§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [25th March] to Question [20th March]. "(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. 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 brief explanatory 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.)
Which Amendment was—
In line 1, after the word 'time,' to insert the words 'during the time for opposed business."—(Mr. Bowles.)
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. STANLEY WILSON (Yorkshire, E.R., Holderness)
said that when the House rose on the previous night the Government found themselves in a position of considerable difficulty, and he ventured to say that they had not realised what the effect of these Resolutions was going to be. When he moved the adjournment 1677 it was not with any idea of obstructing the business of the House, but in order to give the Prime Minister an opportunity of reconsidering the whole question in view of the difficult position in which he found himself. The effect of the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Norwood was that only those Bills should be sent to the Standing Committees which had passed Second Reading during the time of opposed business. That, he ventured to say, was a most reasonable regulation, but it was one which the Government had refused to acquiesce in. They had listened yesterday to the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, and of the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone. They had brought arguments forward which the Prime Minister had not made any attempt to answer, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able in a few words to say whether he was going to accept the Amendment, or to introduce words which would achieve the same object. The arguments addressed to the Government were unanswerable. It was absolutely essential that they should safe guard the interests of private Members, and see that Bills passed through the House during the time of unopposed business did not go upstairs automatically. He believed that was not the desire of the Government. The Prime Minister had said yesterday that it was very easy for any Member to stop any Bill that came before the House at the time for unopposed business; he had only to rise in his place and say he objected to the Bill. But the House knew perfectly well that it was not possible for all hon. Members to be continuously in the House, and to be ever on the look out for Bills to which they were opposed. He did not believe that hon. Members read the mass of private Bills sent to them from the Vote Office. It might happen that one of them had an inoffensive title, and hon. Members might think it unobjectionable and allow it to go through. If that happened, there was no one to prevent its going upstairs. On the previous day they had heard a very remarkable speech from the Chancellor of the Duchy in answer to a question put to him by the Leader of the Opposition who had placed before the Government 1678 the case of a Bill on a Friday when the closure was moved at ten minutes to five o'clock and the division on the Second Reading was not concluded until ten minutes past five. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Government what they were going to do with that Bill if they did not wish it to go upstairs to Grand Committee. He did not think that the Chancellor of the Duchy realised the state of affairs at all, because he replied that if the Government were of opinion that the Bill ought not to go upstairs they would at once make a Motion to that effect and a division would be immediately taken. But was it possible to make such a Motion as that after five o'clock? It was impossible for any individual to make it at all, and he thought that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was inappropriate. He admitted that the Prime Minister did seem to realise the difficulty, for he had risen in his place and said that the Resolution was not intended to have the effect that they feared it would have, but that if it were found that it would have that effect, he would introduce words to guard against it.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,) Stirling Burghs
said it would save time if he informed the hon. Member that the Government had already put on the Paper notice of an Amendment. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman wished to say anything more on that.
MR. STANLEY WILSON
regretted that he had not seen the words on the Paper. There was a very considerable number of Amendments and he had not run through them all. Therefore he had not at present realised what effect the form of words which the Government proposed to move would have, but he took the Prime Minister's assurance that they would have the effect with which his hon. friend would be satisfied.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
said he had not opposed the Motion for the adjournment of the debate last night for the simple reason that it was one minute to eleven o'clock, when it seemed unnecessary to do so. He had put the words on the Paper, and perhaps 1679 the House would allow him to expand them a little. The words were as followed—Such Motion shall not require notice, may be made by any Member, and may be decided after the expiration of time for opposed business.He thought that fully carried out the intentions of the hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)
said it would be more desirable to analyse the words of the Prime Minister when they came to the point in its order. The right hon. Gentleman would have to move them either in the form just laid down, or perhaps in some slightly amended form. Might he remind the House that really two points were raised in concluding the debate last night. One was dealt with by his noble friend the Member for East Marylebone and the other was chiefly dwelt upon by his hon. friend the Member for Norwood, in whose name the Amendment now before them stood. What the hon. Mem-
§ ber for Norwood had in view was that there were Bills passed sub silentio after eleven o'clock, and that it was not desirable that such Bills should go automatically to the Grand Committees; in other words, that only Bills which had undergone a certain amount of discussion in the House should obtain the privileges that this Standing Order intended prima facie to confer on particular measures. That point had not been strictly before them, and was not covered by the words which the Prime Minister had read.
§ MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)
Yes, Sir; I think under the circumstances I will press my Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: —Ayes, 66; Noes, 237. (Divison List No. 94.)1681
|Acland-Hood,Rt HnSirAlex.F.||Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan||Nield, Herbert|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Fell, Arthur||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Parker,Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)|
|Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn Hugh O.||Fletcher, J. S.||Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington|
|Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon.Sir H.||Forster, Henry William||Percy, Earl|
|Balfour,Rt. HnA.J.(CityLond.)||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gordon,Sir W.Evans-(T'r Ham||Rawlinson,John FrederickPeel|
|Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)||Hardy,Laurence(Kent, Ashford||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.||Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Beach,Hn. Michael HughHicks||Heaton, John Henniker||Smith,Abel H.(Hertford,East)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS. Edm'ds||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hills, J. W.||Starkey, John R.|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hunt, Rowland||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Kennaway, Rt.Hon. SirJohn H.||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Kenyon-Slaney,Rt. Hon.Col.W||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cavendish,Rt. Hon. VictorC.W.||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Law,Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone,E.)||Liddell, Henry||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B.Stuart-|
|Collings,Rt. Hn.J.(Birmingh'm||Long,Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin,S)|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Tellers for the Ayes— Mr.|
|Cross, Alexander||Magnus, Sir Philip||Bowles and Mr. Stanley|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Wilson.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Du Cros, Harvey||Nicholson, Wm.G.(Petersfield)|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Baker,Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)||Bellairs, Carlyon|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Bennett, E. N.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)||Billson, Alfred|
|Agnew, George William||Barker, John||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Barnard, E. B.||Black, Arthur W.|
|Alden, Percy||Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)||Boland, John|
|Asquith,Rt.Hon.HerbertHenry||Beale, W. P.||Bowerman, C. W.|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Beauchamp, E.||Brace, William|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N.E.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Brigg, John||Haworth, Arthur A.||Partington, Oswald|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Hayden, John Patrick||Paul, Herbert|
|Brooke, Stopford||Hedges, A. Paget||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hemmerde, Edward George||Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Perks, Robert William|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Henry, Charles S.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Price,C.E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn.SydneyCharles||Higham, John Sharp||Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Hobart, Sir Robert||Radford, G. H.|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Causton,Rt. Hn. RichardKnight||Hodge, John||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'|
|Channing,Sir Francis Allston||Holland, Sir William Henry||Redmond, John E. (Waterford|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Rees, J. D.|
|Clarke, C. Goddard||Hudson, Walter||Renton, Major Leslie|
|Cleland, J. W.||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th|
|Clough, William||Idris, T. H. W.||Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Clynes, J. R.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Jardine, Sir J.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Collins,Sir WmJ.(St. PancrasW||Jenkins, J.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Cooper, G. J.||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Corbett, C. H.(Sussex,E Grinst'd||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Robinson, S.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Cory, Clifford John||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Jowett, F. W.||Runciman, Walter|
|Cox, Harold||Joyce, Michael||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Kearley, Hudson E.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Crombie, John William||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Cullinan, J.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)||Laidlaw, Robert||Seely, Major J. B.|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Sheehy, David|
|Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)||Lambert, George||Sinclair, Rt. Hon, John|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Lamont, Norman||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.)||Snowden, P.|
|Duckworth, James||Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington)||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Duncan, C.(Barrow in-Furness||Levy, Maurice||Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.|
|Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall||Lewis, John Herbert||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Lough, Thomas||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Elibank, Master of||Lundon, W.||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Erskine, David C.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Summerbell, T.|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Essex, R. W.||Macdonald,J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Evans, Samuel T.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Everett, R. Lacey||MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr|
|Faber, G. H. (Boston)||M'Crae, George||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Ferens, T. R.||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Ure, Alexander|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Verney, F. W.|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Vivian, Henry|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Marnham, F. J.||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Massie, J.||Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds, S.)|
|Ginnell, L.||Masterman, C. F. G.||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Gladstone,Rt.Hn. Herbert John||Menzies, Walter||Wardle, George J.|
|Glover, Thomas||Molteno, Percy Alport||Waring, Walter|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Gooch, George Peabody||Montagu, E. S.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Grant, Corrie||Mooney, J. J.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Greenwood, C. (Peterborough)||Morgan J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax|
