BILLS OTHER THAN MONEY BILLS.

HC Deb 14 April 1910 vol 16 cc1424-93

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

Question again proposed,

" 2. That it is expedient that the powers of the House of Lords, as respects Bills other than Money Bills, be restricted by Law, so that any such Bill which has passed the House of Commons in three successive Sessions and, having been sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, has been rejected by that House in each of those Sessions, shall become Law without the consent of the House of Lords on the Royal Assent being declared: Provided that at least two years shall have elapsed between the date of the first introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons and the date on which it passes the House of Commons for the third time.

" For the purposes of this Resolution a Bill shall be treated as rejected by the House of Lords if it has not been passed by the House of Lords either without Amendment or with such Amendments only as may be agreed upon by both Houses."

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I beg to move, after the word "than" ["as respects Bills other than Money Bills"] to insert the words "Bills affecting the prerogative, rights and powers of the Crown and."

When business was interrupted at quarter-past 8 o'clock yesterday evening I was addressing to the Committee an argument which I will briefly summarise. It was to the effect that a very large number of rights and powers are vested in the Crown under the accepted form of the Constitution, that those rights and powers when they have been exercised have formed the subject of serious controversy on many occasions during last century, and also before then, that even now on occasion their exercise does lead to questions both of delicacy and importance, and that they are likely to give rise to more controversy in future. They are likely to give rise to more controversy in future for these reasons. When at present any persons or sections of the community are aggrieved by the proceedings of this House appeal, so far as legislation goes, lies to the House of Lords, but in future that appeal will not lie. It will lie only to the Crown. I endeavoured to show that great pressure might be put upon the Crown to exercise its powers, whether by the old right of Veto, whether by dissolution, or whether by dismissal of the Ministry, to put one or other of these powers into execution, and the result would be to place the Crown in a position of enormous difficulty—one great section of the community demanding the exercise of those powers, and another section extremely concerned at even the possibility of their being exercised. In short, there is a possibility, and not merely a possibility, but I submit a probability, that we might find ourselves in a conflict between the Commons and the Crown, exactly as we now find ourselves in a conflict between the Commons and the other House. If that was possible in. the case of some ordinary Bill which had passed through this House, and which after two years had necessarily been withdrawn from the purview of the House of Lords, it would be more likely to happen when some great constitutional measure was before the country. I will not go over the old ground about the omnipotence of Parliament. It was argued yesterday that in this country Parliament was omnipotent. If you take away the functions of the House of Lords you will not have in this country the safeguards which are found necessary in all other countries. I will not enlarge upon that, except to say that in almost every other country you have a double safeguard against any great constitutional change. In the first place you have the safeguard of two Chambers, and, secondly, you have the safeguard of a written Constitution. We hitherto have only had one safeguard, namely, the two Chambers. We have never had a written Constitution, and if we pass this Resolution we are going to throw away the one safeguard remaining to us without putting another in its place. As a result, the Crown will then have to be the safeguard against great constitutional change.

The Home Secretary the other day made an exceedingly interesting and important speech, but he did not answer the question put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. My right hon. Friend asked what safeguard there would be against great constitutional change in the event of this Resolution being carried, and in the course of his interesting and brilliant speech the Home Secretary gave no answer to that question. It is true the right hon. Gentleman did speak of the difficulty of carrying legislation where great interests are involved, and, quoting the case of the Port of London Bill, he referred to the difficulties arising as to that measure in consequence of persons interested in a variety of ways desiring to be heard. That is quite true, but there are, under our procedure forms, different ways in connection with private Bill legislation of seeing that all interests are adequately represented.

4.0 P.M.

There is every endeavour to find an impartial tribunal. There are numerous Standing Orders that have to be complied with. The promoters of the Bills are subject to cross-examination. I wonder what the result would be if the promoters of some of these Bills in the last few years had not been subject to cross-examination? In short, every precaution that could be observed has to be taken that no Bill affecting private rights shall pass without the fullest, freest, and more exhaustive investigation.

But in the public Bills there is nothing of the kind. There is more security for a man who has one right and one easement which is assailed than there is under our Constitution for all the great institutions of the country. Up to the present, as I say, there has not been any such great difficulty in practice because the Second Chamber has insisted that no great constitutional change shall take place unless it is perfectly certain that the people as a whole want it. But if you abandon that, which is the only check which we in our Constitution have, you have nothing left but the Prerogative of the Crown to depend upon. It may be said that I am sketching very unlikely future possibilities, but is it so very unlikely? Take the hypothetical case of a Government maintained in power by a certain group, dependent on the support of that group, and maintained in power for the sole purpose of passing some one constitutional change, and maintained in power for the necessary two years. Suppose during that time a controversy arises, and large bodies of His Majesty's subjects think themselves aggrieved and menaced in what they have the dearest regard for, in something concerning their liberty, their security against taxation, the practice of their religion, or some other matter very near to them, and suppose that during all that time it becomes apparent that a steady body of opinion is growing against that change, but the Government of the day ignore that body of opinion, as they are dependent not upon the opinion which is growing in the country, but upon the support of some group in this House, and perhaps they may know well that they are bound to lose the next election whatever course they adopt. Is it not certain that every effort would be made by such a Government to keep in power until the statutory two years and the statutory three Sessions have gone by, so that they may carry the measure which, if once passed into law, would perhaps be irrevocable except by the force of arms? Surely that is not an improbable case. Certainly it is not an impossible case, and when we consider the programme of legislation which was adduced by the Home Secretary as a programme to be put through by the use of this Second Resolution, I ask the Committee whether the case I am putting is at all a fantastic or even improbable one?

Suppose that case to exist, suppose the Crown to exercise one of its prerogatives, whether of dissolution or dismissal—the latter of which I may remark there is a precedent for within the last eighty years —suppose public opinion or the opinion of a large or perhaps predominant party were greatly excited by this, then we might be in exactly the same position with regard to the Crown that we are now in with regard to another place, and a measure might be put through this House to limit the rights of the Crown itself. Can you conceive a more difficult position for the Crown to be in? It would not be a question of the personal feelings of the Sovereign; he would have to regard himself as the Trustee of the Monarchy and of the ancient Constitution, and yet he would either have to yield to the pressure, or he would have the feeling that he might be yielding some right which was essential to the future of the Monarchy. I submit it is absolutely necessary that there should be some power between this House and the Crown. The words of Cromwell have been quoted in this House, "I must have somebody between this tumultuous assembly and myself," and what was true in his day will be as true also in the future if this Resolution becomes law. The Home Secretary the other day, at the end of his speech, drew a moving picture of the difficulties that would result if these Resolutions did not become law. He seemed to think that if they did become law all difficulties would cease. But the possibilities which I have tried to foreshadow show that the course of any Government in power under these Resolutions would not be so smooth. On the contrary, the Government have embarked on a dark and dangerous course in which there is no finality. What begins in party bravado may end in national disaster. The Government may speak with respect of the Crown, but are they going to ask that same Crown for an unparalleled exercise of extraordinary power, which would put the Crown in a position whereby its ancient rights would be certainly prejudiced and possibly fatally impaired? I do trust that the position of the Crown may be in no wise affected by our threatening dissensions. If this Resolution passes I fear it is inevitable that there will be the tendency—nay, more, I am afraid even now a tendency is too apparent—to involve the Crown in the tortuous designs of the politicians of the hour. I trust that the danger for the time may pass. If this Resolution goes through I fear that that same danger will recur. But, at any rate, an this Amendment there lies some safeguard, and I ask the Committee to accept it that the ancient corner-stone of this realm may be kept inviolate from party strife.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I am afraid that the answer of the Government to this Amendment must largely be a repetition of the answer which I have given to the proposals which have come yesterday and the day before from that side of the House to make special exemption from the scope of this Resolution. If one were admitted many others should be admitted, and the Government, as at present advised, do not propose to accept Amendments which narrow the full scope of the Resolutions which they have placed before the Committee. But if any exception were to be made on any grounds I conceive it would not be on the ground which has been urged in the speech of the hon. Member— a, speech of much diligent care. I do not think the unreal apprehensions of the party opposite have ever reached a higher pitch than in regard to this Amendment. We are asked to exempt the Prerogatives and the rights of the Crown from the procedure which would exist under these Resolutions when they are passed, and to secure for those rights and privileges the protection of which I venture to say they do not stand in need, of the Veto of the House of Lords. I should have thought that of all other subjects this was the one about which all sides of the House, would have felt the greatest amount of confidence. The great prerogatives of the Crown, peace and war, making treaties, dissolutions, prorogations of Parliament, and the creation of peers, are and have long been exercised upon the advice of responsible Ministers. They have been exercised upon the advice of Ministers who, as long as the House of Commons retains its control over finance, will be responsible to this House and to this House alone. I cannot conceive any party wishing to alter or affect those great prerogatives on which the efficiency of our Execu- tive Government depends. As to the rights and interests of the Crown, those too, I should have thought, would be safe with the British people. The Crown, the British Monarchy, has no interests which are not national, and no interests which are not the interests of the whole people of the United Kingdom, and I cannot conceive that they could stand on any more secure foundation than on the widest possible good wishes of His Majesty loyal subjects. For these reasons, and for other reasons which I venture to submit to the Committee, the Government must meet this Motion for narrowing the scope of the Resolutions by asking the Committee to oppose and reject it.

Mr. BALFOUR

The right hon. Gentleman in his speech entirely missed the point of my hon. Friend's Amendment. Towards the end of his speech he expressed the belief that the rights and privileges and interests of the Crown should not have a more secure basis than in the opinions and wishes of the people of this country. I agree with that, but the whole point of my hon. Friend's Amendment was that those rights, privileges, and prerogatives should not be interfered with unless the people of this country are consulted. That is the whole essence of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and I was astonished that the right hon. Gentleman, on this particular aspect of the case, as it presents itself to us, and has been repeated both in and out of the House in quite unmistakable terms, should not have thought it worth while in his speech to make some defence of the course the Government have taken in making the whole Constitution of the country, including the privileges and position of the Second Chamber, which do not come under this Amendment, but including also the privileges and position of the Crown—nay, the very existence of the Crown itself—all those parts of the Constitution, actually depend upon the accidents of Parliament in the first few years of some Government that comes into office. What reply has the right hon. Gentleman attempted to make to that? He makes no attempt except this, and this only; he says it is very improbable that anything foolish will be done in the first two years of a Parliament after it has been elected by the constituencies. Let us grant that. Let us put our collective wisdom as high as we please; let us grant that the prudence of the House of Commons as representing the constituencies is proof against all access of temporary enthusiasm, never to be perverted by this or that current or crosscurrent of the play of party politics; granting that it is improbable, we have yet got to consider something which ought not to rest upon an improbability like that. We ought to consider the source of security which all nations have put as a bar to hasty changes in their constitution, and we ought to remember that in these Resolutions you are removing the only bar which we possess; against the aggressive attacks of any particular Administration. We really have some claim to a reply which we have never yet received. Do or do not the Government lay down this proposition, nakedly and without qualification, that any Parliament, howsoever composed, into whatever parties it may be divided—in other words, however it may be necessary for the party in power to depend upon this or that combination of independent parties, however the House of Commons may shield itself, is to have absolute control over every branch of the constitution, over the whole constitutional machinery, from the deepest foundation up to its latest and most recent battlements? Our complaint is that the Government have never faced this constitutional issue at all. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the question with such great argumentative force, but he literally got no reply from the Government, nothing more than to say, "Well, now, is it probable that the House of Commons will do anything so very unwise in the first two years of Parliament? "

Mr. CHURCHILL

I really did not say that. I said I could not conceive at the present time of any party legislating to alter the Prerogatives of the Crown. I certainly cannot, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will suggest what form he apprehends the legislation would take.

