were involved, and those ought to be retained for the consideration of the House. The financial control of the House, to be effective, must be exerted before the expenditure developed, and not when the money had been spent, and the time had come to pay. It was the habit of the House to reserve its aspirations for economy until the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in his Budget, but it was impossible to cut down expenditure when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asking for the money. If the House wished to control expenditure they must exercise their control the moment the tax was proposed. Supposing the Government introduced a measure to provide that certain sums should issue from the Consolidated Fund for certain Irish purposes, and that Bill was referred to a Committee of eighty Members, in which, owing to there being a special Committee sitting which the Scottish Members were attending, the great majority of the Members were English; if that Committee preferred to charge those sums to Irish funds, it would be impossible, when that Bill came back on report, to reverse that decision. The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill might be recommitted. Certainly. But that was one of the inconveniences of this attempt to withdraw effective discussion from the House, to force them in future to do constantly what had been done very rarely in the past. The Motion to recommit would become constant m future. If the majority of the House tabled a Motion to recommit, had they power to discuss the merits of the question on such a Motion? The President of the Board of Education said they could, but he did not think that was quite plain. He believed that discussion on the Motion to recommit would be kept within very narrow limits, even if they could discuss at all the merits of the proposition in respect of which they moved to recommit. If they passed the 421 Standing Order in the form in which it appeared, they would not only be doing what the Chancellor of the Duchy declared the Government had no desire to do and would not do, which it would be foolish and wicked of them to do, and he would vote with the Opposition against the Government if they attempted to do, but they would really seriously affect the powers of the House to deal with these matters. The Prime Minister had heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy, and that of the President of the Board of Education, and he appealed to him to say which of his two colleagues spoke the mind of the Government. The Chancellor of the Duchy had said that all Bills italicised would go upstairs. [An HON MEMBER: No.] He would accept no one's contradiction on that point save that of the right hon. Gentleman himself. He asked the Prime Minister to tell them what really was the intention of the Government.
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford)said he must turn back to what the Chancellor of the Duchy had said, because it had rather an important bearing on this point. The right hon. Gentleman had dwelt considerably on the important point that every money Resolution of any sort must be adopted in Committee of the Whole House and in the subsequent stage of Report, and that in that lay the protection of the House to look after its own interests so far as financial arrangements were concerned. But it was difficult to fit in the right hon. Gentleman's speech with a very pregnant remark which he made when he was acting as Chairman of the Committee of Procedure last year. When his right hon. friend the Member for the City of London was giving his evidence and describing his attitute towards these money Resolutions the Chancellor of the Duchy, at the end of his right hon. friend's remarks, said as Chairman that it would save time if he stated that it was the intention of the Government to submit proposals on the point in the form of a Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London said it would have his hearty support. From the Chancellor of the Duchy's attitude in the 422 Committee upstairs, and from the definite statement he made then, it was evident that the Government had in their minds proposals to abolish these stages upon money Resolutions, and to take away from the House the opportunity of dealing with financial matters. If those opportunities were to be taken away, and they apparently were what the Chancellor of the Duchy mostly relied upon, he thought they ought to be advised where the opportunity for discussion in the. House would occur in any way whatever in regard to Bills which imposed charges. He would like to have a statement in reference to that from the Prime Minister, because he thought they ought to be authoritatively advised, when a member of the Government relied on those stages which would a fiord the House an opportunity of discussing these financial matters, and at the same time told them that the Government intended to abolish those stages. The Minister for Education had laid great stress on the opportunities given by the Estimates. The charges made in a Bill were not provided for by the Estimates until the next year, or at the very earliest by the Supplementary Estimates. Therefore the money clauses of a Bill could never be really considered in many cases until practically a year after the legislation, had come into operation. That, therefore, was a perfectly illusory argument to put forward; it was one which must be put aside altogether. It was proposed to have a Scottish Grand Committee and, as they understood, the same thing for Wales, and surely they ought to consider very carefully how they parted with their control over money matters, when it was proposed to give extended powers to different parts of the country. When they were dealing with an entirely new condition of things the House ought to be jealous of one of its earliest constitutional privileges, and to keep control over money matters, especially as the Government themselves intended, apparently, to take from them some of their most ancient rights, in regard to financial subjects.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)was understood to say that the argument of the President of the Board 423 of Education was wholly illusory, and he would be borne out by Members of the House when he stated that the tendency of recent decisions from the Chair had been very greatly to restrict discussion of details on an enabling Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they could have a discussion on the Estimates, but, as his hon. friend had shown, that was a great deal too late. When they reached that late stage they would have arrived at the other side of a vicious circle, because they would be told that Parliament had already authorised the expenditure, and to say then that it should not be met would really be stultifying the previous decision of the House. He agreed that there might be some philanthropic Bills, Factory Bills and others—even philanthropy had its expensive side—which were perhaps not quite appropriate to be retained down stairs as regarded all their provisions. Therefore, what they were really anxious for was not only that there should be some provision by which the enabling Resolution should be discussed downstairs, but also that they should have full opportunity of criticising and of submitting verbal Amendments to the actual money clauses inserted in the Bill. In regard to the opportunity afforded, for discussion on the Estimates, he might point out that some of the charges were upon the Consolidated Fund, and did not come upon the Estimates at all. In view of the illusory character of the security relied on, and knowing that some of them were willing to compromise on the matter, he wished to know how the Government viewed the proposal that the money clauses should be kept downstairs, while the other part of the Bill, which did not propose charges on public funds, should be discussed upstairs.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid an appeal had been made to him by right hon. Gentlemen opposite to settle matters between his two colleagues, and to act as a sort of umpire between them. He had interjected across the Table a remark correcting the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of Scripture, suggesting that he would find Solomon a better character to refer to than Aaron. How he came to bring in Aaron he could not imagine. 424 Aaron was the right-hand man and was not the man in the centre on the occasion referred to. But, from his administrative experience, he had the greatest admiration for Solomon, because he regarded him as the great inventor of the principle of method which was the most useful that he knew of in matters of administration, the method known as "splitting the difference." He had hardly ever known of a dispute between two parties on some question of public policy which was incapable of being solved by that noble and traditional procedure. But speaking seriously, he unfortunately did not observe any difference between his two colleagues. They might have been looking at two sides of the shield, but the shield was the same. What was it they had been talking about all this time? There was no difference of opinion among them as to maintaining in future the functions and responsibilities of the House on all matters of finance. At all events they did not wish to lessen the control of the House overall the burdens of the people and questions which affected the finances of the country. Accordingly, in order to keep the full control of the Committee of the Whole House over everything that was really of importance in that connection, they exempted Bills imposing taxation, or Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Bills. Everyone would admit that that was nine hundred and ninety-nine thousandths of the financial business which came before the House. Occasionally, it was said, there was a Bill involving expenditure, perhaps on the appointment of an additional factory inspector. But was that any reason for keeping back a Bill which could best be discussed in detail upstairs? Was that any reason why a great health Bill or a Bill dealing with factories, containing perhaps a hundred or more clauses, should be kept back when they believed—and this was the assumption they were proceeding upon—that the work of dealing with those matters would be better done in a Committee upstairs than in the House itself? Because of one little clause was the whole of this policy and the machinery and restrictions set up for the protection of public health to be vitiated and the people deprived of this advantage? He could not imagine anything more absurd than that suggestion; it would be carrying 425 pedantry to an extreme. He quite admitted that there might be money clauses in Bills of a more important type. He did not wish to commit his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War; but if the clause in his Bill involved anything like the number of millions which had been suggested by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, then he was unquestionably of the opinion that it ought to be dealt with in Committee of this House. [An HON. MEMBER: The whole Bill?] No. Why the whole Bill? Why should the whole Bill be discussed in Committee because of one clause? If it was important and if it was thought desirable that some clause involving a real and substantial draft upon the public resources should be kept in the House, they had provided the means of doing that in the latter part of the rule, which said that the House might on Motion made by the Member in charge of a Bill commit the Bill to a Standing Committee in respect of some of its provisions, and commit it to the Committee of the Whole House in respect of other of its provisions. He was greatly shocked and distressed to hear the hon. Member who moved the Amendment casting discredit upon the Committee of Selection by implying that it was, or might be, partisan in its action. One of the chief matters on which they had to congratulate themselves was the implicit confidence which the House had always deservedly displayed in that Committee and the Committee on Standing Orders, whose members set aside their Party feeling in the way in which at the beginning of the proceedings of the House they prayed to be enabled to do. He regretted the language the hon. Member had used and the implication he had made. The very thing which the hon. Member considered so dreadful might happen any day under the present rule. A Bill might go up to one of the Standing Committees and there was nothing to prevent the very thing complained of happening, and this Rule did not increase the disability under which the House rested. As his right hon. friend had already pointed out, they could move to recommit a Bill with respect to any particular clause. The case put forward appeared to him to be perfectly imaginary, and the whole situation was met by the proposal that the House should have the power to deter 426 mine which part of a Bill should go upstairs and which should remain in the House. They were all of the same mind in regard to the necessity of retaining the control of the House over financial matters, and he believed that was secured by the Rule proposed. Therefore as the Government thought the words were unnecessary they opposed the Amendment.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid his remarks had no reference whatever to the Committee of Selection. What he had deprecated was the reference in the new Standing Order, for the first time, to "the balance of parties."
§ MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)said the kind of Bill they had in their minds was not one which appointed an additional inspector, but a Bill like the Local Government Act of 1888, which entirely reversed the whole system of local taxation. Surely the Prime Minister would not deny that the consideration of such measures from beginning to end should be confined to the House. The Prime Minister had pointed to subsection (2) of the Standing Order as sufficient for the purpose. The remedy which the right hon. Gentleman applied was grossly illusory. The Prime Minister had admitted that proposals such as had been suggested might be found in the Bills for which private Members were responsible. Under the present arrangement such a Bill could not go to one of the Grand Committees unless a Motion was made, but now the reverse would become the practice, and a Bill would go to a Grand Committee unless a Motion to the contrary was made. A grievance existed, the Prime Minister had admitted it, and would lead them to believe that it would be remedied by sub-section (2). Who was to judge whether Bills wore of sufficient importance to be retained in Committee of the Whole House? Was the programme of the present Government so advanced that they were in a position to say impartially what Bills should be retained in Committee of the Whole House? The importance of Bills ought not to be judged by the hundreds, or thousands, or millions they involved. They might involve considerable changes apart from the amount of money. The Prime Minister had admitted that in many cases there would be 427 justification for keeping Bills in Committee of the Whole House. It was, therefore, incumbent on the Government to make the rule operative in the way they said they meant it to apply. It surely could not be beyond their power to give effect to what they had said was their intention. It was obvious that he and his hon. friends must continue their opposition to a proposal which would remove from the House entire control of some of their most important business.
§ MR. DALZIELunderstood that the claim of the Opposition was that the House should give up none of its authority and power with regard to financial matters. He thought that was a reasonable claim which it was right to press. He understood that the Government fully accepted that view of the position, and that they desired the House to retain the full control which it had at the present time. That also was a position capable of being understood. The point was, how were they to deal with clauses in italics where charges were involved? The machinery was apt to get complicated unless they dealt with a matter at the commencement of the operation. If a Bill went upstairs the question of recommittal would be difficult. In order to carry out what he understood was the intention of the Government he moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to insert after the word "or" the words "clauses of."
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
After the first word 'or,' to insert the words ' clauses of.'"—(Mr. Dalziel.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)did not think that any procedure which merely kept certain clauses of a Bill in the House would really meet the difficulty. He confessed that he was a little of a sceptic on the whole subject, because he regarded the control of the House of Commons as to a great extent disappearing owing to 428 the rapidly increasing power of the Executive. One thing quite certain was that the control of the House of Commons depended for its effect upon its control over the authorisation of expenditure and not over taxation. When expenditure was incurred the debt was authorised. What would be thought of the statement that a manager of a business was not to be entitled to give the orders of that business, but that he was to be entitled to review the payments and draw the cheques when the payments became due? Taxing was merely the payment of the cheques. The whole liability had been already incurred; it was merely a question as to how it was to be met. When they talked of reserving for the House in Committee the taxation clauses and not the Bill authorising expenditure there was some confusion of thought. If they preserved the control of the House of Commons at all they must preserve control over those Bills which authorised the expenditure. He did not think the suggestion of the Prime Minister would really deal with the matter at all. If there was in a Bill one clause dealing in so many words with the actual charge which was to be expected, that was to be retained for Committee of the Whole House, whereas the whole machinery which brought that charge into being was to be sent upstairs to be dealt with by a Standing Committee. The thing was an absurdity. If they were to retain control over expenditure, they must retain the whole Bill, and a device to divide the Bill into fragments was really not worthy of the consideration of the House.