|Gulland, John W.||Murnaghan, George||Wiles, Thomas|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Nicholson, Charles N(Doncast'r||Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthn|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Nolan, Joseph||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Halpin, J.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Hardie,J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Hardy, George A. Suffolk)||O'Grady, J.||Pease.|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wortc'r)||O'Kelly,James(Roscommon, N.|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||O'Malley, William|
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford)
moved to omit the words "on Motion to be decided without amendment or debate." They found themselves in a difficult position as to what was to be the course of procedure. Objections had been raised and they had been met by the Amendment suggested by the Prime Minister. There was no word in the Resolution to show actually the moment when it was the intention of the Government that the Motion should be made. If it was intended that it should always follow consequentially on the Second Reading the Government would have put the word "forthwith" in the original Resolution. That therefore was evidently not the intention of the Government. They were now left in a state of uncertainty as to whether the Motion was to be made immediately after Second Reading or whether it could be deferred. The position was complicated by the fact that the provision made in paragraph 1 was different from that in paragraph 2. In the first paragraph, when a Bill had been read a second time it must go to a Standing Committee unless otherwise ordered. Under paragraph 2 the Member in charge of the Bill might make a Motion committing some of the provisions of a Bill to a Standing Committee and some to a Committee of the Whole House. With reference to the actual words which he moved to omit he maintained that they were a very strange departure from the course usually followed in connection with procedure. There were many instances of the same words being used in connection with the Standing Orders, but they were not used at present in connection with any stage of the proceedings upon which debate was actually necessary. They were, he was aware, introduced in connection with Motions extending the time in which matters could be debated. The same Motion might be used in connection with the closure when the time had come in the opinion of the Chair for the debate to end. They also had the same Motion in the case of a Minister deciding as to whether Supply should be taken on the second day of the week or not. But it was the first time such a Resolution had been proposed in regard to the Committee stage of a Bill. It had always been held that reference at any length in a debate 1684 on the Second Reading to the question whether a Bill should go to a Committee or not was out of order, because it was connected with another Motion entirely. That had been the rule hitherto, and it was desirable to know whether it was going to be the rule in the future. If the House did not debate a Bill fully on Second Reading, when was it to give an opinion? It seemed to him that in the mind of the Government the half was greater than the whole. He thought they were justified in asking for some further explanation, because this was a new form of procedure in connection with legislation which required some defence. It would be admitted by all that a Bill of a controversial character must inevitably be debated at considerable length so far as the details were concerned as well as principles. The House was aware that hon. Members would have no opportunity of discussing those principles in Committee. He would like to hear on what grounds the Government defended this new proposal which took away from the House any possibility of discussing the merits of a Bill in connection with its relegation to a Grand Committee.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University),
in seconding, said he did not see why the point involved in the Amendment could not be conceded by the Government. In ninety-nine cases out of every 100 the discussion would occur outside the time limited to opposed business. It might be a safeguard that such a discussion should take place. Last session there were one or two Bills in regard to which it would be difficult to say whether they would have gone to a Committee of the Whole House or upstairs. He instanced the Plural Voting Bill in regard to which most of the work was done in Committee. Then there was the Workmen's Compensation Bill which was sent to a Standing Committee of which he was a member. In the case of that Bill the bulk of the work was done on the Report stage. The Government were defeated upstairs several times, and consequently several matters had to be set right on Report, He was glad that the Government had adhered to their decision to treat all Bills alike and to apply the rule to Bills passed sub silentio after eleven o'clock at night. But surely they ought to have a 1685 right to discuss such Motions as these after eleven o'clock, because a few words of explanation might be necessary to satisfy the House. In the case of a Bill which was allowed to go through by arrangement with both sides of the House upon the understanding that it should be sent to a Committee of the Whole House, a few words from both sides might at once put the matter right. He submitted that they were making a great departure from existing procedure in sending Bills automatically upstairs, and the least the Government could do would be to allow some sort of discussion to determine whether it was the desire of the House that a Bill should be sent upstairs or be referred to a Committee of the Whole House.
In lines 2 and 3, to leave out the words, "on Motion to be decided without amendment or debate."—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
said the object of the alteration now proposed was to facilitate business and get on with the work. He did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite quite realised what was intended. The Government did not make any secret of their intention, which was that the great majority of Bills should go upstairs. Such Bills as the Workmen's Compensation Bill, and others to which the hon. and learned Member had referred, were precisely the class of Bills which ought to go upstairs, and the only Bills which the Government wished to reserve for the whole House would be the great Government measures of the session. It was not at all desirable that time should be spent unnecessarily after 11 o'clock. Anyone could make the Motion under the new rule and it would be settled without debate. If they did not make provision there would probably be a debate and a considerable amount of delay upon each occasion. The Government did not consider that that would be advisable, and therefore it was important that it should be generally understood that all Bills, 1686 except those of the kind to which he had referred, would go upstairs.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)
pointed out that the course proposed might stand in the way of concessions from the Government to the Opposition as to Bills which it was desired to refer to a Committee of the whole House. If the Amendment of his hon. friend were accepted there would still be difficulties in the way of taking Bills downstairs. He thought that proper notice ought to appear upon the Paper of any Motion of the kind.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
said the Amendment he had suggested stated that such Motion would not require any notice and might be made by any hon. Member.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY
said he was still of opinion that such a Motion ought to appear in the ordinary way on the Paper.
§ * SIR FRANCIS POWELL
said he could not agree with the right hon. Member for the Hallam Division upon this occasion. On the contrary he thought it was expedient that the House should have an opportunity not only of voting but also of giving reasons for their vote. There were many Bills which were read a second time, but were quite fit for the Standing Committee, and others which were not fit for that tribunal to deal with, and hon. Members who came into the House quite new to the question under discussion would not be aware of the arguments which had been used for and against the Motion. He thought the business of the House would be facilitated and its progress accelerated if they had an opportunity of discussing this change. He viewed with apprehension crude legislation which must be mischievous and which was bound to occupy a great deal of time. He felt strongly that by this change in their procedure they were moving too fast, and, as a friend of freedom of debate, he would support the Amendment.
§ SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)
said it had been suggested that 1687 the adoption of the Amendment might stand in the way of the Government's acting in certain matters with the Opposition. They could see what the result of that would be. The Government having assented, at the request of the Opposition, to allow a Bill to remain in Committee of the Whole House, a discussion might take place on the question whether that course should be agreed to. The Government might say: "Although we are desirous of allowing the Bill to remain in Committee of the Whole House, yet, in view of the fact that we know for a certainty that discussion will arise, we cannot agree to your request." He hoped his hon. friend would persevere with his proposal. He did not think they should do evil that good might come. With the two exceptions of the Motion for the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule and the Motion for the application of the closure, he did not know any subject which had not been from time immemorial debate able. The two exceptions belonged to quite a different category. The closure was instituted in order that the Government might deal with obstruction. The suspension of the eleven o'clock rule was introduced with the same object. Now it was proposed to go further, and to put a weapon into the hands of the Government to stifle debate—a thing which had never been done before in the history of Parliament. The Prime Minister, speaking with great candour on the subject, had said that the object of the new rule was to facilitate business, and that it was not desirable that time should be spent in discussion. But did the House desire that business should be facilitated by the stifling of discussion? They might facilitate business by preventing discussion altogether, and by merely dividing upon a Bill when it was brought in by the Government, That was the only argument which the Prime Minister had advanced for refusing to accept the Amendment. The proposals were calculated to increase the power of the Government and to decrease the power of the House of Commons. He admitted that speeches seldom influenced votes, though he remembered an occasion, about twelve years ago, when the Chancellor of the Duchy made a speech by which his vote and the votes of a great 1688 number of Members on both sides of the House were turned. It was not the desire of the House of Commons absolutely to stifle discussion. He would say personally that the best way to facilitate business was not to bring in so many Bills. Both Parties were to blame in that matter. When the Conservatives were in office he often thought that they would have done better if they had not been quite so keen for legislation. That was a simple method of facilitating business without changing the procedure and forms of the House. Their forms were extremely good, but like everything else, they were not perfect. He would be sorry to see them altered in the direction of stifling discussion. He was quite certain that Mr. Gladstone would not have approved of a Motion of this sort being made without discussion.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS (Kent, St. Augustine's)
said the Prime Minister had stated that the only Bills to be reserved for discussion in Committee of the Whole House were the greater Government Bills. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman meant those measures to which a special paragraph was devoted in the King's Speech, and known as big-print Bills. The question whether a Bill was so little controversial that it should go upstairs rested entirely with the Government, and the House would have no opportunity of deciding whether, in their opinion, a Bill was controversial or not. The Government were also to have the power of deciding whether or not private Members' Bills should go upstairs. He suggested that the House ought to have some intimation from the mover beforehand as to what was intended to be done with a Bill if it passed Second Reading. He could see no objection to a Bill, after Second Reading, being referred to a Committee upstairs, but they should know before the Second Reading was passed that that was the procedure proposed to be taken. He supported the Amendment on the ground that the question whether a Bill should or should not be sent to a Committee upstairs was one which ought not to be decided until Members on both sides had had an opportunity of expressing their opinions.
