SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL AND LAND VALUES (SCOTLAND) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME).

HC Deb 13 February 1908 vol 184 cc226-84

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [12th February], "That in the case of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill and the Land Values (Scotland) Bill, the Committee on the Financial Resolution (if any) relating to the Bill shall be deemed to have been set up as required by the Standing Orders of the House, and the Second Reading, Committee stage, and Report stage of the Bill (including the Financial Resolution (if any) relating thereto) and the Third Reading of the Bill shall be proceeded with in the following manner: (a) The Committee stage of the Financial Resolution (if any) relating to the Bill, and the Second Reading of the Bill, shall be proceeded with and brought to a conclusion on the first allotted day; and the Bill shall, when it has been read a second time, stand committed to a Committee of the Whole House without Question put; (b) the Report Stage of the Financial Resolution (if any) and the Committee Stage of the Bill, and, if the Bill is not amended in Committee, the Report of the Bill to the House, and the Third Reading of the Bill, shall be proceeded with and brought to a conclusion on the second allotted day, and on the conclusion of the consideration of the Bill in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put; (c) if the Bill is amended in Committee, the Report Stage and the Third Reading of the Bill shall be proceeded with and brought to a conclusion on the third allotted day. After this Order comes into operation, any day (other than Friday) shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the day, or on which any stage of the Financial Resolution (if any) relating thereto is put down as first Order of the day followed by the Bill. On any allotted day on which proceedings on any business allotted to that day are to be brought to a conclusion, the Speaker or Chairman shall at 10.30 p.m. if the day is one on which Government business has precedence after 8.15 p.m., and at 7.45 p.m. if the day is one on which Government business has not precedence after 8.15 p.m. (if those proceedings have not already been brought to a conclusion), put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new clauses or schedules he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the clause or schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be, and on the Committee Stage of the Bill the Chairman, in the ease of a series of clauses to which no notice of Amendment has been given by the Government, shall put the Question that those clauses stand part of the Bill without putting the Question separately as respects each clause. Proceedings to which this Order relates shall not on any day, on which any proceedings or business are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House. In the case of an allotted day being a day on which Government business has not precedence after 8.15 p.m., the time at which the proceedings or business to be brought to a conclusion are so brought to a conclusion shall, if that time is later than a quarter past eight, be substituted, for the purposes of Standing Orders relating to the precedence of business at different sittings and to the time for taking Private Business, for 8.15 p.m. On an allotted day no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, nor Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order 10, nor Motion to postpone a clause, shall be received unless moved by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without any debate. Nothing in this Order shall: (a) prevent any business which under this Order is to be concluded on an allotted day being proceeded with on any other day, or necessitate a day being allotted to any such business if the business to be concluded has been otherwise disposed of; or (b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on an allotted day in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House after the business to be concluded on the allotted day has been disposed of."—(Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)

Question again proposed.

MR. FORSTER (Kent, Sevenoaks)

in moving to insert after the word "That" the words "this House declines further to curtail its liberty of discussion until the Government have laid upon the Table of the House their general scheme for dealing with Bills involving matters of controversy," said: The debate upon the Resolution which the Prime Minister yesterday submitted to the House has covered a wide field, and to a larger extent than usual the results have been fruitful, for it has given the Prime Minister an opportunity of making a statement of the greatest possible importance. The Prime Minister took the opportunity of telling the House and the country yesterday that in his opinion, an opinion formed with all the gravity and all the deliberation that characterises the statements of the Prime Minister in this House, the action which the House of Lords took with reference to one at any rate of the Bills concerned in this Motion was an action which was entirely reasonable. That is a statement which we welcome and with which we agree, and I am bound to say that I for one welcome the unusual unanimity with which the Prime Minister and those who sit on these benches regard this point. I would assure the Prime Minister, if he were able to be present, that we should treasure the recollection of so fair-minded a statement. If I may make one further observation with reference to this point, I should say that I at any rate think I can at last understand the significant omission from the gracious Speech from the Throne of all reference to the vexed question of any possible conflict between the two Houses of the Legislature. I turn from that aspect of the Resolution moved by the Prime Minister and come at once to the Amendment which I have risen to submit to the House. The points with which I propose to deal in the few moments for which I shall ask the House to listen to me are necessarily narrower than the points covered yesterday, but while they primarily concern the House of Commons, they must necessarily affect the whole working of our Parliamentary machine. It will not be denied that during the two years of office which the present Government have enjoyed they have introduced sweeping changes into the procedure of the House of Commons. We may differ as to whether or not the result of these changes is to increase the efficiency of the House; we may differ as to whether or not it makes the lot of the private Member more or less tolerable than before; but we are all agreed that great changes in our procedure have been made, and I should like to remind the House what these changes have been. In the first place, the Government have revolutionised our system of Committees. They have substituted to a large extent the working of the Standing Committees for the working of the Whole House. While they have availed themselves of the great extension of the Standing Committees which they have set up, they have brought about a new method of using the Committees for the consideration of the Bills which they have brought into the House of Commons. All the experience we have been able to gather of the Standing Committees has been that these Committees do useful work where the Bills they are called upon to consider are comparatively speaking, non-contentious, but that they break down hopelessly when the Bills sent to them involve a large amount of controversy. The hon. Member for the Leith Burghs expressed the same view yesterday, and I am happy to find myself in agreement with him. When the Government were inviting the House to sanction the creation of the new Standing Committees they distinctly gave us to understand that it was not their intention to submit to these Standing Committees the more important or the more controversial of the Bills which they brought in during the session. It was to a large extent, I think, on the assurance which the Government then gave to the House that these rules were passed. Our experience of the working of the Standing Committees and of these rules has disappointed the hopes and expectations of the House formed at that time. Anyone who knows the history of last session will know that the Government did exactly the opposite of what they said they were going to do when these rules were passed, and, so far from the main controversial Bills being kept in the House, and the minor and non-controversial Bills sent upstairs, we have had the experience of perhaps the most controversial measure of the whole session being sent upstairs to one of the Standing Committees, while the House was kept night after night to the small hours of the morning for the last few weeks of the session passing a large number of departmental Bills. I suppose it can hardly be contended that the Scottish Small Landholders Bill is improperly included in the category of the controversial Bills of the session. Its importance is admitted; its importance cannot be denied. No one will deny after the experience we have had of that measure that it is controversial to a peculiar extent. If it is one of the most controversial Bills of the session, then the Government violated the pledges which they gave to the House that these Bills would be kept downstairs. If, on the other hand, it is not one of the most controversial Bills of the session, then think the frenzied efforts made by hon. Gentlemen opposite to inflame the feelings of the people of Scotland against the House of Lords seem to lack point. I should like to say one or two words upon the Government's method of dealing with the Bills after they have passed through the Standing Committees. Let me remind the House that there is no official means by which we can obtain a detailed report of the proceedings of the Standing Committees. That is one of their great defects when they are called upon to consider Bills of an important character. The hon. Member for Leicester, speaking last night on behalf of a minority section of the House, said they were bound to examine with minute care the question whether or not this proposal threatened danger to the rights of minorities and to free discussion, and the hon. Member found consolation in the fact that the Scottish Small Landholders Bill, at any rate, had been debated in the Standing Committee for twenty-two days. The hon. Member said that after that it was impossible to say that the Prime Minister's Resolution threatened any danger to the right of free discussion on the part of the minority. It seems to me that the hon. Member for Leicester left out of account the real value of free discussion. The value of free discussion is not the making of speeches. It is to a certain extent to influence the course of legislation, but the real value of free discussion is to enable the country to follow day by day, and hour by hour, the questions which are being threshed out in the House of Commons, and it is only by that means that the country is able to form a sane, sober, and reasoned judgment upon the various points involved. The debates in the Standing Committees give no opportunity whatever for the country to realise or to understand the points which are raised. They have no knowledge of them whatever, and neither has the House of Commons itself; and yet in spite of the fact that the country is not able to form a reasoned judgment as to the points involved, and in spite of the fact that the House of Commons, as a whole, has no moans of finding out what has taken place before a Standing Committee, the Government has settled for the first time in the history of the House of Commons that Bills coming down on report from the Standing Committees shall be subjected to a strict limitation of time. That is the second of the new departures in the matter of procedure which the Government have indulged in. I pass over the fact of the Scottish Small Landholders Bill having been closured to a most extraordinary extent while it was before the Standing Committee. The figures were given yesterday. The Standing Committee considered the Bill on twenty-two days. I understand from a Return which was moved for last session that the closure was moved in that Committee no fewer than fifty-nine times, and I ask the House to compare that with the number of times the closure was moved in this House during the whole session. In this House and in Committee of the Whole House throughout the whole session the closure was moved only sixty-six times. It seems to me that it is absolately impossible in view of these figures to contend that the rights of the minority to free and full discussion, even in the Standing Committee, is adequately safeguarded. The Government are not content with a measure of closure so drastic as the guillotining on the Report stage of Bills which come back from the Standing Committees. They invented a new system of guillotine by which in respect of Bills the Committee stage of which they keep in this House before the Committee stage was entered upon at all, they laid down a strict limitation of the Committee stage, the Report stage, and the Third Reading stage. That was done in the case of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill of last session, so that we had to conduct the whole of our detailed discussions on that most important subject under the black shadow of the guillotine. Now they propose, in the Resolution which has been submitted to the House, to carry this thing a stage further still. "We shall, if we pass this Resolution, set up a strict limitation of the time which shall govern the whole of the discussion which is to take place on these two Bills. I am not arguing now whether they are justified in the peculiar circumstances of the case in treating these Bills in this way. What I am arguing is that they are increasing step by step the use of a new and drastic measure in respect to matters submitted to the House of Commons. It is as if the appetite had grown by what it fed on. I have read that a surgeon becomes more and more addicted to the use of the knife. I do not know whether that is true or not. I think the experience of the last twelve months—and all these innovations have taken place in the last twelve months—leads me to suppose that the Government are becoming more and more addicted to the use of these drastic measures of closure. How far is it going to extend? Are the Government when they get this precedent going to apply this system to all their Bills throughout the session? The question was asked by an hon. Member opposite yesterday afternoon, and he suggested that the system which is to be applied to Bills in exceptional eases now is but a step to the extension of that system by which, immediately after the Address in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne has been voted, the Government will lay before the House a detailed scheme for the whole session, allocating the time for each Bill they propose to bring forward. It seems to me that if they once get this precedent to refer to they will apply it to other Bills at other port ions of the session, and will advance the same reason for doing it, namely, to send Bills up to the House of Lords in such time as will give that House time to discuss them fully in all their bearings. I do not pretend for a moment that our Rules of Procedure are perfect. I grant, and it has been admitted over and over again from this side of the House, that the Government must have time for the legislation they think it right to pass. I do not doubt they would say in answer to our criticism, "After all, we are only using the weapon which you yourselves forged." But the question is not whether they are justified in using it, but how they use it. True we forged it; but we forged it for use only in exceptional circumstances. But if we are to judge by present methods of conducting the business of the House, it has become a matter of everyday practice by the present Government to use that weapon. It seems to me that there is a very great difference between a policeman who keeps his truncheon in his pocket for use in moments of emergency and a policeman who finds it essential to brandish his truncheon in the exercise of his duty at every moment of the day. If a policeman was to go with his truncheon always in his hands he would not be tolerated for a moment. The Prime Minister is the policeman with a truncheon always in his hands, as if it were impossible to conduct the business of the House without resorting to these exceptional measures. I say that the present system, or rather lack of system, cannot be satisfactory to anybody. To my mind it impairs the dignity of the House, hinders the despatch of business, prevents the country being properly informed as to the proceedings of Parliament, and lends colour to the view that the objects of the Government are concerned more with the supposed benefit of the Party to which they belong than with the real interests of the country as a whole. The rights of private Members and the liberty of free discussion have been trampled under foot. The very Rules of Procedure under which our proceedings are conducted were guillotined time and again; and I venture to say that if we had been allowed to debate them fully and freely some of the difficulties from which we now suffer would have been obviated. We find our expectations disappointed; the situation is full of doubt, uncertainty and danger to the efficient conduct of the business of the House. Step by step barriers along the road of free discussion have been erected. Stop by step has it boon made more and more difficult to private Members to take any useful part at all in discussion or legislation. Let mo remind the House of the four points I have mentioned: The alteration of the system of Committees; the introduction of the guillotine on the Report and Third Reading stages of Bills when they come from Standing Committees; the introduction of the guillotine at all stages of Bills which are kept in Committee of the Whole House after the Second Reading; and, finally, the guillotining of all stages of Bills after they have been laid on the Table of the House. It is impossible to believe that the Government are content to drift along in this way without plan and apparently without the slightest care for the reputation and traditions of the House. I move the Amendment standing in my name in order to give the Government an opportunity of taking the House frankly into their confidence as to what they intend to do in regard to special Rules of Procedure. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give us definite information and assurance on that point. The House of Commons used to be a great debating Assembly in which proposed legislation was criticised, its faults exposed, and Amendments carried. But under the despotic sway of the present Government, debate is stifled and criticism is dead. Bills are withdrawn from the consideration of the House altogether and sent to Standing Committees upstairs, where they disappear for months at a time. The House of Commons is deprived of the power of criticising and amending legislation. In a word, it exists merely to register the decrees of the Executive Government. Let the Government restore to the House of Commons some of that liberty and right of free discussion of which they have done so much to deprive it. If they will not do that, then I beg the House to pause before sanctioning this further inroad upon the rights of free speech, unless they are to abrogate altogether their rights for all future time. I beg to move.