§ MR. MCCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)said that it was not often that he agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, but he regretted the character of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press it, because he believed that it would entirely vitiate the proposals of the Procedure Committee, and make the condition of affairs very much worse than at present. The right hon. Member for South Dublin had evidently forgotten, when speaking of the effect of this proposal on private Bills, that the custom was to send such Bills upstairs whether they contained a financial clause or not. The effect of the Amendment would be that every financial clause 429 of every public or private Bill would require to be considered by Committee of the Whole House. He put it to the House whether that was a reasonable proposal. It was quite refreshing to hear hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House arguing for the full financial control of the House of Commons when they remembered the system adopted in the last Parliament. If the Amendment wore passed it would make public business practically impossible, because there wore many Bills with a financial clause which did not really involve a new charge. He did not believe that oven the Army Bill involved a now charge; it merely proposed to dispose of the money voted in the Estimates in a new direction. It did not increase the charge but reduced it.
§ MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall)did not think that the Amendment to the Amendment was at all practicable. For instance, the Education Bill of last year had one small clause authorising the spending of a million of money. Would it have been practicable to have kept that clause in Committee of the Whole House and sent the rest of the Bill upstairs? On the other hand the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that an Old Age Pensions Bill to provide a pension of 5s. per week to every man on reaching sixty-five years of age would involve a charge of £35,000,000 a year. Such a measure as that should be considered by Committee of the Whole House. What his hon. friend meant by his Amendment was that Bills containing a handsome charge against the public funds should be kept in the House.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he could not quite agree with what had fallen from his hon. friend behind him. He would prefer the Amendment as originally proposed, but he certainly thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs was better than nothing. He did not quite agree that it would be unworkable or impracticable. In discussing the financial clause of a Bill reference must be made to other portions of the Bill; but the House would not amend the other clauses of the Bill which embodied the general policy of the measure. That would be the work of the Committee 430 upstairs. The Committee of the Whole House would only amend the financial clause or clauses of the Bill. He thought that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education also took that view. Although he would have preferred the wider, clearer, and more consistent words which his hon. friend moved at the beginning of the sitting, he hoped that if the Government would not adopt what he considered the best course, they would take the second best course. He was prepared to support the Government if they accepted the concession proposed by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.
§ MR. MCKENNAregretted that the Government could not accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. In a great majority of Bills like Factory Bills and Local Government Bills which involved a charge, the charge was a mere incident. Under the procedure proposed by his hon. friend they would have in every case to divide such Bills into two parts—practically the whole Bill being sent upstairs, while some insignificant clause was kept for consideration in Committee of the Whole House. With what result? That particular clause would have to be put down for discussion early in the sitting.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid that it would not take up any time if it was a very small matter.
§ MR. MCKENNAthought that his hon. friend's experience when he sat on the other side of the House must have shown him that a great deal of time might be occupied in Committee of the Whole House in discussing a minor part of a Bill. That would be a wholly unnecessary procedure. There were cases, of course, in which the charge on the public funds was a material part of; the Bill, and in such cases the control of the House ought to be retained. The Prime Minister had admitted that it ought to be retained, and that could be done under the second part of the rule on the Motion of a member of the Government. Something should be left to the discretion of the Government of the day, who would most certainly be punished if that discretion were not exercised wisely and in accordance with the general feeling of the House. No Government would 431 insist on sending upstairs a Bill which contained a clause that should be discussed in Committee of the Whole House, because time would be wasted in discussing it on the Report stage. He submitted, however, that the proper authority to decide whether a Bill should be divided should be the Minister in charge.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the reply of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to him to be not merely unsatisfactory and inconclusive, but to contain elements which were self-destructive. The right hon. Gentleman had said that after all the House must be content to trust the Minister who was in charge of the Bill as to whether or not it should be sent upstairs, and that no Minister would be so foolish as to send a Bill upstairs when there was anything like a general feeling that it should be retained for consideration in the House. He did not know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by "general feeling." It might mean the feeling of those who by their vote would support a proposal to retain the measure, or it might mean a general feeling in each quarter of the House. The right hon. Gentleman was now speaking from the Treasury Bench, but it was not so long ago since he sat in Opposition, and if such an appeal for confidence in the Minister had been made to him then, he would have rejected it with scorn and an expression of Surprise that the late Government should have asked for it. But this Resolution did not apply merely to Bills in charge of Ministers, but to those brought forward by private Members. Even if they were prepared to delegate this great responsibility to His Majesty's Ministers, who naturally from their position would be more cautious than private Members, there was no reason why they should be ready to confer the same power upon the latter. [An HON. MEMBER: But Bills go upstairs now.] No doubt that was the case, but they did not go up automatically. The hon. Member did not seem to have read the proposed rule; it was entirely different from that now prevailing. The different arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman were absurd and con 432 tradietory, and, for himself, he thought that the Committee stage of all Bills imposing charges or the portions of them dealing with money should be retained in the House.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the President of the Board of Education seemed to think it impracticable to send a Bill upstairs and to retain the money clauses in the House, but evidently he had forgotten the second portion of the Motion which contemplated that a Bill might be committed to a Standing Committee in respect of some of its provisions and to Committee of the Whole House in respect of other provisions. The object they had in view was, that the parts which should be kept for consideration in Committee of the Whole House should be the money clauses. If it was possible and practicable to send a portion of the clauses upstairs and to keep a portion downstairs, why should they not send upstairs the portions which were not financial and keep exclusively for the consideration of the House those portions which were financial? It appeared to him that they ought to pause before they parted with one of the last remains of the rights of the House to prevent burdens being placed upon the people without the fullest and amplest opportunities for criticism and discussion. He could understand that his original Amendment not to send upstairs a Bill containing a small financial clause might be open to objection, but they had had a suggestion made from the other side which he confessed struck him as a reasonable one, that the money clauses of a Bill should be dealt with in the House. It was, how-over, perfectly hopeless to ask the Government to accept the whole Amendment, but they might accept it with the Amendment proposed. When one could not get a whole loaf one was prepared to accept half.
§ MR. DALZIELasked leave to withdraw his Amendment as the Government had refused to make the small concession it involved. He thought they wore making a mistake, and would save time by accepting it, but he would not press it.
§ Leave to withdraw being refused,
433§ Question put
434§ The House divided:—Ayes, 78; Noes, 314. (Division list No. 105.)
435| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Faber, George Denison (York) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. | Faber, Capt. V. (Hants, W.) | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Ashley, W. W. | Fell, Arthur | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) | Forster, Henry William | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Haddock, George R. | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) | Hamilton, Marquess of | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Barrio, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hedges, A. Paget | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Helmsley, Viscount | Turnour, Viscount |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Houston, Robert Paterson | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Keswick, William | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Liddell, Henry | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Cave, George | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R,) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham | Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Percy, Earl | Younger, George |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Randies, Sir John Scurrah | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Ratcliff, Major R. F. | Mr. Watson Rutherford and Sir |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | William Bull. |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Remnant, James Farquharson | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Boulton, A. C. F. | Cox, Harold |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Bowerman, C. W. | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Brace, William | Cremer, William Randal |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Branch, James | Crombie, John William |
| Agnew, George William | Biodie, H. C. | Crooks, William |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Bryce, J. Annan | Crossley, William J. |
| Alden, Percy , | Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Davies, David (Montgomery Co. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Burke, E. Haviland- | Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) |
| Armitage, R. | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Delany, William |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Burton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Byles, William Pollard | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Dobson, Thomas W. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Duckworth, James |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Chance, Frederick William | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Cheetham, John Frederick | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall |
| Barnard, E. B. | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Clarke, C. Goddard | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Cleland, J. W. | Edwards, Frank (Radnor) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Clough, William | Elibank, Master of |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Clynes, J. R. | Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward |
| Buauchamp, E. | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Erskine, David C. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Essex, R. W. |
| Bell, Richard | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Eve, Harry Trelawney |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Benn,W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Ferens, T. R. |
| Berridge, T. H. D | Corbett, CH Sussex, E. (Grinst'd) | Ferguson, R. C. Munro |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'rd | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Cory, Clifford John | Findlay, Alexander |
| Billson, Alfred | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter |
| Black, Arthur W. | Cowan, W. H. | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry |
| Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Lewis, John Herbert | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Fullerton. Hugh | Lough, Thomas | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Gill. A. H. | Lundon, W. | Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee) |
| Ginnell, L. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs | Robinson, S. |
| Glover, Thomas | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Macpherson, J. T. | Rowlands, J. |
| Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. | Runciman, Walter |
| Gulland, John W. | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | M'Callum, John M. | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. |
| Gwynn. Stephen Lucius | M'Crae, George | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Hall, Frederick | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Halpin, J. | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | M'Killop, W. | Sears, J. E. |
| Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Seddon, J. |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | M'Micking, Major G. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Hardy, Laurenee (Kent, Ashford | Maddison, Frederick | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Mallet, Charles E. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Harrington, Timothy | Marnham, F. J. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Snowden, P. |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E. | Massie, J. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Menzies, Walter | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Molteno, Percy Alport | Steadman, W. C. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.) | Montagu, E. S. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Herbert, T. Arnold(Wycombe) | Mooney, J. J. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Higham, John Sharp | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Morley, Rt. Hon. John | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| Hodge, John | Morse, L. L. | Summerbell, T. |
| Hogan, Michael | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Holden, E. Hopkinson | Myer, Horatio | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Napier, T. B. | Tennant Sir Edward (Salisbury |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | Thomas Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Hooper, A. G. | Nolan, Joseph | Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Hope John Deans (Fife, West) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Thorne, William |
| Horniman Emslie John | Nuttall, Harry | Tomkiason, James |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Ure, Alexander |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Doherty, Philip | Verney, F. W. |
| Hutton, Alfred Eddison | O'Dowd, John | Wadsworth, J. |
| Hyde, Clarendon | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Idris, T. H. W. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Illingworth. Percy H. | Partington, Oswald | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Paulton, James Mellor | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Jackson, R. S. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Jenkins, J. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Wardle, George J. |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Waring, Walter |
| Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Wason, John Cat heart (Orkney) |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Pirie, Duncan V. | Watt, Henry Anderson |
| Jowett, F. W. | Pollard, Dr. | Weir, James Galloway |
| Joyce, Michael | Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Kearley, Hudson E. | Pullar, Sir Robert | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Kekewieh, Sir George | Radford, G. H. | White, Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Kelley Georere D. | Rainy, A. Rolland | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Raphael, Herbert H. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' | Wiles, Thomas |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Lambert, George | Rees, J. D. | Wilson, HenryJ. (York. W.R.) |
| Lambten, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Rendall, Athelstan | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Lamont, Norman | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh 'mpt'n) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Lehmann, R C | Richardson, A. | |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Rickett, J. Compton | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Lever, W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Ridsdale, E. A. | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Levy, Maurice | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
§ Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ LORD R. CECILsaid he proposed to move to add at the end of the Amendment "provided that such a Bill may be committed to a Standing Committee by Motion made." That would preserve the existing state of things with reference to particular Bills.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 313; Noes, 81. (Division List No. 106.)
441| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W | Harms worth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Harrington, Timothy |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. K. |
| Agnew, George William | Cory, Clifford John | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Ainsworlh, John Stirling | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Alden, Percy | Cowan, W. H. | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Allen, Charles D. (Stroud) | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Hemmerde, Edward George |
| Ambrose, Robert | Cremer, William Randal | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Armitage, R. | Crombie, John William | Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Crooks, William | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Crossley, William J. | Higham, John Sharp |
| Astbury, John Meir | Dalmeny, Lord | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Dalziel, James Henry | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Davies, David (Montgomery Co. | Hodge, John |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hogan, Michael |
| Barker, John | Delany, William | Holden, E. Hopkinson |
| Barlow, John Emmott (Som'rset | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Barnard, E. B. | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Hooper, A. G. |
| Barnes, G. W | Dobson, Thomas W. | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Duckworth James | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Beale, W. P. | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Horridge, Thomas Gardner |
| Beauchamp, E. | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'l | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Beck. A. Cecil | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Hutton, Alfred Eddison |
| Hell, Richard | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Hyde, Clarendon |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Idris, T. H W. |
| Benn, W. (Tw'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Elibank, Master of | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Berridge. T. H. D. | Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd | Erskine, David C. | Jackson, R. S. |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Essex, R. W. | Jenkins, J. |
| Billson, Alfred | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Everett, R. Lacey | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Ferens, T. R. | Jones, Sir D Brynmor (Swansea) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Brace, William | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) |
| Branch, James | Findlay, Alexander | Jowett, F. W. |
| Brodie, H. C. | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Joyce, Michael |
| Bryce. J. Annan | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Fullerton, Hugh | Kelley, George D. |
| Burke. E. Haviland | Gill, A. H. | Kincaid-Smith, Captain |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Ginnell, L | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Byles, William Pollard | Glover, Thomas | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Grant, Corrie | Lambert, George |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Lamont, Norman |
| Chance, Frederick William | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E. |
| Channing. Sir Francis Allston | Gulland, John W. | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Cheetham. John Frederick | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich |
| Cherry, Rt. Hun. R. R. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) |
| Clarke, C. Goddard | Hall, Frederick | Levy, Maurice |
| Cleland, J. W. | Halpin, J. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Clough, William | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Lough, Thomas |
| Clynes, J. R. | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Lundon, W. |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs |
| Mackarness, Frederic C. | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Macpherson, J. T. | Pirie, Duncan V. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Pollard, Dr. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| M'Callum, John M. | Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| M'Crae, George | Pullar, Sir Robert | Stuart, James (SuiKU-rland) |
| M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Radford, G. H. | Summerbell, T. |
| M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Rainy, A. Rolland | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| M'Killop, W. | Raphael, Herbert H. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe) |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro') | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Maddison, Frederick | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Rees, J. D. | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Kendall, Athelstan | Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E |
| Marnham, F. J. | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Thorne, William |
| Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n) | Tomkinson, James |
| Massie, J. | Richardson, A. | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Menzies, Walter | Rickett, J. Compton | Verney, F. W. |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Ridsdale, E. A. | Wadsworth, J. |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Mond, A. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Money, L. G. Chiozza | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Montagu, E. S. | Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Mooney, J. J. | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Robinson, S. | Wardle, George J. |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Waring, Walter |
| Morley, Rt. Hon. John | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Morse, L. L. | Rowlands, J. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Runciman, Walter | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Myer, Horatio | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland | Watt, Henry Anderson |
| Napier, T. B. | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. | Weir, James Galloway |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Nolan, Joseph | Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Scott, AH (Ashton under Lyne) | White, Luke (York., E.R.) |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Sears, J. E. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Nuttall, Harry | Seddon, J. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Seely, Major J. B. | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Sherwell, Arthur James | Wiles, Thomas |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| O'Doherty, Philip | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wilson, Henry J. (York., W.R.) |
| O'Dowd, John | Simon John Allsebrook | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N | Sinclair Rt. Hon. John | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Partington, Oswald | Snowden, P. | |
| Pearce, Robert (Starts. Leek) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Spicer, Sir Albert | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Stanger, H. Y. | |
| Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) | Stead man, W. C. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Ashley, W. W. | Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Keswick, William |
| Balcarres, Lord | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. |
| Balfour, Rt Hn A. J. (City Lond.) | Courthope, G. Loyd | Liddell, Henry |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Craik, Sir Henry | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) | Dalrymple, Viscount | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Nield, Herbert |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Faber, George Denison (York) | Percy, Earl |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Bull, Sir William James | Fell, Arthur | Randies, Sir John Scurrah |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Forster, Henry William | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Haddock, George R. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hamilton, Marquess of | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Cave, George | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd | Rothschild, Hon Lionel Walter |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Rutherford, W W. (Liverpool) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Wore. | Helmsley, Viscount | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Turnour, Viscount | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Sloan, Thomas Henry | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard | Younger, George |
| Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) | |
| Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) | Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Stone, Sir Benjamin | Wilson, A. Stanley (York., E.R.) | |
| Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm | |
| Thornton, Percy M. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
442§ The House divided:—Ayes, 79; Noes, 314. (Division List No. 107.)
445| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Dalrymple, Viscount | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Ashley, W. W. | Faber, George Denison (York) | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Balcarres, Lord | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) | Fell, Arthur | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) | Forster, Henry William | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Haddock, George R. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hamilton, Marquess of | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Turnour, Viscount |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Houston, Robert Paterson | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Keswick, William | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Liddell, Henry | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Cave, George | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Nield, Herbert | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart- |
| Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) | Percy, Earl | Younger, George |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Ratcliff, Major R. F. | Mr. Watson Rutherford and Viscount Helmsley. |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Remnant, James Farquharson, | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Bell, Richard | Clarke, C. Goddard |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Bellairs, Carlyon | Cleland, J. W. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo. | Clough, William |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Berridge, T. H. D. | Clynes, J. R. |
| Agnew, George William | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Cobbold, Felix Thornley |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Alden, Percy | Billson, Alfred | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Black, Arthur W. | Condon, Thomas Joseph |
| Ambrose, Robert | Boulton, A. C. F. | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) |
| Armitage, R. | Bowerman, C. W. | Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | | Brace William | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Branch, James | Cory, Clifford John |
| Astbury, John Meir | Brodie, H. C. | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Bryce, J. Annan | Cowan, W. H. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Cremer, William Randal |
| Barker, John | Burke, E. Haviland- | Crombie, John William |
| Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Crooks, William |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Crossley, William J. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Byles, William Pollard | Dalmeny, Lord |
| Barnes, G. N. j | Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Dalziel, James Henry |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Chance, Frederick William | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) |
| Beale, W. P. | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Delany, William |
| Beauchamp, E. | Cheetham, John Frederick | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N) |
| Beck, A. Cecil i | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Duckworth, James | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Pollard, Dr. |
| Duncan, C. (Harrow-in-Furness) | Jowett, F. W. | Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Joyce, Michael | Pullar, Sir Robert |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Kearley, Hudson E. | Radford. G. H. |
| Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Kekewich. Sir George | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Edwards. Enoch (Hanley) | Kelley, George D. | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Elibank, Master of | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro') |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Laidlaw, Robert | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Erskine, David C. | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Rees, J. D. |
| Essex, R. W. | Lambert, George | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | Lamont, Norman | Richards, Thomas (W.M'nm'th) |
| Everett. R Lacey | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Lehmann, R. C. | Richardson, A. |
| Ferguson, R. C Munro | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Rickett. J. Compton |
| Findlay, Alexander | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Levy, Maurice | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Lewis, John Herbert | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Lough, Thomas | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Lundon, W. | Robertson. Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee |
| Gilhooly, James | Lyell, Charles Henry | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Gill, A. H. | Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs) | Robinson, S. |
| Ginnell. L. | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Glover, Thomas | Macpherson, J. T. | Rowlands, J. |
| Grant, Corrie | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal. E.) | Runciman, Walter |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | M'Callum, John M. | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | M'Crae, George | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. |
| Gulland, John W. | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Sehwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | M'Killop, W. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne |
| Hall, Frederick | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Sears, J. E. |
| Halpin, J. | M'Micking, Major G. | Seddon, J. |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Maddison, Frederick | Seely, Major J. B. |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Mallet, Charles E. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Marnham, F. J. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Harrington, Timothy | Massie, J. | Sinclair Rt. Hon. John |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Menzies, Walter | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, NE.) | Micklem, Nathaniel | Snowden, P. |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Haworth. Arthur A. | Mond, A. | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Montagu, E. S. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Mooney, J. J. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.) | Morgan G Hay (Cornwall | Stewart-Smith D. (Kendal) |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Higham, John Sharp | Morley, Rt. Hon. John | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Morse, L. L. | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| Hodge, John | Myer, Horatio | Summerbell. T. |
| Hogan, Michael | Napier, T. B. | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Holden, E. Hepkinson | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doneast'r | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Nolan, Joseph | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Hooper, A. G. | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Nuttall, Harry | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset E) |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid) | Thorne, William |
| Horniman, Emslie John | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Tomkinson. James |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Doherty Philip | Verney, F. W. |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Dowd, John | Wadsworth. J. |
| Hutton, Alfred Eddison | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Hyde, Clarendon | Parker, James (Halifax) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Idris, T. H. W. | Partington, Oswald | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Jackson, R. S. | Pearee, William (Limehouse) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon Trent) |
| Jenkins, J. | Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Wardle, George J. |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) | Waring, Walter |
| Johnson, W. Nuneaton | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Waterlow, D. S. | Whitehead, Rowland | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Watt, Henry Anderson | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Weir, James Galloway | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer | |
| White, George (Norfolk) | Wiles, Thomas | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| White,, Luke (York, E. R.) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDYmoved an Amendment with the object of exempting from the proposed rule "Bills relating to Parliamentary reform or franchise." He did not see how the Government could seriously object to that proposal, because such measures would always be of that character which all the members of the Government who had spoken on the subject had said they desired to exclude from the Rule. They were of such vital importance that he thought it was desirable that they should be removed from the region of doubt, and therefore he suggested that all Bills connected with the franchise and Parliamentary reform should be considered by a Committee of the Whole House. It had always been the custom that after a Reform Bill had become law the Government which had passed it came to an end. A measure which involved the destruction of the Parliament which passed it was one which should not be sent to a small Committee. Every hon. Member had a right to take part in the deliberations upon a measure which was practically altering the constitution of the House of Commons. Surely it was highly desirable that there should be no doubt upon those points. Let them take, for example, a Bill connected with woman suffrage. It would be impossible in the case of such a measure for the Committee of Selection to find a Grand Committee which would give satisfaction to the House. It was not possible that a Committee of some sixty Members could form an adequately representative body to consider measures of that character, especially when they remembered the far-reaching results which must follow from very slight Amendments made in Committee. A very small Amendment in a Woman Suffrage Bill might extend the franchise to the whole of the women in the country. He thought they could justly contend that it was the right of every hon. Member to take part in all discussions which dealt with any alteration in the constitution of the House. Then there was the question of redistribution. Was it reasonable to argue that any measure redistributing 446 seats could be properly considered in a Committee upstairs? Each constituency upon such a question had a right to be heard, and it would be impossible to have their interests properly represented upon a Committee upstairs. He did not suppose for a moment that the Government would ever have suggested that the Plural Voting Bill of last session should be sent to a Grand Committee. It was self-evident that Bills of that nature clearly came within the category of those measures which every Member of the Government had said ought to be excluded. Therefore it was necessary that such Bills should be included in the schedule which the Government had put forward for exemption. The Government had introduced a schedule to exclude money Bills and Provisional Orders, and this Amendment only added one more class to the list. He trusted that his Amendment would be accepted, and a long debate avoided.
§ *MR.ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)seconded. It was often said that Bills should be sent upstairs in order that they might receive expert treatment, and because they could there be better scrutinised than by a Committee of the Whole House. As regarded Redistribution Bills that argument did not hold good, because before such Bills could be brought in a Commission had to be appointed to take evidence as to population, areas, and other matters, in order to assist the Government in framing their Bill. Therefore all the necessary expert evidence would have been obtained before the introduction of the Bill and there could be no necessity for such Bills going to a Committee upstairs. In the case of a Franchise Bill or a Redistribution Bill every hon. Member ought to have an opportunity of speaking, because changes in the franchise affected every elector. Let them imagine he feelings of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, whose constituency contained about 1,500 electors, if it was proposed that his constituency should be disfranchised without his being allowed to have a say in the matter. What would 447 be the feelings of the hon. Member for Romford, which constituency had 45,000 electors, if he was not allowed to appear before the Committee upstairs and defend the rights and claims of his constituency. He cordially supported the Amendment because such Bills if they were not discussed in Committee of the Whole House would not be properly considered or the interests of the electors of the United Kingdom properly looked after.
§
Amendment proposed—
In line 10, at the end, to insert the words '(c) Bills relating to Parliamentary reform or franchise.' "—(Mr. Laurence Hardy)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be their inserted."