Mr. BALFOUR

Happily for him, the right hon. Gentleman's memory does not go back so far as mine. Just conceive Mr. Gladstone being asked thirty or forty years ago whether he thought Resolutions like these we are discussing would be proposed by a responsible Government in this House. If he had been told thirty or forty years ago that without providing any constitutional safeguards a Government in this House" would come forward and say in the first two years of a Parliament, "The whole Constitution is to be placed in the control and in the keeping of a Cabinet and Administration," he would have said, "That is so improbable that I do not think I need be asked to consider the matter further."

Mr. CHURCHILL

Mr. Bright was a Member of a Cabinet which proposed a more drastic procedure. That was in 1884.

Mr. BALFOUR

But 1884 is not thirty or forty years ago. Surely, it is all a question of time. My point is that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the theory of progress as preached by him and his Friends. He cannot imagine what his successors are going to do. I cannot imagine what even the right hon. Gentleman himself is going to do. Our poverty of imagination—and I quite admit that mine is very inadequate—is no measure of the dangers which the Constitution may run in unforeseen circumstances, and all I ask in connection with this Amendment is that we should remember that these dangers may occur, that we are withdrawing the only safeguard that now exists against them, and that these dangers are thought so real by every other civilised community, in problems like that which now confront us, that they have put barriers compared with which the flimsy barrier which the right hon. Gentleman suggests, namely, his own common-sense and the common-sense of his successors, seems to me insignificant indeed.

Mr. A. R. RAINY

I wish, in claiming the indulgence of the House for a few minutes, rather to convey what is the opinion in the part of the country from which I come with regard to this question. I observe that each of the Amendments which are being put down by the Opposition is in restraint of the powers contained in the Resolutions which the Government have brought forward. All those Amendments endeavour to limit in some way the force of the Resolutions. As one of those who fought the election on one question and one only, namely, the question of the relations between the Commons and the House of Lords, I come here for the Constituency I represent, to oppose these Amendments, because they are all in the way of restraint. I have noticed since the year 1894 that the tone and atmosphere of the House of Lords has been continually altering. We have heard from the other side speeches full of fear and anxiety. If I may describe the attitude of the Opposition it is one of fear and timorousness. We have had from several hon. Members quotations and citations to show that their fears have been justified, and, therefore, that the other place has legitimately interfered with our concerns. I wish to quote from an authority which I think still bears weight in this House— namely, a speech made by Sir Robert Peel, in 1831, which, I think, covers the whole case, and shows what was contemplated at that time:— When once you have established the overpowering influence of the people over this House; when you have made this House the express organ of the public voice, what other authority in the State can—nay, what other authority ought to—control its will, or reject its decisions? The people are the judges of their own interests; the people are enlightened and well affected to the Throne; the House of Commons is the organ of the people; who will presume to check its patriotic course? Even the discussions in which we are at this moment engaged afford an example of the probable power which any authority will hereafter possess to control the voice of a House of Commons much more popular in its origin than the present. Who asks now what course the House of Lords will take with respect to this Bill should it pass the House of Commons? It seems taken for granted that it must pass the House of Lords—that it would be vain to oppose a measure that extends popular privileges, and is said to be in conformity with the wishes of the people. The same impression will exist in a stronger degree hereafter with respect to all popular measures which a reformed House of Commons may offer for the acceptance of the House of Lords. The tendency on the part of this House will be to gratify their constituents by popular measures, and to increase their own power; and the countervailing influence of any other authority in the State will become gradually weaker, and ultimately owe its bare existence to its practical disuse. In my part of the country it is asked whether anyone at that time could have possibly conceived that such an attitude would be taken up in the other place as that which we have existing at this time. What I insist upon is that there has been in the other place a conspiracy against the powers of this House.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

On a point of Order. May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman's observations are in order, and whether we shall be able to follow on the lines which he has taken, a very interesting line, of course?

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is sometimes in order and sometimes out of order. At present he is certainly out of order.

Mr. RAINY

I was going to develop it very slightly. I was merely generally trying to show why, in every respect, I am opposed to these Amendments, and particularly this one, with regard to the Royal Prerogative. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment very properly said that there were various instances in which the Prerogative of the Throne is exercised. It struck me as a little peculiar that he did not cite perhaps one of the most important of those occasions, when, in 1831, the Prerogative of the Crown was proposed to be invoked in order to create peers to pass the great measure of that day. I may be allowed to quote a very interesting document which did not see the light for seventeen years. I am refering to the Memorandum by Sir James Graham upon this particular question in the Cabinet of his day. It was published the other day. I cannot read you the whole of it, but I will quote two paragraphs from it in order that we may see what was in the mind of certainly the most remarkable statesman who ever adorned this House, who had the confidence of his colleagues, who was a great man of his time, although he did not accept one of the highest positions under the Crown. He is talking about the Bill, and he says:— My conviction is, that this rejection would be followed by the most fatal consequences. No political evil I can contemplate appears to be more dangerous than a majority of the House of Lords obstinately opposed to the will of the King. In the votes of the House of Commons, and to the declared opinion of the nation. Supposing it be said that we are losing ground, which is what has been said just now, then, in the second paragraph, this is what Sir James Graham goes on to say:— What, then, is our strength? And where are our weapons of defence? Our strength is in the confidence of the people, and the support of the House of Commons, which we cannot lose if we are true to the great principles of our measure. Our weapons are the exercise of all the powers and prerogatives of the Crown, which, if the King be with us, in this emergency we are justified in using without reserve for the benefit of his people: and if he be not prepared to trust us, our efforts are vain; we cannot save him.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

What was the measure?

Mr. RAINY

The Reform Bill. The next, quotation is this:— My fixed opinion was that before we reassembled Parliament and launched for a second time our measure in the face of an adverse majority in the House of Lords, a distinct explanation with the King on this subject of making peers was indispensable. He goes on to say:— Our position will be disastrous if we carry our measure through the House of Commons to the entire satisfaction of the nation, and stumble again at the threshold of the House of Lords. He sums up the position thus:— I think the known possession of the power the surest means of averting the necessity of using it. The hon. Member opposite, as is usual with the other party, suggested to our minds the possible consequences of our action. The other day it was said that civil war might possibly arise. I would remind the other side that whenever civil war has occurred in this country it is because the absolute powers were being tried to be revived on behalf of the privileged classes. That was where the Stuart kings wrecked themselves, and I am not sure that the other place has a finer conception of constitutional law and order or how they might work for their our ends than the Stuart kings did persistently. If there is any danger of that sort it is their line of argument that will bring it about and not ours. With regard to this Amendment we are asked to say that, because of the safety of the Crown, we ought to divest ourselves of any means of interfering with the Prerogative of the Crown. I would say that where I come from we are as loyal subjects of His Majesty as any people in any part of his dominions, and we say that the foundation of his throne rests not upon Statute or Constitution, but upon the patriotic loyalty of those for whom he represents not party, but the genius and the essence of this great Empire to which we belong. I admit the point that there might be the temptation on the part of the other side to try to associate the Crown with this House, so as to make constitutional difficulty. That might be tried, and I admit there is that danger, and I do not think it is safe for this House to throw away the power, should the other House force it, to say, "We may for the meantime take to the House of Commons the Prerogatives of the Crown in order that the Crown itself shall not be involved in the question at issue," so that the country would have to quarrel with this House, and perhaps give judgment on them, and not on the Crown. That is far-fetched, but it is not nearly as far-fetched as the proposition of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. I say in this great crisis, which is a constitutional war, do not let hon. Members opposite suppose this is merely talk. The House of Commons is fighting for its own existence. We are fighting under the disadvantage that hon. Members opposite are associating themselves with the conspiracy of the other place. Therefore I say that I will resist this Amendment, and every such Amendment, to the utmost of my power, because, without imputing anything to anyone who differs from me, I should otherwise be convinced that I am a traitor to the rights and liberties of the House of Commons.

Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY

I do not think that one could possibly listen to a better argument in favour of accepting the Amendment than the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Rainy). I do not say that I am a great student or authority on the history of this country, but I have always believed that the Constitution of this country consisted of the Crown, the Lords, and the Commons, and that that Constitution had grown up through a series of years, and that different portions of that Constitution had powers in greater or lesser degree at certain periods of our history. Undoubtedly at the present moment the House of Commons has got the greatest power and the Crown has got the least. We are now approaching, as the hon. Member (Mr. Rainy) has said, to a great constitutional Resolution, and we are going to alter our Constitution. How can that be done? It cannot be done by this House alone. I suppose the people in the past gradually framed our Constitution, and balanced the different powers and different parties in this country so that there should be some equilibrium, and so that the Constitution should not be overborne at the first gust of public opinion, or at the first breath of unpopularity against one portion of that Constitution. I may say, in passing, that that Constitution has furnished an example to the Constitutions of every country in the civilised world. What is going to happen if the hon. Member and the Government have their way. I believe a number of the supporters of the Government are pressing His Majesty's Ministers to ask for guarantees from the Crown, at all events if the popular opinion is in their favour, to create peers. I quite admit that if there is an alteration in the Constitution the only possible way in which I can see it can be effected is by the creation of peers. I cannot conceive that the House of Lords is going to commit suicide. There is no reason why they should. There they are, they are part of the Constitution until you can get them to vote to commit suicide. They will refuse to do so in all probability and there they will remain in very good health and strength. How can you get over the difficulty, and how can you kill the Lords, or lop off their right arms and left legs. You propose to do it by going to the Crown and asking the Crown to exercise the Prerogative of the Crown to create peers in order to swamp the Tory majority in the House of Lords?