Amendment proposed— In line 1, to leave out all after the word 'That,' and add the words 'this House declines further to curtail its liberty of discussion until the Government have laid upon the Table of the House their general scheme for dealing with Bills involving matters of controversy.' "—[Mr. Forster.]

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

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

The hon. Gentleman has made an able and an interesting speech, though I confess I did not through the greater part of it trace any direct connection between his arguments and the Amendment. He indulged in some flights of imagination, as, for instance, in his picture of the mild and benignant figure of the Primo Minister violating all the best traditions of Parliament, and wielding, in truculent mood, a truncheon in order to belabour the heads and curtail the liberties of the Members of this House—a masterpiece of ingenious but infelicitous caricature. As regards the bulk of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I listened to it with that sort of feeling one sometimes has that poets have fancied—the dim imagination of what has happened to us in a previous sphere of existence, which comes sometimes like clouds of glory and sometimes, I am afraid, in a less inspiring form. But as I heard the hon. Gentleman I seemed to be listening to dim echoes of speeches which I am afraid I myself have made in previous years when other Governments were in power, when, as we thought, these sacred and time- honoured liberties of the House of Commons were being just as much jeopardised and endangered as the hon. Gentleman thinks they are to day. I do not make the observation in any spirit of recrimination, but I think we all ought to agree that this is a very serious problem which ought to be confronted, if we can confront is, with something like a general consensus and general action. My right hon. friend told the House yesterday that the Government are seriously and most anxiously engaged in considering whether it is not possible to devise some procedure and some machinery by which we can get rid of the guillotine, the use of which has become increasingly common in late years, whatever Government was in power, and give to a tribunal which will command the general confidence of the House some discretion as to the proper allocation of our time as between different subjects, and, I will add, as between different parts of the same subject. That is a matter which, I entirely agree, is very urgent and eminently worth the consideration of all parts of the House. But I venture to think it has very little to do with the particular Motion which is now under discussion. We are not dealing here with fresh legislation of the present session. We are not dealing here with projects which have not already been submitted to the consideration and discussion of the House of Commons. If we were proposing arbitrarily to abridge the time which was to be given to the discussion of any proposal of that kind, then I quite agree that the great bulk of the hon. Gentleman's speech might be not only relevant, but very cogent. But that is not the case. We are dealing with the case of a measure which went through this House after more or less discussion last session, and one of the main reasons—I do not say the only reason—given by the House of Lords for not considering the Bill was that it arrived at that House at so late a period of the session that there was not adequate time to give it proper consideration. The object of this Motion is to enable the House to send these measures, which have already been discussed, to the House of Lords at such an early date of the session that they will have no reasonable ground for saying that there is not ample time to consider them in all their bearings. The whole point of the hon. Gentleman's speech, in so far as it is relevant to the Motion, comes back to the point made by the Prime Minister yesterday, namely, Was an adequate opportunity, or was it not, offered last session for the discussion of these measures? As regards the Small Landholders Bill, what are the facts? I think that three days on Second Reading, twenty-two days in Committee upstairs, three clays on Report, and another day for Third Reading were allowed. Is that, or is that not, ample time for the discussion of this measure? Outside the walls of this House you could not got any audience in the country to listen for a moment to the suggestion that, if the proceedings were conducted, as people assume they are, in a businesslike fashion, there was not ample time for the discussion not only of the principle, but of the details of the measure. The only other point which the hon. Gentleman makes is that the Bill was improperly sent to a Standing Committee. The Government, he said, undertook not to send controversial measures to those Committees, and this was a controversial measure. I agree that, as a rule, it is not desirable that measures of a highly controversial kind should be sent to a Committee upstairs, but there was a special reason for dealing in this way with this particular Bill, which was that it affected Scotland and Scotland alone. No other part of the United Kingdom had any direct concern in any one of its provisions, and with the general assent of the House of Commons we created a Standing Committee containing the whole of the representatives of Scotland, and the very object of that Committee was that measures relating to Scotland alone should, so far as the Committee stage was concerned, be discussed where Scottish opinion was predominant. And when it is said that the proceedings of that Committee, where the closure was extravagantly used, from the fact of the Committee being held upstairs, were not known to the public, I have here a volume containing the detailed reports published in the Scotsman.

MR. FORSTER

They are not official.

MR. ASQUITH

No report of what goes on in Committees upstairs is official. The proceedings of this Committee were not reported at length in The Times because their readers had no concern in them whatever; but the people mostly concerned were kept most minutely and accurately informed day by day of what was going on. Then, as regards the point about the use or abuse of the closure, I should like to read a sentence from the report of the proceedings which appeared in the Scotsman on Wednesday, 5th June— The Standing Committee on Scottish Bills held their sixth meeting yesterday at West minster for the further consideration of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill. There was a large attendance of members. Mr. Walter Long resumed the debate on Mr. Munro-Ferguson's Amendment for the rejection of Clause 1, which applies the Crofters Act throughout Scotland. That was the sixth day of the Committee, and they were still engaged in discussing an Amendment for the rejection of Clause 1. Does anyone suppose that, if the proceedings had been in Committee of the Whole House, the closure would not have been applied by any Chairman? [Mr. CHAPLIN made an observation across the Table which did not reach the Gallery.] The right hon. Gentleman alludes to the days when there was no closure and when very little legislation was carried through; but the Government of which he was a member resorted to the closure with great freedom, and every Government, to whatever Party it belongs, will find the closure an indispensable instrument if any legislation at all is to be carried through. At any rate, the proceedings of this Committee show that the Government was not unduly precipitate in the application of the closure. I do not want to go over again the topics that were discussed so fully yesterday, and I submit to the House, in the first place, that we were thoroughly justified in sending the Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee; and, in the second place, that the length of time it occupied is a sufficient guarantee that ample publicity was given to all its details and that they were thoroughly thrashed out. With regard to the Land Values Bill, it is admitted that the closure was never applied during the whole of the discussion. Dealing, as we are, with measures not for the first time, but after ample discussion in the previous session, and dealing with them in a manner which gives the House an opportunity, first on the Second Reading of saying whether they adhere to the principle of the Bills, and then in Committee of moving reasonable Amendments, I submit that this procedure, though I quite agree that it is exceptional, is thoroughly warranted by the special circumstances of the case, and that therefore the Amendment is one which cannot be justified.

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the reply which he has just made began by saying that my hon. friend's speech, to which he paid a courteous and well-merited compliment, was in no way directed or closely directed to the Motion on the Paper. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has devoted most of his address to the House to giving an account of the proceedings which took place in the Standing Committee, and if he is justified in making that complaint of my hon. friend's speech, I can only say, as one who spent many days in that Committee, that a greater travesty of what took place than the account given by the right hon. Gentleman it is impossible to conceive. The right hon. Gentleman based his contention that the closure was justified and the debate was adequate, on one single instance; he says in tones of horror to the House, that on the sixth day of the Committee, Clause 1 was still under debate.

MR. C. DUNCAN (Barrow)

The world was made in six days.

MR. WALTER LONG

Yes, Sir, it is perfectly true that the world was made in six days and that Clause 1 was discussed for six days, but what the Chancellor of the Exchequer omitted to tell the House was that during those six days a much larger number of Members on the Government side of the House, than of Members of the Opposition, took part in the debate. He forgot to tell the House that that clause, by the admission of the Minister in charge of the Bill and of everybody who has studied the Bill, contains the main and to us the most objectionable principle in the Bill. That clause proposes to establish fixity of tenure in Scotland, and what experience have we in this country of fixity of tenure? We have only had it in its application to Irish land legislation. The right hon. Gentleman said that a small knot of English Members opposed the Bill, but he forgot that in the opposition to that Bill in the Grand Committee there were Scottish Members concerned, who because they happened to sit on this side of the House are not apparently entitled to be called Scottish Members equally with hon. Gentlemen opposite.

MR. ASQUITH

I did not say anything of the sort. What I said was that the delay was largely due to the action of a small knot of Members.