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he was sure the hon. Member would expect the announcement that the Government were not able to accept this Amendment or any other similar proposal on the Paper to exempt certain Bills from the operation of the Rule. They could not be accepted, because they would have the effect of taking away the discretion which the House possessed in the conduct of its business, and would narrow the scope of operation of the Rules. The Government were proposing these changes because they conscientiously believed they would effect a great improvement in the proceedings of the House and expedite legislative business. They ought not to shut out such questions as Parliamentary Reform, Bills which aroused strong political controversy or excited acute religious susceptibilities; Bills modifying or taking away any of the powers of the Crown or either House of Parliament; Bills dealing with the organisation of the Army or Reserve Forces, or with the Navy; Bills relating to the maintenance, organisation, or discipline of the Navy or naval service; Bills to create a subordinate Legislature in any part of the United Kingdom; Bills to ratify treaties, conventions, or other international arrangements; Bills to sanction the cession of any territory forming part of the dominions of the Crown, and other matters; these were measures which ought to be left to the judgment of the House to decide. The Rule as proposed left the House to judge at the time whether a Bill should be reserved for consideration 448 in Committee of the Whole House. While the Government must resist all Amendments of this character, there was one point upon which he was willing to meet hon. Members opposite, and that was in the matter of giving additional breadth and freedom to the discussions on the Report stage of a Bill which had not been considered in Committee of the Whole House. There was an Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University which said—
Where a Bill has been committed under the foregoing provision of this Standing Order a Member shall have the same right of speaking on the consideration of the Report of such Committee as if the Bill was before a Committee of the Whole House.That would give the House in the case of a Bill considered upstairs the power to discuss it as if they were in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition pointed out the other day with great force that it would greatly hamper the proper discussion of Bills which had not been considered in Committee of the Whole House, if the Members in charge of them, and other Members interested in them, had not an opportunity of speaking more than once. He did not believe if this concession were made that it would greatly increase the opportunities for misapplying time, but even if it did it would enlarge the powers of the House on the Report stage, so that, if something was lost on the Committee stage, it would be regained on the Report stage. Its terms might be improved, but the Government were perfectly willing to accept the spirit of the Amendment. Therefore, he did not think there should be so such apprehension as seemed to prevail that the Government wished to impose undue restriction on the powers of the House itself. There would be thorough investigation of the details of n Bill upstairs, and hen when it came down on the Report stage there would be opportunity for discussion.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that, while this was an improvement of the original plan, yet it but increased the objection he had always felt to the general scheme, namely, that it would tend to increase the enormous burden which the rest of the Rules would throw upon the Report stage. It was evident that the Report stage 449 would become the Committee stage, with the double disadvantage, that on Report they would not be aisle to discuss money matters, and on Report the Government would not have a locus pœnitentiœ or opportunity for carrying into effect the Amendments which in substance the arguments of the House had induced them to accept. It must conduce to hasty and bad drafting of measures. In future the traditional practice of the House by which the Committee work was done with the Chairman in the Chair would go by the board, and henceforth Mr. Speaker would have the whole burden thrown on his shoulders, not merely of supervising the Second Reading debates and all Resolutions, but, in fact, the whole of the Committee work as well. He thought that was to be regretted from the point of view of the Chair. As to the Amendment now before the House, what did the Prime Minister say? He said that the Amendment, and all the Amendments that followed it, were to be rejected because they interfered with the discretion of the House. The discretion of the House would be far better carried out if this Amendment were accepted than if the Prime Minister's plan were adhered to. The right hon. Gentleman had said it would be in the power of the House if it liked to keep all these measures downstairs, because any one could move a Motion to that effect and it could be divided upon. The question whether a Bill was to be retained or sent upstairs would be settled by the whips of the Party in power, and it was natural that it should be so. He was the last man to quarrel with Party discipline. There was to be no argument on the Motion; the rule was so framed that argument would be precluded, and if the Government wanted a Bill to go upstairs, upstairs it would go. Might he ask the Government seriously what their objection was to the Amendment now before the House? The Prime Minister had stated that they might multiply indefinitely the subjects which were not to be sent to Committees upstairs. Of course, it was the tendency of the critics of a Bill to multiply objections, and he quite granted that that might be carried to excess. But surely it was eminently reasonable that the House should be asked to except from the scope of the Rule matters which touched the Constitution of the country. 450 Surely they might except from the operation of the Rule changes affecting the Crown and the constitution of the House. He could understand the Government saying that some of the Amendments of which notice had been given were so wide in their scope as to include Bills which ought to be sent upstairs, but even the Prime Minister and his colleagues would admit that a Franchise Bill was not one which should be sent upstairs. If they were all agreed upon that, why could they not embody it in the Resolution? The right hon. Gentleman had said that no Government would think of sending a Bill of that kind upstairs, because it would be such a violent reversal of the old practice, and that they might trust any Government to abstain from such a course. Let it be remembered that the intentions with which Governments brought forward Rules, when they did not embody those intentions in the Rules themselves, were very apt to be forgotten, and if they were remembered, they were very apt to be deliberately violated. Mr. Gladstone said that no Bills which excited violent religious controversy were ever to be sent to the Grand Committees. But they all know that, though those were the intentions animating the Prime Minister of the day when the Grand Committees were instituted, subsequent Prime Ministers had departed from the rule—he was not quite sure that Mr. Gladstone himself did not depart from it—because they found it more convenient to send upstairs Bills which came under that rubric when they found it impossible to resist the pressure from sections of the House. Looking to the experience of the past, let them do their best to embody in the Resolution all the exceptions which they meant to make, and not trust to intentions which might in years to come be forgotten. They were not legislating only for this or the next Parliament. They were legislating for the practice of the House through many successive Parliaments. In these circumstances let them lay it down that Bills making vital changes in the constitution of the House, or in the relation of the House to the Crown, or in the relation of the House to the Colonies, should be absolutely excluded from being sent to a Committee upstairs. The Government admitted that Bills imposing charges on the Consolidated Fund, or Appropriation Bills, should not be sent upstairs. Why should 451 the Prime Minister exempt Budget Bills and not a Franchise or a Woman Suffrage Bill? He thought an ordinary Budget was of incomparably less importance than a Franchise Bill. What comparison was there between an ordinary Budget, such as they had been accustomed to in recent years, and a Woman Franchise Bill? Why should they put down in a Standing Order one class of Bills to be within the rules, and another class not? It was part of a superstition of Parliament that the only thing of real importance was Money Bills, and that the whole function of the House was to deal with those Money Bills, and through them to have control over the Executive of the country. He did not see why they should frame Rules of Procedure for 1907 which might have been necessary in 1607. Their dangers now were not in connection with contests with the Crown over money. Their difficulties in the future would be as to the Constitution of the country, as to the great questions affecting the constitution of that House, and other matters of suchlike importance. Let them, at all events, frame their rules that such questions must be considered not merely on the Report stage, but in the Committee stage, and not stultify themselves by making exceptions which dealt with matters relevantly unimportant, while they left the most important things which a representative assembly could have under its consideration to the not very tender mercies of a Committee upstairs.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid he was very pleased that the Government; had announced their opposition to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite; bat he had listened with some surprise, if not with alarm, to the momentous statement of the Prime Minister with regard to the Report stage of Bills which came down from the Standing Committees. He thought that if that statement were given effect to, and that any Member could speak on the Report stage as often as he liked, it would greatly damage the authority and the whole organisation of the Standing Committees.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthought that it was for the convenience of the House that the Prime Minister should have made his statement at that 452 time, and that they should take the opportunity of debating it now rather than later on. He would press upon the right hon. Gentleman the point put by his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, which was germane to the particular Amendment they were now discussing. The Prime Minister had made his case against the Amendment, not on its merits, but on the merits of other Amendments on the Paper. The fact that one might multiply Amendments of a kind was not an argument against a particular Amendment. The Prime Minister had admitted that there must be exceptions in the case of Money Bills. Let him reinforce what his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition had said as to the relative importance of a Franchise Bill such as was contemplated in the Amendment now before the House, and an ordinary Budget or Money Bill. He was inclined to think that the House was too apt to have a superstitious reverence for the cumbrous procedure of the Middle Ages.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANWhy did not the right hon. Gentleman say that two hours ago?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he would do away not with the stage which the Prime Minister wanted to do away with, but with another stage; and in regard to all minor Bills make no exceptions. He thought that their financial procedure was cumbrous, and he would remind the House that while any provision of the Finance Bill could be repealed in the year following its enactment if the Government wore dissatisfied with it, they could not recede from any step taken on a measure dealing with Parliamentary reform or the franchise. There was another point on finance procedure. A Finance Bill must be based on a series of Resolutions introduced in Committee of the Whole House. Those Resolutions were discussed in Committee, again on the Report of the Resolutions, again in Committee of the Bill itself, and yet again on the Report of the Bill. So that every Finance Bill had to pass through two stages more than a Franchise Bill. In those circumstances, and the Government having thought it necessary to preserve the procedure on a Finance Bill, how could they possibly 453 say that it was unreasonable to preserve the Committee stage in regard to a matter which was of even greater importance?
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 46; Noes, 287. (Division List No. 108.)
455| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, G'v'n | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton |
| Balcarres, Lord | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Banlmry, Sir Frederick George | Forster, Henry William | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. | Haddock, George R. | Turnour, Viscount |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hamilton, Marquess of | Valentia, Viscount |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Helmsley, Viscount | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Houston, Robert Paterson | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Keswick, William | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W. |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, B.) | Liddell, Henry | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A. (Wore | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart. |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Younger, George |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n | |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Mr. Laurence Hardy and Mr. Ashley. |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Rutherford, W.W. (Liverpool) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Clarke, C. Goddard | Fullerton, Hugh |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Cleland, J. W. | Gill, A. H. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Clough, William | Ginnell, L. |
| Agnew, George William | Clynes, J. R. | Glover, Thomas |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Grant, Come |
| Alden, Percy | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W | Gulland, John W. |
| Ambrose, Robert | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton |
| Armitage, R. | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius |
| Astbury, John Meir | Corbett, C H (Sussex, E.Grinst'd | Hail, Frederick |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Halpin, J. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Cory, Clifford John | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis |
| Barker, John | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset | Cowan, W. H. | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Cox, Harold | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Cremer, William Randal | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Crombie, John William | Harrington, Timothy |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Crooks, William | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Beale, W. P. | Dalziel, James Henry | Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire, N.E. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Davies, David (Montgomery Co. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Delany, William | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N | Hemmerde, Edward George |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Henderson, Arthur(Durham) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Higham, John Sharp |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Dobson, Thomas W. | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. |
| Billson, Alfred | Duckworth, James | Hodge, John |
| Black, Arthur W. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Hogan, Michael |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Holden, E. Hopkinson |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Brace, William | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Hooper, A.G. |
| Branch. James | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N |
| Brodie, H. C. | Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Horniman, Emslic John |
| Brooke, Stopford | Elibank, Master of | Horridge, Thomas Gardner |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Erskine, David C. | Hudson, Walter |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Essex, R. W. | Hutton, Alfred Eddison |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Hyde, Clarendon |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Everett, R. Lacy | Idris, T. H. W. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Ferens, T. R. | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Jackson, R. S. |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Findlay, Alexander | Jenkins, J. |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Fowler. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Nuttall, Harry | Snowden, P. |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Jowett, F. W. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Kekewich, Sir George | O'Doherty, Philip | Steadman, W. C. |
| Kelley, George D. | O'Dowd, John | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N | Stewart-Smith D. (Kendal) |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Parker, James (Halifax) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Partington, Oswald | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Lambert, George | Paulton, James Mellor | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| Lamont, Norman | Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) | Summerbell, T. |
| Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Paneras, E. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampt'n) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Taylor, Theodore C. (Ratcliffe) |
| Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Pirie, Duncan V. | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Levy, Maurice | Pollard, Dr. | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.) | Thome, William |
| Lough, Thomas | Radford, G. H. | Tomkinson, James |
| Lundon. W. | Rainy, A. Rolland | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Raphael, Herbert H. | Verney, F. W. |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Vivian, Henry |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' | Wadsworth, J. |
| Macpherson, J. T. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Walker. H. De. R. (Leicester) |
| MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Rees, J. D. | Walsh, Stephen |
| M'Callum, John M. | Rendall, Athelstan | Walters, John Tudor |
| M'Crae, George | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Richardson, A. | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent |
| M'Killop, W. | Rickett, J. Compton | Waldle, George J. |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Ridsdale, E. A. | Waring, Walter |
| Maddison, Frederick | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Marnham, F. J. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd | Watt, Henry Anderson |
| Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Massie, J. | Robinson, S. | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Menzies, Walter | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Rogers, F. E. Newman | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Rowlands, J. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Mond, A. | Runciman, Walter | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Money, L. G. Chiozza | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Montagu, E. S. | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Mooney, J. J. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne | Wiles, Thomas |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Sears, J. E. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Morley, Rt. Hon. John | Seaverns, J. H. | Wilson, Henry J. (York. W.R.) |
| Morse, L. L. | Seddon, J. | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Seely, Major J. B. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Myer, Horatio | Sherwell, Arthur James | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Napier, T. B. | Shipman, Dr, John G. | |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncastr | Silcock, Thomas Ball | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Nolan, Joseph | Simon, John Allsebrook | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
§ SIR F. BANBURYMoved an Amendment to exempt from the operation of the proposed new Rule Bills modifying or taking away any of the powers of the Crown or of either House of Parliament. He said that a short time ago the Prime Minister had stated that he could not accept any of the Amendments on the Paper, but he was inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman could not have seen this Amendment when he made that statement. He could not think that any Minister, however democratic, would refer Bills dealing with the powers of the Crown 456 or of either House of Parliament to a Grand Committee of between sixty and eight Members. Such matters should be dealt with in Committee of the Whole House. It might be right or wrong to add to or curtail the powers of the Committee which, roughly speaking, contained only one-tenth of the representation of the people. He did not want to go into the question of the manner of selection of these Committees, nor did he cast any reflection upon the Committee of Selection, if whom he had a high opinion. He agreed with 457 the Prime Minister that when the Members arrived in the Committee room all Party feelings dropped; but they could not forget that one of these now Standing Orders directed the attention of the; Committee to the state of Parties in connection with the selection of Committees. He believed it was the first time that in the Standing Orders the question of Party had been raised at all, or any explicit direction given on that subject to the Committee of Selection. [Mr. MCKENNA dissented.] Well, he spoke subject to correction. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to explain.