The CHAIRMAN

I do not quite see how this arises out of the Amendment. The Amendment is to a Resolution dealing with an alteration by law of the powers of the House of Lords over Bills passed through this House. The Amendment is to exclude from the restriction it is proposed to put on the House of Lords—"Bill? affecting the Prerogative, Rights, and Powers of the Crown." That has nothing to do with what the Noble Lord is saying.

Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY

I was perhaps rather verbose. I agree with the hon. Member that one of the Prerogatives of the Crown is to create peers, and if you leave this Resolution as it is, it is perfectly open to a future House of Commons to pass a Bill which shall limit the Prerogatives of the Crown as regards the creation of peers. That is the whole point of the constitutional question, and I cannot conceive why the Government oppose this Amendment. It is perfectly conceivable that a Tory Government in the House of Commons, with the Tory majority in the House of Lords, if yon do not have an Amendment of this kind, so altering the rights and Prerogatives of the Crown as to pass an Act which will say that the Crown shall no longer have the power to create peers. If I may say so, I think my argument as to that is very much to the point. If you once give the power to one House alone of dealing with the Constitution you have thrown the whole constitutional system to the winds. The Government, in order to bring about this change in the Constitution, are going to invoke the power of the House of Commons and the power of the Crown. There is to be two against one in order to crush the Lords. If you take away the power of the Crown to override the decision of the Lords it appears to me that the whole case which was so eloquently put by the last speaker entirely falls to the ground. I cannot conceive, after the extracts he has read, why he is not going to vote for this Amendment. He read out one extract expressing the opinion that the Crown should exercise the prerogative of creating peers in order to force through the Reform Bill. If you do not accept this Amendment it will be perfectly easy for a Tory majority to pass a Bill abolishing this prerogative, and you will find yourself in a great deal worse position than you are at present.

There is a small point, but one we ought to consider in dealing with the great constitutional question, and that is the power which undoubtedly exists in the Crown of bringing about a Dissolution. It is a power which in recent years has almost entirely been abandoned, but I think it is perfectly possible to foresee circumstances which might arise, especially if the Second Chamber is practically rendered powerless, with either a Liberal, a Tory, or a Labour party in power, where the Crown might think that for the safety of this country and for the good government of this country, and acting on its own responsibility, that it would be only right and just that the people of this country should have the opportunity of recording their votes, and that it should not be left to the Ministry of the day to stay in for their five years. It is true we are promised a Quinquennial Act, but it is perfectly possible for a Government that wishes to remain in power longer to repeal the Quinquennial Act, if it ever comes into force. To my mind, to allow one branch of the Legislature absolute power to pass Bills through the House of Commons without any check whatsoever, and that such Bills should become law, particularly considering we are limiting the Prerogatives of the Crown, is most dangerous not only in the interests of the Radical party, but also in the interests of the Conservative and Labour parties; and, if I may say so, what is more important still, in the interests of good government and of the safety of everybody in this Realm. Therefore, even from the point of view of the Government, I cannot conceive why they are not willing to accept this Amendment. By doing so, it appears tome that they would make their position much stronger than it was before. It is generally accepted that there is the right in the Crown to create peers, and if you do not have this Amendment it will be perfectly possible for any Government in. the future to take away that right from the Crown.

Sir JOHN JARDINE

In discussing this question we have no reason to presume that the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland will not act with wisdom and with due regard for the feelings of the nations which comprise this Realm. Since 1832 it has been a common-place for Members on both sides in this House to say that they trust the people and believe in their loyalty and sense as the great security for good legislation. I admit there are times when we should pause, and when even the people should pause; but I submit that there are plenty of Parliamentary conditions to apply the necessary drag; and in these Resolutions, with their provisions for delay, there are sufficient safeguards to prevent anything like hasty or unreasonable legislation. If it is contended that those safeguards would not be sufficient, is the House of Lords a competent tribunal to supply that wisdom in which this House and the nation are presumed to be deficient? Prominent among the Statutes referred to in history as hasty legislation occurs the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, passed, according to historians, in a sort of panic because the Pope had divided England into dioceses. Yet that Act was never put into force, and some years afterwards it was repealed Was the House of Commons alone responsible for that piece of hasty legislation? Did they gain anything from the wisdom of the Lords?

The CHAIRMAN

How does this bear on the Amendment?

Sir JOHN JARDINE

I was speaking to the argument that the safeguards against hasty legislation are not sufficient.

The CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member desires to do that, he must confine his argument to the class of Bills dealt with in the Amendment.

Sir JOHN JARDINE

I will leave that part of the subject. When this great question of the Veto of the Lords was put forward at the last election, certainly in the county of Roxburgh no suggestions whatever were made as to limiting the effect of such legislation by excepting the Prerogative and powers of the Crown; and since then such information as I have received speaks of this as the supreme work of the Session and makes no suggestion whatever as to there being any need to limit the effect of the Resolutions in the direction proposed. I believe the country generally would regret any whittling down of the Resolutions, particularly in reference to the Prerogatives of the Crown, regarding which the settled doctrine is that they are exercised on the advice of responsible Ministers, and always for the good of the subject. I shall therefore have pleasure in voting against the Amendment.

Mr. L. SANDERSON

We were told the other day that Members on this side of the House had totally failed to understand the real intentions of the Government in regard to this Resolution. To a certain extent, and up to a certain time, I am in- clined to think that that was correct. Speaking for myself, and I believe other Members on this side are in the same position, I failed to realise the real meaning of this Resolution or the extent to which it was intended to be pushed, as evidenced by the opposition to this Amendment. But considerable light has been thrown on the real intentions of the Government, and our thanks are due to the Mover of the Amendment for bringing that about. It has been said on the other side of the House that the object of this Amendment is to divest the House of Commons of some of its powers. It is nothing of the kind. We on this side are just as jealous of the powers of this House as hon. Members opposite. In fact, I am inclined to think that we axe more so. At all events, personally. I do not intend to diminish the powers of the House of Commons, of which I am proud to be a Member. One part of the Resolution proposes to give absolute power to this House to pass any kind of Bill within a certain time, and the object of the Amendment is to except from the operation of the Resolution a particular class of Bills, namely, Bills dealing with the prerogative and powers of the Crown. Why do we want to do that? Because we do not wish to leave it in the absolute power of a temporary majority in this House to interfere with the Prerogative of the Crown, and we wish to retain some machinery by which it may be made certain that upon such a vital and important matter the will of the people shall be ascertained before it is finally dealt with. That is not a question between this House and the House of Lords at all. Our only desire is that we should have a Second Chamber which will be some check upon the temporary majority in the House of Commons and able to provide a means of ascertaining the opinion of the people upon legislation which may interfere with the Prerogatives of the Crown. If you reject this Amendment you will give power to the majority in the House of Commons, absolutely uncontrolled during a certain period of its existence, without consulting the people and without there being any means of ascertaining the wishes of the people, to pass into law measures which may vitally affect the Prerogatives of the Crown. The Home Secretary thinks that those prerogatives may be safely left in the hands of the people. I agree with him, and our object is to provide that the people shall have an opportunity of saying what they wish with regard to the matter. The Prerogatives of the Grown are at present dependent on the will of the people, and we desire that they should remain so. To secure that is the object of the Amendment. A distinguished American once said, "You can fool some of the people all the time, you can fool all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." In regard to these Resolutions I cannot help thinking that a considerable number of the people of this country have been fooled; but as day by day passes and discussion follows discussion in this House light is being thrown upon the real intentions of the Government, and I now feel hopeful that a large majority of the people will not be fooled by the propositions under discussion. They are beginning to realise the extent to which a Resolution of this kind can be and is intended to be pushed, and the great and vast changes which it involves. If this Amendment is rejected, as I am afraid it will be, there will be made clearer than ever the great danger that threatens not only the Crown and the Constitution, but the whole community in the country.

Dr. ADDISON

I think we shall all agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Sanderson) that a great deal of light is being thrown on this question. Nothing could have been more illuminating than the last two speeches from the opposite side as to the attitude and intentions of the Tory party and the House of Lords. It has been said that the power of the Second Chamber is not involved in this Amendment. I can hardly follow the logic of that statement, because the Amendment proposes that the Resolution shall read, "That it is expedient that the powers of the House of Lords in respect of Bills other than Bills affecting the prerogatives, etc." It is specifically addressed to the House of Lords. The Noble Lord the Member for the Horncastle Division (Lord Willoughby de Eresby) suggested that we should be removing the only safeguard against great constitutional changes, and he specified as a particular constitutional change that might occur the limitation of the Prerogative of the Crown to create peers. In the light of that illustration I take it that the argument of the supporters of the Amendment is that the House of Lords is the only safeguard that we at present possess against the infringement of the Prerogative of the Crown in relation to the crea- tion of peers. But, if I remember rightly, it is only within the last few weeks that a deliberate proposal has been brought forward in the House of Lords itself to limit this the most valuable of the Prerogatives of the Crown.

5.0 P.M.

I think the proceedings of the last few days have demonstrated that the House of Lords is no safeguard whatever against interference with the Prerogatives of the Crown. The real protection of the Prerogative of the Crown is the loyalty and devotion of the people of this country, and there is no other safeguard, and by no introduction of Amendments can we manufacture one. The Mover of the Amendment, in arguing that some power should exist between this House and the Crown for the protection of the Prerogative, referred to the statement of Oliver Cromwell, which was also referred to by Lord Rosebery in another place, but the Noble Lord and the Mover of the Amendment omitted to complete, the quotation from that illustrious person. May I be allowed to do so, as the Cromwellian idea has been referred to in this respect. He quoted these words:— I made it a condition that in taking the supreme power that I would not undertake it without there might lie some other body to interpose between you and me on behalf of the Commonwealth to prevent the tumultuary and popular spirit. You granted that I should name another House, and I named it. With integrity I did it. But he did not give the remainder of the passage, which reads:— I named it of men who shall meet you wheresover you go and shake hands with yon and tell you it is Slot titles nor Lords nor Parties that they value, but a Christian and an English interest, men of your own rank and quality, who will not only he a balance unto you, but a new force added to you whilst you love England and religion. No one can say that the House of Lords as at present constituted in any way approaches the Cromwellian idea, and I must say I think that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment perhaps might have been a little more careful, when he did refer to it, to read the remainder of the sentence.