MR. WALTER LONG

I do not wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, and possibly the language I used may have been incorrect. But I will put it in another way, and that is, that it seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman entirely ignored the opposition of Scottish Members, one of whom who sits on his own side of the House is acknowledged to have certainly no equal in his knowledge of Scottish agriculture. Scottish Members took a part in this opposition, and English Members are to be blamed for discussing this Bill because it affected Scotland alone. I deny that absolutely. It is perfectly true that this Bill applies only to Scotland, and, as I have said once during this debate, for the first time in my life I rejoice that Scottish laws are not to be applied to England. I have envied Scotland many of her laws, but when it is sought by the Government to apply to the Scottish land system almost precisely the same principle that was applied to Ireland, then I rejoice that England is not to be placed under the same disability. But is the right hon. Gentleman justified in saying that this Bill only affects Scotland? What is our experience of the application of this kind of law to Ireland? Has that been an Irish question alone? Has not this country been called upon to make great sacrifices and to find large sums of money in order to carry out consequential legislation, which became necessary through the provisions which were enacted in the case of Ireland There is no proof and there can be no proof that if this system is applied to Scotland you will not have to apply the same process of legislation that has been found necessary in Ireland. And if that is so, then it ceases to be merely a question affecting Scotland, and becomes a question affecting the whole of the United Kingdom and the taxpayers who have to find this money. Therefore the small knot of Members were absolutely justified in their action. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in defending the proceedings in Committee upstairs told us that those proceedings were reported at great length in the Scotsman. That reminds me that during the discussion of the new rules last session, I ventured to assure the Government that if they were going to make the Grand Committees take upon their shoulders a considerable share of the work which had hitherto been done down here, they must take a different view of the word "controversial" from that which was taken on either side of the House, and they must see that there was a full and official record of what took place in those Committees. But what says the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He produces a bundle of papers and points in triumph to an abundant report which I gratefully acknowledge, and which I believe to be an accurate report, which appeared in the Scotsman; but if during the course of the proceedings we quote the Scotsman as a record of information, do hon. Gentlemen opposite accept it? We ask them to accept it, and they say "where did that come from." We state that it is from the Scotsman, and they receive it in a very different way from that in which they received the right hon. Gentleman's speech to-day when he quoted the reports of the Scotsman as a reliable account of what took place in the Grand Committee. My hon. friend who moved this Amendment asks the House to affirm that the Resolution is an undue abridgment of the liberty of discussion of this House and ought not to be made without a full diselosure of the nature of the general scheme of the Government for dealing with Bills involving matters of controversy, and he seemed to me to justify his case entirely by the arguments he used. The right hon. Gentleman only gave one answer to his contention. He argued that the closure was not unfairly imposed. I am one of those who look upon the closure as having long become part of our procedure. I remember the closure being moved again and again when we were in office, and I do not suppose the Opposition thought that it was properly moved; it is generally the case that the Opposition do not agree with its being moved by their opponents. Our contention in this case was not that the closure was moved improperly; certainly our contention was not and is not that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill exercised his powers with any desire to deprive us of our rights or to act unfairly towards us. We never made any suggestion of the kind, and if last session the right hon. Gentleman derived some such impression from the speeches we made, I can only say it was never intended by any one of us. What we urged as regards these Grand Committees is what we urge now, that here on the floor of the House of Commons, with the Speaker or the Chairman, who are the officials of the House charged directly with the exercise of the right to say whether the closure shall be used or not, in the chair,—here in full gaze of the public eye the use of the closure is bound to be subject to a check and a control which is impossible and does not exist in the Committees upstairs. I appeal to anybody who has ever been responsible for the conduct of a Bill in this House to think what are the reasons which would lead him to decide that the closure shall be moved. What is the first consideration he puts before himself? It is, at what stage can the closure be used so as to advance business, to secure necessary debate, and to insure that the time shall be properly applied. Clause 1 contained an important part of the Bill—fixity of tenure applied to the whole of Scotland, irrespective of whether a case was made out for amending the Crofters Act or not; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that Members of Parliament are fully protected when it has been discussed for something less than twenty-four hours. The right hon. Gentleman talks about six days. We used to meet at half-past eleven and were supposed to return in time to come down to the House, but so anxious were they to hurry their work through that they forced us ultimately to sit there when the House was sitting. Six days then means twenty-four hours, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that an adequate and full discussion for the application of a principle which nobody so far as I know pretends has been really satisfactory in the only case where it has been applied, and for the application of which, to this part of the United Kingdom, so far as we know no reason had been given. The closure was not moved with any sort of improper motive nor, so far as I know, in any way which could be described as unjust, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has some foundation when he says six days were given to Clause 1, though on many subsequent parts the closure was moved when far less time had been given to important questions. During these debates the closure was moved frequently when in our judgment very grave questions had not been discussed at all—the constitution of the Court, the setting up in Scotland of a Land Court, which is another question altogether, quite distinct from fixity of tenure and was discussed only in the most meagre fashion. I am not blaming the Secretary for Scotland for his management of the business, but the proceedings in the Committee proved conclusively that if you are going to exercise, as you did for the first time last session, the same rights of closure that you exercised here, you ought to have at all events the same protection for the minority in the publicity of your proceedings and a record of what takes place. It is for that reason and on these grounds that we object to the powers of closure given in Grand Committee. Does not this therefore mean that the change which the Government propose is one which curtails the liberties of this House? Bills which have hitherto been debated here are to go to Grand Committees to be forced through by a purely party majority, and if they meet with non-acceptance they are to be sent up again in the next session. The Leader of the Opposition dwelt with some sarcasm yesterday upon the attitude of the Government who proposed to send up these Bills after three days discussion, to be passed practically as they are. I do not believe there is another man who has ever been responsible for a Bill which has not passed—I do not care how long he has had for its preparation—who would not if he had the opportunity gladly take it back and largely alter it before re-offering it to the House of Commons. And yet this Ministry of all the talents are so confident that they cannot go wrong that they, in the early hours of the session, ask us to take, in exactly the same form as it was introduced last year, a Bill which, I am convinced, if they were to approach its re-consideration now, they would find could from their point of view be materially improved without affecting its main principle. Is this not a curtailment of the liberties of the House of Commons? The Valuation Bill was brought in at the end of the session and discussed in the early hours of the morning. It was a Bill of extraordinary complexity, in regard to which its own promoters did not agree, either as to what its effect would be or how that effect was to be carried out. That Bill is now again brought in in exactly the form in which it was last session and no advantage is taken of those debates to amend it so as to meet in some way the views of those who criticised it. I believe there are very few cases in which any Government, however big its majority or however strong in intellectual power the Government itself has been—and in these respects the Government is fully entitled to claim that it enjoys both to the fullest extent—has ever yet succeeded in forcing legislation through the Houses of Parliament unless it was prepared to have some regard for the views and criticisms of those who differed from it. Has there been any such regard in this case? Has any concession worth talking of been made to the Opposition? Here and there something was conceded, but generally after prolonged debate. If those conclusions had been made at the beginning they would have saved a great deal of time. If the time was long the responsibility does not rest with the Opposition, but with those who were responsible for the Bill, and who if they had made their concessions earlier would have saved considerable debate. I have no hesitation in supporting the Amendment, not only for the reasons which have been given, but because if we are going in the future to have useful and practical legislation which, when it is passed into law, will be accepted by the people, it must be legislation which has been discussed in the full light of day. The public mind will not have been able to follow it in its passage through Parliament if this procedure is adopted. I believe the change is a far more serious one than the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to believe. He says the Amendment is only a revival of the old argument often used here in days gone by. I differ. This is a change which has never been proposed before, as the Prime Minister admitted yesterday. It is a change of a far-reaching kind. The right hon. Gentleman is going to transfer work in regard to many of our Bills from the floor of the House to the Committee rooms upstairs. It is going to effect an extraordinary revolution in the business of Parliament. It is because I believe that revolution to be a bad one, and because I believe it will result possibly in more work, but if so, in bad work, that I heartily support the Amendment.

*MR. BARNES (Glasgow, Blackfriars)

said he understood that his colleague the Member for Leicester had already voiced the position of the Labour Party in regard to the constitutional issues involved in the proposals of the Prime Minister, and also in regard to the proposal to carry over a Bill to the next session in the event of its not having found its way on to the Statute book. He would like to endorse what his hon. friend had said on that point, and to express the opinion that it was absurd to expect them to listen to a great many speeches, most of them of a repetition character, in passing the Bill again. But he was a Scottish Member, as well as a member of the Labour Party, and therefore it fell to his lot to have opportunities of getting to know what was denied to the hon. Member for Leicester, first, as to the time spent upon the Small Landholders Bill and the use made of the time, and, secondly, as to the feeling in Scotland in regard to the two Bills under discussion. He was astounded to read in the Press that morning a statement by the Leader of the Opposition that full and adequate time had not been devoted to the Small Landholders Bill last session, and he could only conclude that the right hon. Gentleman was actually in ignorance of the time spent and the use made of it. It seemed to him that the three days devoted to the Second Reading were ample for the occasion. Most of the speeches at the end of the debate at all events came from one side of the House, and it actually fizzled out, for even if longer time had been devoted to it little use would have been made of it. The right hon. Member for South Dublin had said that the six days that were devoted in Committee upstairs to the first clause of the Bill were devoted to the most important principle in the Bill. That was perfectly true, but the principle of the Bill was assented to, or at all events sufficiently discussed in the House, and what was left for the Committee was not to re-discuss the Bill and the principles involved in it, but to try to shake themselves down and frame the Bill in such a way in detail as to make it workable in its practical details. He had no hesitation in saying that adequate time was given. The Committee discussed every clause of the Bill. In the early stages they had discussed every sentence and every line, and he was inclined to think some would have discussed every word. The talk was mostly on the part of those who were not Scottish Members at all, and the freedom that was allowed was carried almost, if not quite, to the point of abuse. As to the feeling of the people of Scotland in regard to the Bill, could there be any doubt about it? He thought it was sufficient to take the attitude of the Scottish Members, by the bulk of whom the Bill was not opposed. It was opposed by Gentlemen who, following the lead of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, had during his (Mr. Barnes) two years in the House opposed every single measure that had been proposed, of economic, political, or social freedom. So far as they were concerned he took little stock of their attitude in regard to this Bill. With the exception of the hon. Member for Leith Burghs, the Scottish Members were friendly disposed towards the Bill, and that was sufficient to indicate the feeling of the people of Scotland. If anything else were needed he would remind the House of the most significantly representative meeting held at Perth at the time the Bill was under discussion, at which representatives from all parts of Scotland gave their adhesion in no uncertain sound, and indicated that they were sincerely anxious that the Bill should become law It had been said that the other Bill, the Land Values Bill, was one of extraordinary complexity. To his mind it was extremely simple, and it was because of its simplicity that they had the justification for its being submitted to the House so late as it was. The Small Landholders Bill was submitted early so as to allow ample time for its discussion there and in another place. He hoped the Government would stick to its guns in regard to this Resolution. If they did one of two things would happen. Either the Bills would be passed or they would be faced with a constitutional crisis that he wanted to avert. If that issue were raised, he did not believe the people of the country would be content to take it in the moderate form in which it was proposed by the Government. He had sufficient faith in his fellow countrymen to think that once the issue was raised they would not be content to lie down and allow an irresponsible and unrepresentative body to hang up the decisions of Parliament. He wanted, however, to avert the issue and to have some much needed social legislation adopted. He hoped Gentlemen above the gangway would allow Scottish Members to exercise the right that they thought they had of managing their own business in their own way, interpreting better than others possibly could the feelings, interests, and aspirations of the people of Scotland.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith Burghs)