§ MR. ALEXANDER CROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie)
said it was all very well to say that the question whether a Bill should be referred to a Committee upstairs should be discussed by the House, but after the Second Reading the discussion on the question of referring it to a Committee was, generally speaking, merely for the purpose of blocking the measure. The debate on the Second Reading was exhaustive, so far as freedom of debate was concerned. The long wrangle which followed the Second Reading was sometimes for the purpose of preventing the Bill from making the further progress to which it was entitled. If a majority of the House voted for the Second Reading, it seemed to him that an opportunity should be given for the detailed discussion of the measure in Committee. Politicians outside, who considered the methods by which the business of the House was conducted, sometimes had their feelings roused, and they expressed the hope that some day the House would arrive at a better means of getting through the work they had to do. He regretted that the Party on his side of the House should meet all amendments of procedure in a spirit of uncompromising opposition. He thought the Opposition would better fulfil its function if it directed its attention to serious points. He was quite certain that the time would come when, in order to facilitate the business of the House of Commons, they would have to shorten speeches. He held that when a Bill had been amply and completely debated on the Second Reading it should then go automatically, without further debate, to the Committee which was to consider its details. On that ground, therefore, he supported the Government, and he doubted whether his hon. friend was wise in pressing his Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)
said that he could not agree with his hon. friend the Member for Glasgow. He was a young Member, but had been sufficiently long in the House to realise that there was a great deal of difference between the procedure of the Committee upstairs and the Committee of the Whole House. It seemed to him to be a very 1690 strong order to say that Bills should not be allowed to be discussed on the floor of the House. If the Women's Enfranchisement Bill, for instance, had passed Second Reading by only a small majority, on account of its controversial character the opportunity ought to have been given to hon. Members who did not approve of the Bill to discuss whether it should be sent to a Standing Committee upstairs, or referred to a Committee of the Whole House. After all, although a Member might not have a great interest in the whole of a particular Bill, he might wish to put down one or two Amendments on details which were of interest to his constituents, and he might not be able to do that because the Bill was out of his reach in the Committee upstairs. Therefore he hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment, which he was assured would not lend itself to much abuse supposing it were possible to limit the time of the discussion and the number of Members who could speak.
§ MR. EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid.)
thought that the noble Lord had misapprehended the Amendment before the House. The normal state of things would be that a Bill would go automatically upstairs after Second Reading; and the only effect of the Amendment was that it would be necessary to have a discussion upon Motion made as to whether the Bill should be retained in the full House or go upstairs. The Member for the City of London had said that if the Amendment were not carried discussion would be crushed; but he would remind the hon. Baronet that at present if a Bill had passed its Second Reading it automatically went to the Committee without discussion.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
thought that it would be much better if they were allowed on every occasion to decide after debate under a ten minutes regulation whether the Bill was to be kept in the House or sent to a Committee upstairs. He quite agreed with the Prime Minister that they should not have a full-dress debate as to whether a Bill should be sent upstairs or kept for consideration in Committee of the Whole House. But 1691 that point was not raised by the Amendment, and he did not think that private Members should be discouraged from endeavouring to get their Bills into Committee upstairs. He suggested that his hon. friend should not press his Amendment to a division. He would have preferred an Amendment which would have given to the House a qualified power of debate.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
then moved the Amendment which he had read to the House earlier in the day.
In line 3, after the words 'otherwise order,' to insert the words 'and such a Motion shall not require notice, may be made by any Member, and may, though opposed, be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said that while he recognised the desire of the Prime Minister to meet the views of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to adopt the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition as to something in the nature of a ten minutes rule for discussing whether a Bill should be sent upstairs or retained for consideration in Committee of the Whole House. There might be a Bill on which there was unanimity of opinion in regard to its general principles, but a wide difference of opinion in regard to some details. He himself had had charge of such Bills, and some of the clauses had been opposed on non-Party lines. The course of the debate on the Second Reading of a Bill of that kind would be quite different from a debate upon a Bill referred to a Grand Committee. If the Prime Minister would alter his Amendment so as to allow two short speeches, one for and the other against the Motion, it would remove a good deal of his opposition.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY
was understood to ask whether under the wording of the Resolution the Motion could be made on a subsequent day. It was desirable that Motions in that House should be something more than formalities. He took it that these Motions would be made by the Government—that no private Members would make them, but that they would be brought forward by the Government on behalf of private Members' Bills.
§ SIR R BANBURY
agreed that the effect of the proposal would be that a Bill would remain to be considered by Committee of the Whole House unless the House otherwise ordered. By attempting to go against well-defined rules they found themselves in a dilemma. He thought before they passed these words, they ought to consider them a little more carefully than they had done up to the present. He saw very great difficulty in regard to the matter. Unfortunately there was no Report stage in reference to these Resolutions, but he asked the Prime Minister whether he could not make some small concession to the effect that the Motion should only be made sometime before opposed business came to an end. If it was only to be made after opposed business there would not be a proper opportunity of opposing the Motion. The result of the present proposal would be that they might not get a proper decision of the House, and as he read it that Motion might be made at any hour.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
pointed out that the word "unless" necessarily made the matter a continuous transaction. Unless the House otherwise ordered it would be committed to committing the Bill to a Committee upstairs.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said that might be the intention of the Government, but there was nothing, as the Motion stood, to prevent an hon. Member on Wednesday from making a motion in regard to a Bill the Second Reading of which was passed on Tuesday.
§ MR. EVANS
was certain that the intentions of the Government were quite clear, but it was also perfectly clear that 1693 on a subsequent day a Motion might be made by some private Member for referring a Bill to a Standing Committee. Some notice should, he thought, be given of such a proceeding. The Government said now that the transaction was to be a continuous one, and that the Motion would be moved immediately after the Second Reading, but the proposal before the House did not make that certain. He suggested that if there was a loophole it could be provided against by inserting words to the effect that such Motion must be made immediately after the Bill had been read a second time.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that whilst he agreed with the hon. and learned Member that the words suggested would avoid a considerable amount of difficulty in the future, he thought before introducing them the House ought to consider whether it was necessary to give notice or not. His own view was that notice ought to be given. He thought that when Members came down on a Friday afternoon to vote for or against a Bill, they ought to know what the intention of the mover was with regard to it. It was extremely desirable, therefore, that a notice should be put on the Paper as to what that intention was. The House should also consider whether there ought not to be a notice on the Paper at the time of the Second Reading of Government Bills to show what was the view of the Government. It was an old practice in regard to Committees to put a notice on the Paper saying to what Committee a Bill, when read a second time, should go. It was never compulsory, it was true, but it was efficient, and there was a good deal to be said in favour of the practice, so that the House might know where it was. There was a more important point upon the general question in regard to which he would like an explanation if the Government would give it. The first paragraph of the new Standing Order as now proposed stated categorically that one of only two things could happen after a Bill had received its Second Reading. Either the Bill automatically went to a Committee, or by a decision of the House it was kept in Committee of the Whole House. Paragraph 1 1694 contained the proposal of no other alternative, but paragraph 2 contemplated a third alternative, and he did not see the interstice in the procedure into which that alternative could find its way. How was a Member who desired to refer half his Bill to a Committee and to keep half in the House to make a Motion to that effect? Where was the interstice in the procedure for the facilities of paragraph 2 after the passing of paragraph 1? This was not a question of policy, but of drafting, and he thought it was a defect in drafting which the Government would do well to consider.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
thought it would be sufficient to insert the words "provided that" at the commencement of paragraph 2.
§ MR. RAWLINSON
asked whether it would not be better to put some saving words in paragraph 1 such as "saving as hereinafter provided" after the word "debate" and before the words "otherwise ordered."
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
said that if no Motion was made the House would commit the Bill upstairs. That procedure would, of course, be restricted by a proper method of reversing the decision afterwards. In ordinary cases it would be decided that the Bill should be referred to one of the Standing Committees. That would create the necessity for proceeding immediately if it was wished to prevent that being done. He did not see the necessity for the words suggested, but if the rule was not thought to be perfectly clear he was prepared to accept an Amendment to meet the point that the matter might be hung up and a Motion surreptitiously made to the great inconvenience of the House. He did not see that the power of the Government would be increased by the addition of the words suggested, and he thought it was better 1695 to leave the matter to the decision of the House. He would be disposed to accept the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend.
§ MR. FORSTER (Kent, Sevenoaks)
did not see how, in the rule which the Prime Minister had submitted to the House, they were going to send a Bill to a Select Committee. Under the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman every Bill would stand referred to a Standing Committee, unless the House "otherwise ordered." It seemed to him that they might find some considerable difficulty where there were two Members, one anxious that the Bill should go to a Select Committee, and the other anxious to keep it in the House. Which was to have priority? He did not gather that more than one Motion could be made after the Bill had been read a second time. It seemed to him that it would be a matter of luck or arrangement which Member was able to make the Motion which would decide the subsequent fate of the Bill. That was a point which no doubt the Prime Minister had considered, and doubtless could enlighten them upon.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
said the sending of a Bill to a Select Committee had always been a separate transaction. It was not a very usual course, and was the subject of a separate Motion. It would be quite possible, he should think, after the House had allowed the Bill to go to one of the Standing Committees, for a Motion to be made, either on the same day or any other day, that such a Bill, instead of being committed to the Standing Committee in accordance with such decision, should be referred to a Select Committee.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
asked whether that was possible according to their rules? The Bill, by hypothesis, had gone to Grand Committee or Committee of the Whole House as the case might be. At all events the whole thing had been settled after the Second Reading. How then was it to be withdrawn by a separate Motion? He did not think that when Committee of the Whole House was seised of a Bill it was possible to send it to a Select Committee. 1696 Was it proper to ask the counsel of Mr. Speaker on that point? Was it competent for a Member of the House, after a Bill had actually been sent to Grand Committee, or when it was actually in Committee of the Whole House in ordinary practice, then to send it to a Select Committee? He did not remember that ever having been done.