The gravest feature, as it seems to me, which is involved in this Amendment is that it specifically or by inference proposes that the House of Lords should step in between responsible Ministers and, let us say, their power to advise a Dissolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] It is distinctly involved in the Amendment, and it must be so. Therein we see only another illustration of what is the most unfortu- nate feature in this Debate, namely, the uniform tendency of the Conservative party to deprecate the House of Commons. It has been sought, and it is sought in this Amendment, to suggest that the House of Commons is lacking in a certain measure of authority, and this argument is supported by pointing to the fact that in various respects it is to some extent non-representative. That it is so is undeniable in some respects, but, whatever its authority is, it is solely derived from the fact that it is representative. Surely it will be no remedy to the lack of authority which the House of Commons possesses through any deficiency in its representative character to give more authority to a Chamber which is not representative at all. There has been some talk of chopping logic, and it must be an argument of that kind.

First we are informed that the House of Commons is deficient in authority because it is not sufficiently represented, and then, in order to complete the syllogism, we are told we should give more authority to a Chamber which is not representative at all. But, in order to further provide a basis for the argument to take away power from this House we have it pointed out to us that the Lords are justified in what they have done because it is imagined that a majority does not exist in this House for a certain particular measure. What does the argument then involve, supposing this is true? It surely involves that the House of Lords are justified for what they have done, because the House of Commons, which is representative, supports them in doing it. That is the argument; but the argument addressed to this Amendment and addressed to other like Amendments brought before us are based upon the deficiency in the representativeness of the House of Commons. As a matter of fact, it is manifest that when it suits the Conservative party they will use an argument which will make much of the lack of authority in the House of Commons derived from its not being sufficiently representative, and then they will take an argument of another kind, in which much is made of the fact that it has authority because it is representative. I must say, as a new Member of this House, who has at all times been inclined to worship its traditions, that the attitude towards this House does seem to me to be a feature which is likely in the future to stand as a degrading episode in the history of the party that is responsible for it. I am endeavouring to confine myself strictly to the Amendment which is before the House, and I think that every one of us, looking into the history of our country, realises that this House is the greatest safeguard of the Prerogatives of the Crown, and that any danger to these Prerogatives during the last hundred years has come from the House at the other end of the passage. I, for one, will be no party to give to that other House any power more than it has at present to interfere with the power of this House as expressed by responsible Ministers in regard to the Prerogative of the Crown.

Sir F. BANBURY

I do not think the hon. Member who has just sat down has in the least understood the Amendment, and, really, I do not think any of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who have opposed the Amendment have understood it, and I will endeavour to show what it is. The hon. Member who has just sat down has told us that this Amendment is an interference with the traditions of the House of Commons, and that because he is against interference with the traditions of the House of Commons he cannot support the Amendment. This Amendment does not interfere in the least with the traditions or powers of the House of Commons. They will remain exactly as they are now. The hon. Member shakes his head, but I would ask him since when had the House of Commons any power to interfere with or alter the Prerogatives of the Crown without the consent of the House of Lords since the Long Parliament? If hon. Members want the Long Parliament repeated, and if they refer to that Parliament when they are talking about the traditions and powers of the House of Commons then, of course, I have nothing to say. I do not know whether that is the Cromwellian idea. From some of their speeches it seems to me that they have some such idea lurking in their minds. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs made along speech and read extracts from all sorts of books, and he told us first of all he was against the Amendment because he promised his people in Scotland to do certain things. That is not an argument against the Amendment. I do not believe there was any single elector whom he addressed who had any conception that an Amendment of this kind would be brought forward, or that if it was brought forward it would be refused. I never saw in any speech of hon. Members opposite any suggestion that this House had the sole power to alter or amend the Prerogative of the Crown. I do not believe the hon. Member himself ever alluded to it.

Mr. RAINY

What I said was that all the powers which it now had should be preserved to this House.

Sir F. BANBURY

What he wanted might cover even the grant of a peerage to the hon. Gentleman. The Amendment only continues the present position of this House with regard to the Prerogative of the Crown, but he thinks the Lords might interfere with something he wants. That gives the whole case away, because he shows that the real object in the mind of the hon. Gentleman is that whatever he says is right, and should be immediately carried out, and that there should be no interference with it by anybody. That is not my idea. He makes a mistake, and I am not certain that his constituency did not make a mistake at the last election. Another hon. Gentleman said this Amendment restrains the powers of the House of Lords. I venture to say it does nothing of the sort. If it was carried it would not affect the power of the Lords, nor would it prevent the House of Commons from passing through the Bills which hon. Members opposite desire, and which they say the Lords have prevented them from passing. If any hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite were to propose to the Crown— I do not want to say anything personal— that the Home Secretary should become Prime Minister—there is nothing improbable in it—it is at the option of the Crown to say that it would not send for that right hon. Gentleman. That has been done in many cases in the past, and if this Amendment is not accepted, it would be possible for the right hon. Gentleman or his supporters to abolish that Prerogative, and make a new rule that if five Members of the Cabinet say a man should be Prime Minister he should be sent for by the Crown. Such a thing as that was never contemplated by any elector even in Scotland. We have had a speech by another Scotch Member, an hon. Baronet, of which the whole burden, except when he was being called to order, was that we must trust the people. That has got nothing to do with this Amendment. This is not a question of whether we should trust the people, but whether we should trust the Cabinet. Shall we put it in the power of any chance number of gentlemen who happen to form the Cabinet to exercise this irresponsible power? If this Amendment is carried, we claim it will not affect the right of the Lords, but it will affect the rights of the Crown and the powers that the Crown may use. I see the Chancellor of the Duchy has come into the House, and I am bound to say that I have listened to the speeches in favour of the Amendment and the arguments against it. I am sorry I did not hear the Home Secretary's speech against it, and I do not make my observation apply to him, but I think all the arguments they used were so weak that there must be some hidden reason behind the refusal to accept the Amendment. The idea that occurred to me, and I am sure it occurred to right hon. Gentlemen opposite also, is if there was an Amendment there must be a Report stage, and therefore they do not accept the Amendment, not because they disagree with it, but because they do not want a Report stage. That occurred before, and it may occur again, but afterwards I looked at the guillotine Resolution, and I saw there was not going to be a Report stage. I appeal, therefore, to the Home Secretary to accept this Amendment. He is not going to do himself any harm in accepting it, nor will it delay the passage of this Resolution. If I may say so without offence, the right hon. Gentleman is a very good judge of character, and a still surer judge of how to get votes. Is it going to be popular through the country when the people are made to understand, as they will be made to understand, that the real object of those Resolutions is to make the Cabinet of the day the sole dictator and controller of the interests of the country above the Crown, above, the Lords, and above everybody? We are to have ten or twelve excellent gentlemen in their way no doubt, sitting on the Front Bench opposite, with absolute power over everybody in this country. When this is understood I am sure there will not be so eager a desire to return Gentlemen opposite again to the positions which they now occupy. An hon. Friend near me says especially if they are in the pockets of the Irish.

Sir E. CARSON

What Irish?

Sir F BANBURY

That, of course, may be only a chance, such as we, are suffering under at the present moment, but this is one of the most important questions raised under this Resolution. The non-acceptance of this Amendment means that the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs are being thrown over, and that practically what we are now doing is setting up a system under which the Cabinet is to become the supreme authority in these realms.

Mr. T. M. KETTLE

Nothing would have induced me to trouble the Committee with a few observations except for the opinions we have heard from Oliver Cromwell. I do not know on which side Oliver Cromwell would have stood in regard to this Amendment, but whatever aide he took I am for the other.

Sir E. CARSON

Is it in Order, Mr. Emmott, to refer to an hon. Member by name?

The CHAIRMAN

I did not hear any hon. Member referred to by name.

Mr. KETTLE

I understood the hon. Gentleman has been dead for some time, and I trust that any observations of mine will not trouble his slumbers. In dealing with the Amendment with regard to the Prerogatives of the Crown, nobody has endeavoured on either side to outline what are the Prerogatives of the Crown.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

If my hon. Friend was here last night he would know that I did, so for a quarter of an hour or more.

Mr. KETTLE

I am very sorry I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I shall endeavour to complete my education on the British Constitution by reading it at my leisure and I shall be glad to avail of his expert authority in correcting my notions upon the Prerogatives of the Crown. Such as these Prerogatives are, everybody admits they are sham Prerogatives. What is the first Prerogative? The power of creating peers. The Crown does that upon the advice of the Prime Minister and the Government of the day. What is the next Prerogative? To reprieve murderers. The Crown does that upon the advice of the Home Secretary. What is the third Prerogative? The third Prerogative, which technically still exists, is to refuse the Royal Assent to Bills passed through both Houses of Parliament. That, I think, is something which, in the language employed by railway companies and other carrying companies, would be exercised at owner's risk.

The Debate on this Amendment is just as unreal as most of the Debates that have taken place in the last few days. We have been told in connection with this Amendment as with the others that unless you carry out what the Amendment proposes you are in danger of revolution. We are told indeed that a revolution is now proceeding in this House. I had occasion to show a French newspaper correspondent through this building in the last few days, and in order to be courteous to a nation that had put in some rather successful revolutions I explained to him that a revolution was proceeding upon these Resolutions. "A revolution," he exclaimed. "My dear sir, it would be an excellent substitute for a sleeping draught." This Amendment shows there is no loyalty towards the Crown in either of the British parties. You both support the Crown as long as you are able to advise it to do what you think should be done upon any occasion. The object of the Amendment moved by the Tories is this: The whole theory of the Tories is that the Crown is naturally Tory; that it is a sort of proprietary article to be printed on election literature at election times in both Great Britain and Ireland—I have seen it myself —to be threatened by Ulster Orangemen and menaced with the prospect of being kicked into the Boyne whenever it does not please them. Therefore, I say the whole object of this Amendment is that both the great English parties are agreed that they are not going to deprive the Crown of such sham prerogatives as it now possesses. I suggest that the purpose of the Amendment is simply to employ the Crown, as it has unhappily so often been employed in these countries, for electioneering purposes, and to appeal to that popularity which the Crown undoubtedly does enjoy in these countries to influence opinion at Parliamentary elections.

I should like to remind the Committee that we in Ireland have a special and a pathetic interest in the Crown. The late Mr. Matthew Arnold used to say that the last illision left to him was the Archbishop of Canterbury. Well, the last fragment of the Irish Constitution destroyed in 1800 left to us is the Crown. The holder of the Crown is the Sovereign of Ireland under the Irish Constitution, just as he is the Sovereign of these countries under the British Constitution. I wish simply to say that in our idea of the Crown it ought to be neither Tory nor Liberal, but it ought to be supreme and independent of all political parties, and the Crown would be fulfilling the function in the Constitution if the holder of it were a firm Home Ruler just as much as if he were a firm Tory.