said he held an opposite view to that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to the Scottish Grand Committee. He held it to be the only way they could manage their business short of having separate Parliaments for separate parts of the Kingdom. The system had not had a fair trial. He had already given his reasons for supporting the Resolution, but he would like to say a few words with reference to the assumption of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that because a certain number of days was given to a Bill in Grand Committee, therefore the Bill was thoroughly discussed. That was not so. If a Bill was passed without an excessive use of the closure, or without the use of the closure at all, as was the case with the Land Values Bill, it might certainly be taken that it was fully and fairly discussed. But where the closure had been moved fifty times, and where no concessions had been made, the presumption was that the objections raised to the Bill had been evaded rather than met, and that, he maintained, was the case with the Small Landholders Bill. They had had one most eloquent speech from the Lord-Advocate, to which he had listened with interest as an antiquarian; and that was the only speech to the point that he had listened to during the whole time the Bill was before the Grand Committee. It was an admirable speech. If they could have had a speech like that upon the introduction of dual ownership, or the giving of an independent valuation, or the fixing for Scotland of a new standard of economic rent, or for the abolition of one Board of Agriculture without making any provision for another, the discussion would have been materially shortened. It was not the arguments used against the Bill which wasted time, but the fact that the Government did not produce a case for the Bill, because it was introduced practically without inquiry, and it was difficult for them to find reasons for it. It was because the Government had to avoid giving reasons for the Bill that the discussion was so indefinitely prolonged. It was said that a knot of English Members wasted time, but he did not think that was so. Some English Members might have been innocent of agriculture like a great number of his Scottish colleagues, but three or four English Members were extremely well informed in agriculture, and no one could say that their contributions to the discussion were without value. They were the best fitted of the Members to debate upon agricultural affairs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer no doubt thought a great many of the points discussed were of very little significance, but they were of immense significance. The first clause which they had taken five or six days in discussing was destructive of the whole agricultural system in Scotland. Under the Bill no landlord in his senses would have continued to furnish equipment for farms as at present. That was what the Chancellor of the Exchequer called a method. All the vital principles underlying the Bill were described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as so many methods between which they had to choose in preferring the English or the Scottish Bill, but they were vital, and that was the reason why the debates were prolonged. The cost of the establishment under the Bill was a thing they had never had a discussion on yet, and on which he did not suppose they ever would. He protested against the idea that time was wasted in the Committee upstairs, and he did that in order to urge that it must not be assumed in defending the Small Landholders Bill that it was adequately discussed there, because he was perfectly clear that it was not.

MR. A. DEWAR (Edinburgh, S.)

said the hon. Member for Leith Burghs had complained that the Small Landholders Bill had been mismanaged by the promoters. When he complained that there was no one but himself and one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite on the Committee who had a sufficient knowledge of agriculture to deal with the Bill, he would remind him that the greatest and most beneficial agricultural measure ever introduced into Scotland, the Crofters Act, was carried through the House by a lawyer who never knew farming and never owned an estate, the late Lord Kinross. The plain fact of the matter was that the hon. Member for Leith and those who agreed with him came to the Committee determined to obstruct and destroy the Bill—["Oh"]—because it was founded on a principle to which they had a rooted dislike. He admitted that that was fair political warfare. He understood, though he did not agree with the argument of the right hon. Member for South Dublin, that the Landholders Bill was not discussed sufficiently to enable Scotland to understand it; but what, then, became of the argument of the Leader of the Opposition that Scotland had been so instructed in this matter that it had actually made up its mind to have nothing to do with the Bill? Scotland had been instructed, for the debates in Committee were reported in the Scotsman, Glasgow Herald, Dundee Advertiser, and the Aberdeen papers. Many Members of both Houses of Parliament had addressed meetings in Scotland in the autumn; the Bill had been discussed in every Scottish newspaper; it was talked of in the market place and workshop to the exclusion of other political topics; and on occasion every large landowner had invited his tenants to dinner, and the reporter was called in so that the views of the landholders might be made known. Some landowners took the occasion for the first time to remit arrears of rent, on account of the bad season, of course, and they saw to it that it was advertised in the newspapers. He had never known Scotland so agitated and so earnest about any important measure. He agreed with the Leader of the Opposition that Scotland had made up its mind upon this question, but not in the direction which was claimed by the right hon. Gentleman, and he claimed to know the mind of Scotland a great deal better than some hon. Members opposite. It was not after all so difficult for Scotsmen to understand the opposition to this Bill, and especially the opposition offered by the Scottish landowners. In Scotland they had had for the last 25 years in the Crofters Act a working model of this very measure. Scotsmen knew thoroughly well what they were doing. The Scottish small landholder knew very well that when this Bill passed he would possess security in his holdings, and that was enough for him. The agricultural labourer knew that he was a prospective small holder and would have a chance which he never had before, and that was enough for him. These were the classes who were longing for the Bill. Of course they did not hear them making long speeches, and it was necessary to go amongst them to find out their views, because they were not reported in the newspaper. He urged hon. Members not to delay this Scottish Small Landholders Bill unduly, because the people of Scotland were most anxious that it should pass into law. He would remind the House that the Second Reading was carried by 491 to 239; so that the principle of the measure had been affirmed by the House and thoroughly discussed. With regard to the other Bill, no one had said that it had not been sufficiently discussed, the objection raised being mainly that it was a complicated measure. To his mind it was a short measure and to those who had studied it the Bill was simple enough. It had been discussed not only in this House but in the country for a good many years, and it was supported by a majority of the municipalities in Scotland and England. A Committee sat for eighteen months upstairs considering the matter and they had made their recommendations. In conclusion he urged hon. Members on both sides of the House to give their support to the Resolution.

MR. LAMBTON (Durham, S.E.)

said he objected to some of the observations which had been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Of course it was very convenient to argue that upon this question Scotland had made up its mind. The point he had to consider was that this was a British House of Parliament and that the Resolution had not simply to be passed by Scotsmen alone. To pass measures in that way they would have to wait until Home Rule for Scotland, as well as for Ireland, was passed. Until that time arrived he maintained that English Members had a perfect right to discuss all measures which came before the House of Commons, no matter whether they were Scottish or English Bills. The hon. Member for Glasgow had objected strongly to what he called the misuse of the time of the Committee. Two hon. Members had also stated that full reports of the proceedings in Committee upstairs had appeared in the Scottish newspapers. He was one of those who took part in those discussions, and he was one of those who liked to see his speeches in print. He had looked at the Glasgow Herald and the Scotsman, but he had never seen a single word of his reported. The Scottish Members were reported, but the reports given to English Members were few and brief. If they were to judge of the proceedings in the Standing Committee by the reports in Scottish papers, they would find that English Members occupied exceedingly little time. He challenged the hon. Member to prove that any English Member on the Opposition side of the House occupied undue time in the Committee. The hon. Member for the Black-friars Division of Glasgow had said that Scotsmen could take care of themselves, and that if they were left alone they would arrange their affairs. He contended that the English Members of the Committee were very useful, and that they fulfilled their old function of keeping the peace in Scotland. On more than one occasion they saved the Government from being defeated by their own followers. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty brought forward a number of Amendments which would have been carried against the Government but for the support of the English members of the Committee. He thought the Government were most ungrateful. The remark that hon. Members above the gangway on the Opposition side of the House were always opposed to freedom was hardly worthy of the hon. Member who made it. What they wanted was freedom of discussion. The hon. Member well knew that more than half the Bill was closured without any discussion at all. The hon. Member for the Leith Burghs had pointed out that the reason why the closure was so frequently moved was that those representing the Government were unable to give an answer to the questions which were asked. They would not give suf- ficient information to the Members of the Committee. That was why the proceedings took so long. When there was a difficult point which ought to be explained, the discussion was closured. The Solicitor-General for Scotland spoke half a dozen times in Committee, and the Lord Advocate only made one speech which had much bearing on the Bill. He himself had asked for information, and it had been refused. He supposed the hon. Member went on the principle—

Gin a body ask a body,

Need a body tell.

He asked the learned Solicitor General a question and was told it would be answered when they came to Clause 14. The Clause was closured, and when it was brought up in the House it was closured again. The charges brought forward by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars division were actually grotesque. They had been told of a famous meeting at Perth. What had they to do in that House with the meeting at Perth? What had the House to do with landlords' dinners? These Bills should be discussed on their merits. The Government could not speak for them selves last year upstairs on the Small Landolders Bill, and now the Bill was brought forward in the same form. The hon. Member had pointed out that English Members did not know much about Scottish agriculture. He claimed to know something of Scottish agriculture. He lived within sight of Scotland, in I Northumberland, where agriculture was the same as in Roxburgh and Berwickshire. It was grotesque to say that English Members did not know. It had been said that the Crofters Act of twenty-one years ago, which was passed by a lawyer, had been most successful, and that it ought to be applied to the lowlands. The hon. Member was not satisfied with the Report of the Douglas Commission.

MR. A. DEWAR

The Chairman of the Commission was a moral philosopher.

MR. LAMBTON

said that in regard to agriculture he would just as soon have the opinion of a moral philosopher as that of a lawyer. The moral philosopher at the head of the Commission had the assistance of five other Commissioners who were not moral philosophers. They were acquainted with agriculture in every branch, and they reported on the system of crofter legislation which the hon. Member was so proud of. They proved that crofting conditions were all very well in crofting districts, but that they would not apply to the lowlands. No reply had ever been given to that contention. To talk of applying the Crofters Acts to Berwickshire and Roxburghshire was the greatest nonsense in the world. The Douglas Commission proved that crofters could not live without other occupation. The charges which had been brought against English Members with respect to their action in the Standing Committee with relation to the Small Landholders Bill were unjustified, and that would have appeared from a full report of the proceedings if such had been available. He understood from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Second Heading of the Bill would be passed in four hours on Tuesday next. That would be a most unjustifiable and arbitrary proceeding, and it would not redound to the credit of the Government.

*SIR J. JARDINE (Roxburghshire)

said that hon. Members on the other side of the House had gone into the great constitutional questions raised by the debate. He would like to state some of his reminiscences of what happened during the twenty-two sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee when the Small Landholders Bill was before it. He was present at all but one of the sittings, and the speeches of the English Members were listened to by the Scottish Members with that patience which was one of their national characteristics. Many of those speeches were of the nature of Second Reading speeches. It seemed to him that hon. Members representing agricultural counties in Scotland had to put considerable restraint on their desire to speak in order to enable hon. Members for England to express their views. While Members representing Scottish constituencies were occasionally firing stray shots in skirmishing order, they were attacked on all sides, bombarded, and enfiladed not only by Members of the regular Opposition but by the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs and others who were opposed to the Bill. The supporters of the Bill in the Committee could not be charged with any undue haste. As to the mind of Scotland regarding the Bill, he attached great weight to the meeting at Perth which was attended by about 600 delegates from all parts of the country. The resolution passed by that meeting in favour of the creation of small holdings was a sufficient answer to the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs who said that there was no demand whatever for small holdings. Having discussed this matter for six or seven years with people in Roxburghshire, especially with the farm servants, whose connection with the land was simply that of wage-earners, he could state very distinctly that there was a great demand for small holdings in the Lowlands. The proceedings of the Grand Committee were watched with the keenest interest, and many people came from Roxburghshire and elsewhere in Scotland to listen to the discussions. He thought he had a right to say that the people of Scotland were supremely interested in this matter.

SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)

hoped an English Member would be permitted to say a few words, because this was a question which could not be confined to the northern part of the United Kingdom. The proposal in the Small Landholders Bill was to adopt in Scotland a scheme of land tenure which the Government were entirely abolishing in Ireland. If that was the case, it was a reason why the House of Commons should be very careful in allowing such a Bill to pass without criticism. He did not intend to offer any observations on the Bill itself which had been so fully discussed already. He rather looked with favour and not with suspicion on Bills affecting Scotland, which were approved by hon. Members for Scotland. He remembered taking part in the discussions on a Scottish Police Bill in Committee. The work of that Committee was perfectly satisfactory to the House, and although it was corrected in a few details on the Report stage the Bill was practically passed as it had left the Committee, and it now stood part of the statute law of Scotland. He wished to make a passing reference to the Report presented at the end of last session by the hon. Member for Lanark on the Standing Committee. The figures given in that Report amply justified the criticisms which some hon. Members had ventured to pass on the Standing Committees. Where a Bill was non-contentious that tribunal was eminently fitted to perform its work. True, there was sometimes a difficulty in forming a quorum and afterwards of securing the attendance of a quorum during the whole of the sitting. Nevertheless, where a Hill was non-contentious the Committee vas equal to the occasion and performed its duties in a satisfactory manner. But where they had a contentious Bill, such as the Small Landholders Bill, the same conditions did not obtain. There were long sittings, the closure was applied, and the proceedings were not regarded as satisfactory. It seemed to him that bringing in the two Scottish Bills on the present occasion was very much the same as carrying forward Bills from one session to another. The procedure was so similar, and would be so quick, that the House would have no opportunity of proper discussion. For his part he could feel no security that Bills so discussed really did represent the latest condition of the Scottish mind. They knew to their pleasure the character of the Scottish intellect, its fervidness, agility, and fertility, and, therefore, he could not suppose that during the last autumn when, according to the observations made by more than one speaker, the attention of Scotland was concentrated on this Bill, Scottish ingenuity and intelligence had no further proposals to make in regard to it, and that the Scottish people had no desire for its modification, or had discovered no means for its improvement. All opportunity, however, of modifying or amending the Bill would be lost by the course of policy which the Government were now proposing to adopt. There was one circumstance in connection with the proposal now before the House to which attention ought to be called. It was to be observed, although no notice had been taken of that circumstance in the debate, that when the Government had only a demand on one half of an evening, that was to be regarded as an "allotted day." That was an additional curtailment of the time of the House for discussion of the Small Landholders Bill next Tuesday. That could not be looked upon as in any degree a proper mode of conducting the business of the House. He thought that the Amendment of his hon. friend would lead to some information being given on the part of the Government as to the procedure which they intended to submit hereafter for the consideration of the House. Reference was made in a recent debate to a suggestion that there should be procedure first of all by Resolution. The Resolution dealing with the general outline or principle of the Bill, having been adopted, the Bill might be then introduced and proceeded with, and time saved. In his own experience last century the House of Commons had to deal with one of the most difficult problems ever submitted to Parliament—the duty of passing a Bill relating to India. There were great difficulties to which some reference was made in the "Letters of Queen Victoria." The Government of that day escaped out of the difficulties by submitting a series of Resolutions—he forgot how many—and when they considered that these had been sufficiently discussed, the Bill was introduced and passed, comparatively without difficulty. The points of controversy had been decided in the course of the debates on the Resolutions. He recommended the example of those days to the sympathetic consideration of the Government. If the House would allow him, he desired, with every respect, to utter a few words of caution. Were they quite sure that they were not too much under the influence of party loyalty? He would be the last person to complain of that; but were they quite sure that they were not passing unconsciously and insensibly to the surrender of those great rights and privileges of the House of Commons? Surely it was a dangerous thing that their debates should be so curtailed. It was a dangerous thing in itself, but it was far more dangerous when they found debate of Bill after Bill, session after session, curtailed. There was an increase of this curtailment, and a corresponding diminution of the liberties of the House of Commons. He had ventured on more than one occasion to express his greave regret at the increased power of the Executive in this Parliament. He believed that it was a dangerous growth, and might bring about grave consequences; and instead of being continued as now, it ought to be arrested. Unless some change took place, the House would become a mere machine for the registration of the fiat and decrees of the Government of the day. He did not believe that this was in any degree a party question. It was a Parliamentary question, a national question, an Imperial question; and if the House parted with its privileges he was certain that it would cease to command the confidence of the people of the country. He was sure that its efficiency as a great Parliamentary machine and agency would be terribly, almost fundamentally, impaired.

SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)

agreed with what his hon. friend had said concerning the restriction of the liberties of the House. If the Government representing the Party to which he belonged brought in a Resolution like that moved by the Prime Minister, he declared deliberately that he would criticise the action of that Government and would oppose it. To pass Resolutions such as that now under consideration for curtailing discussions in the House in future, might be advantageous to the Government, in order that they might got credit from their supporters for securing the passage of an individual Bill, so that it would look as if more work was being done. But there was something more important than work being done. Once interfere with its fundamental rights, as his hon. friend had pointed out, and they drew upon the House itself trouble, which must eventually mean disaster. Much had been made that afternoon of twenty-two days discussion on the Small Landholders Bill upstairs, but the fact that there were twenty-two days discussion was to his mind an argument that there should be forty-two. The Chancellor of the Exchequor, for instance, said the Land Values Bill passed without the closure; but why did it pass without it? It did not receive the same opposition, because there was not the same fundamental objection to it that there was to the Small Landholders Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that on the first clause of that Bill six days were occupied. That was a very serious thing, and it was a matter which the Government ought to recognise as representing a strength of feeling, that should have compelled them to reconsider the introduction of the Bill itself, and when upstairs in the Standing Committee six days were taken to discuss this Clause as introduced, it proved that to have sent that Bill to a Standing Committee at all was really an infringement of the free right of debate. His hon. friend who moved the Amendment said that surgeons grew to like the use of the knife, and it became a dangerous habit with them. One unfortunate thing was that the right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not apply the knife to themselves. The Government reaped an advantage for the moment from the course they were pursuing, but there would come a time when the very precedents which they had been setting would almost necessarily be followed by succeeding Governments, and he did not trust a Conservative or Unionist Government any more than he trusted a Liberal Government in this respect. He thought the temptation of every Government was to get its business done at almost any cost, and in permitting the Government now in power to pass these Resolutions, the House was only laying up for itself a store of trouble in the future. When a Unionist Government was in power and, wanting to gets its work done, applied a similar Resolution to this, bringing the closure into force, would not the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway object, and very strongly, to the autocratic methods, as they would call them, of the Government of that time? They in that part of the House objected to Resolutions of this sort because they represented an increase of autocratic power on the part of the Executive. It was assumed in regard to these Bills that all the discussions had been completed; because nobody could say that there could be any discussion under the rules proposed. But was it certain that discussion was completed? Several months had passed since these Bills were brought in before; the country had had time to consider them, the representatives of the people had had time to consider them; the Scottish Members had been to their constituencies, and the English Members had had time to read the debates. Would anyone suggest that when these two Bills came up again the discussion which had occurred would be adequate to the occasion? He did not think so. It had been pointed out by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House that questions of principle were not discussed at all in the Standing Committees, the questions most serious to the welfare of the landed interests of Scotland were completely passed over, and by the falling of the closure fifty nine times these grave questions were consigned to the oblivion which the Government had prepared for them. As he had said, the precedent was a dangerous one. The Government by it would choke discussion, and he ventured to say they would do so only for party purposes. It was a party purpose, and that was the cruel part of it. In order to see these Bills through at any cost the Government had proposed this Resolution, and if they received the support of the vast majority of the Liberal Members of the House they would once more demonstrate the helplessness of the minority, and once more show that their rights must be sacrificed. It was much better to allow over discussion than curtail discussion. He had been eight years in the House and he did not believe that on any Bill of importance there had been too much debate. It was only by constant discussion, by constant threshing out of clauses that they got at the bottom of the weakness of each individual clause, and judged its strength. There came to his mind a Bill which was passed, almost with a consensus of opinion and support from all quarters of the House. He referred to the Workmen's Compensation Bill, and he had always believed that that measure went through the House too quickly. He did not, moreover, believe that there was a single Member who had watched the working of that Bill, since it became law, who was not convinced that if it were again discussed, each clause would receive graver attention than it did. He thought there was the greatest danger, because feeling was in favour of its principle, in allowing a Bill to pass without fighting every clause of it, in order to find out what the meaning of it was, and what its effect would be. The Workmen's Compensation Bill was only one of a number to which he could refer, if there were time, and he opposed this Resolution because it would destroy adequate discussion. Even if the House had made up its mind upon these Bills, he believed that the Resolution was dangerous in principle and tyrannous in practice. The House of Commons was a body that had extravagantly generous instincts, and liked, when it was possible, to unite on the principle of a measure; indeed it was constantly shown to the Treasury Bench how eager the Opposition was to be generous when opportunity occurred. The danger was, when there was a good feeling concerning a Bill or measure, to allow that Bill to have a freedom of movement to which the whole history of the House was opposed, and the business of the House and the business of its Committees was to tear every Bill in pieces in order that when it became law it should offer no opportunities to the members of the legal profession to tear it to pieces. It would be far better to carry over Bills and deal with over discussion when it occurred than to pursue the present course. The fault he found was that the Prime Minister and those who sat on the Treasury Bench prepared for over discussion. They assumed that the Opposition would not properly, in an orderly fashion, and with a due sense of responsibility for the time they occupied, deal with these Bills, and they had acted in a most ungenerous and unmanly fashion. It was almost an insult to the House to say to Members of the Opposition that if these Bills were brought in they would not treat them fairly, but would over discuss them. If the Government were going to attempt to carry out the principle that before a Bill was brought in they would assign a time to it, what guarantee had the House in the future for liberty of speech and for due and proper discussion? Slowly and steadily the Government during its two years of office had taken from the House discussion in Committee, and in the second year they deliberately took from a Committee of the Whole House the right of discussion of Bills which ought to have been discussed in the Whole House. He opposed entirely the idea that because the Bill was a Scottish measure it should be relegated to Scotsmen. They had heard the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Bill in question would have passed in half the time if English Members had not been on the Committee. What an extraordinary statement from a right hon. Gentleman of his experience in the Parliament of this country They might as well break the Union and devolve the business of the Legislature to separate Parliaments for Wales, Scotland, and Ireland at once, as say that questions which concerned Scotland should only be dealt with by Scotsmen, and that they only should be allowed to sit on the Standing Committee and be responsible for passing a Bill through it. Such a proposition was wrong in principle and wrong in practice. There should be in the House the widest kind of criticism and discussion, and they were surely not going to descend to that parochialism, of a cramping and injurious kind, which relegated to certain sections of the House certain questions which belonged to the future and welfare of the United Kingdom. He strongly protested that the arguments which had been used indefence of the carrying of the Small Landholders Bill were unsound, unfair, and unwise, and he objected to the localising of the discussions upon certain portions of the Kingdom. The intentions of the Government he agreed were honourable, and they desired to facilitate business legitimately. He would, however, like hon. Members to think for a moment of the methods adopted for cramping, crushing, and stifling legitimate discussion in their desire to advance business legitimately. The course they had adopted was not the basis upon which Liberal Governments in the past had gone to work. The Parliamentary records of the House showed that Liberal Governments in the days of Mr. Gladstone kept up a very high standard of their duties and responsibilities on the one hand, and the opportunities and liberties of hon. Members upon the other. He regretted that he could not trust right hon. Gentlemen opposite upon this question. He did not think they ought to be led into temptation, and they were at present leading themselves and their followers into temptation. Human nature was much the same the world over, and no Cabinet was exempt from it. The Government had been casuistic in regard to this Bill, and they had cited the merits of the particular case in their own defence. The Government had no right to take any one Bill as an illustration of the value of a principle which they were trying to establish. If it was only one case of opportunism one would perhaps be inclined to let it go, but it was not so. What was being done now would be taken as a precedent to be followed in the future, and the same principle would be applied to other Bills. The proposal was wrong altogether. The funnel of legislation was choked in this House, and there was far more business to do than there was twenty years ago, although the machinery for doing it was very little better. Their responsibilities had increased, but they would not cure the choking up of the funnel by boring holes in it, and that was exactly what they were doing now. They were actually attempting to cure the evil by injuring the machinery. There was a fundamental defect in the Resolution, which he hoped the House would realise. They would not be wise in attempting to facilitate business at the expense of the rights of Members and the liberties of the representatives of the people, or by choking off discussion in the House of Commons. A revolt against such procedure would ultimately come from both sides of the House. There was scarcely an hon. Member in the last Parliament who did not lift his voice against the guillotine when it was applied by the late Government. He thought this Government or any future Government would find the safest and most liberal course the best. Nothing was to be gained by saying to men who had a due sense of their responsibility, "We will not let you talk too long upon this question." They would have to proceed upon entirely different lines. He contended that the Resolution was fraught with great danger to the freedom of debate in the House, and the future would justify the action of those who were now raising their voices against it. Never before in the history of the House of Commons had any Government done what this Government was now proposing; that was, to bring in a Resolution applying the closure to measures before they had been discussed, and defining the limits under which the representatives of the people should express their views upon what were really national questions. He believed that if the House properly considered the question at issue and voted according to its conscience, the Resolution would be sent to the limbo of undesirable legislative acts. That was the only hope which could animate one's breast in the face of a Ministerial Party so intent upon having their own way at any cost.