§ * MR. SPEAKER
It would be necessary to discharge the original Order, and the House could order the Bill to be sent to a Select Committee. Of course, the hon. Member who wished to do that would have to find his own time for making the Motion.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that if the Member in charge of the Bill would not make a Motion, then automatically the Bill went upstairs. What Order was there to discharge in that case?
§ * MR. SPEAKER
I thought the right hon. Gentleman was asking what is the present practice. I cannot say what will be done; that is for the House to settle now. As to the present practice, if a Bill has been ordered to Grand Committee or committed to Committee of the Whole House, in that case it would be necessary for the hon. Member to move to discharge that particular Order, and to ask the House to send the Bill to a Select Committee. But, as I have said, the hon. Member who is in charge of the Bill would have to find his own time for doing that. He cannot simply put the Motion down and take it at the commencement of business, or at any other time; he must find his own time. What the practice will be after this Standing Order comes into force is another matter. That is what the House is considering, and it is for the House to settle it.
§ VISCOUNT HELMSLEY
said that if, as the Prime Minister had just said, a Member could move afterwards to have a Bill referred to a 1697 House. He thought some amending words should be inserted so as to afford Members an opportunity of moving that a Bill be sent to a Select Committee, That would be a less cumbrous proceeding than that of asking the House to discharge a previous order, especially when there would be no time to move the Motion, as appeared to be the case under the proposal now before them. As to the question of notice, he did not know that it was necessarily an objection to Members on that side of the House that it would strengthen the Government. Both sides of the House had turns of Government alternately, and the rules which benefited one side would in turn benefit the other. Still, he could not see himself that it would be any great benefit to the Government, but notice would be of considerable advantage to many private Members of the House, and would enable them to form a decision whether they would give a Bill a Second Reading or not. It might be that they would be perfectly ready to give it a Second Reading, if they knew that it was to remain in Committee of the Whole House, and that it was not probable it would go any further. But if they knew that it was to go to Grand Committee they might possibly refuse a Bill a Second Reading. Therefore, he thought notice was to the advantage of private Members. He suggested that there should be further consideration of the matter in order that it might be made clear.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY
said the matter seemed to him to be full of difficulty, but he believed the correct view to be that the reference of Bills to Standing Committees would really be in the same position as the reference of Bills, under the present procedure, to a Committee of the Whole House. Reference of Bills to Standing Committees would not require to be moved. If they wanted to do anything with them afterwards they would have to make a Motion to the effect "That the order for the said Committee be discharged, "etc, and that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, or a hybrid Committee, or whatever they thought proper. He doubted whether the proposed Standing Order permitted of a 1698 Motion being made to refer a Bill to a Select Committee, because it merely said, "unless the House…otherwise order." He regretted that the Prime Minister should have introduced the idea that such a Motion might be made on a subsequent day. He could quite conceive that their might be negotiations, and that the Government did not want to shut the door on them; but they would not be able to discharge the original reference without practically a full-dress debate, although everybody might wish to have such a change made.
§ EARL PERCY (Kensington, S.)
said he did not gather that the Prime Minister's answers really met the point raised by his hon. friend behind him. His point was that when a Bill had been read a second time, it was competent for any Member to move that the Bill, instead of being kept in Committee of the Whole House, should be referred to some other Committee. There was nothing in the rule providing that the Member in charge of a Bill should have a prior right to move to which Committee it should be sent. It was an absurd position that some other Member might move that a private Member's Bill should be referred to a Standing Committee upstairs. That question was to be decided without discussion, and the private Member who was in charge of the Bill would have no opportunity of making the Motion that it should be sent to a Select Committee. Surely that point ought to be met.
§ * SIR HENRY FOWLER
pointed out that no Motion was required for referring a Bill to a Standing Committee.
§ EARL PERCY
said he had made a mistake in that respect, but he would put it in this way. Supposing an hon. Member moved that it should not be sent to a Standing Committee but be kept in Committee of the Whole House?
§ * SIR HENRY FOWLER
said he would deal with the present practice first. Under the present practice, when a Bill had been read a second time it stood committed to a Committee of the Whole House for a day that was named by the hon. Member in charge, unless the House, on Motion 1699 made, resolved that the Bill be committed to some other kind of Committee. "Otherwise order" covered any kind of Committee. It was open to move the reference of a Bill to a Select Committee, which after all, was a very rare proceeding, and generally was the subject of agreement. If the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, or any other Member, desired the Bill to be sent to a Select Committee, or a Joint Committee, then the hon. Member made the Motion after the Second Reading. That Motion could be made without notice.
§ EARL PERCY
said the mere fact that there was no debate precluded the Member in charge of the Bill from stating whether he wished it to be sent to a Select Committee.
§ * SIR HENRY FOWLER
said that after all they were dealing with an imaginary state of things, because Members of the House, long before a Second Reading debate concluded, knew whether a Bill was going to remain in the House. The five o'clock Bills on Friday afternoons generally went to Standing Committees; their promoters were eager to send them there. The real difficulty was with regard to Government Bills. It was the intention of the Government that all important controversial Bills should be discussed in the House, and not in Grand Committee. The Amendment before them was to decide whether there was to be a debate upon the question, but the Government had stated their view, and it was not necessary to repeat it. He thought it was the better course that there should be no Amendment and no debate, because the House would be fully aware of the nature of the Bill and quite competent to decide whether it should go upstairs or remain in the House. To give opportunity for debate would be to perpetuate the evil which they wanted to avoid, viz., the danger of delaying the progress of business by having practically another Second Reading debate.
§ * SIR FRANCIS POWELL
hoped the House would be careful not to do anything which would prejudice referring Bills to a Select Committee. He would remind hon. Members that 1700 so recently as last session the Provision of Meals Bill was referred to a Select Committee and after being amended, was now law, and, as he thought, a most salutary law.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
After the word 'notice,' to insert the words 'must be made immediately after the Bill is read a second time.' "—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)
said the Prime Minister's Amendment practically accepted the insertion of the words suggested by the hon. Member for Mid. Glamorgan; but they had not had any answer to the question, in the event of the Bill under the new rules being sent to a Committee and there being a desire that it should not go to a Grand Committee but to a Select Committee by what process they could undo the action the House had taken and relegate the Bill to a Select Committee.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
was anxious to know what would happen in case two hon. Members desired to make a Motion, one that a particular measure should go to a Select Committee and the other that it should be retained for a Committee of the Whole House. How was it to be decided which Member would be called upon first? If the hon. Member who wished the Bill sent to a Select Committee carried his Motion, the second hon. Member who desired a Committee of the Whole House would, by a mere accident, be cut out altogether. If the Amendment of his hon. friend was inserted it would then be impossible for any hon. Member to move that the order be discharged and the Bill committed to another Committee, because they would be face to face with this new Standing Order, which declared that no Motion of 1701 that kind might be made except immediately after the Second Reading. The Prime Minister had not answered the point raised by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. In his opinion the point was in fact unanswerable.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
did not think the hon. Baronet would be so bewildered under the new rule as he expected. When a Bill was read a second time it would go, unless otherwise directed, to a Standing Committee. His right hon. friend had read the rules of procedure and shown how they dealt with the case of an hon. Member who wished a Bill to go to a Select Committee. The hon. Baronet had asked what would happen when the particular partisan for a Committee of the Whole House and the partisan for a Select Committee rose together. All he needed to say was that if the person in charge moved that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee instead of to a Standing Committee the House would decide the matter by a division, and if it decided against a Select Committee the Member in charge of the Bill would move his Motion and the House would vote upon it.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY
said he still very much objected to the proposal that the Motion must be made immediately after the discussion on the Second Reading. He considered that it was a fetter upon the liberty of hon. Members, and he did not see why the House should not be free to entertain upon a subsequent day a Motion of which it should receive full notice. They might find that the Standing Committees were blocked with business, and in such an event it might be in the interests of the progress of business that a particular measure should be kept downstairs.
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDY
said the Prime Minister had stated that it was quite easy for the second hon. Member to move that a Bill should go to a Committee of the Whole House. He wished to remind the right hon. Gentle- 1702 man that they had already decided that the Motion must be made without Amendment or debate. Now it was stated that they could vote upon the two issues. He thought the difficulty which had been put forward by the hon. Baronet was a real one. They ought to remember that the provisions read out by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were those given in the book which regulated their procedure, but they did not form part of the Standing Orders of the House. As they were told last year in connection with the change in the divisions, Standing Orders took precedence of mere usage, and when they had amongst their rules a Standing Order like that now proposed they would be ruled entirely by it. The additional words would preclude any interchange of opinion on the part of the House.
§ MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)
said if the proposed words were inserted at the place suggested they would only regulate Paragraph (1) of the new rule, leaving Paragraph (2) still an open question. Would it not save a great deal of time if the same provision were applied to both paragraphs? He suggested that the words should be put in after Paragraph (2) as a sub-paragraph. If his suggestion were accepted the Amendment could be withdrawn, and they would have a little more time to consider what form of words should be inserted.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
suggested that Paragraph (2) might be slightly expanded by the insertion of the following words: "Provided always that the House may on Motion made by the Member in charge of the Bill commit the Bill either to a Select Committee, or a Standing Committee," and forth. He thought that would get over the whole difficulty.
§ Question put.1704
§ The House divided:—Ayes. 284; Noes, 68. (Division List No. 95.)1705
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Davies. Timothy (Fulham)||Jackson, R. S.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred|
|Ainsworth. John Stirling||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Jardine, Sir J.|
|Alden, Percy||Dickinson, W. H.(St.Pancras, N||Jenkins, J.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Ambrose, Robert||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Duckworth, James||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire|
|Astbury, John Meir||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Jowett, F. W.|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, K.)||Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Elibank, Master of||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)||Erskine, David C.||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)|
|Barker, John||Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Lambert, George|
|Barnard, E. B.||Essex, R. W.||Lamont, Norman|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Evans, Samuel T.||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)|
|Beale, W. P.||Everett, R. Lacey||Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Leese, Sir Joseph F(Accrington)|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Ferens, T. R.||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.||Ferguson. R. C. Munro||Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)|
|Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Levy, Maurice|
|Bennett, E. N.||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David|
|Bertram, Julius||Fuller, John Michael F.||Lough, Thomas|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Furness, Sir Christopher||Lundon, W.|
|Billson, Alfred||Gill, A. H.||Lupton, Arnold|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Ginnell, L.||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Black, Arthur W.||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Lynch, H. B.|
|Boland, John||Glover, Thomas||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Gooch, George Peabody||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Brace, William||Grant, Corrie||Macpherson, J. T.|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)|
|Branch, James||Gulland, John W.||MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)|
|Brigg, John||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||M'Callum, John M.|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||M'Crae, George|
|Brooke, Stopford||Hall, Frederick||M'Hugh, Patrick A.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Halpin, J.||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)||Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Marnham, F. J.|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Harvey, W. E.(Derbyshire, N.E.||Massie, J.|
|Byles, William Pollard||Harwood, George||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Haworth, Arthur A.||Mond, A.|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Hayden, John Patrick||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Montagu, E. S.|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Hedges, A. Paget||Mooney, J. J.|
|Clarke, C.: Goddard||Hemmerde, Edward George||Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)|
|Cleland, J. W.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Morley, Rt. Hon. John|
|Clough, William||Henry, Charles S.||Morrell, Philip|
|Clynes, J. R.||Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Coats, Sir T.Glen(Renfrew, W.)||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Murphy, John|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Highaml, John Sharp||Nicholson, Charles N(Doncast'r|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Hobart, Sir Robert||Nolan, Joseph|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Norton, Capt, Cecil William|
|Cooper, G. J.||Hodge, John||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Holland Sir William Henry||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Cory, Clifford John||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||O'Grady, J.|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Hudson, Walter||O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.|
|Cox, Harold||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||O'Malley, William|
|Crombie, John William||Idris, T. H. W.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Illingworth, Percy H.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Partington, Oswald||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Paul, Herbert.||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Ure, Alexander|
|Paulton, James Mellor||Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne||Verney, F. W.|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Sears, J. E.||Villiers, Ernest Amherst|
|Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Seaverns, J. H.||Vivian, Henry|
|Pearson, W. H. M.(Suffolk, Eye)||Seely, Major J. B.||Wadsworth, J.|
|Philipps, Owen C. Pembroke)||Shackleton, David James||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Pirie, Duncan V.||Sheehy, David||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Price, C. E. (Edinb' gh, Central)||Sherwell, Arthur James||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Priestley. W.E.B.(Bradford, E.||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Wardle, George J.|
|Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Simon, John Allsebrook||Waring, Walter|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Weir, James Galloway|
|Redmond, William (Clare)||Snowden, P.||Whitbread, Howard|
|Rees, J. D.||Spicer, Sir Albert||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire|
|Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n||Steadman, W. C.||Whitley, John Henry(Halifax)|
|Richardson, A.||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Ridsdale, E. A.||Strachey, Sir Edward||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Williams, Llewellyn(Carmarth'n|
|Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Williamson, A.|
|Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Summerbell, T.||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Robinson, S.||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Robson. Sir William Snowdon||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Winfrey, R.|
|Rogers, F. E. Newman||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Rose, Charles Day||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||Tellers for the Ayes—Mr.|
|Runciman, Walter||Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Torrance, Sir A. M.||Pease.|
|Acland-Hood, RtHn.SirAlex. F.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fell, Arthur||Percy, Earl|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Fletcher, J. S.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)||Forster, Henry William||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry, N.)||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|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||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hervey, F. W. F.(Bury S. Edm'ds||Starkey, John R.|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Hills, J. W.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hunt, Rowland||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Cave, George||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)||Liddell, Henry||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J.(Birmingham'||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir|
|Cross, Alexander||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Frederick Banbury and Mr.|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Stanley Wilson.|
§ Words, as amended, inserted.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY
moved an Amendment providing that a Bill introduced by a private Member and obtaining a Second Reading after the expiration of opposed business should not be subsequently adopted by the Government and taken at any time set apart for Government business. He said that the Amendment was frankly designed to prevent the Government adopting any 1706 Bill brought forward by a private Member. Some hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House thought they had reason to complain of the Government having done that last session. His object was to make it clear that where a private Member's Bill had benefited by the Standing Order, and had obtained a Second Reading, that Bill was not to be taken up by the Government at any time set apart for Government business. That was only fair play, for there was 1707 considerable danger of private Members in that way giving Governments more power than they already possessed. There might be no objection to allowing a private Member's Bill to be read a second time, but the Government ought not to be allowed to swoop down and take up a Bill, which might be of Party advantage, as their own. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment in the spirit in which it was moved.
After the words last inserted, to insert the words 'but no Bill introduced by a private Member and obtaining a Second Reading after the expiration of the time of opposed business shall be taken at any time set apart for Government business.' "—(Colonel Kenyon-Slaney.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR HENRY FOWLER
said that he could not accept the Amendment. The Government would, by it, be deprived of all power of starring Bills or of giving facilities to pass Bills which practically the whole House desired to pass. The Musical Copyright Bill, for instance, could not have been got through under this Amendment.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the Second Reading of the Musical Copyright Bill had been obtained in the ordinary way and the measure sent to Committee upstairs. The Amendment of his right hon. and gallant friend would not affect any Bill which had been properly discussed. He maintained that if a private Member's Bill had not been fully discussed on Second Reading it should not be sent to a Committee upstairs and afterwards starred by the Government. That gave the Government a double advantage, and it must be remembered that the rules of procedure were all designed to give facilities to the Government of the day. He begged to support the Amendment.
§ MR. EVANS
said that the Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Member was 1708 entirely outside the province of the rules of procedure. Nobody desired to curtail the right of private Members to say to what Committees the Bills which they introduced and for which they had obtained a Second Reading should go.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said that although the object of the Amendment might be to some extent outside the rules of procedure, it must also be admitted that a considerable change had been made by the Amendment of the Prime Minister which proposed to extend facilities for the passage of Bills after the Second Reading had been taken. Of course, there were great difficulties in the way of the proposal of his right hon. and gallant friend; but there might be another way of meeting them. What his right hon. and gallant friend wanted to deal with was not the case of a non-contentious Bill which got a Second Reading with the general consent of the House, and he would alter his Amendment to meet such a case. It was felt on both sides of the House, and certainly by hon. Gentleman who sat beside and behind him, that there were two different courses of procedure—a Government procedure and a private Members' procedure. They had always felt that if they were going to facilitate the passage of a private Member's Bill there ought to be some intimation that the Government intended to adopt it. It was quite obvious that a Bill like the Land Tenure Bill could not have been passed into law unless the Government had taken it up. In his opinion the Government ought not to take up private Members' Bills at a late period of the session, and he thought it would be fairer to minorities if some protection were given to them, as would be done if the Amendment were adopted.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
said it was quite impossible; for a Government to say in the earlier stages of a Bill whether they would adopt it or not. A Bill might be turned inside out during the Committee stage, and until that process had been gone through, no Government could determine whether the Bill should in their judgment be passed into law or not; nor did he see why the mere fact of a Bill 1709 going through its Second Reading without discussion or objection should be regarded as a bar sinister to its continuance; rather it seemed to him to be a recommendation. Of course a Bill might slip through accidentally when no one was looking, but that would be known long before the question could arise of its being taken up by the Government.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
hoped the right hon. Gentleman would forgive him for saying that the Amendment proposed by his right hon. friend would not have been brought forward if it had not been for the unfortunate deviation of the Government from the general practice last session. That aroused the jealousy which had prompted the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman truly said that it was difficult to demarcate the conditions and to lay down a general line in regard to the stage at which it was possible for the Government to decide whether or not they should take up a Bill. It would be unfortunate if a Government were precluded from taking up Bills towards the end of the session, and if the Government had adhered to the ordinary and natural practice which had prevailed in the House the Amendment would not have been moved. He agreed that it was impossible to tell on Second Reading whether a Bill ought or ought not to be adopted by the Government, because in Committee it might assume another form. That argument had force, but so had the opposing argument, in regard to the practice which had grown up. Mr. Speaker's predecessors in the Chair had made it a common, though not an invariable practice, to give the closure at five o'clock on a Friday afternoon to a private Bill which they would never have given after a brief discussion to a Bill introduced by the Government. He was quite certain that neither Mr. Speaker Peel, nor Mr. Speaker Gully would ever have given the closure in the case of many private Bills, had it been the habit of the Government at a later stage to take up those Bills; they would have been guided in giving or withholding the closure by the character of the Bills and the policy which the Government were likely to adopt with regard to them. Un- 1710 less the Government announced on the Second Reading what their policy would be with regard to a measure, it was quite impossible for the occupant of the Chair to know what course he ought to take. Was he to treat it as embodying a Resolution of the House in a concrete form, or was he to treat it as the first great stage of a controversial measure? His right hon. friend took the view that the Government should be precluded from taking up any private Bill, and that was expressed in his Amendment. [Cries of "No."] What he wanted was to have some method by which they would be able to draw a line between those Bills which were to be taken up and those which were not to be taken up. There were hon. Gentlemen who would cut down the limits of debate in Committee. But if they were going to curtail debate on Second Reading as well, by means of the closure, the control which the House had over legislation would be reduced to impossible narrowness. The Government could hardly complain of an attempt to deal with an evil which last session reached formidable proportions.