Mr. H. TWIST

The Amendment moved from the benches opposite appears to me to be a device to try to place the Government and those who are behind them in supporting their Resolution in a predicament of seeming to be opposed to the present Prerogatives exercised by the Crown, and placing themselves before the country as the only loyal party to the Throne. As far as I know the history of this country the Crown has been most in danger not only of disrespect at the hands of the people, but in danger of losing its power, when the Lords have been militant in their fight with democracy for the preservation of their privileges and their powers, and that love for the Crown and respect for the Throne has grown just in the same measure and ratio as popular liberty and power have been extended. The Throne was never so much in danger, the Royal power was never so disrespected as when the Lords held complete sway and power in this country. I hold at this moment if the Throne presumed to exercise the power which the Lords are presuming to exercise the Throne would immediately come into disrepute and disrespect. There would be a movement on foot for the curtailment of its Prerogatives, and it is well for the country and the Crown that in this crisis which is now proceeding the Throne has been significantly silent.

Hon. Members opposite may think that the Crown will be on their side in this controversy, and not upon the side of the people. Speaking on behalf of the party with which I am associated, I am loyal enough to believe that the Crown would be on the side of the people in this contest, and not upon the side of the privileged classes. The King has not assumed to interfere with the growth of popular liberty and power, but the Lords have. The Lords resisted it at every step, and just as they resist it they bring into disrespect and disrepute the high authorities of this country, and just as they allow the will of the people to prevail, both the Throne and high institutions will increase in respect. A guarantee of love and respect for the Throne is that this Amendment should be resisted, and in voting against the Amendment no one is showing any disrespect towards the Throne or the power which the Throne possesses. If the King is to be called upon to exercise his Prerogative in this crisis, who will be responsible for the King having to be called in?

The CHAIRMAN

That is exactly the point that does not arise now. The Amendment only deals with the question of whether, when the Resolution is passed restricting the powers of the Lords, their powers shall not be restricted in regard to Bills affecting the Prerogative, rights, and powers of the Crown. The interference of the Crown in the present crisis does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. TWIST

I am sorry to have transgressed. Personally I believe that the Prerogatives the Crown now possesses are safer in the keeping of the people's representatives than they are in the keeping of the House of Lords and of Noble Lords who, to preserve their power and privileges and omnipotence in the State, would resist either the Throne or the people. I submit that in these Resolutions we are not doing anything to endanger the Prerogatives and privileges and powers of the Crown. It is not by this Amendment that respect for the Throne will be developed in this country; it is, rather, by passing these Resolutions, which will confirm to this House the authority it has possessed for a number of years, and making this House supreme. When this House is supreme, neither the King nor the Throne will be involved in any other crisis. I submit that this Amendment is a device of the Opposition to raise a question which ought not to have been raised, and it is an attempt to place this side of the House in opposition to the Throne. This side of the House and the democracy throughout the country are as loyal and respectful and as much concerned as hon. Gentlemen opposite not only in regard to the continuance of the Throne, but also in the preservation of its prerogatives.

Mr. GEORGE CAVE

I think it is a great pity that the hon. Member for Wigan has delivered the speech he has just made. No one has suggested that one side of this House is more loyal to the Crown than the other, or that the Crown has shown any leaning towards any party.

Mr. WALSH

It has been said that by supporting these proposals a suspicion is thrown upon our motives in regard to the Crown.

Mr. SANDERSON

I never said that the Crown showed any leaning towards either party.

Mr. WALSH

The hon. and learned Gentleman said that a new light had been thrown on our motives, and that on this side of the House we desired not only to get over the Lords, but the Throne itself.

Mr. SANDERSON

My argument related to the temporary majority in this House, and I said that they intended to use their powers not only to create a Single Chamber but also to interfere with the Prerogatives of the Crown.

Mr. CAVE

I am perfectly certain that my hon. and learned Friend would not suggest that there has been any leaning one way or the other on the part of the Sovereign, and there is no monopoly of loyalty claimed on either side of this House. In my opinion the real point has not been dealt with at all. The substance of the argument is that if you put the Crown into the position that there is nothing between the House of Commons and a Bill proposed in the House of Commons affecting the immediate Prerogative of the Crown and the Crown itself, then you do the Crown an injury. You may put the Sovereign in this position. This House may pass a Bill over the heads of the House of Lords directly affecting the privileges, powers, and Prerogatives of the Sovereign, and then the point for the Soverign will be whether he will give his assent to the Bill or not. The Sovereign would be in a very difficult position. If he follows the Minister's advice he will be giving away not only his own but his successors' Prerogatives. If the Sovereign considers the matter upon its merits, then he will be in a position of reviving, or being tempted to revive, that Veto which no one wishes him to exercise. I say it is not fair to put the Crown in that position. It was said by Mr. Gladstone that if you abolish the hereditary principle and abolish the real power of the Second Chamber, you will expose the Crown, unprotected, to the assaults of its adversaries. In this way you are putting the Crown in danger and in difficulty, and unless these matters which directly affect the Prerogatives of the Crown are referred to some institution with some power of Veto between this House and the Crown, you will be incurring a danger which no loyal man desires to incur. I think the greatest danger of all these proposals is that you are going to make not the people but this House supreme. I have always felt that if you are going to abolish the Veto of the Second House you must put some check in its place, and the check I would put is at least to substitute for the Veto of the House of Lords the veto of the nation itself. I have always held that if you are to have these proposals at all you must make it a condition that before a Bill, passed twice in this House, is passed the third time there should be an opportunity for an appeal to the country. I do not want to anticipate subsequent Amendments, which I am afraid we shall not be able to discuss, but the point arises indirectly here that in these matters, especially those affecting the Crown, we ought to provide some intermediate process either by the Veto of the Second Chamber or the veto of the people before you ask the Crown to assent to a measure. In view of the proposals affecting the constitutional power of the Second Chamber and the other matters dealt with on the Amendment Paper, you ought not to put the Crown in the position of giving a decision on a question before some other body— preferably the nation as a whole—has expressed its will. It is because I think the proposal of the Government without Amendment is unfair to the Crown that I strongly support this Amendment.

The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Joseph Pease)

The hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) has expressed the opinion that these proposals may place the Crown in a position of great difficulty. May I point out that in the event of this House having any difference with the Crown we already have complete control over all Supplies, and we could, if we desired, wage war against the Crown at once in regard to money matters. The case which the hon. and learned Member put forward was that he thought it desirable that there should be some check, in the event of these powers we are proposing passing into law, of having an appeal to the country. On this side of the House we think that by giving the country two years to consider any proposals which have been brought under the discussion of this House, we are giving ample time for the people to make their views felt through their own representatives in this House. On this side of the House we believe so much in the repre- sentative principle and in the honour of the men returned by the constituencies that in our opinion it is absolutely impossible to conceive a situation in which a House of Commons representing a majority of the people after an election would act in the way suggested. Public opinion will make itself felt through the representatives of the people in this House.

Mr. CAVE

In what way, except by a vote of the people, can public opinion be tested?

Mr. PEASE

Hon. Members know very well whether they are representing the views of their constituencies on any particular subject or not. If an hon. Member votes against the wishes of his constituency he immediately receives a large number of letters expostulating with him and drawing his attention to it. In this way we are all subject to the views of our constituencies. When a Member ceases to represent the views of his constituents in this House they, ask him to resign his seat, and he frequently seeks re-election. I would point out that, with the exception of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingston and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of Lon don (Sir F. Banbury), those who have been most interested in opposing this Amendment are those who are rather open to suspicion. There is the hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), the Noble Lord the Member for Maidstone (Viscount Castlereagh), the Noble Lord the Member for Chorley (Lord Balcarres), the Hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. William Peel)—

Mr. WILLIAM PEEL

The right hon. Gentleman has no business to assume that he knows, without nay having spoken, exactly what I am going to say on this Amendment.

Mr. PEASE

The arguments on this Amendment have been very similar to those on previous Amendments. What I was endeavouring to point out was that these Amendments have, to a very large extent, been supported by hon. Members opposite, who expect eventually to reach another place. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, I have already named a number of Noble Lords who have taken a most prominent part in these Debates, and it seems to me that they are actuated by a desire to maintain the privileges of the other House and strengthen it at the expense of the House in which they at present sit. There is only one other point which I desire to make. It is one which I endeavoured to make yesterday in connection with another Amendment, and I think it is a good one. Even in the event of this Amendment being accepted, it would really have no actual weight in securing the very object for which it is put forward. Let us conceive a House of Commons misrepresenting the people. I think they must be almost imbeciles who can imagine the situation, but let us imagine a House of Commons determined during its first two years to get rid of the Prerogative of the Crown, say, in regard to the creation of peers. All that Parliament would have to do would be first of all to repeal the section of a particular Act which gives the House of Lords power to prevent this change, and then they could at once proceed with the next and much more drastic step of abolishing the Prerogative of the Crown.

Mr. CAVE

That would take two years.

Mr. PEASE

It would, I agree, undoubtedly take two years, but, if we had these powers and you had an imbecile House of Commons prepared to act against the wishes of the people, you could get rid of the Prerogative of the Crown. In two years they could repeal this section, and also get rid of the Prerogative of the Crown. I think that this point is a good one, but for the other reasons given by my right hon. Friend and those I have already referred to the Government are, of course, unable to accept the Amendment.

Mr. WALTER LONG

I think everyone who has listened to the Chancellor of the Duchy must feel that his reply has not only been a very inadequate one but also a very remarkable one. During all these Debates, and for some little time, the House of Lords has been subjected to a very considerable amount of criticism, attack, and condemnation on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it has been left to the Chancellor of the Duchy to devise a totally different platform. He has discovered something quite fresh in the hereditary principle. The fact that a Member of this House has been born the eldest son of a peer, and therefore might one day expect to sit in the House of Lords had it not been for the proposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite, apparently, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, is itself sufficient to prevent him taking anything like a useful part in our Debates upon a question like this. I have never heard a more amazing argument. Why did the right hon. Gentleman think it necessary to go through the list of my Noble Friends on this side who have spoken in the Debate so far? He was not content to find fault with those who have spoken, but he actually included in his list those who have not spoken and assumed what they were going to say. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel) interrupted the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. PEASE

He spoke yesterday.

Mr. WALTER LONG

We are talking about the present Debate, and my hon. Friend has not taken part in it. He told the right hon. Gentleman that he did not know what he was going to say, and that it was not fair to assume that he was going to oppose the right hon. Gentleman. I am bound to say I cannot conceive it possible that any circumstances will arise which will make it remotely probable that my hon. Friend will support the Chancellor of the Duchy, and therefore I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for assuming that the unspoken speech would be opposed to the views he holds. All I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman is that it is not the fault of the eldest son of a peer; it is not the fault of the hon. Member for Taunton and others, but it is the fault of the right hon. Gentleman himself, who holds views which we do not share, which are not shared by a great many other people, and some of which I will undertake to show him in a few sentences are not based upon any sound precedent of review of the past.