*SIR EDWARD SASSOON (Hythe)

said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in replying to the speech of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, had treated in a light-hearted vein the misgivings which animated the Opposition with regard to the successive encroachments and inroads upon freedom of debate, which had been made by His Majesty's Government during the short period they had been in power, and which had now culminated in this series of Resolutions to which the Amendment of his hon. friend was directed. Some of the most cherished objects of a constitutionally governed people, viz., the unrestricted liberty of debate and the unhampered observance of the rights of minorities, were at stake, and this in connection with two Bills of first class importance introducing and involving a novel principle of a wide and far-reaching character. What was it that the House was asked to deal with in this summary fashion? One of the Bills was the Scottish Small Landholders Bill, the main principles and not the less important details of which had been remitted to a Committee upstairs. With all due respect he wished to state that by taking that course the measure had been wholly removed from the purview of that consideration which alone it could receive by a full and comprehensive discussion before a Committee of the Whole House. When this session was only a few days old the House was asked—in fact it was bidden by the Government, with a pistol aimed at its head—to pass within the short span of an allotted day Bills of the utmost importance involving vital principles. In one day the House was expected to pass the financial stage of the Resolution, the Report stage and the Third Reading of an important measure. Not satisfied with making this great demand upon the patience and energy of this House, so voracious seemed to be the appetite of His Majesty's Government for hasty legislation, that they were introducing by a side wind the principle of carrying measures from one session to another. At the present moment he was not concerned to discuss the expediency or desirability of adopting that principle, but he wished to point out that it was a principle against which, under the doughty championship of political leaders such as Mr. Gladstone and Sir William Harcourt, Governments in the past had set their faces against like Hint. If His Majesty's Government desired to benefit from the advantages which were likely to accrue from this new principle of carrying over measures, the proper and fairest way for the House of Commons was to bring forward a matured plan to be submitted for the reasoned and considered judgment of Parliament. When by the changes of political strife hon. Members came to occupy a position of less responsibility and greater freedom they would find that they had created by this Resolution a Frankenstein monster, the inconvenient antics of which they would have put themselves out of court to denounce. The hon. Member below the gangway, with the eloquence and vigour usually associated with his utterances, had given his benediction on behalf of the Labour Party to these Resolutions.

MR. JOHN WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)

Hear, hear!

*SIR EDWARD SASSOON

said he noticed that the hon. Member for Stoke endorsed that view. Upon what grounds were they supporting these Resolutions? On the ground that they would injure the position of another place.

MR. JOHN WARD

Business.

*SIR EDWARD SASSOON

said hon. Members from Ireland were also chuckling at this treatment of the Parliamentary machine at the bidding of the Liberal Party. Everything that was likely to conduce to the impotence of the Second Chamber was sure to be welcomed by hon. Members below the gangway, who welcomed anything which was likely to lead in the direction of Home Rule. He submitted to the two important sections of the House which he had alluded to that in acceding to the demand made by the Government they were taking rather short views. If the experience of the past was any guide, the effect of the establishment of a Land Court in Scotland apart from the usual tribunal of the realm and the establishment of fixity of tenure and fair rents on the basis of dual ownership was infallibly bound to lead to that very deadlock with which they were now confronted in Ireland. He ventured to predict that some day a future Government would have to come down to the House of Commons and do what his right hon. friend the Member for Dover had to do in 1902—that was, ask for the credit of the Imperial Exchequer, not for 120 million pounds, but for something nearer 700 or 800 million pounds in order to undo the mischief, the germs of which, the Government were now sedulously planting. What evidence was there that the people of Scotland desired to have these Bills passed? Their agricultural conditions were exactly similar to that of their competitors on the other side of the Tweed, and they did not require dissimilar treatment. The Opposition never had any desire to obstruct sane and sober legislation, and in support of that contention he would mention the fact that the English Land Bill was passed last year without the closure being imposed. As regarded the alleged enthusiasm which had been excited in the breasts of Scots men by these measures, His Majesty's Government had already been told by an eminent agricultural expert, who sat on the benches opposite, what he thought of the Small Landholders Bill. The Leader of the Opposition had had good opportunities of ascertaining the views and aspirations of the people of Scotland, and he had assured the House that there was no demand for the Small Landholders Bill in Scotland. Then, again, Lord Rosebery had riddled the measure through and through in the Upper Chamber. It was this under-fed and stunted bantling that the Government were desirous of passing without discussion. With regard to the Land Values Bill, they all knew that that measure had had practically no discussion in the House. The Resolution showed that His Majesty's Government were rather infected with a desire for resorting to the extra-constitutional methods which seemed so dear to the heart of the President of the Board of Education. In conclusion, he said the Opposition were determined to give these Resolutions and their underlying idea their most strenuous and uncompromising resistance, and he would have great pleasure in voting for this Amendment.

*MR. SUMMERBELL (Sunderland)

said that those who sat on the Labour Benches were going to support the Resolution because they wanted to see some work done in the House of Commons. They had heard a lot of arguments about stifling discussion, and people outside were asked to believe such statements.

He ventured to dissent entirely from that view, for in his opinion there was too much opportunity given to the Opposition to prevent legislation. To come down night after night and see the benches of the House of Commons from 7 o'clock to 9.30 with probably only about twenty-five Members present, and then at 11 o'clock to hear hon. Members crying out "Gag, gag, gag," was to his mind something entirely wrong. If they really wanted to discuss these questions, why did they not attend in the House? What he had been impressed with in the speeches from both sides was that it did not seem to be a question of stifling discussion, but of preventing the Opposition from stopping the Party in power from carrying out legislation. He asserted that the object of the Opposition was to prevent the Government from carrying legislation, in order that they would be unable to go to the country and state that they had done certain things. He remembered the discussion in the House in regard to the land question, and they all viewed with regret that the land of the country was going out of cultivation. When discussing the Land Bills those opposed did not discuss the problem of the cultivation of land in the interests of the people, but principally the rights of the landlords in regard to the preservation of game. During those discussions it was not the people's rights but the rights of the landlords which the House was asked to think about. He contended that the Bills dealt with in this Resolution had been fully discussed, and in giving their support to the Government be thought they were doing that which was right and were not restricting the liberties of anybody in the House so far as the consideration and discussion of those measures was concerned. He denied that the Labour Party by their action upon this question were animated by any desire to provoke a conflict with the House of Lords.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 332; Noes, 83. (Division List No. 9.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Agnew, George William	Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Ainsworth, John Stirling	Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.	Alden, Percy	Armstrong, W. C. Heaton
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Kettle, Thomas Michael
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall	Kilbride, Denis
Astbury, John Meir	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Elibank, Master of	Lambert, George
Barker, John	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Lamont, Norman
Balrow, Sir John E. (Somerset)	Erskine, David C.	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Barnes, G. N.	Evans, Samuel T.	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Beale, W. P.	Everett, R. Lacey	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)
Beauchamp, E.	Fenwick, Charles	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert	Ferens, T. R.	Lehmann, R. C.
Bellairs, Carlyon	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.	Ffrench, Peter	Lever, W. U. (Cheshire, Wirral)
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt	Findlay, Alexander	Lewis, John Herbert
Benn, W (T'w'r Hamlets. S. Geo.	Flynn, James Christopher	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Bennett, E. N.	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Lough, Thomas
Berridge, T. H. D.	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Fuller, John Michael F.	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Fullerton, Hugh	Maclean, Donald
Black, Arthur W.	Gill, A. H.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Boland, John	Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Boulton, A. C. F.	Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.
Brace, William	Glover, Thomas	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.
Branch, James	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	M'Callum, John M.
Brigg, John	Gooch, George Peabody	M'Crae, George
Bright, J. A.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Kean, John
Brodie, H. C.	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	M'Micking, Major G.
Bryce, J. Annan	Griffith, Ellis J.	Mallet, Charles E.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Manfield, Hairy (Northants)
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Hall, Frederick	Marnham, F. J.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Halpin, J.	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Massie, J.
Byles, William Pollard	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Masterman, C F. G.
Cameron, Robert	Hart-Davies, T.	Meagher, Michael
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Menzies, Walter
Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Micklem, Nathaniel
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Haworth, Arthur A.	Mond, A.
Cheetham, John Frederick	Hayden, John Patrick	Montagu, E. S.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Montgomery, H. G.
Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)	Hazleton, Richard	Mooney, J. J.
Cleland, J. W.	Helme, Norval Watson	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Clough, William	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Morley Rt. Hon. John
Clynes, J. R.	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.	Morrell, Philip
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Henry, Charles S.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)	Murphy, John (Kerry, East)
Collins, Sir Wm J. (S. Pancras, W	Higham, John Sharp	Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)
Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Murray, James
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Hodge, John	Myer, Horatio
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, EGrinst'd	Hogan, Michael	Napier, T. B.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Holden, E. Hopkinson	Nicholls, George
Cowan, W. H.	Holt, Richard Durning	Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r
Cox, Harold	Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N	Nolan, Joseph
Crombie, John William	Horniman, Emslie John	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Crosfield, A. H.	Horridge, Thomas Gardner	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Crossley, William J.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Curran, Peter Francis	Hudson, Walter	Nuttall, Harry
Dalziel, James Henry	Hyde, Clarendon	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)	Idris, T. H. W.	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jackson, R. S.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Delany, William	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	O'Donnell, G J. (Walworth)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Jenkins, J.	O'Grady, J.
Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Dickson Poynder, Sir John P.	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Jones, Leif (Abbleby)	O'Malley, William
Dillon, John	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Donelan, Captain A.	Jowett, F. W.	Parker, James (Halifax)
Duckworth, James	Joyce, Michael	Partington, Oswald
Duffy, William J.	Kearley, Hudson E.	Paulton, James Mellor
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Kekewich, Sir George	Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent
Pearson, W. HM. (Suffolk, Eye	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawic B.)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n
Perks, Robert William	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Wardle, George J.
Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)	Sheehy, David	Waring, Walter
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan
Pirie, Duncan V.	Simon, John Allsebrook	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Power, Patrick, Joseph	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Waterlow, D. S.
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Watt, Henry A.
Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.	Snowden, P.	Weir, James Galloway
Pullar, Sir Robert	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Whitbread, Howard
Radford, G. H.	Soares, Ernest J.	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Rainy, A. Holland	Stanger, H. Y.	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Raphael, Herbert H.	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph(Chesh.)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Steadman, W. C.	Whitehead, Rowland
Redmond, William (Clare)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Rees, J. D.	Strachey, Sir Edward	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Rendall, Athelstan	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Wiles, Thomas
Richards, Thmoas (W. Monm'th	Stuart, James (Sunderland)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpton	Summerbell, T.	Williamson, A.
Ridsdale, E. A.	Sutherland, J. E.	Wills, Arthur Walters
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)	Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.)
Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Robinson, S.	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Thorne, William	Winfrey, R.
Roe, Sir Thomas	Torrance, Sir A. M.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Yoxall, James Henry
Rose, Charles Day	Ure, Alexander
Rowlands, J.	Verney, F. W.	TELLERS FOR THE AVES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Wadsworth, J.
Scott, A. H. (Ashton-und.-Lyne	Walters, John Tudor
Seddon, J.	Walton, Joseph
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F	Craik, Sir Henry	Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Cross, Alexander	Morrison-Bell, Captain
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Dalrymple, Viscount	Nield, Herbert
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Parkes, Ebenezer
Balcarres, Lord	Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.	Faber, George Denison (York)	Percy, Earl
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Fell, Arthur	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester	Fletcher, J. S.	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Gardner, Ernest	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hamilton, Marquess of	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf' rd	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Bull, Sir William James	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Helmsley, Viscount	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool. Walton)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hill, Lord Arthur (West Down)	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Gave, George	Hills, J. W.	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ.
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W	Houston, Robert Paterson	Thornton, Percy M.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lambton, Hon. Frederck Wm.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Wore.	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N.	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Clive, Percy Archer	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.	Younger, George
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Lowe, Sir Francis William
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Foster.
Courthope, G. Loyd	M'Arthur, Charles
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.	Magnus, Sir Philip