§ LORD R. CECIL
thought the form of the Amendment would not secure the end they desired. He held quite as strongly as his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition that for the Government to adopt private Members' Bills which had been passed at an afternoon sitting late in the session was a great abuse of Parliamentary procedure, especially in the way in which it was done last session. But this Amendment would not make a repetition of last session's proceedings impossible. It would, however, prevent the passing of useful measures such as the Musical Copyright Bill and the Solicitors Bill which were starred by the Government. He hoped the Amendment therefore would not be pressed.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY
said that if the Amendment had been received in the sympathetic spirit in which he had hoped it would be, and if there had been any encouragement of the view which he sought to bring forward, he would not have divided the House. But having re- 1711 gard to the reception which had been accorded to his proposal he would divide the House as a protest against the action of the Government last session.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 66; Noes, 277. (Division List No. 96.)1713
|Acland-Hood,RtHnSir Alex.F.||Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan||Percy, Earl|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Fell, Arthur||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Balfour,Rt Hn.A.J.(CityLond)||Fletcher, J. S.||Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Forster, Henry William||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Gordon,Sir W.Evans-(T'rHam.||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.||Starkey, John R.|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Hills, J. W.||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Houston, Robert Paterson||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Hunt, Rowland||Valentia, Viscount|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Cave, George||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Wilson, A Stanley(York, E. R.)|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.||Liddell, Henry||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Collings, Rt. Hon.J.(Birmingh'm||Lowe, Sir Francis William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down. North)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Colonel Kenyon-Slaney and|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Captain Harvey.|
|Cross, Alexander||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Peterfield)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Brooke, Stopford||Edwards, Frank (Radnor)|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Bryce, J. Annan||Elibank, Master of|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Erskine, David C.|
|Agnew, George William||Burke, E. Haviland-||Essex, R. W.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Evans, Samuel T.|
|Alden, Percy||Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Eve, Harry Trelawney|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Everett, R. Lacey|
|Ambrose, Robert||Byles, William Pollard||Faber, G. H. (Boston)|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Ferens, T. R.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Ferguson, R. C. Munro|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace|
|Astbury, John Meir||Cheetham, John Frederick||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Clarke, C. Goddard||Fuller, John Michael F.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Cleland, J. W.||Gill, A. H.|
|Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)||Clough, William||Ginnell, L.|
|Barker, John||Clynes, J. R.||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John|
|Barnard, E. B.||Coats, Sir T.Glen(Renfrew, W.)||Glover, Thomas|
|Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Beale, W. P.||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Gooch, George Peabody|
|Beauchamp, E.||Corbett, CH.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Grant, Corrie|
|Benn, W (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Bennett, E. N.||Cory, Clifford John||Gulland, John W.|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Cowan, W. H.||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton|
|Bertram, Julius||Cox, Harold||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Cremer, William Randal||Hall, Frederick|
|Billson, Alfred||Crombie, John William||Halpin, J.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Cullinan, J.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis|
|Black, Arthur W.||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Hardie, J Keir(MerthyrTydvil)|
|Boland, John||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N. E.|
|Brace, William||Duckworth, James||Harwood, George|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)||Haworth, Arthur A.|
|Branch, James||Dunne, Major E.Martin(Walsall||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Brigg, John||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Hazel, Dr. A. E.|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Hedges, A. Paget|
|Hemmerde, Edward George||Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Marnham, F. J.||Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne|
|Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.)||Mason, A. E. W (Coventry)||Sears, J. E.|
|Henry, Charles S.||Massie, J.||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.)||Micklem, Nathaniel||Seely, Major J. B.|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Shackleton, David James|
|Higham, John Sharp||Mond, A.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Sheehy, David|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Montagu, E. S.||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Hodge, John||Mooney, J. J.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Hope, W Bateman(Somerset, N.||Morley, Rt. Hon. John||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Morrell, Philip||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Snowden, P.|
|Hudson, Walter||Murphy, John||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Nicholson, Charles N(Doncaster||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Idris, T. H. W.||Nolan, Joseph||Steadman, W. C.|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Jackson, R. S.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Jardine, Sir J.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Jenkins, J.||O'Grady, J.||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Summerbell, T.|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Jones, Sir D Brynmor(Swansea)||O'Malley, William||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Mara, James||Taylor, Theodore, C. (Radcliffe)|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Talyor, John W. (Durham)|
|Jowett, F. W.||Parker, James (Halifax)||Taylor, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Partington, Oswald||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Paul, Herbert||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James||Paulton, James Mellor||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Verney, F. W.|
|Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Villiers, Ernest Amherst|
|Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)||Vivian, Henry|
|Lambert, George||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Wadsworth, J.|
|Lamont, Norman||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Pirie, Duncan V.||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Lea, Hugh Cecil(St.Pancras, E.)||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Priestley, W. E. B.(Bradford, E.)||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent|
|Lehmann, R. C.||Radford, G. H.||Wardle, George J.|
|Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Waring, Walter|
|Levy, Maurice||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Redmond, William (Clare)||Whitbread, Howard|
|Lough, Thomas||Rees, J. D.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Lynch, H. B.||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n||Wiles, Thomas|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Richardson, A.||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs||Rickett, J. Compton||Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'th'n)|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Ridsdale, E. A.||Williamson, A.|
|Macpherson, J. T.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)||Robinson, S.||Winfrey, R.|
|M'Callum, John M.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|M'Crae, George||Rogers, F. E. Newman||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Runciman, Walter||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Pease.|
|Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
§ MR. RAWLINSON
moved an Amendment to include among the Bills to which the Standing Order should not apply Bills imposing rates or charges on rates, as well as Bills for imposing taxes. He thought the Government would have no difficulty in accepting the Amendment, as it followed the principle they had already adopted. If he remembered rightly, Mr. Speaker last year with regard to some Amendments that came down from the House of Lords ruled that the power which 1714 admittedly existed in this House with regard to taxation also existed with regard to any Bill which contained a clause imposing rates. If he was right, rates also came within the exception made by the Government. The whole basis of the exception introduced in the Government proposal was the principle that anything that imposed taxation should not be dealt with by a Committee upstairs but should have the benefit of a discussion in Committee 1715 of the whole House. He submitted that the principle was the same with regard to any clause in a Bill that imposed rates. He begged to move.
§ VISCOUNT HELMSLEY
seconded the Amendment. Although the Government might reply that it was not the function of the House to impose rates, yet the House did impose them indirectly either by giving increased power to municipalities to increase a rate for the purposes of the municipality, or by imposing on the municipalities all over the country a burden, as would have been the case had the Education Bill of last year passed, which necessitated further rates being raised. He therefore submitted that such Bills should not be dealt with by Committees upstairs.
In line 5, after the word 'taxes,' to insert the words 'or rates or charges on rates.'"—(Mr. Bawlinson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR HENRY FOWLER
said the hon. Gentleman did not say exactly what rates he referred to, but left it to his hon. friend to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" of the proposal. The House did not impose rates at all except by sanctioning private Bills, which went upstairs and were discussed and decided by a Committee, not of seventy or eighty members, but of four. It would be a novel thing to compare taxes imposed by the House and rates imposed by local authorities for local purposes.
§ MR. RAWLINSON
said he referred to such rates as those which would have been imposed by the Education Bill—rates imposed for a particular purpose.