§ MR. MCKENNAsaid he would wait till he came to reply to the Amendment.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid the point was not a vital one, because, of course, it told both ways. The right hon. Gentleman who now represented the Government told them a short time ago that the Minister in charge of a Bill was to be the sole judge to determine what course should be pursued with regard to that Bill. It could not, however, in his judgment be tolerated that a Bill dealing with the powers of the Crown should be in the hands of one single individual, however competent.
§ MR. MCKENNAsaid that if the hon. Baronet would look at the Standing Order he would see that the question was not determined by the Minister in charge of the Bill, but by the House.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid that meant nothing if the Minister in charge of the Bill made a Motion on the subject.
§ MR. MCKENNANo, no. The hon. Baronet has not read the Standing Order.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid that, supposing he wore to move, as it would be in the power of any hon. Member to do, immediately after the Second Reading that a Bill should be retained in the House, there would be no debate, and it would be decided by the vote of the House acting on the views of the Government.
§ MR. MCKENNAsaid he was only objecting to the statement that he had 458 said that the sole arbiter was the Minister in charge of the Bill.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman did not say that he apologised. It was a misunderstanding, but it came to exactly the same thing, because unless the Minister in charge of the Bill felt that it ought to remain in the House it went automatically upstairs, and it was absolutely futile to say that any Member on the Opposition side of the House could move to retain it, as he would have no prospect of success against the Minister in charge. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman meant to infer that Government tellers would not be put on, that really altered the situation.
§ MR. MCKENNAsaid he was only correcting the statement which the hon. Baronet made, and no inference of that nature could be drawn from his remarks.
§ SIR F. BANBURYreplied that be could only say that the safeguard, unless the Government withdrew their tellers, would be worth nothing .He was inclined to regard the right hon. Gentleman as a partisan in this case, because he had only shown that there were safeguards—which, in his opinion, did not exist—which would enable a Bill to be retained in the House. But why run any risk? Why not make it certain that such a Bill of the sort suggested must remain in the House? Coming to the second part of the Amendment which dealt with interference with the powers of either House of Parliament, his proposal was a very important one in view of what was taking place at the present time. He was not quite so sure that the right hon. Gentleman or the Party opposite would be inclined to accept that part of the Amendment, although he thought they ought to do so, because they contended that the country was with them. How could they tell whether the country was with the Government or with anybody else who brought in such a proposal, unless they left the decision to the unfettered discretion of Parliament. If the Government brought in a Bill dealing with the powers of a particular House of Parliament and left that measure to the tender mercies of sixty, eighty, or ninety-five Members, how could they answer for it 459 that there would be anything like a decisive expression of opinion commending itself to the feelings of the country? What would be said of such a Committee in which Members representing those who desired to preserve the existing powers would be outvoted and overwhelmed? Could such a Committee be taken as representative of the feeling of the country or of the Members of the House? This question involved the whole government of the country, and it seemed to him that, if ever there was on the part of a Government installed by fortuitous circumstances in a particular place an attempt to gerrymander the Constitution of the country by a side-wind, it was this. Because these rules were not introduced for this particular purpose, but in order to expedite business. The right hon. Gentleman would not say the alteration of the powers of another place was going to take place every session. It was a thing which would only occur once in every twenty or thirty years, or at even longer intervals. The right hon. Gentleman surely would not deny that the House had a right to consider in that time proposals which were practically as revolutionary as the attitude of Cromwell when he, with a company of what was now the Coldstream Guards, entered the House of Commons and removed the mace from the Table. He had endeavoured to show that his Amendment would not interfere with the facilitation of business; that the questions with which it dealt could only arise at long intervals; and that when such important questions did arise it was absolutely necessary that the representatives of the people should have an opportunity of discussing them fully in this Assembly. He begged to move.
§ VISCOUNT TURNOUR (Sussex, Horsham),in seconding, expressed his strong conviction that this Amendment should; be accepted. He had always had the greatest admiration of the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Resolution, but he thought it; would tax all his ingenuity to find any argument against the Amendment. He would probably argue that the probabilities of such Bills being brought in was very small, and that when brought in they might be dealt with by a Committee of the Whole House. The day 460 had gone by for leaving anything to chance or luck, and it was therefore necessary to safeguard themselves from anything which was likely to injure the reputation of the House. He thought it would be calculated to injure the reputation of the House if a Bill such as either of the two mentioned by the hon. Baronet were dealt with in any other way than by a Committee of the Whole House. He failed to see what objection there could possibly be to the Amendment. It really carried out the principles of the Resolution, which were to safeguard the House against a Bill of very import ant character, or one the character of which required that it should be discussed in the House, being sent upstairs.
§
Amendment proposed—
In line 10, at the end, to insert the words, '(c) Bills modifying or taking away any of the powers of the Crown or either House of Parliament.' "—(Sir F. Banbury.)
§ Questions proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. MCKENNAsaid the answer to the Amendment was much simpler than the noble Lord who had just sat down imagined. It was that these Bills were not, as he thought, Bills which arose once or twice in every century. His experience in the House had been short, but it had been long enough for him to have been responsible for two such measures. Last session he introduced two Bills, both of which modified the powers of the Crown—the Crown Lands Hill and the Treasury Powers Bill. The first dealt with the powers of the Board of Agriculture, and the second measure transferred from the Treasury to the Local Government Board the sanction for loans, and also dealt with rights to the foreshore. In both cases the character of the Bills was such as obviously made them suitable to go before a Committee upstairs. Indeed, nearly all departmental Bills in some way affected the powers of the Crown, and it was generally agreed that they should go for examination before a Committee. It was inconceivable, however, that great constitutional measures would be withdrawn from discussion in the House itself. Half the trouble of these debates arose from the fact that hon. Members only started to read the proposals when they began to discuss them 461 Was it conceivable that the House would allow great constitutional changes—changes as great as those effected by Cromwell when he removed the mace— to be discussed merely by a Committee upstairs? If the House was so unreasonable then indeed he could not conceive why such measures should not be discussed by reasonable men upstairs. If the House did not trust the Government they must trust themselves, and they had full power to punish any Government which should so misuse its power as to send great constitutional questions to any of these Committees. He appealed to hon. Members not to continue the discussion.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the right hon. Gentleman's defence was ingenious but not conclusive. He had given as an illustration two Bills which he last session had referred to Standing Committees—the Treasury Powers Bill and the Crown Lands Bill—and had said that those Bills affected the powers of the Crown. But that was not the wording of the Amendment. The Amendment said "modify or take away." There was a substantial difference between "affecting" and "modifying or taking away." Those Bills did not modify or take away any power of the Crown. What they did was to transfer the powers from one department of the Crown to another. He thought the silence of the right hon. Gentleman showed that he had destroyed his argument. He agreed that there were little Bills of the kind which had been referred to which ought to go upstairs, and if that could be prevented by the Amendment they would be very glad to have words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman which would take them out of the category covered by the Amendment. But he did not think that they would come under its words. As to the big Bills, the right hon. Gentleman had said that all their opposition arose from the fact that they did not read the Standing Order. Though it was in the power of any Member to move that the Bill be retained in the House, that was absolutely no protection to the minority. The only protection to the minority in the House was two-fold. In the first place it was in the sense of responsibility, fair play, and what was due to the dignity of the House and of its Members possessed by the Government of the day, 462 and especially by the Leader of the House. In the second place, if that was insufficient, it was in the opportunity of the minority to make their case before the House, and every one who had been in the House any time could recollect occasions when, if the Government had taken a division at once, they would have had a full majority, but when, after a two hours discussion, the Government had either withdrawn or modified their proposal or carried it by a remarkably reduced majority. It was not until they had a discussion in the House that they could ascertain whether or not a proposal was reasonable.
§ MR. MCKENNAThe Motion can be made immediately after the Second Reading discussion.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was a distinct Motion, and was put without discussion, His forecast was that the result of the Standing Order would be that on a Bill with a shadow of contention about it a Motion to keep it in the House would be made by some one as a matter of course, and equally as a matter of course, and without giving the question two minutes consideration, the majority would vote that it should go upstairs. That was no protection to the minority. The safegard which the right hon. Gentleman held out to them, that they could always divide the House, was merely an opportunity for them to make a protest; it was no opportunity to make their view prevail. The only other safeguard lay in the intention or the moderation of the Government of the day. The right hon. Gentleman had repeated phrases, used by other Members of the Government, that it would be absurd and unreasonable to send to a Committee upstairs a great constitutional measure. But the Prime Minister had used an ominous phrase just now. He had said, as regarded the particular Amendment under discussion, that its object would narrow the field of the operation of these proposals. What did he mean by that? Surely, it pointed to the fact that, if not now, at some future time which he had in his mind, the scope of these proposals would be wider than possibly was contemplated by Members now listening to the discussion. But whether the Government had that in mind or not, he staked his reputation 463 as a Parliamentary prophet that the Standing Order would be used more and more, and any quotations which might be made in the future of the intentions now expressed by Ministers would have no binding effect either upon them or upon other Ministers or the House of Commons as a whole. They would say, "No; we see the Standing Order; we look back to the Votes and Proceedings; we see that the House declined to exclude these Bills from the ordinary procedure of sending them upstairs; we see nothing inconsistent or improper in sending them upstairs." And they would send them upstairs. That suited the Party opposite for the moment; a little while ago it would have suited those on his own side of the House extremely well; some time hence it might suit them extremely well again. He made his protest against the action of the Government, but he and his friends reserved to themselves the right, when their time came, to use freely the weapons which the Government were forging.
§ VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R, Thirsk)said the right hon. Gentleman who had answered for the Government and opposed the Amendment, had tried to put them off by saying that departmental Bills under this Amendment would not be able to go upstairs, which was obviously the place for them. He had anticipated that they would have a more or less thin argument on behalf of the Government against this proposition, but he had not thought that it would bear so little investigation. It did not stand even a moment's criticism, because the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had shown very clearly that the Bills to which allusion had been made did not in any way modify or take away any power of the Crown. If he had not been able to show that, he had intended to suggest that the word "power" should be altered to the word "prerogatives," which he thought would convey the idea which his hon. friend the Member for the City of London, in moving this Amendment, set forth. After all, the Amendment was one of considerable importance. He was not alluding to the departmental Bills referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. He was alluding to the great constitutional questions which, after all, happily for us, 464 were seldom heard of in this country, but which, when they did occur, ought to receive the consideration of the Whole House, and not be relegated to any Committee upstairs. While it was perfectly true that the Committee upstairs represented Parties in the proportion which obtained in the House, yet they knew that forty could do against 400 what four could not do against forty. There could be no doubt that if the Opposition was small in number in Committee of the Whole House, it was still weaker in Committee upstairs than would be expected from the actual proportions. He had had experience of that during the short period he had been in Parliament. In Committee on the Land Tenure Bill they were in a very small minority, although the same proportion was maintained between Parties as in the House. What was the result? They moved Amendment after Amendment; those Amendments were received with considerable contempt upstairs; but when they came down to the House, and they had with them the Leader of the Opposition, and the assistance of their friends on that side of the House, who could enforce the views which they bad expressed upstairs, a good many of those Amendments were carried. That only showed the importance to the Opposition of having measures which they considered of the utmost importance discussed by the Whole House, and not relegated to a Committee upstairs, as was suggested. He did not think that the Minister for Education would have hesitated to accept this Amendment, which was obviously a sensible one, had it not been that the Prime Minister had made the rash statement the other day that the Government was not prepared to add any Bills to those already exempt from the Standing Order. He could only hope that the Prime Minister and the Government would reconsider that decision. If they put down certain Bills as exceptions to the ordinary course of procedure, he thought the lawyers would bear him out when he said that, ipso facto, every other Bill would be considered as not to be kept on the floor of the House. Therefore, when a private Member moved that a particular Bill should be referred to Committee of the Whole House, this Standing Order would be immediately quoted against him; it would be held 465 that, because a particular Bill was not among the class specified as those which were to be referred to Committee of the Whole House, it was intended, when the Standing Order was passed, that it should not be so referred, but should go upstairs.