Main Question again proposed.

MR. ASQUITH

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

moved an Amendment to provide that the various stages of the Bills should be proceeded with "in the manner prescribed by a Select Committee." He said that the result of that would be to leave the settlement of the time to be occupied, not to the Government, but to an independent tribunal of this House. He had good reason to believe that at any other time his Amendment would be accepted by the Government, because both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said in the past that they did not approve of the Government coming down and settling the time to be given to any particular Bill. But now it was said that this Motion was of a special character, because its object was to enable these Bills to be sent to the House of Lords at such a time as would give that House a more reasonable time to discuss and decide on them than was given last year. But if that was the only object why should not the Bills be introduced in the House of Lords? To that Question he ventured to think no Answer could be given. But if the course was not acceptable to the Government he could not see why they allotted any days at all. Why should not they follow a little further the precedent which they had set in this Motion? They said "the Committee on the financial resolutions shall be deemed to be set op." Why should they not go a little further and say "The Bills shall be deemed to have been passed through all their stages"? If the only object of the Motion was to get the Bills before the other House, he could not see why the Government gave this farcical time for their discussion. If the Scottish Small Landowners Bill required discussion at all, nobody would pretend to say that it would be adequately discussed in two days. As he understood, the Labour Party thought it ought not to be discussed; that it was discussed sufficiently last year, both in the House and in the country. But if it was thought it required to be discussed, it was grotesque and farcical to give only two days to the discussion. It was said it was difficult to induce the electors to understand or to take an interest in a debate upon the privileges of the House, or to take any interest in its internal arrangements. But that made it all the more necessary for Members of the House to take adequate precautions to see that its liberties were preserved. How long were they to go on submitting to these guillotine Resolutions, always deplored by the Minister proposing them, to whatever Party he belonged, and always proposed again the next time he desired to pass a measure? Unless the unofficial Members of the House found the courage to rebel against the official Members these things would go on time after time, always with promises that at some distant period definite arrangements for the business of the House would be set up. He hoped that one of these Committees would be set up, and that it would not be left to the ipse dixit of the Government of the day; but that would never be fulfilled until they reasserted the liberties of the House, until they impressed on the Government that these perpetual acts of attainder against the liberties of the House were really resented by the House, and until they enforced their opinions by their votes in the lobby. He made this appeal because in his judgment the danger of tyranny was not less under a democratic form of government than under any other. On the contrary, it was greater. Under other forms of government they had an appeal to another and greater power than the Government, namely, the power of the people who would resist in the last resource if the Government acted tyrannically; but under a democratic government that resource was removed. Once they had persuaded the majority to support their view, however tyrannical to the minority and however un acceptable it might be, there was no-appeal at all. The only resource they had to prevent the democracy from working out the worst tyranny in the world was for those who administered the democracy, who guided it, and who represented it in this House, to take care that they would never give their assent to an act that was really tyrannical. The Amendment did not destroy the Prime Minister's Resolution, but merely proposed to refer it to an impartial Committee to see whether it was really just and fair to all parties in the House.

MR. BOWLES (Norwood)

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed—

"In line 7, to leave out from the second word 'the' to the end of line 22, and to insert the words 'manner prescribed by a Select Committee.' "—(Lord Robert Cecil.)

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

MR. ASQUITH

assured the noble Lord that he supported the main Motion without any crocodile's tears, with dry eyes, with a clear conscience, and with no twinge of remorse. If these Bills were now being introduced for the first time the periods assigned for their various stages would be wholly inade-

quate.That, however, was not the case, for they were dealing with one specific case, which could not legitimately form a precedent if hereafter proposals were made with reference to legislation introduced for the first time. Why should they refer to a Select Committee—which was more or less a microcosm of the House, and which would have the same vice of partiality as they in the House suffered from—the duty of determining how many days the House should give to these Bills when the House was quite capable of determining the matter there and then for themselves? There could be only one answer—delay. The Amendment was dilatory, and it did not go to the real merits of the question, and he asked the House therefore to adhere to the original Motion.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 332; Noes, 85. (Division List No. 10.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Bryce, J. Annan	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)
Agnew, George William	Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Burke, E. Haviland-	Dillon, John
Alden, Percy	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Donelan, Captain A.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles	Duckworth, James
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Byles, William Pollard	Duffy, William J.
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Cameron, Robert	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness
Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Astbury, John Meir	Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Cawley, Sir Frederick	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Cheetham, John Frederick	Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Elibank, Master of
Barker, John	Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)	Cleland, J. W.	Erskine, David C.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Clough, William	Evans, Samuel T.
Barnes, G. N.	Clynes, J. R.	Everett, R. Lacey
Beale, W. P.	Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Fenwick, Charles
Beauchamp, E.	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Ferens, T. R.
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert	Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W	Ferguson, R. C. Munro
Bellairs, Carlyon	Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Ffrench, Peter
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Findlay, Alexander
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt	Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Flynn, James Christopher
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Bennett, E. N.	Cowan, W. H.	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman
Berridge, T. H. D.	Cox, Harold	Fuller, John Michael F.
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Cremer, Sir William Randal	Fullerton, Hugh
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Crombie, John William	Gill, A. H.
Black, Arthur W.	Crosfield, A. H.	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Boland, John	Crossley, William J.	Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)
Boulton, A. C. F.	Curran, Peter Francis	Glover, Thomas
Brace, William	Dalziel, James Henry	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Branch, James	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Gooch, George Peabody
Brigg, John	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Bright, J. A.	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Brodie, H. C.	Delany, William	Griffith, Ellis J.
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	M'Crac, George	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	M'Kean, John	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside
Hall, Frederick	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Robinson, S.
Halpin, J.	M'Micking, Major G.	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Maddison, Frederick	Roe, Sir Thomas
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Mallett, Charles E.	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Hart-Davies, T.	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Rose, Charles Day
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)	Rowlands, J.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Marnham, F. J.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Haworth, Arthur A.	Massie, J.	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne
Hayden, John Patrick	Masterman, C. F. G.	Seddon, J.
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Meagher, Michael	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Hazleton, Richard	Menzies, Walter	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Helme, Norval Watson	Micklem, Nathaniel	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Mond, A.	Sheehy, David
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Montagu, E. S.	Shipman, Dr. John O.
Henry, Charles S.	Montgomery, H. G.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.	Mooney, J. J.	Simon, John Allsebrook
Higham, John Sharp	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Hobart, Sir Robert	Morley, Rt. Hon. John	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Hodge, John	Morrell, Philip	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Hogan, Michael	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Snowden, P.
Holden, E. Hopkinson	Murphy, John (Kerry, East)	Soares, Ernest J.
Holt, Richard Durning	Murray, James	Stanger, H. Y.
Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N	Myer, Horatio	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Horniman, Emslie John	Napier, T. B.	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Horridge, Thomas Gardner	Nicholls, George	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r	Strachey, Sir Edward
Hudson, Walter	Nolan, Joseph	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Hyde, Clarendon	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Idris, T. H. W.	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Summerbell, T.
Illingworth, Percy H.	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Sutherland, J. E.
Jackson, R. S.	Nuttall, Harry	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Jenkins, J.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	O'Connor, James (Wicklow. W.)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.
Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Thorne, William
Jowett, F. W.	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Joyce, Michael	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Kearley, Hudson E.	O'Malley, William	Ure, Alexander
Kekewich, Sir George	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Verney, F. W.
Kettle, Thomas Michael	Parker, James (Halifax)	Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Kilbride, Denis	Partington, Oswald	Vivian, Henry
Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Paulton, James Mellor	Wadsworth, J.
King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Walters, John Tudor
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Walton, Joseph
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent
Lambert, George	Perks, Robert William	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n
Lamont, Norman	Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)	Wardle, George J.
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Waring, Walter
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal. W.)	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Warner, Thomas Courtcnay T.
Layland-Barratt, rancis	Pirie, Duncan V.	Wason, Rt. Hn E. (C'lackmannan
Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.	Power, Patrick Joseph	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Price, C E. (Edinb'gh, Central	Waterlow, D. S.
Lehmann, R. C.	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.	Watt, Henry A.
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Pullar, Sir Robert	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)	Radford, G. H.	Weir, James Galloway
Lewis, John Herbert	Rainy, A. Holland	Whitbread, Howard
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Raphael, Herbert H.	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Lough, Thomas	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Redmond, John E. (Waterford	White, Luke (York. E. R.)
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs	Redmond, William (Clare)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Mackarness, Frederic C.	Rees, J. D.	Whitehead, Rowland
Maclean, Donald	Rendall, Athelstan	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth	Whittaker, Sir John Palmer
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n	Wiles, Thomas
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.	Ridsdale, E. A.	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E)	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Williamson, A.
M'Callum, John M.	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)	Wills, Arthur Walters