§ SIR HENRY FOWLER
said the Amendment of the hon. Member raised the question of privilege in respect to the rights of the House in matters of taxation. Those rights were waived in regard to rates, but not with regard to taxes. The point was mixed up with the whole question of local and Imperial taxation, with which he hoped 1716 this House would have to deal. But every power for levying local rates for local purposes would be governed by the Amendment and he could not accept it.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said he found it difficult to understand the Answer just given. The right hon. Gentleman had said that every power of local rating would be governed by this Amendment. He knew perfectly well that that was not so. There was all the difference in the world between a rate imposed by a locality within its own urea for its own needs and a rate imposed by all localities in the country, at the instance of the Government, for a particular purpose. Admittedly rates were not constitutionally in the same category as taxes, but practically they were. It made very little difference to those who had to pay them. The Irish Local Government Board, and the English and Scottish Local Government Boards dealt with local taxation, and there was not an Act which dealt with sanitary arrangements, education, local government and other matters, during the last forty years, which had not laid an additional burden on local resources. And what his hon. friend suggested was that if Parliament sought to impose upon the whole of the ratepayers of the country a charge which they were compelled to pay, at all events that decision ought to be arrived at on the floor of the House of Commons and not in Grand Committee. When the right hon. Gentleman said that Parliament did not impose these rates, because it gave the local authorities power to impose them, he was bound to say that while the argument was sound enough from the point of view of sound constitutional doctrine, a more absurd and unpractical argument he could not conceive. They gave to local authorities power to impose certain rates within their areas, and if that was not imposing rates, he did not know what was. When people resisted a rate, it was because they preferred to go to prison rather than pay it; but did not that point to the fact that the charge. was a compulsory one; if it was not, he did not know the meaning of a compulsory charge. He thought the Amendment was well founded.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said the right hon. Gentleman had given two answers to the Amendment. The first was merely technical, that the House did not impose rates. Technically that might be accurate, and, therefore, he would suggest to his hon. friend that he should make his Amendment read, "or raising rates or charges on rates. Beyond that he had not caught any answer from the right hon. Gentleman, except that there was a constitutional distinction between taxes and rates. He could not think that a sufficient answer to the Amendment. Let him point out to the House the position in which they really were. The Government clearly thought that some Bills ought to be considered in the House and not upstairs, and therefore they had inserted the exception, leaving out of the effect of the Standing Order Bills for imposing taxes and the like. If that was right, it must mean that anything which would increase the burden on the people ought to be a matter for the consideration of the House alone. That was an intelligible principle, but it was a principle which applied equally to rates and to taxes. There seemed to be an impression on the other side that rates and taxes were very different things. Any proposal which would have the effect of increasing the rates prima facie attracted the support of the benches opposite. He could never understand why, in the least. On the other hand, any proposal which was thought, even lightly, to burden the taxpayers was rejected by the stringent economists opposite. He could not understand the reason at all why in our legislation this distinction had been made between rates and taxes, which, as a matter of economics, were precisely the same thing. Every one of the evils which followed from an undue excess of taxation followed equally from an undue increase of rates. They had heard the other day from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that one of the causes of the lowness of money—if lowness was the proper word to use—was the expenditure on the late war which had been charged upon the taxes by the late Government. Whether that was right or wrong he did not know, but if it were right, it was equally true that the 1718 expenditure of municipalities for the last ten years was a contributory cause of the great burdens which had been put on the financial resources of the country. Therefore, if it was right, and he certainly thought it was right, that Bills imposing taxes should be excluded from this rule, it was equally right, indeed in some ways more essential, that Bills imposing charges on rates should also be excluded.
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Walton, Leeds, S.)
said the Amendment had the double fault of being wrong in form and wrong in substance. He rather gathered from the noble Lord that he himself thought it could not be sustained in the form in which it was moved. It confused what, from a Parliamentary point of view, were two distinct classes of measures, namely, financial measures which originated in Committee of Ways and Means, and imposed charges by the Imperial authority, and measures which dealt with local assessments and the imposing of local burdens which were due to the action of local bodies. But the Amendment was also wrong in substance. The very Bills which were most complicated, which involved the exercise of the greatest amount of technical knowledge, would be excluded from Grand Committees. The Public Health Act of 1875, for instance, which bristled with technicalities, could not possibly have been dealt with in the House within the limits of a session.
§ SIR JOHN WALTON
said he would not say it was impossible, because all things were possible; but under certain conditions, and with obstacles in the way, it would be impossible to discuss such a measure in the House. Bills providing for housing, giving local authorities fresh powers for dealing with sewers,—all entailing large outlay of money and the raising of rates—were the very Bills the tedious details of which ought to be thoroughly thrashed out by a Committee upstairs, but the proposed Amendment would exclude them from the rule.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY
was understood to contend that the Bills in question involved a diminution of public resources, whether in the form of Imperial taxes or public loans, and hence the Government Departments concerned had to consult the Treasury, whose consent was necessary. The same reason applied to Bills imposing local charges, which meant a diminution of public resources, and the House ought to be very jealous of parting with the control of any measure involving a question of the diminution of the public resources.
§ MR. EVANS
said it was assumed that the result of the rule would be that all Bills of this kind must go upstairs. But such measures as the Education Bill of last year and that of 1902 were highly controversial, and, according to the principle laid down by the Prime Minister, would not be sent to a Committee upstairs. Under the Amendment, if carried, it would be absolutely necessary to send every rating Bill, however small, into Committee of the Whole House. An Amendment had already been proposed to the effect that all Bills dealing with finance should be excluded. It was quite true that all the money both for taxation and for local purposes came out of the ratepayers' pocket, and it was equally true that a great many people were very much interested in the diminution of the rates. He remembered on one occasion going to the Ladies' Gallery, and a lady asked him what they were talking about in the House. He told her, and she replied, "That is not interesting; why do not they talk about the rates?" If the Amendment were carried it would be absolutely necessary that any Bill touching the rating question in any form should be discussed in Committee of the Whole House.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the hon. and learned Gentleman would now see that he had raised one of the most difficult points they had to deal with. He had told them that the Government did not mean to send controversial measures to Grand Committee, but they had not got that embodied in the Standing Order. He had no doubt the Prime Minister would carry out his declared intention, but a subsequent 1720 Government might say that circumstance had altered, and they intended to apply the rule as far as the actual words of the section permitted. It was for that reason that his friends were naturally desirous of seeing the explicit exceptions mad as numerous and clear as they could be This Amendment, however, would want some modification. Rating Bills fell into two classes, Bills which permitted localities to impose rates for their own particular advantage, and Bills which imposed a duty on a locality, such as the duty of educating its children, and gave the right of raising rates to carry out that duty. Would anybody deny that the second class of Bills was not analogous to taxing Bills? Was there not also strong reason for exempting from the Standing Order anything which the House of Lords was precluded from dealing with in detail? Were they not bound to see that Bills which could not be revised elsewhere should come before the House in the most effective fashion? A Bill might impose rating whilst the rest of the measure might deal with matters of detail which could very properly be discussed in Grand Committee. Surely it was only right that they should be able to deal with that part of a measure which imposed rating, and which could not be amended in another place, by providing, under the second paragraph, that the rating clauses of the Bill should remain to be dealt with by Committee of the Whole House. Whilst agreeing that his hon. friend's Amendment needed some modification, he regretted that the Government had shown no desire to help them, and had in fact met them with a blank non possumus.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
said the discussion had taken two separate lines. In the first place there was the general question of the nature of the Bills which ought to be referred to the Committee upstairs; and, secondly, there was the particular question whether the subjects pointed to in this Amendment were to be made an exception to the general rule. On the larger question he had explained so often what the position and intention of the Government was that it seemed almost absurd to keep on repeating it. Hon. Members could not get it out of their heads that the Grand Committee 1721 was to be brought into play only in the case of absolutely innocent and what were called uncontroversial Bills. If they were only to send to Standing Committees uncontroversial Bills, it would not be worth while their introducing these Resolutions, because every Bill was or might become controversial. What they had said was that the great controversial Party measures of the session promoted by the Government should be exempted. This was the first, of a series of Amendments which had been put down to except Bills of one kind or another. There were seldom cases in which two Members had suggested the same Amendment. There seemed to be a sort of co-operation to spread the advantages of treatment in the House of Commons over as large an area as possible. They were to exempt everything that had to do with rating, with Parliamentary reform or the franchise, with the powers of the Crown or either House of Parliament, the Army or Reserve Forces, or the Navy; they were to exempt Bills which aroused strong political controversy or excited acute religious susceptibilities, Bills which dealt with the Constitution of any of the Colonies, and with the redistribution of seats at Parliamentary elections. There was no reason why they should stop there. Why should an hon. Member not get up and move that no Bill should be referred to a Committee upstairs that had to do with a deceased wife's sister, or with the preservation of game, and in that way so exhaust the whole area of legislation that nothing would be left to go to the Committee upstairs? The Government could not accept any of these things which vitiated the whole conception that underlay their proposed scheme of procedure. As to the present Amendment, every one would understand the difference between an Imperial tax imposed by an Imperial law and the effect of powers given to local authorities to discharge certain public functions which would involve the imposition of a rate. There was hardly a Bill introduced dealing with a domestic subject in which the well-trained nose could not without much difficulty sniff a rate. The Amendment was no doubt very ingenious and plausible, but it would so narrow the field of legislation that could 1722 be dealt with by a Standing Committee that it would make the rules practically inoperative.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
May I ask a non-controversial Question? Could the Government favourably consider some method by which on the Report Stage this House could deal with rating questions? At present it is out of order for the House to deal with rating questions on Report.