The Chancellor of the Duchy, in discussing the merits of this Amendment, said it is impossible to conceive circumstances in which any Government or any party would try to force through this House any proposal covered by this Amendment or any interference with the Prerogative of the Crown. Why? Because, he told us, public opinion would intervene and prevent their doing so. This comes from a Government fresh from the experience of the polls, and with a fresh recollection of the last four years. What did the Government do without the aid of a Resolution and without the impetus which this Resolution must give? They persisted with two or three different measures, and, if this Resolution had been passed and had become part of our machine, they would, as the House knows perfectly well, have asked the House to deal with those Bills under this Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman says public opinion would restrain them. He was asked, and properly asked, how public opinion was to express itself. There is only one way, and that is by by-elections; but by-elections may take place without reinforcing the Government with fresh authority for what they are doing. The Chancellor of the Duchy knows quite well that the by-elections in the last Parliament showed in some cases that the legislation of the Government was not popular. What did the Government do? In one case they radically altered the measure they had brought in. What happened then? What did the country say to that particular measure? They repudiated it. Yet the Chancellor of the Duchy asks us to believe, in the light of this experience, that popular opinion has so great a hold over the Government of the day that it is never likely to go contrary to public opinion. Under our present system popular opinion has practically no means whatever of making its force felt upon an existing House of Commons. Why do we ask that this Amendment, and one or two others which have already been dealt with, should be adopted? It is not because anybody here attributes to hon. Gentlemen opposite one atom less loyalty to the Crown or devotion to the occupant of the Crown than is felt on this side of the House; I am quite certain that no argument of that kind was intentionally used by any one of my hon. Friends; and I am convinced that, if anything they said could be so interpreted, they would be the first, to withdraw any language of the kind. We hold, as strongly as any hon. Gentlemen opposite, that loyalty is a possession of no particular party or sect. It is held by every individual throughout the country. We are all loyal to the Crown, and there is no suggestion on our part that hon. Gentlemen opposite are any less loyal than we are. We have not argued this question at all from the point of view of loyalty to the Sovereign. It has been argued from the point of view of those privileges which belong to and are described under the heading of "the Prerogative of the Crown." What is it you are doing now? You are making, by your own claim and admission, a change so far-reaching in our Constitution that it has in my opinion been justly termed a revolution.

Everybody knows that our Constitution has been the gradual growth of time, yet you are trying suddenly, and in really only a few hours, to destroy it and to build up a fresh one. Is it unreasonable that we should ask the Government, in making this great change, to at all events reserve some questions and to let time show how their Resolution works—to exclude from its operations some of the most important, some of the most delicate, and some of the most difficult questions with which Parliament has to deal? In regard to that, the Chancellor of the Duchy has said nothing. He has not tried to justify the wholesale action of the Government. All he has done is to tell us that public opinion would prevent a Government doing anything of a very radical nature. He went on to say that our constituents will take care that we do not do that. Would our constituents do anything of the kind? Was not the Chancellor of the Duchy talking, if I may so without any disrespect, in the air? He was not talking as a practical Member of this House. He has been the Head Whip of a great party in this House, and no man knows better than the Chancellor of the Duchy what are the ordinary ways of conducting business in this House. We all know that when a Government brings in a measure which the electors do not like the constituents come to their Member and say, "We do not like this measure. It is not popular in our part of the country." What does the Head Whip say? Does he go to the Prime Minister and say, "This measure has got to be withdrawn; you cannot go on with it because groups here and there object to it." It is exactly the reverse which happens. He says, "The Government" have committed themselves to it; they must go on with it; their credit and honour are at stake." It is the duty of the Head Whip to try to convince the Members of his party. Let the Committee remember the confessions made by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, when speaking the other day of his own experience. He carried the matter a great deal further than I am trying to carry it. I have never been a Whip, and I do not know what the secret influences are which govern them, nor do I understand the difficult part which they have to perform. I admire the ability and loyalty with which they do their work, but I know very little about it. The Noble Lord who, before he went to another place, was Head Whip in this House, went a great deal further than this, and said the business of a Whip is to put Members into the Lobby to do the Government business and to have no conscience in the matter.

Mr. BIRRELL

I think he magnified his office.

Mr. WALTER LONG

That is the view of the Chief Secretary, who, like myself, has never been a Whip, but that is the description given by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. But do not let us accept the view of the Noble Lord that a Whip has no conscience; let us take our own experience. Do we not know that what would happen would be this: At the end of two years the Government would be bound to pass their legislation. The whole credit of the party would be at stake. There would be no effort to listen to public opinion. There would be no attempt to find out what the constituencies wanted. The Government would go on with their policy, because they could not go back. Legislation covered by this Amendment might be passed and irreparable mischief might be done. All we ask is that in certain cases you should make exception—that you should wait and see how your Resolution works, and proceed by degrees. I regret that this Amendment has been refused by the Government. I regret it all the more, because it seems to me the reasons given for their refusal are of the most inadequate character.

Mr. AINSWORTH

I should like to say one word on the point raised by the Amendment. It seems to me that, if we accept the Amendment we shall be committing ourselves to the statement that there is a danger of this House doing something to injure and limit the Prerogative of the Crown. I venture to say —and I hope it will not be taken in an unfair sense—that so long as the Liberal party is in a majority in this House there is no danger whatever. What is at the bottom of the present crisis? A serious attempt has been made by the Opposition to limit the Prerogative of the Crown.

6.0 P.M.

How did this arise? How is it affecting our position now? It is always understood that one of the principal Prerogatives of the Crown is to dissolve Parliament only when the Crown, on the advice of the Prime Minister, thinks fit. Is that the position now? In another place they claim to them- selves the power to compel the Crown to dissolve Parliament whenever they think fit. That is a most dangerous limitation of the Prerogative of the Crown. But it goes even further. Up till now the Crown has not been supposed to be called upon to consider the advisability of dissolving Parliament so long as the Minister of the day has a majority at his back. But that is no longer the case. It does not signify whether a Minister has a majority or not, the Lords can, by holding up the Budget, compel the Dissolution of Parliament, and when hon. Members opposite urge us to accept this Amendment to prevent the House of Commons from limiting and endangering the Prerogative of the Crown, I would remind them that it is exactly their action in supporting the Conservative majority in another place that does endanger the Prerogative of the Crown. A great deal has been said by hon. Members opposite as to the danger of the House of Commons doing something unconstitutional. I would ask any student of history —When has the House of Commons done anything unconstitutional? Has it done so in the period from 1688, when Parliamentary government was established. Those Gentlemen who refer to Cromwell and the Long Parliament in deprecatory terms should remember that if it had not been for Cromwell we should not have been here to-day; therefore to deal with the historical instrument in terms of reproach is unwise on their part. They ought rather to thank their stars that there were men of courage living in bye-gone days who were not afraid to go into constitutional conflicts with their necks in their hands. We have heard a good many speeches as to the power of the constituencies. I wonder how many hon. Members opposite have said to their constituents, "We ask you to return us to the House of Commons in order that we may give away the liberties of that House." Yet that is what hon. Gentlemen opposite are endeavouring to persuade the present House to do. In doing so they are acting falsely towards the interests of the constituents who sent them here. After all the privileges of the House of Commons are the privileges of the electors of the United Kingdom, and Members are sent here by the electors to preserve and maintain those privileges. We have often been charged with saying things derogatory to the House of Commons. For my part I have never entered into arguments of that kind. They are entirely beside the question. What we want to do is to arrive at some better and more expeditious way of carrying on the business of this country. We must arrange fair and just machinery between the two Houses of Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is speaking much too generally. So far he has said hardly anything about the Amendment.

Mr. AINSWORTH

I thought the Amendment raised the question how far the House was to be entrusted with privileges—

The CHAIRMAN

That is not the question at all. It is whether Bills affecting the Prerogative, rights, and powers of the Crown should be excluded from the Bills for which this Resolution proposes a new procedure in reference to the House of Lords.

Mr. AINSWORTH

I understand that hon Members consider that this House is not to be trusted, and fear that it will introduce legislation that may be dangerous to the Prerogative of the Crown. I only wish to urge that the whole course of history, from 1688 down to the present time, in no way whatsoever indicates that the House of Commons has been a danger to the Prerogative of the Crown. On the contrary, for centuries, its efforts have being devoted to making the interests of the people paramount, and so strengthening in every possible way the hold of the Crown on the affections of the nation.

Mr. SEDDON

This is one of the most unfortunate Amendments that has been brought forward. I take it, it is meant to be more than a figure of speech to say that the stability of and love for the Throne is-based on the people's will. There appears to be a fear in the minds of hon. Members opposite of the omnipotence of Cabinets. It may be their own personal experience. They may think the Cabinet is a great power, but no one will doubt that the influence of the electorate is felt. Hon. Gentlemen say in one breath that the Cabinet is omnipotent and powerful, and in the next breath they complain of its weakness. The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke referred to a statement made by the late Chief Whip of the Liberal party that he himself admitted he had to have no conscience, but he had willy-nilly to carry out the instructions of the Cabinet. Hon. Gentlemen say in one breath that the Cabinet is all-powerful, and in the next they declare it is so weak and so shilly-shallying that at the dictation of hon. Members from Ireland they alter their policy from day to day. In my humble judgment it is very unfortunate that the Crown has been brought into these Debates at all. I am strongly of opinion that the present attitude of the country towards the Crown, especially among the labouring classes, is one of deep affection, and it is an affection which is not influenced by the Prerogatives of the Crown, but which has been created and developed by the present illustrious occupant of the Throne and his illustrious mother; by their interest and sympathy in the joys and sorrows of the people and in the development of the nation. I cannot conceive any House of Commons being led away or so mad as to make an attack on the Crown for their own personal advancement. The Crown, as we understand it, is the result of experience. The people of this country recognise that a Monarchy is far better for their prosperity than any other form for the head of the State, and I cannot conceive for a moment a House of Commons so stupid and so blind to its own interests as to run counter to that deep-seated affection evidenced so far as the people are concerned. If ever the time does come when we on these benches, who are supposed to be the advanced, and probably the most extravagant members of the community—we may give expression sometimes to a phrase that wants a little bit of editing, but so do other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen—but if ever the time should come when we get into power, I do not think, even in our wildest flights, there will be any intention of attempting to alter the head, so far as the Crown is concerned. I cannot conceive the time when the people will have changed the attitude they have at the present time of devotion to the Crown. Australia has certainly given us some indication that the day may come when the party with which I am associated will come into power, but I do not think that any Government—Liberal, Tory or Labour—will do anything to endanger the Prerogatives of the Crown. I for one deeply regret that this Amendment has been proposed.