§ MR T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)said it was now obvious why the Government had so long delayed their threatened proceedings against the House of Lords. They had been waiting for this new process of secret Committees, where they could effect unreported revolutions. That ought to make the Opposition all the more vigilant in watching in order to see that no power was taken from the House of scrutinising carefully any of the revolutionary proposals made by friends of the Government and afterwards accepted by the Government. If the House had any sense of justice and fair play left it would accept an Amendment which would keep these vital matters under the control of the House and not allow vital questions to pass to secret Committees upstairs, where the proceedings were not reported, where the Government was sure of an overwhelming majority, and where their nefarious doings were not made known to the public.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)appealed to the Government to accept the Amendment, which would really improve their powers as a Legislative Assembly. It was of vital importance that important Bills affecting or interesting the public should be threshed out in Committee of the Whole House. What happened on the Report stage was comparatively immaterial. The question for the House to consider was whether by relegating important measures to a Committee they would turn out better or worse work. As a lawyer he had had the advantage of seeing the way in which law was made in the House last year, and he had been struck with the great advantage of the Committee stage of important measures over the Report stage. In discussions which were reported the public saw points at once which hon. Members did not see, and which even the sharpest of them had not noticed. He might mention the case of the Workmen's Compensation Bill of last year, where, on the Report stage, they had 466 to discuss a number of very important matters afresh. They only needed to read the conundrums which were being put to legal gentlemen in the Press upon the Workmen's Compensation Bill to realise the confusion which resulted from legislating in that way. Surely, when dealing with questions upon which public criticism was useful and vital, such as the powers of the Houses of Parliament or the Crown, it was advisable that they should be discussed in Committee of the Whole House. The minority was practically powerless upstairs, and their criticisms would have little effect there, but the same criticisms might have the greatest possible effect if made in the House, where they were reported. He submitted it would be better for the House generally if more Bills were exempted from this strong and drastic proposition.
§ MR. DALZIELthought the hon. Member opposite was unnecessarily alarmed about the future, so far as the proposals of the Government were concerned. He was afraid the hon. Member could not have been present when the announcement was made that in future they were to have in the House a Committee stage on all Bills which went upstairs.
§ MR. RAWLINSONasked, if that was so, was there any guarantee that every Bill of the nature they were discussing would go to a Committee upstairs and would then be dealt with by the House in Committee as well as on the Report stage?
§ MR. DALZIELsaid the hon. and learned Member must not ask the Government to go too far. He thought they had already killed their own scheme by accepting the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Dublin University. There was no fear now that in future legislation would proceed at a more rapid rate.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI do not think this matter ought to be discussed now. It had better be discussed when the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is moved.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid he could assure the hon. Member that there would be 467 greater safeguards under the new Rule than there were at the present time.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)said there could be no doubt that discussions on important Bills in Committee of the Whole House, being reported in the Press, had an educative effect on the knowledge, opinion, and feeling of the country. From that point of view these new procedure proposals were of a destructive character. He understood that every Bill would automatically go upstairs to Committees where reports would not be made of the discussions. The result would be that the country would not be informed of what was being done. What took place on the Committee Stage of a Bill downstairs was often extremely instructive to the Government, the Opposition, and the country. Very often even the Minister in charge did not really understand the entire purport of the clauses of his Bill until it was brought home to him in the discussion in Committee, and if they lost the effect of that discussion in Committee of the Whole House in the case of important Bills, the House and the country would lose a great deal. The gainers would be the members of the legal profession, who would have complicated questions presented to the Courts on which they would argue with abundant ingenuity and fertility of resource to their own advantage, but not to the advantage of the administrative departments of the Government. Moreover, it would be possible, under the new rules, for a measure touching the relations between the two Houses, or affecting the prerogatives of the Crown, to be carried through Committee upstairs, with the aid of the closure, without the country being informed of what had happened until the Bill returned to the House on the Report stage. He understood that the Government contemplated some concession in regard to the Report stage, allowing Members to speak more than once, but that would not be equivalent to the full discussion in Committee of the Whole House. To expedite business, it would be better to proceed on the lines of somewhat curtailing the Report stage, leaving the Committee discussion as a means of fully informing the country upon the details of a Bill.
§ *SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)expressed regret at the attitude of the Government on this question. In old times, when it was the custom to send non-controversial Bills to .Standing Committees, the system succeeded, but, when that custom was departed from, those Committees failed, as he was afraid they would under the conditions now proposed. There were many Bills closely affecting social life and religious sensibilities which should have all the publicity that attached to discussions in the House. Speeches of the greatest interest were made in Committee, but never reached the public. The temper in Committee was different from that in the House. There was a feeling of haste and of limitation in point of time, and, what was very important, there was little assistance from members of the legal profession. It was on the members of that profession that they must largely rely for the interpretation of the law. He ventured to say that many of the Bills which had been sent to the Standing Committees would not have become law but for the assistance given by legal gentlemen. They had had this session most interesting discussions in the Standing Committees, and he believed that the passage of the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill would have been impossible without the assistance of the legal Gentlemen.
*MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid he thought the hon. Baronet was speaking father too generally on this matter. The Deceased Wife's Sister Bill had no connection with the Amendment before the House.
§ *SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he felt sure that the House would act wisely in exercising the greatest caution in sending these Bills to Standing Committees.
§ SIR E. CARSONthought that at least the ordinary courtesies of Parliamentary life entitled the Opposition to some answer from the Government to the arguments put forward from that side of the House. He knew that the Opposition were small in number, but he did not think it was in the least necessary that the Government should be always proclaiming their contempt for 469 minorities. Since the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education had addressed the House, the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members had raised important matters in regard to the question now under discussion; but the only answer given from the Government Benches was the ordinary look of contempt to which they were now becoming accustomed. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] That might seem to some hon. Members a matter for joke, but he could assure them that with five years' experience as a Member of the late Government, he had never found it in the least conducive to his own happiness or to the despatch of public business in the House, to treat minorities with contempt or to refuse to answer their arguments. Personally, he did not look upon the new Rules of Procedure, and this Rule in particular, with any grave anxiety; but he saw in them a good opportunity for others more enthusiastic than himself in Parliamentary tactics, not to forward but to obstruct the business of the House. That was not a course which he himself would care to adopt. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] He did not see why hon. Gentleman should laugh. He was entitled as a Member with fourteen years experience of the House, and as one who had contributed from time to time such ability as he possessed in his profession in trying to assist the passage of good legislation, to put forward the views which lie held on this occasion. It was perhaps because he was an Irishman that he could not help being amused that the Government proposed, by this new Rule, to send upstairs, without a moment's discussion, Bills affecting the Constitution of the country, the prerogatives of the Crown, and the relations between the Houses of Parliament, and yet excepted from the Rule Provisional Orders in regard to the electrical supply of a district or to drains. He thought that that really reduced the Rule to an absurdity. He believed that when the Government had passed those Rules and thereby stifled discussion in the House at a stage upon which it was most important that the House and the country should learn the real meaning of their Bills, so far from facilitating legislation Bills would be discussed upstairs day after day, not upon their merits or with the object of improving them, but because hon. Members 470 would feel that, being deprived of the power of considering them in the House itself, they ought to do all in their power to defeat them. [MINISTERIAL, cries of "Oh."] That might be an improper thing to do, but he would remind hon. Gentleman opposite that it was only two years since members of the Government were in Opposition and since the President of the Board of Education sat below the gangway on the Opposition side, and that the only reason they knew him at all at the time was that he was such an adopt in obstructing Bills. Did the Government think that, because they possessed such a majority as rendered the minority almost powerless, they were going to set up some orthodox system of purity in relation to the conduct of Bills, and that they would never have to face tactics in which they themselves for many years had helped to educate the House? If they were determined to bring under their Rule such important questions as those which related to the prerogative of the Crown and to matters between the two Houses, as far as he could see their Rules would be foredoomed to absolute failure.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he never knew a more flagrant and conspicuous instance of political ingratitude than the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He had occasion earlier in the evening to address himself to the consideration of an Amendment very much on the same lines as this, and he had said that they could not accept that Amendment, or any other Amendment in the same category; but he looked on the Front Bench opposite, and, always anxious to make friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, he selected the right hon. Gentleman as the Member whom it would be most expedient to conciliate, and said that, while all other Amendments of the kind were to be rejected, his Amendment he was prepared to accept. He had always been on good personal terms with the right hon. Gentleman, for he had always thought it safer to be on good terms with him. He thought that on this occasion he had conciliated the right hon. Gentleman, but he came into the House after a short absence and found him denouncing the Government in unmeasured terms because they would not accept this Amendment. He never expected his kindness 471 to meet with such a return. It would require a number of microscopes and a very minute examination to discover whether Bills might not in some way affect the powers of the Crown or of either House of Parliament. If exceptions were to be made, they ought to be more definite and easily ascertainable; but they were not supposed to make exceptions. The right hon. Gentleman's observations were founded on the mistake that underlay the whole attitude of the Party opposite—they thought those Rules would diminish the power of the House. He believed they would increase the power of the House. At present the House was hampered in carrying on the work of legislation, and the Government were endeavouring to expedite legislation and to make the examination of Bills which were to become law as thorough and as complete as possible. They thought that was to be done by consideration, deliberately and quietly, in Committees rather than in Committee of the Whole House. He had already said that the Government would enlarge the liberties and privileges of Members on the Report stage, to make up for the curtailment of the Committee stage, and yet the right hon. Gentleman made this terrible attack upon their scheme and anticipated evils which could not arise. They could not accept this Amendment or any other Amendment of the same kind. They were not prepared to admit any exception but that of financial Bills. The Hartington Committee on Procedure in 1886 expressed the view that every public Bill after the Second Reading, except a Bill originating in Ways and Means or confirming a Provisional Order should, unless the House otherwise ordered, be referred to a Standing Committee. The Government were now reviving that proposal. He believed it would accelerate business, and not produce any of the ill-effects which the right hon. Gentleman anticipated.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had accused his right hon. friend near him of ingratitude, because, although the right hon. Gentleman had accepted one of his right hon. friend's Amendments, the latter found something to criticise in another part of the Resolution. Whether that was a proper accusation to make he 472 did not know, but at all events the Prime Minister could not accuse him of ingratitude, because he had made no concession to him and he might criticise this proposal without coming under the moral animadversions of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by making reference to the Report of the Hartington Committee of 1886. As to that, he had two observations to make. The first was that it must be remembered that the distinguished members of the Hartington Committee had the opportunity after 1886 of carrying their proposals into effect. They all had alterations to propose in the Rules of the House, and took part in debate on the Rules of the House, but none of them revived the proposals of 1886. The list of names of the members of the Committee of 1886 included that of the Chancellor of the Duchy and those of the great bulk of Parliamentary authorities, and they carried great weight. But those authorities by their subsequent action showed that they did not believe in their own prescriptions.
§ *SIR HENRY FOWLERYou were the Leader of the House.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNot the whole time since 1886. The right hon. Gentleman had forgotten the Government of which he was so distinguished a member, when he and Sir William Harcourt and many other distinguished members of that Committee were in the Cabinet. The second observation he had to make was that the Government were not reviving the proposals of that Committee, who suggested that the House should be divided into four Grand Committees, and that those Committees should do their work in the hours in which the House now sat. There was something to be said in favour of that proposal. The Members of the Grand Committees which the Government proposed would have an amount of work which would prevent them from doing efficiently both their work in Committee in the morning and their work in the in the House in the afternoon. Therefore for these two reasons he did not think they ought to hear anything more of the Report of the Committee of 1886. He had only one more reason to urge, and it related to the main subject of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. What 473 was his argument? His argument was that the House would carry out its legislative duties more efficiently if it first discussed the details of a Bill in Committee upstairs, and then dealt with them on the Report stage, which was now to be so modified as to be absolutely indistinguishable from the Committee stage except in so far that at that stage it would not be competent to discuss questions of finance. If the argument of the Prime Minister amounted to anything, it amounted to this, that the business would be better dealt with on this principle than on the present principle; that discussion upstairs would be in a calm atmosphere and that the Bill would be quietly and comfortably dealt with; and that it would be less quiet and comfortable in the House in which it was to find its final perfection. If that argument had any value at all it indicated that every Bill should go upstairs. Was that the view of the Government? It was plainly not the view of the Government, whether the view of the Government was regarded from the point of view of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman or of his Rule, because the right hon. Gentleman said that whenever there were any big financial proposals in a Bill that Bill should be kept in the House. Why should financial proposals be less efficiently dealt with in the quiet and
§ comfortable atmosphere of a Committee upstairs? If it were a better method of dealing with legislation let it be applied to all Bills. Why was the Budget to be excepted? If anything ought to be discussed quietly and comfortably, surely it was the Budget. Why was that to be excepted? Everyone knew the reason. The real reason was that in the opinion of the Government Bills of really vital importance touching the interests of the country ought to be discussed in Committee of the Whole House. Therefore the Prime Minister's argument fell to the ground. Why was the most important business to be kept in the House if the better method of dealing with Bills was first to discuss them upstairs and then on the Report stage in the House? The more important a Bill was the more careful they should be to apply to it the most perfect instrument of legislation. The most important measures were going to be kept in the House. That was a proof that they were going to use an imperfect instrument in dealing with the great mass of legislation.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 65; Noes, 313. (Division List No. 109.)
477| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F | Faber, George Denison (York) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Faber, Capt, W. V. (Hants, W.) | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Fell, Arthur | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Balfour. Rt Hn. A. J. (City Loud. | Forster, Henry William | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) | Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley GeorgeD. |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Haddock, George R. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamilton, Marquess of | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Helmsley, Viscount | Valentia, Viscount |
| Carson, Rt, Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Houston, Robert Paterson | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Liddell, Henry | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Younger, George |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Nield, Herbert | |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Percy, Earl | Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. |
| Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Rawlinson. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Alden, Percy | Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Ambrose, Robert |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Agnew, George William | Armitage, R. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Astbury, John Meir | Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall | Kelley, George D. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Kincaid-Smith. Captain |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Barker, John | Ellis. Rt. Hon. John Edward | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset | Erskine, David C. | Lambert, George |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Essex, R. W. | Lamont, Norman |
| Barnard. E. B. | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Everett, R. Lacey | Lehmann. R. C. |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Ferens, T. R. | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Levy, Maurice |
| Beale, W. P. | Findlay, Alexander | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Beauchamp, E. | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Lough, Thomas |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Lundon, Thomas |
| Benn,W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Fullerton, Hugh | Lundon, W. |
| Bennett, E. N. | Gill, A. H. | Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs. |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Ginnell, L. | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Bethell, SirJ.H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Gladstone. Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Bethell, T. R, (Essex, Maldon) | Glover, Thomas | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) |
| Billson, Alfred | Grant, Corrie | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | M'Callum, John M. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | M'Crae, George |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | M'Hugh. Patrick A. |
| Brace, William | Gulland, John W. | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Branch. James | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | M'Killop, W. |
| Bright, J. A. | Gywnn, Stephen Lucius | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Brodie, H. C. | Hall, Frederick | Maddison, Frederick |
| Brooke. Stopford | Halpin, J. | Mallet. Charles E. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil | Marnham, F. J. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) |
| Burke, E. Haviland | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Massie, J. |
| Burns. Rt. Hon. John | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh | Meagher. Michael |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Harrington, Timothy | Menzies, Walter |
| Byles, William Pollard | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Haworth, Arthur A. | Montagu, E. S. |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Mooney, J. J. |
| Cheetham. John Frederick | Hedges, A. Paget | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Hemmerde, Edward George | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Clarke, C. Goddard | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morley, Rt. Hon. John |
| Cleland, J. W. | Higham, John Sharp | Morrell, Philip |
| Clough, William | Hobart, Sir Robert | Morse, L. L. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Hodge, John | Napier, T. B. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hogan, Michael | Nicholson, CharlesN. (Doncast'r |
| Collins, SirWm. J. (S.Pancras, W | Holden, E. Hopkinson | Nolan, Joseph |
| Condon. Thomas Joseph | Holland, Sir William Henry | Norton, Capt. CecilWilliam |
| Corbett, C H (Sussex, E.Grinst'd | Holt, Richard Durning | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hooper, A. G. | Nuttall, Harry |
| Cory, Clifford John | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | O' Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Horniman, Emslic John | O'Conner, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Cox, Harold | Horridge, Thomas Gardner | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Cremer, William Randal | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Dowd, John |
| Crombie, John William | Hudson, Walter | O'Malley, William |
| Crossley, William J. | Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Hyde, Clarendon | Partington. Oswald |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Illingworth, Percy H. | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Davies, David (MontgomeryCo | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Pearee, Robert (Staffs. Leek) |
| Davies, Ellis William(Eifion) | Jackson, R. S. | Pearee, William (Limehouse) |
| Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Jenkins, J. | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye |
| Delany, William | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St.Pancas, N.) | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Jones, SirD. Brynmor(Swansea) | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Pollard. Dr. | |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.) |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Jowett, F. W. | Radford, G. H. |
| Duckworth, James | Joyce, Michael | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness) | Kearley, Hudson E. | Raphael, Herbert H, |
| Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Simon, John Allsebrook | Walters, John Tudor |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro') | Sinclair, Rt, Hon. John | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent |
| Rees, J. D. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Wardle, George J. |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Snowdon, P. | Waring, Walter |
| Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'h | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n) | Spicer, Sir Albert | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Richardson, A. | Stanger, H. Y. | Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney) |
| Rickett, J. Compton | Steadman, W. C. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Watt, Henry Anderson |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Strachey, Sir Edward | Whitbread, Howard |
| Roberts, JohnH. (Denbighs.) | Straus. B. S. (Mile End) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Robertson, Sir G.Scott (Bradf'd | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire. |
| Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Stuart, James (Sunderland) | White, Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Robinson, S. | Summerbell, T. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Rowlands, J. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Runciman, Walter | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen. E.) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Scarisbrick, T. T. L. | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. | Wilson, Henry J. (York. W.R.) |
| Sehwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Thorne, William | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester) | Tomkinson, James | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne | Torrance, Sir A. M. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Sears, J. E. | Ure, Alexander | |
| Seaverns, J. H. | Verney, F. W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Seely, Major J. B. | Vivian, Henry | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. |
| Sherwell, Arthur James | Wadsworth, J. | Pease. |
| Shipman, Dr. John G. | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) | |
| Silcock, Thomas Ball | Walsh, Stephen |
§ SIR F. BANBURYthen moved to exempt from the operation of the proposed Standing Order "Bills dealing with the organisation of the Army or Reserve Forces, or with the Navy." He did not suppose that any argument that he could adduce would persuade the Government to accept the Amendment. The Prime Minister had already told them that with the exception of an Amendment which stood in the name of his right hon. friend the Member for the University of Dublin, he did not propose to accept any Amendments. Therefore he did not think that any arguments that he might be able to adduce would be likely to move him. It could not be contended that the Army was a question which was only interesting to a part of the House, because it was undoubtedly a subject of interest not only to the whole of the House but to the whole nation. The different sections of the House held different views and opinions upon the Army. He would like for a moment to point out the position hon. Members below the Gangway would be in if his Amendment was not accepted. In the event of this Rule being carried, all questions relating to the Army would go before one of these Grand Committees, and hon. Members below the Gangway would not be able to criticise them. The 478 Committee of Selection had to appoint either sixty or eighty Members according to the representation of Parties in the House. There were two Parties sitting opposite. It was true they were all called Liberals, but one section were Liberal Imperialists, and the other were ordinary Liberals. These Grand Committees would not be selected with the idea of considering any particular subject, but they would be constituted at the commencement of the session. If on one of those Committees there happened to be a majority of Liberal Imperialists they might on some questions join with the Members of the Opposition and the Labour Members might find themselves out-voted. It was certain that a Committee chosen to serve a variety of objects would not reflect the real opinion of the House upon such questions as Army Reform and other matters affecting the Army. He did not think it was very likely that in the near future they would have to deal with very serious questions affecting the Army, and therefore it could not be argued that the acceptance of his Amendment would interfere with the conduct of the general business of the House. His proposal would provide that any measures affecting the Army should be dealt with in Committee of the Whole House. Nobody 479 would deny that the Army was a vital necessity to the country. What would they gain by having such questions discussed upstairs? Why should he be deprived of listening to the arguments of hon. Members below the Gangway on Army matters? He would not have any opportunity of knowing what they said upstairs, because Hansard would not report them. He felt sure that, after mature consideration, the right hon. Gentleman would agree that at any rate they ought to ensure that matters relating to the Army should receive proper consideration. With regard to the Navy the force of his argument was much greater. There were rarely any questions in regard to the Navy likely to occupy much time, and he hoped hon. Members would be given every opportunity of expressing their views upon naval matters which everybody regarded as the most important that could be brought before the attention of Parliament and the country. The Navy was our first line of defence and the discussion of naval matters ought not to be relegated to a comfortable and quiet Chamber upstairs, to be dealt with by some sixty or eighty Members, where the country would not know what was being done. This was a most important Amendment. It dealt with the whole safety of the country. When he remembered what took place a few years ago when the country was in a difficult position he trembled to think what might be the result if our defences were to be left to the tender mercies of sixty or seventy Members chosen, one did not really know how, deliberating in a quiet manner in a Chamber upstairs where the proceedings were unreported.
§ MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)seconded the Amendment. He said it was not proposed that there should be a Service Committee, and yet Bills dealing with military and naval affairs would be referred to one or another of the four Standing Committees, though the Committee was appointed without regard to military or naval matters. It might have no military or naval representative on it at all. On the other hand, the Committee might have a predominant military or naval representation, and no Labour or trade union representative. He did not think hon. Members below the Gangway would 480 like to have military and naval matters settled upstairs without their having a voice in the discussion of the details. From whatever point of view they looked at it it was desirable that these matters should be dealt with by a Committee of the whole House, unless a special Service Committee was appointed. If these Procedure Rules were passed, the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill could be referred to one of the Committees, and he did not think any of the Committees was fit to deal with a Bill changing the whole of our military system. Looking a little further ahead, let them assume that the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill was a failure—he hoped it would not be—they would be face to face with the question whether they could go on with the voluntary system or not. He thought most people admitted that if the scheme failed, this country must go in for a compulsory system. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Were the details of a system of conscription, or compulsory service, to be dealt with by the Standing Committee on Law, or the Standing Committee on Trade, sitting almost in camera—for there was no official report of the proceedings? These matters were far too important to be decided in a slipshod manner by a Committee upstairs. The same argument applied in regard to matters relating to the Navy. It was manifestly desirable that the deliberations of the House, or any part of the House, should have the greatest possible publicity, and that they should not be confined to a small body selected without any reference whatever to their ability to discuss great questions of Imperial importance.
§
Amendment proposed—
In line 10, at end, to add, (c) 'Bills dealing with the organisation of the Army or Reserve forces, or with the Navy."—(Sir F. Banbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. HICKS BEACH (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury)said he was sorry they had had no reply vouchsafed them by the Government. He was in hearty sympathy with the Amendment, in favour of which the mover and seconder had put forward sound arguments. There were two grounds on which the Amendment ought to be accepted by the Government. 481 The first was that measures which dealt with questions of Imperial and National importance ought to be reserved for discussion by the Whole House. The second was that questions dealing with the maintenance of the Army and Navy, in which the electors of the country were most keenly interested, should also be reserved for consideration by the Whole House. That was forcibly brought to the attention of the House on the previous evening by the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs, who told them that he had been travelling about in his constituency, and had found that his constituents took the keenest interest in the Territorial Army Bill and that he thought it was his duty, as a supporter of the Government, to tell them what was the opinion of his constituents on that measure. He was sure that all the Members on the Opposition side of the House felt most strongly that any Bills dealing with the reorganisation of the Army or Navy ought to receive the fullest discussion in the House of Commons where that discussion could be fully reported in the newspapers. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had said that the Government were entirely in agreement with the argument that the House of Commons should have complete control over expenditure; but that could only be secured by discussing the administration of the Naval and Military Forces of the country in Committee of the Whole House. The Secretary for War, in introducing his Army Bill, had told them that the efficiency of the Auxiliary Forces would by it be materially improved, and that the expense of maintaining the Militia and Volunteers would be materially reduced. He submitted that the country would be unable to understand how the efficiency of those Forces could be maintained or improved unless the subject was discussed fully in Committee of the Whole House.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down. E.)recognised that far-reaching changes in procedure were being proposed by the Government, and it did not require one with very long practice of the House to see that if the Rule now under discussion was carried in its entirety a large amount of the influence of private Members would be taken away. As one who had taken the deepest interest 482 in the Army and Navy, he objected to Bills dealing with those Services being sent to a Committee upstairs. It would be a great loss to Scottish and Irish Members if they could not serve on the Committees which dealt with the affairs of their respective countries. Then, again, he looked forward with a great deal of interest to the discussion of the Territorial Forces Bill in Committee of the Whole House. The details of that scheme were being considered very carefully and cautiously, not alone by Members of the House, but by their advisers outside. They wished to assist the right hon. Gentleman in his scheme, but many of them might be prevented from bringing forward their ideas or those of the people who were assisting them, and in that case would be unable to assist the Secretary of State. No doubt the Committees were appointed fairly, but what the Secretary of State wanted was the true reflection of the feelings of the whole country. One able and energetic Member might possibly focus the aspirations and ideas of a large number of Members of the House, but he did not think that would carry so much weight as if the views of members of the different branches of the Service were heard. He could not conceive a more reasonable Amendment than that before the House, and he was convinced that if it was accepted the time of the House would in the long run be saved. If a private Member was burning with ardour to have his views expressed on some great subject in connection with the Army and Navy, the fact that the Committee had dealt with the matter would not prevent its being discussed at a greater length upon the Report stage than it would have been in Committee. If the Amendment were accepted it would tend to shorten debates in the House.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that what had happened in the last half hour sufficiently showed the necessity of some step's being taken to enable the House to deal with this matter, and to enable the Government to bring to a successful issue the scheme of procedure which they had brought before the House. He intended not the slightest discourtesy to hon. Members opposite when he said that it was idle to expect him or his friends to answer in detail each one 483 of these Amendments. It was perfectly clear what their object was. He had said from the first and repeated again and again, and given the reasons for his decision, that the Government could not possibly accept any Amendments of this kind. That being so, it seemed to be a misuse of Parliamentary time to go on proposing them and using any arguments that might be found to support them. What the Government proposed to do was to put down to-morrow a scheme of time-limit for the further discussion of these Rules, which scheme would be moved on Monday, the eleven o'clock rule being suspended for its discussion. The timing of the scheme, the appropriation of the time of the House, would be such as to bring the whole debate on the now Rules of Procedure to a close on Tuesday night. [An HON. MEMBER: On Monday?] No, they must get the resolution first on Monday, and put it into practice on Tuesday. He therefore begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."— (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
§ MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)said they had a new Motion before the House supported by a speech with which he, at any rate, found it impossible to agree. The Prime Minister had said that it was idle to expect that he or any of the Gentlemen who so ably assisted him could answer their Amendments in detail.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI referred to this particular series of Amendments.