§ MR. WILLAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)
said that no words had been proposed by the Government to show what Bills should or should not go to the Grand Committees. On the contrary, the Prime Minister had just told the House that the Government would not accept any of the Amendments on the Paper.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
Any of those Amendments which except from the operation of the Standing Order certain kinds of Bills.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD
said he quite understood. He suggested that Bills which involved taxation, whether by taxes imposed directly by Parliament or by local rates, should be dealt with by Committee of the Whole House. It was just exactly that class of legislation which gave to local authorities the power to lay fresh imposts on the people which a large number of people in the country thought should be restricted. The rates had grown to such a point in some districts that practically speaking they were at the breaking point. For hundreds of years it had been the exclusive privilege of the House of Commons in Committee to deal in detail with questions which involved imposts on the people. It was now proposed for the first time by this Standing Order to take away from the House as a whole a 1723 right which was one of the privileges of the Constitution, namely, that every Act of Parliament which involved a charge on the people should be debated in detail by the people's representatives. They ought to pay more attention to the historical and immemorial rights of the House sitting in Committee. He would support the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 253; Noes, 58. (Division List No. 97.)1725
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.||Cowan, W. H.||Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Cox, Harold||Horridge, Thomas Gardner|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Hudson, Walter|
|Agnew, George William||Cremer, William Randal||Hutton, Alfred Eddison|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Crombie, John William||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Alden, Percy||Crooks, William||Jackson, R. S.|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Cullinan, J.||Jardine, Sir J.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Jenkins, J.|
|Ambrose, Robert||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Duckworth, James||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)||Jowett, F. W.|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.||Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Kincaid-Smith, Captain|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Elibank, Master of||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Erskine, David C.||Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James|
|Barker, John||Essex, R. W.||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Barnard, E. B.||Esslemont, George Birnie||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster|
|Barnes, G. N.||Evans, Samuel T.||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N||Everett, R. Lacey||Lambert, George|
|Beauchamp, E.||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Lamont, Norman|
|Bell, Richard||Ferens, T. R.||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.|
|Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accr'gton)|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Dev'np't||Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Benn, W (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo||Fuller, John Michael F.||Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich|
|Bennett, E.N.||Gill, A. H.||Levy, Maurice|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Ginnell, L.||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Lough, Thomas|
|Billson, Alfred||Glover, Thomas||Lynch. H. B.|
|Black, Arthur W.||Gooch, George Peabody||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Boland, John||Grant, Corrie||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Macpherson, J. T.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.|
|Brace, William||Gulland, John W.||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||M'Callum, John M.|
|Branch, James||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||M'Crae, George|
|Brigg, John||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||M'Hugh, Patrick A.|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Hall, Frederick||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Halpin, J.||Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis||Marnham, F. J.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Massie, J.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N. E||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Hayden, John Patrick||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Byles, William Pollard||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Montagu, E.S.|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Hedges, A. Paget||Mooney, J. J.|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Hemmerde, Edward George||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Morley, Rt. Hon. John|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Clarke, C. Goddard||Henry, Charles S.||Myer, Horatio|
|Cleland, J. W.||Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)|
|Clough, William||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)|
|Clynes, J. R.||Higham, John Sharp||Nolan, Joseph|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.||Hodge, John||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Holland, Sir William Henry||O'Grady, J.|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Hooper, A. G.||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N||Rogers. F. E. Newman||Verney, F. W.|
|O'Malley, William||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Vivian, Henry|
|O'Mara, James||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Wadsworth, J.|
|Parker, James (Halifax)||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Partington, Oswald||Scott, A. H(Ashton-under-Lyne||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.|
|Paul, Herbert||Sears, J. E.||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)||Seaverns, J. H.||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Shackleton, David James||Wardle, George J.|
|Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Waring, Walter|
|Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Sheehy, David||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney|
|Pirie, Duncan V.||Sherwell, Arthur James||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central)||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Simon, John Allsebrook||Weir, James Galloway|
|Radford, G. H.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Raphael, Herbert H.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||Steadman, W. C.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Redmond, William (Clare)||Strachey, Sir Edward||Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n|
|Rees, J. D.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th||Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n||Summerbell, T.||Winfrey, R.|
|Richardson, A.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Rickett, J. Compton||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliff)|
|Ridsdale, E. A.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Robinson, S.||Torrance, Sir A. M.||Pease.|
|Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Ure, Alexander|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Dalrymple, Viscount||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Nield, Herbert|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gov'n||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.||Fell, Arthur||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Fletcher, J. S.||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Forster, Henry William||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Gardner, Ernest (Berks., East)||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton|
|Bull, Sir William James||Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Heaton, John Henniker||Starkey, John R.|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Helmsley, Viscount||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cave, George||Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Ed'ds)||Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.||Houston, Robert Paterson||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hunt, Rowland||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)||Lane-Fox, G. R.|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Liddell, Henry||Alexander Acland-Hood and|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Viscount Valentia.|
|Cross, Alexander||Mason, James F. (Windsor)|
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."1726
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 59; Noes, 258. (Division List No. 98.)1727
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F||Carlile, E. Hildred||Fell, Arthur|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Cave, George||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lond||Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.||Fletcher, J. S.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Forster, Henry William|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)||Hardy, Laurence (Kent,Ashf'rd|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm||Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Craik, Sir Henry||Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Ed'ds|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Cross, Alexander||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Dalrymple, Viscount||Hunt, Rowland|
|Bull, Sir William James||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Duncan, Robert (Lanark,G'v'n)||Lane-Fox, G. R.|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Liddell, Henry||Salter, Arthur Clavell||Valentia, Viscount|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East||Wortley, Rt, Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Lowe, Sir Francis William||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Nield, Herbert||Starkey, John R.||Tellers for the Ayes—|
|Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Viscount Helmsley and Mr.|
|Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)||Rawlinson.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Cremer, William Randal||Jardine, Sir J.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Crombie, John William||Jenkins, J.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Crooks, William||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Agnew, George William||Cullinan, J.||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Davies, W.Howell (Bristol, S.)||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Alden, Percy||Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras, N||Jowett, F. W.|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Dobson, Thomas W.||Kincaid-Smith, Captain|
|Ambrose, Robert||Duckworth, James||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Astbury, John Meir||Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Elibank, Master of||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Erskine, David C.||Lambert, George|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.||Essex, R. W.||Lamont, Norman|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Esslemont, George Birnie||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Evans, Samuel T.||Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.|
|Barker, John||Everett, R. Lacey||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accringt'n|
|Barnard, E. B.||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Ferens, T. R.||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Levy, Maurice|
|Beauchamp, E.||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Bell, Richard||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Lough, Thomas|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Fuller, John Michael F.||Lynch, H. B.|
|Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.||Gill, A. H.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (D'v'np'rt||Ginnell, L.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Macpherson, J. T|
|Bennett, E. N.||Glover, Thomas||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Gooch, George Peabody||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Grant, Corrie||M'Callum, John M.|
|Billson, Alfred||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||M'Crae, George|
|Black, Arthur W.||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||M'Hugh, Patrick A.|
|Boland, John||Gulland, John W.||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Marnham, F. J.|
|Brace, William||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Massie, J.|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Hall, Frederick||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Branch, James||Halpin, J.||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Brigg, John||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Montagu, E. S.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||Mooney. J. J|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Hayden, John Patrick||Morley, Rt. Hon. John|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Hedges, A. Paget||Myer, Horatio|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Hemmerde, Edward George||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Nolan, Joseph|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Henry, Charles S.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||O'Grady, J.|
|Clarke, C. Goddard||Higham, John Sharp||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Cleland, J. W.||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.|
|Clough, William||Hodge, John||O'Malley, William|
|Clynes, J. R.||Holland, Sir William Henry||O'Mara, James|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Hooper, A. G.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W.||Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N||Partington, Oswald|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Paul, Herbert|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Hudson, Walter||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Cox, Harold||Illingworth, Percy H.||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Jackson, R. S.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Pirie, Duncan V.||Seaverns, J. H.||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Shackleton, David James||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Radford, G. H.||Sheeny, David||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Raphael, Herbert H.||Sherwell, Arthur James||Wardle, George J.|
|Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Waring, Walter|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Redmond, William (Clare)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Rees, J. D.||Steadman, W. C.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpton||Strachey, Sir Edward||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Richardson, A.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Rickett, J. Compton||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Ridsdale, E. A.||Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Summerbell, T.||Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n|
|Robinson, S.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Rogers, F. E. Newman||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Runciman, Walter||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr||Winfrey, R.|
|Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Torrance, Sir A. M.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Ure, Alexander|
|Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Verney, F. W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lynn||Vivian, Henry||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Sears, J. E.||Wadsworth, J.||Pease.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Main Question again proposed.
§ And, it being after a quarter-past Eight of the Clock, Further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.