Major WHITE

There are one or two remarks I should like to make in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He said that constituents had always a controlling power without an election, and that Members knew well that if they gave an adverse vote they would soon be in. receipt of shoals of letters from their constituents, and that, in that way, they were susceptible to public opinion. But the right hon. Gentleman must know very well that the effect of the shoals of letters would depend a great deal on what political party they emanated from, and whether they came from the Member's own supporters. If they did, they would naturally carry great weight; but if they came from people in the opposite party they would carry no weight at all. Then the right hon. Gentleman forgets that there is a great body of men—silent voters, who are not known as party men one way or the other. We know there was a case not so very long ago—in the last Parliament—in which the very same thing happened with regard to a question discussed fully in the House—the question of grocers' licences—there was a certain amount of pressure—it is an open secret—put upon Members on either side of the House with regard to these licences. The Government had to act, and probably did act, on the letters they received. I might respectfully ask whether, if those letters of protest had come from publicans, they would have received the same amount of attention as was granted to them, coming, as they did, from grocers. I think it is going outside the point altogether to say that without an election you can really know what the will of the people is in a case of that sort. It is certainly not correct to say that a Member of a Government can be influenced to any extent by protests offered in a private capacity by his constituents. A very large number of the constituents may protest, but unless the protests are actually uttered by some definite body of the Members' own supporters they are practically of no avail. The Chancellor of the Duchy told us that if he heard from his constituents, or any number of them, that he had lost their confidence, then he would at once take steps to alter his policy, but I do most respectfully put it with regard to that that unless it was a resolution passed by the Association or a letter from the chairman of the Association or some prominent member of the party—I do not care which party it refers to—no attention would be paid to it by the Government of the day. I therefore do say that it is essential in all these great questions that the matter should be referred to the judgment of the people at the General Election.

Dr. W. A. CHAPPLE

I think it is unfortunate that this Amendment should have been moved, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not divide upon it, because the implication is that hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House are in favour of the Prerogative of the Crown and we on this side of the House are assailing it. The suggestion is that there is a danger which exists if this Amendment is not carried that at some future time Members of this House will endeavour to curtail or limit the Prerogative of the Crown. There is no chance of that; we are all quite loyal, and I think the implication should not be made that we on this side of the House are not in sympathy with the Prerogative of the Crown. I think that we on this side of the House should not be forced to vote against this Amendment so that it would appear that we are voting against the Prerogative. The Hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) has democratic views constantly upon his lips with which this side of the House are in hearty sympathy, and he said the danger was that if this Amendment was not agreed to Acts of Parliament might be passed that would not have the assent of the people. He suggested that we should have some means by which the will of the people should be known before any Act could come into operation and that any amendment of the Constitution on the lines that he suggests should be referred directly to the people; and the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. H. Lawson) referred to this very subject yesterday when he pointed out that the Australian Constitution makes special provision for any similar alteration of the Constitution, and that every matter of this kind is referred to the people. That is to say, that in regard to any alteration of the Constitution it cannot be passed unless the people are consulted as to that reform?

Mr. CAVE

That would not be so under these Resolutions.

Dr. CHAPPLE

What we maintain on this side of the House is that while the House of Lords has power such as it has at present it is impossible to get any measure to the people because they stand in the way, and you will have to reconstruct the House of Lords on a democratic basis before you can bring your Constitution into line with those great new constitutions which are always being quoted on the other side of the House. If hon. "Gentlemen on the other side quote those new constitutions, let them take themholus- bolus; they cannot pick out part of them and reject the rest. Those constitutions are based upon the democratic will of the people, and the passage of a law depends entirely upon the direct verdict of the people taken upon the Bill. At the present time there is a conflict going on in Australia, and issues are being submitted to a plebiscite of the people. Measures have to pass the Lower House twice, and then they have to be passed by both Houses and then by the people; and if we were to take the course suggested by the hon. Member for Kingston and take away powers which now exist and place them in the hands of the people, then we must so remodel and reconstitute the House of Lords as to bring it into direct line with democratic ideas.

Question put, "That the words proposed be there inserted."

House cleared for Division.

Viscount HELMSLEY (seated, and with his hat on)

Mr. Chairman, on a point of Order, may I bring to your notice the fact that some hon. Members have not been able to get into the Division Lobby owing to the crowd at the door?

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Members in question have had the usual time.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (seated, and with his hat on)

May I draw your attention to the fact, Sir, that the door was locked before you gave the order?

The CHAIRMAN

If the door was locked before I gave the order, then it should be opened. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that that is the case?

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I was next to the door. The messenger was between me and the door, but he had locked it before you gave the order.

The CHAIRMAN

I think that under those circumstances I will direct that the door be opened again to let these three or four Members through.

Mr. JOHN WARD (seated, and with his hat on)

Mr. Chairman, on a point of Order—

The CHAIRMAN

Lock the doors.

Mr. JOHN WARD

I suggest that if the door is opened again the whole Division ought to be taken afresh.

The Committee divided: Ayes. 217; Noes, 328.

Division No. 29.]	AYES.	[6.20 p.m.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.	Gilmour, Captain John	Newdegate, F. A.
Adam, Major William A.	Goldman, Charles Sydney	Newman, John R. P.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Goldsmith, Frank	Newton, Harry Kottingham
Bagot, Captain J.	Gooch, Henry Cubitt	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Baird, John Lawrence	Gordon, John	Nield, Herbert
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)
Baldwin, Stanley	Grant, James Augustus	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid).
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond)	Greene, Walter Raymond	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor	Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)	Parkes, Ebenezer
Barnston, Harry	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Hamersley, Alfred St. George	Perkins, Walter Frank
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)	Peto, Basil Edward
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Beckett, Hon. William Gervase	Harris, F. L. (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)	Pretyman, Ernest George
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)	Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)	Proby, Col. Douglas James
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Quilter, William Eley C.
Bird, Alfred	Heath, Col. Arthur Howard	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)	Helmsley, Viscount	Rankin, Sir James
Brackenbury, Henry Langton	Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Brassey, H. L. C. (Northants, N.)	, Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon., Banbury)	Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.	Remnant, James Farquharson
Bridgeman, William Clive	Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)	Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan
Brunskill, Gerald Fitzgibbon	Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter	Ridley, Samuel Forde
Burdett-Coutts, William	Hoare, Samuel John Gurney	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Butcher, John George (York)	Hope, Harry (Bute)	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Butcher, S. H. (Camb. Univ.)	Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)	Rothschild, Lionel de
Calley, Col. Thomas C. P	Horner, Andrew Long	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.	Houston, Robert Paterson	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Carlile. Edward Hildred	Hume-Williams, William Ellis	Sanders, Robert Arthur
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.	Hunt, Rowland	Sanderson, Lancelot
Cator, John	Hunter, Sir Chas. Rodk. (Bath)	Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Cautley, Henry Strother	Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Cave, George	Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Jessel, Captain Herbert M.	Stanier, Beville
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)	Kerr-Smlley, Peter Kerr	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Kerry, Earl of	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Keswick, William	Starkey, John Ralph
Chambers, James	Kimber, Sir Henry	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Clive, Percy Archer	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)
Coates, Major Edward F.	Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford	Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbrightsh.)
Cooper, Captain Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)	Knott, James	Storey, Samuel
Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Strauss, Arthur
Courthope, George Loyd	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Sykes, Alan John
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Lawson, Hon. Harry	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Lee, Arthur Hamilton	Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred	Lewisham, Viscount	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Croft, Henry Page	Llewelyn, Venables	Thompson, Robert
Dairymple, Viscount	Lloyd, George Ambrose	Thynne, Lord Alexander
Dalziel, D. (Brixton)	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Tryon, Capt. George Clement
Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter	Tullibardine, Marquess of
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Valentia, Viscount
Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)	Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm. Edgbaston)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Duke, Henry Edward	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S).	Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark. W.)	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	MacCaw. Wm. J. MacGeagh	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Faber, George D. (Clapham) '	Mackinder, Halford J.	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)	Macmaster, Donald	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Falle, Bertram Godfray	M 'Arthur, Charles	Willoughby, Major Hn. Claude
Fell, Arthur	M'Calmont, Colonel James	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Magnus, Sir Philip	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Finlay, Sir Robert	Mason, James F.	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Fisher, William Hayes	Middlemore, John Throgmorton	Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Fleming, Valentine	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Yerburgh, Robert
Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)	Mitchell, William Foot	Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)
Foster, John K. (Coventry)	Moore, William
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.)	Morpeth, Viscount
Gardner, Ernest	Morrison, Captain James A.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr
Gastrcll, Major W. Hougton	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.	James Hope and Mr. Peel.
Gibbs, George Abraham	Mount, William Arthur