§ MR. WYNDHAMsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman had not precluded him from dealing with the Amendment now before the House, and making a suggestion which even the right hon. Gentleman might at any rate have considered, he would have been in order in discussing the Amendment; but he had now to deal with the situation which the right hon. Gentleman had created by saying that it was impossible for them to expect him or any of his colleagues to deal with the Amendments in detail. Presumably that observation had some particular bearing on the Amendment before the House. The Prime Minister swept all those 484 Amendments into one category, and called them "Amendments of that character." Might they not retort that it was impossible for them to understand the position of the Government over this Amendment? The Chancellor of the Duchy had given it as his opinion that the Bill which was in the mind of all those who supported the Amendment, namely, the Bill affecting the Territorial Forces of the country, was not a Bill which ought to go upstairs. That was the view of the Chancellor of the Duchy.
§ *SIR HENRY FOWLERI never said that.
§ MR. WYNDHAMsaid that in that case there was a misunderstanding between them, because certainly on that side of the House it was understood that the Chancellor of the Duchy said that the Bill introduced drastic changes into the organisation of the forces of the Crown, and was bound to modify the financial control of the House in respect of the Forces of the Crown, and they understood him to mean that a Bill of that character ought not to go upstairs. That was what they understood, and it would have shortened the debate on the Amendment if they had boon allowed to remain in the belief that that was the view of the Government. But they were not allowed to remain in that belief. Another Minister of Cabinet rank, the Minister for Education, once Financial Secretary, and therefore a special authority on the control of the House of Commons over finance, had spoken, and he again must have been misunderstood by them, but he had certainly left the impression on them that that was a Bill which ought to go upstairs. And then the Prime Minister, who was a man of the world as well as a Minister, and who always believed in the easy middle course, intervened. One Minister had suggested that the Bill should go upstairs, and the other Minister had suggested that it ought not to go upstairs. Between the two, the Prime Minister convoyed to their mind the idea that some of the Bill should go upstairs, and that some of it ought to be retained in the House. That being the case, was it fitting that the Prime Minister should twit and taunt them with bringing forward Amendments which the Government could not understand. The 485 reason they had persisted with these Amendments was that they might understand the view of the Government upon what they thought was a fundamental principle of the Constitution, namely, that the House should retain control over the finance which affected the military forces of the Crown. The Prime Minister had been at the War Office, he had been an orthodox War Minister, and he had ever stipulated for the financial control of the House over the forces of the Crown; but now he came down at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock and said that he did not understand the Opposition. He was not only prepared to terminate the debate on the Amendment, but he shut out discussion upon a matter of so much importance. The sub-section at the beginning of Clause 3 was so important that he might venture to read it—
The Army Council shall pay to an association out of money voted by Parliament for Army services such sums as in the opinion of the Army Council are required to meet the necessary expenditure connected with the exercise and discharge by the association of its powers and duties.That was printed in italics and would be kept in the House. But in Clause 2, which preceded that sub-section and which was to be allowed to be discussed upstairs, there were provisions for spending money for the provision and maintenance of rifle ranges, buildings, magazines, sites of camps for the Territorial Force, establishing and maintaining or fostering and encouraging cadet battalions and corps, and rifle corps, the provision of horses for the peace requirements, and other matters entailing the expenditure of hundreds and thousands of pounds. All these matters were not printed in italics. Earlier in the afternoon the Government denounced and derided an Amendment brought in by a private Member, and said it was practically impossible to discuss a clause in italics downstairs and the rest of the Bill upstairs. Here was one of the principal measures of the session, involving a high expenditure, of which, if this rule was passed, four lines in italics could be dis 486 cussed as an isolated item downstairs and the rest would be discussed upstairs. The inconsistency of the Government beggared description. The right hon. Gentleman had led the House to believe that part of a Bill could be discussed downstairs and part upstairs. But when the right hon. Gentleman told them the only part to be discussed downstairs was the part in italics, and when the part in italics came after all the provisions to transfer from the House all the powers of the purse, then they had reached the point of farce, and there was no justification for the proposal the right hon. Gentleman had just made.
§ MR. DALZIELappealed to the Prime Minister to provide, in his limit of time for the discussion of the Rule, some opportunity to the private members to state their views. He expressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not assume that because the two front benches were agreed, the whole of the House was agreed on the principle of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. At present, if a private Member was early in the ballot and got his Bill through a Grand Committee he had a chance with the present Report stage of getting the Bill passed into law. But under the scheme before the House, having got his Bill through the Grand Committee, he would have to face all the dangers of what was practically a new Committee stage in the House, with the result that in the press of business at the end of the session, he would never get his Bill passed. He therefore begged the Government to give the House an opportunity of considering the Amendment, before they fixed a limit for ending the discussion.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINcalled attention to the importance of the statement made by the Prime Minister in moving the adjournment of the debate and its effect upon the arguments with which the Government bench had hitherto 487 met all the Amendments moved from the Opposition side of the House. It had always been objected to the Amendments moved from that side of the House either that they would exclude from the purview of the Grand Committee trivial measures which should go there, or that it was unnecessary to exclude grave matters because they might always trust to the sense of fairness of the Government of the day and to their desire that adequate discussion should be given to any great changes that might be proposed. They were discussing changes the extent of which the Government had made no attempt to minimise; in fact they prided themselves upon their magnitude. They were changes not in regard to any particular subject, but which affected their procedure in regard to every subject and every Bill. What did the sense of fairness in which they were told to put their trust lead the Government to do? It led the Prime Minister to come down to the House at half-past eleven o'clock with the announcement that he would bring forward a proposal which would stop all debate on his Resolutions the next day. That was an illustration of how little faith could be placed in any Government. He did not make that as a special charge against this Government, although he thought they had pressed their powers to an extent unknown in the history of Parliament. He did not think any hon. Member who sat in the last Parliament would deny that statement. [Cries of "Yes" and "the Member for Rushcliffe."] He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe would deny the statement he had made.
§ MR. ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe)said he traversed the statement entirely.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the late Government proposed Amendments to the Rules of the House which were fought with great persistency by 488 hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the Prime Minister. How many days were given? They had had three days on the present Rules, and they were promised one day more. The late Government gave seventeen days. As three were to seventeen so were the whips with which the Late Government scourged the then Opposition to the scorpions applied by the present Government to their opponents.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANWe have been three days over seven lines.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked what that had to do with the matter. A skilful draftsman could put a great deal into seven lines, and especially the first seven lines. The time spent on Bills must be measured by the importance of the subject discussed. Could the time spent on the Agricultural Holdings Bill or the Plural Voting Bill of last year be measured by the number of lines in the Bills as originally introduced? Let hon Gentlemen opposite read the number of lines inserted in those Bills, not because the Government thought they were necessary in the first place, but because they wore proved to be necessary the moment the questions were discussed. He would repeat his statement that the Government were using the power of their majority in a way unknown in the history of Parliament, and he would invite the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe to justify his contradiction. The right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench were going to sit on the Opposition Benches. ["When?"] Perhaps a great deal sooner than some hon. Members of the House imagined. The Government were now forging new weapons for their own purposes. He thought these changes were injurious to the House of Commons, but if the present majority insisted on making them, they would be used by their opponents when their day came. those 489 who wore now sitting on the Ministerial Benches would then stew in the juice which they had served out to their political opponents.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 288: Noes, 82. (Division List No. 110.)
491| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Dalziel, James Henry | Horridge, Thomas Gardner |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Davies, David(MontgomeryCo.) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hudson, Walter |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hutton, Alfred Eddison |
| Agnew, George William | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hyde, Clarendon |
| Alden, Percy | Delany, William | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Jackson, R. S. |
| Ambrose, Robert | Duckworth, James | Jenkins, J. |
| Armitage, R. | Duncan,C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Astbury, John Meir | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Jones, Sir D. Brymor (Swansea) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of wight) | Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire |
| Barker, John | Elibank, Master of | Jowett, F. W. |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Joyce, Michael |
| Barnard, E. B. | Erskine, David C. | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Barnes. G. N | Essex, R. W. | Kelley, George D. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Evans, Samuel T. | Kincaid-Smith, Captain |
| Beale, W. P. | Everett, R. Lacey | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Beauchamp, E. | Ferens, T. R. | Lambert, George |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Ffrench, Peter | Lamont, Norman |
| Bell, Richard | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.] |
| Benn,W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S.Geo. | Findlay, Alexander | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich] |
| Bennett, E. N. | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Levy, Maurice |
| Berridge, T.H. D. | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Bethell, SirJ. H. (Essex, R'mfrd) | Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Lough, Thomas |
| Bethel, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Fullerton, Hugh | Lundon, W. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Gill, A. H. | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Black, Arthur W. | Ginnell, L. | Macdonald, J.M. (FalkirkB'ghs |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn | Mackarness, Frederick C. |
| Brace, William | Glover, Thomas | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Branch, James | Grant, Corrie | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.] |
| Bright, J. A. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E. |
| Brodie, H. O. | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | M'Callum, John M. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Gray, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | M'Crae, George |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Gulland, John W. | M'Hugh, Patrick A. |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | M'Killop, W. |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hall, Frederick | Maddison, Frederick |
| Burnyeat, W.J. D. | Halpin, J. | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Hardie, J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil) | Marnham, F. J. |
| Causton, Rt.Hn.RichardKnight | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Massie, J. |
| Crwley, Sir Frederick | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh | Meagher, Michael |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E | Mond, A. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Clough, William | Haworth, Arthur A. | Montagu, E. S. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Montgomery, H. G. |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Hedges, A. Paget | Mooney, J. J. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hemmerde, Edward George | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Collins, Sir Wm.J. (S.Pancras,W | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morrell, Philip |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Higham, John Sharp | Morse, L. L. |
| Cooper, G. J. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Cobett,C.H. (Sussex, E.Grinst'd | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Nicholls, George |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hodge, John | Nicholson, CharlesN. (Doncaster |
| Cory, Clifford John | Hogan, Michael | Nolan, Joseph |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Holden, E. Hopkinson | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Cowan, W. H. | Holland, Sir William Henry | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Cremer, William Randal | Hops, John Deans (Fife, West) | Nuttall, Harry |
| Crossley, William J. | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset,N | O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Horniman, Emslie John | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| O'Doherty, Philip | Runciman, Walter | Thorne, William |
| O'Dowd, John | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Tomkinson, James |
| O'Grady, J. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Ure, Alexander |
| O'Malley, William | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. | Verney, F. W. |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Vivian, Henry |
| Paulton, James Mellor | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Wadsworth, J. |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Scars, J. E. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) | Seaverns, J. H. | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| pickersgill, Edward Hare | Seddon, J. | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Pirie, Duncan V. | Seely, Major J. B. | Wardle, George J. |
| Pollard, Dr. | Sherwell, Arthur James | Waring, Walter |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Radford, G. H. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Watt, Henry Anderson |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Smeaton, Donald Mackenie | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Raphael, Herbert H. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire |
| Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Snowdon, P. | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' | Spicer, Sir Albert | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford | Stanger, H. Y. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Rees, J. D. | Steadman, W. C. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Strachey, Sir Edward | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Richardson, A. | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Stuart, James (Sunderland) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Summerbell, T. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Robinson, S. | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Pease. |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Thomas Abel (Carmarthen E.) | |
| Rowlands, J. | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Fell, Arthur | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington |
| Ashley, W. W. | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Percy, Earl |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond. | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fletcher, J. S. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Forster, Henry William | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eeclesall) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Haddock, George R. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamilton, Marquess of | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Helmsley, Viscount | Starkey, John R. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Ed'ds | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Suff'sh. |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Houston, Robert Paterson | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hunt, Rowland | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire) |
| Cave, George | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Liddell, Henry | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore. | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. K. | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Magnus, Sir Philip | Younger, George |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Morpeth, Viscount | Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Cross, Alexander | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield | Viscount Valentia. |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Nield, Herbert |
§ Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
§ And it being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House 492 without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at ten minutes before Twelve o'clock.