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull. W.)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)	Yoxall, James Henry
NOES.
Acland-Hood. Rt Hn. Sir Alex F.	Darlymple, Viscount	Morrison-Bell, Captain
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Nield, Herbert
Arstruther-Gray, Major	Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan	Parkes, Ebenezer
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Faber, George Denison (York)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Balcarres, Lord	Fell, Arthur	Percy, Earl
Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)	Fletcher, J. S.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester	Forster, Henry William	Ranldes, Sir John Scurrah
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Gardner, Ernest	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Bowles, G. Stewart	Guinness, Walter Edward	Roberts, S. (Sheffield. Ecclesall)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hamilton, Marquess of	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Bull, Sir William James	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool. Walton
Carlile, E. Hildred	Helmsley, Viscount	Stavcley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Hill, Lord Arthur (West Down)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cave, George	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.	Hills, J. W.	Thornton, Percy M.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Houston, Robert Paterson	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore	Keswick, William	Valentia, Viscount
Charming, Sir Francis Allston	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N.	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Clive, Percy Archer	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Wolff, Gustay Wilhelm
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin. S.	Younger, George
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lowe, Sir Francis William
Courthope, G. Loyd	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Lord Robert Cecil and Sir Frederick Banbury.
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.	M'Arthur, Charles
Craik, Sir Henry	Magnus, Sir Philip
Cross, Alexander	Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Main Question again proposed.

MR. ASQUITH

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly.

The House divided:—Ayes, 331; Noes, 84. (Division List No. 11.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Bellairs, Carlyon	Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles
Acland, Francis Dyke	Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt	Byles, William Pollard
Agnew, George William	Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets. S. Geo.	Cameron, Robert
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Bennett, E. N.	Carr-Gomm, H. W.
Alden, Percy	Berridge, T. H. D.	Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Cawloy, Sir Frederick
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Cheetham, John Frederick
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Black, Arthur W.	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry	Boland, John	Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)
Astbury, John Meir	Boulton, A. C. F.	Cleland, J. W.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Brace, William	Clough, William
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Branch, James	Clynes, J. R.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Brigg, John	Cobbold, Felix Thornley
Barker, John	Bright, J. A.	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)	Brodie, H. C.	Collins, Sir Wm. J. (Spancras. W
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Bryce, J. Annan	Compton-Rickett. Sir J.
Barnes, G. N.	Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Condon, Thomas Joseph
Beale, W. P.	Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Corbett, CH (Sussex. E. Grinst'd
Beauchamp, E.	Burke, E. Haviland-	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Cowan, W. H.
Cox, Harold	Horniman, Emslie John	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r
Cremer, Sir William Randal	Horridgc, Thomas Gardner	Nolan, Joseph
Crombie, John William	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Norton, Capt, Cecil William
Crosfield, A. H.	Hudson, Walter	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Crossley, William J.	Hyde, Clarendon	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Curran, Peter Francis	Idris, T. H. W.	Nuttall, Harry
Dalziel, James Henry	Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Jackson, R. S.	O'Connor,. Tames (Wicklow, W.
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Delany, William	Jardine, Sir J.	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Jenkins, J.	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Dewar, Sir J. A, (Inverness-sh.)	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.
Dillon, John	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea	O'Malley, William
Donelan, Captain A.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Duckworth, James	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Parker, James (Halifax)
Duffy, William J.	Jowett, F. W.	Partington, Oswald
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Joyce, Michael	Paulton, James Mellor
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Kearley, Hudson E.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Kekewich, Sir George	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Perks, Robert William
Elibank, Master of	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster	Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'th'mpton)
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Erskine, David C.	Lambert, George	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Esslemont, George Birnie	Lamont, Norman	Pirie, Duncan V.
Evans, Samuel T.	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Pollard, Dr.
Everett, R. Lacey	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Fenwick, Charles	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Price, C. E (Edinburgh, Central
Ferens, T. R.	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E.	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Pullar, Sir Robert
Ffrench, Peter	Lehmann, R. C.	Radford, G. H.
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lever, A. Levy (Essex. Harwich)	Rainy, A. Rolland
Findlay, Alexander	Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)	Raphael, Herbert H.
Flynn, James Christopher	Lewis, John Herbert	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'
Foste, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Lough, Thomas	Redmond, William (Clare)
Fuller, John Michael F.	Macdonald, J. R, (Leicester)	Rees, J. D.
Fullerton, Hugh	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)	Rendall, Athelstan
Gill, A. H.	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Maclean, Donald	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Ridsdale, E. A.
Glover, Thomas	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down. S.	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)
Gooch, George Peabody	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Callum, John M.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Grey, Rt Hon. Sir Edward	M'Crae, George	Robinson, S.
Griffith, Ellis J.	M'Kean, John	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Roe, Sir Thomas
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	M'Micking, Major G.	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Hall, Frederick	Maddison, Frederick	Rose, Charles Day
Halpin, J.	Mallet, Charles E.	Rowlands, J.
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Hart-Davies, T.	Marnham, F. J.	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Massie, J.	Seaverns, J. H.
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Masterman, C. F. G.	Seddon, J.
Haworth, Arthur A.	Meagher, Michael	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Menzies, Walter	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Hazelton, Richard	Micklem, Nathaniel	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Helme, Norval Watson	Mond, A.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Montagu, E. S.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Henderson, J. M (Aberdeen, W.)	Montgomery, H. G.	Simon, John Allsebrook
Henry, Charles S.	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)	Morley, Rt. Hon. John	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Higham, John Sharp	Morrell, Philip	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.
Hobart, Sir Robert	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Snowden, P.
Hodge, John	Murphy, John (Kerry, East)	Soares, Ernest J.
Hogan, Michael	Murray, James	Stanger, H. V.
Holden, E. Hopkinson	Myer, Horatio	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Holt, Richard Durning	Napier, T. B.	Stanley, Hn. A. (Lyulph (Ches.)
Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N	Nicholls, George	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	Wads worth, J.	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Strachey, Sir Edward	Walters, John Tudor	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Walton, Joseph	Wiles, Thomas
Stuart, James (Sunderland)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Summerbell, T.	Wardle, George J.	Williamson, A.
Sutherland, J. E.	Waring, Walter	Wills, Arthur Walters
Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.
Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	Waterlow, D. S.	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	Watt, Henry A.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E	Wedgwood, Josiah C.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Thorne, William	Weir, James Galloway	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Torrance, Sir A. M.	Whitbread, Howard	Yoxall, James Henry
Trevelyan, Charles Philips	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Ure, Alexander	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Verney, F. W.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Villiers, Ernest Amherst	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Vivian, Henry	Whitehead, Rowland
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F	Cross, Alexander	Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Dalrymple, Viscount	Morrison-Bell, Captain
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Neild, Herbert
Arkwright-, John Stanhope	Duncan, Robert (Lanark. Govan	Parkes, Ebenezer
Balcarres, John	Faber, George Denison (York)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City, Lond.	Fell, Arthur	Percy, Earl
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Fletcher, J. S.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester	Gardner, Ernest	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Gretton, John	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Bowles, G. Stewart	Guinness, Walter Edward	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hamilton, Marquess of	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Bull, Sir William James	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Carlile, E. Hildred	Helmsley, Viscount	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Hill, Lord Arthur (West Down)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cave, George	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Thornton, Percy M.
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.	Hills, J. W.	Tuke, Sir John "Batty
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Houston, Robert Paterson	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Keswick, William	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Wore.	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Clark, George Smith (Belfast. N.	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Clive, Percy Archer	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Younger, George
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin. S.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lowe, Sir Francis William
Courthope, G. Loyd	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim. S.	M'Arthur, Charles
Craik, Sir Henry	Magnus, Sir Philip

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That in the case of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill and the Land Values (Scotland) Bill, the Committee on the Financial Resolution (if any) relating to the Bill shall be deemed to have been sot up as required by the Standing Orders of the House, and the Second Reading, Committee stage, and Report stage of the Bill (including the Financial Resolution (if any) relating thereto) and the Third Reading of the Bill shall be proceeded with in the following manner:—(a) The Committee stage of the Financial Resolution (if any) relating to the Bill, and the Second Reading of the Bill, shall be proceeded with and brought to a conclusion on the first allotted day; and the Bill shall, when it has been read a second time, stand committed to a Committee of the Whole House without Question put; (b) The Report stage of the Financial Resolution (if any) and the Committee stage of the Bill, and, if the Bill is not amended in Committee, the Report of the Bill to the House, and the Third Reading of the Bill, shall be proceeded with and brought to a conclusion on the second allotted day, and on the conclusion of the consideration of the Bill in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put; (c) If the Bill is amended in Committee, the Report stage and the Third Heading of the Bill shall be proceeded with and brought to a conclusion on the third allotted day. After this Order comes into operation, any day (other than Friday) shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the day, or on which any stage of the Financial Resolution (if any) relating thereto is put down as first Order of the day followed by the Bill. On any allotted day on which proceedings on any business allotted to that day are to be brought to a conclusion, the Speaker or Chairman shall at 10.30 p.m. if the day is one on which Government business has precedence after 8.15 p.m., and at 7.45 p.m. if the day is one on which Government business has not precedence after 8.15 p.m. (if those proceedings have not already been brought to a conclusion,) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other amendments, and on any question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new clauses or schedules he shall put only the Question that the amendment be made or that the clause or schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be, and on the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman, in the case of a series of clauses to which no notice of Amendment has been given by the Government, shall put the Question that those clauses stand part of the Bill without putting the Question separately as respects each clause. Proceedings to which this order relates shall not on any day, on which any proceedings or business are to be brought to a conclusion under this order, be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the sitting of the House. In the case of an allotted day being a day on which Government business has not precedence after 8.15 p.m., the time at which the proceedings or business is to be brought to a conclusion, are so brought to a conclusion shall, if that time is later than a quarter past eight, be substituted, for the purposes of Standing Orders relating to the precedence of business at different sittings and to the time for taking Private Business, for 8.15 p.m. On an allotted day no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, nor Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order 10, nor Motion to postpone a clause, shall be received unless moved by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without any debate. Nothing in this order shall—(a) prevent any business which under this order is to be concluded on an allotted day being proceeded with on any other day, or necessitate a day being allotted to any such business if the business to be concluded has been otherwise disposed of; or (b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on an allotted day in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House after the business to be concluded on the allotted day has been disposed of.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Whiteley.)