NOES.
Abraham, William	Anderson, Andrew Macbeth	Balfour, Robert (Lanark)
Addison, Dr. Christopher	Ashton, Thomas Gair	Barclay, Sir Thomas
Adkins, W. Ryland D	Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Barlow, Sir John Emmott
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.	Barnes, George N.
Alden, Percy	Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)	Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)
Allen, Charles Peter	Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)	Barry, Edward (Cork, S.)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Barton, William	Hancock, John George	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Bonn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Bentham, George Jackson	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Muldoon, John
Bethell, Sir John Henry	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Munro, Robert
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.
Black, Arthur W.	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	Muspratt, Max
Boland, John Plus	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E)	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Bowerman, Charles W.	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Neilson, Francis
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncatter)
Brace, William	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Nolan, Joseph
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Haworth, Arthur A.	Norton, Capt. Cecil W.
Brigg, Sir John	Hayden, John Patrick	Nuttall, Harry
Brocklehurst, William B.	Hazleton, Richard	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Healy, Timothy Michael	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Helme, Norval Watson	O'Doherty, Philip
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	O'Donnell, Thomas (Kerry, W.)
Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	O'Dowd, John
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)	Henry, Charles S.	Ogden, Fred
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)	O'Grady, James
Byles, William Pollard	Higham, John Sharp	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Cameron, Robert	Hindle, Frederick George	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	O'Malley, William
Cawley, Sir Fredk. (Prestwich)	Hodge, John	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Cawley, H. T. (Lanes. Heywood)	Hogan, Michael	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Chancellor, Henry George	Hooper, Arthur George	O'Shee, James John
Channing, Sir Francis Aliston	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	O'Sullivan, Eugene
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)	Parker, James (Halnax)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Pearce, William
Clancy, John Joseph	Hudson, Walter	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.
Clough, William	Hughes, Spencer Leigh	Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)
Clynes, John R.	Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)	Philipps, Sir O C. (Pembroke)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)	Illingworth, Percy H.	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)	Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)	Pirie, Duncan V.
Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Johnson, William	Pointer, Joseph
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Pollard, Sir George H.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Jones, Edgar R. (Werthyr Tydvil)	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Jones, Henry Hayden (Merioneth)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Cowan, William Henry	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Jowett, Frederick William	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Joyce, Michael	Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Crosfield, Arthur H.	Keating, Matthew	Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Crossley, William J.	Kelly, Edward	Pringle, William M. R.
Cullinan, John	Kemp, Sir George	Radford, George Heynes
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Raffan, Peter Wilson
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Kettle, Thomas Michael	Rainy, Adam Rolland
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)	Kilbride, Denis	Raphael, Herbert Henry
Dawes, James Arthur	King, Joseph (Somerset, North)	Rea, Walter Russell
Delany, William	Lambert, George	Reddy, Michael
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Devlin, Joseph	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness.)	Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis	Rees, John David
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)	Leach, Charles	Rendall, Athelstan
Dilke. Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Lehmann, Rudolf C.	Richards, Thomas
Donelan, Captain A.	Levy, Sir Maurice	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Doris, William	Lewis. John Herbert	Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Duffy, William J.	Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Edwards, Enoch	Lundon, Thomas	Robinson, Sidney
Elverston, Harold	Lynch. Arthur Alfred	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Falconer, James	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Ferens, Thomas Robinson	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Roche, John (Galway, East)
Ferguson, Ronald C. Munro	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Roe, Sir Thomas
Ffrench, Peter	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Rowntree, Arnold
Field, William	M'Callum, John M.	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Flavin, Michael Joseph	M'Curdy, Charles Albert	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
France, Gerald Ashburner	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Furness, Sir Christopher	M'Laren. Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Scanlan, Thomas
Gelder, Sir William Alfred	Mallet, Charles Edward	Schwann, Sir Charles E.
Gibbins, Frederick William	Manfield, Harry	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Gibson, James Puckering	Markham, Arthur Basil	Seddon, James A.
Gill, Alfred Henry	Marks, George Croydon	Seely, Col. Right Hon. J. E. 8.
Ginnell, Laurence	Masterman, C. F. G.	Shackleton, David James
Glanville, Harold James	Meagher, Michael	Shaw, Sir Charles Edward
Glover, Thomas	Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)	Sheehy, David
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)	Sherwell, Arthur James
Greenwood, Granville George	Menzies, Sir Walter	Shortt, Edward
Grenfell. Cecil Alfred	Middlebrook, William	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Millar, James Duncan	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)	Molloy, Michael	Soares, Ernest Joseph
Gulland, John William	Molteno, Percy Alport	Spicer, Sir Albert
Cwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Mond, Alfred Moritz	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Hackett, John	Mooney, John J.	Strachey, Sir Edward

Summers, James Woolley	Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Sutherland, John E.	Walton, Joseph	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Sutton, John E.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wardle, George J.	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Tennant, Harold John	Waring, Walter	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, James Henry (Derby)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)	Winfrey, Richard
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)	Waterlow, David Sydney	Wing, Thomas
Thorne, William (West Ham)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Toulmin, George	Weir, James Galloway	Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Trevelyan, Charles Philips	White, Sir George (Norfolk)	Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)
Twist, Henry	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Verney, Frederick William	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Vivian, Henry	Whitehouse, John Howard	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master
Wadsworth, John	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.	of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.
Walsh, Stephen	Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Mr. CHAMBERS

moved, after the word "than" ["as respects Bills other than Money Bills"] to insert the words "Bills for the delegation of administration or legislative powers to subordinate Parliaments within the United Kingdom, and."

I think this Amendment hardly comes within the description which was given by the Home Secretary when, speaking upon another Amendment the other day, he said that if we were going to accept anything which was of an extraordinary or highly important constitutional character you could not stop at provisions limiting the duration of Parliaments. The Amendment deals with a matter which is so high and so constitutionally important that it deserves the consideration of this Committee and its acceptance. As I understand the proceedings of this House during the last week, we are engaged in the process of reforming the Constitution, not of England or Scotland, but of the United Kingdom, and the idea which underlies this Amendment is that under that Constitution so reformed and so strengthened the other sections of this country, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, shall remain, unless the clear, emphatic and distinct voice of the people be heard to say that it shall be otherwise. In this reform of the Constitution Ireland has taken a leading part. Without the assistance of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) and his party, none of the Resolutions could possibly have been passed. And the assistance of Scotland has also been rendered generously, likewise the assistance and the support of Wales. While I have no right to speak with any great authority on behalf of either Scotland or Wales, I claim the right to speak on behalf of the Unionists and loyalists of Ireland that we may be permitted to live under this strengthened and reformed Constitution, and that all the benefits which are sup- posed to be likely to be obtained by it shall be shared by us.

In this reformed House of Lords there will be, no doubt, representatives of Ireland and also of Scotland, and surely it will be important and most desirable and most essential on the part of each of those countries that in questions so vitally affecting them the opinion of that reformed House should have the opportunity of expressing itself and making itself felt. The separation of any portion of the United Kingdom from the Kingdoms themselves would be a matter of great seriousness, and would involve great constitutional changes. It would fundamentally alter the relations between Ireland and the rest of the Empire. If delegations of administration or legislative powers were granted to that country all the matters which are now controlled by this House would be placed in the hands of a Parliament sitting at home—legislation finance, tariffs, taxation, and all the other matters—and surely we have a right to ask that, in dealing with such a grave constitutional matter as that, the change should not be made unless the people, in the most emphatic and direct manner, have declared that in that particular respect a change should be made. The question arises, would the people have the opportunity of expressing their will and their opinion in respect of such an important matter if the policy foreshadowed in the Resolution were carried into effect and became a portion of the machinery of the State. We have, so far as this question of Home Rule is concerned, or the delegation of authority to a Parliament at home, a very recent illustration of how the matter might work out. In 1893 a Home Rule Bill was carried through this House. It was then supposed that the House represented the will of the people, and their determination that such a measure should become law, but a General Election followed, and in 1895 the people in the most emphatic manner declared it to be their opinion that the policy contained in that measure of Home Rule was wrong and that it was wholly and absolutely opposed to their wishes, and they swept from power the party which had introduced the measure. If these Resolutions had been carried into effect, and if this system of a measure being introduced in two Sessions and becoming law though rejected by the House of Lords in the third Session had been in existence in 1893, beyond all question this Home Rule measure would have been passed, and who could say, in the face of the facts of 1895, that that measure was carried with the approval and the sanction of the people of this country?

The main point which I wish to bring before the attention of the Committee is this, that so far as I can form an opinion the machinery to be evolved out of these Resolutions would not, and could not possibly, on a question of this kind secure a satisfactory conclusion as to what the will of the people upon this question was. We have to recognise in these times that a great change has come over the House of Commons. In the old days we had in it two great parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, and they were a body, on both sides, of temperate and judicious men. But these times are changed, and we have now not only, I was going to say a Liberal party, but in my judgment the Liberalism of the past is dead and gone. We have now a Radical party, we have also to reckon with a strong Labour party, whose policy in connection with this question is the utter and absolute annihilation of the House of Lords, and we have the Irish Nationalist party, everyone of them pledged to follow his leader and to exercise no independent judgment of his own. What would be the result, assuming that after another General Election the House met here constituted much on the same lines as at present? You would have a Cabinet framed without consultation with this House, you would have a Prime Minister endeavouring to frame his policy, and he would see that without the assistance of one or other of the sections of the House he would not be in a position to secure or retain a majority. Each of these sections of the House has its own definite and distinct policy which is foremost and uppermost. Above all, in order to secure the concurrence of the Irish Nationalist party, what would the Prime Minister have to do? No matter whether a Home Rule Bill had formed a portion of his programme before the country or not, or whether it only formed a minor portion of it, in order to secure the adherence of the Irish Nationalist party, such would be the pressure brought upon him, that the first Bill which he would have to introduce would be a Home Rule Bill. It would be rushed through the House, it would be sent up to the reformed House of Lords, it would be rejected, it would come back here again, and would be passed, and after going through the process a third time it would become the law of the land. But with a majority secured in such a way as that for a measure of that kind who could say that really the will of the people had been declared in respect to it? It would not only have been rejected by the House of Lords as at present constituted, but it would have been rejected by that reformed House, which is to be much more representative, which is to have a much wider foundation, and which, according to the proposals, as I understand them, is to be representative of a far wider section of the community than are represented by it now. In these circumstances it appears to me to be idle to suggest that a Bill so carried would be carried with the wishes of the people, and in respect of a measure of this importance dealing with a measure of this kind, the old safeguard which has always existed for securing that the will of the people shall be really spoken should be preserved, and the Resolution should be so amended as to secure that in a matter of this kind the old Veto should survive; and if the Bill is rejected by the House of Lords the people should again be directly consulted.

Mr. CHURCHILL

The hon. Gentleman has made a speech supporting the Amendment to the Government proposals, and the object of his speech was to criticise and oppose those proposals, but in the whole course of his speech he paid, and I am conscious that the opinion was none the less sincere, a tribute to the excellence of the constitutional machinery which we are setting up by these proposals, for what is the hon. Gentleman's fear? His fear is that he, as a representative of an Irish constituency, may some day be cut off from connection with the constitutional system which will prevail in this country when the Veto Resolutions will have become law, and he is very anxious that every possible safeguard shall be preserved to make sure that his fortunes will not be in any way dissociated from the legislative fortunes of the British democracy in the days when the Veto Resolutions are the law of the land. What a contrast is presented by this speech, and what an excellent answer is given by this speech to all the lugubrious and bloodcurdling prophecies in which for the last two days Noble Lords below the Gangway have been delighting. According to them we have been leading up to the verge of civil war, there is to be anarchy in the land, every institution in the realm and every foundation of society are to be thrown into the melting-pot. These are the dangers which we are told will follow from our Resolutions. Here is an hon. Gentleman, a sincere Member of the party opposite, who, in spite of the perils of civil war, wishes to be in the midst of it all, and who does not wish in any way to be dissociated even in the most remote manner—

Mr. CHAMBERS

I would rather be here than under a Home Rule Government in Ireland.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I have no doubt the hon. Member has an equally bad opinion of the majority of his fellow countrymen in both islands. On behalf of the Government, I have the same or a similar answer to make to this Amendment as it was my duty to make regarding similar proposals from the benches opposite during the past two days. We regard the safeguards in the procedure we are now setting up as adequate for the discussion of the measures which the hon. Gentleman seeks to exclude from the scope of the Resolution as well as all other measures of legislation. We consider that, if a Home Rule Bill passed through the House of Commons in three successive Sessions and over a period of two years, that immense and prodigious process of Parliamentary strength and sustained exertion of the national will through the only recognised channels and the only imaginable machinery by which the national will can be expressed, namely, through the elected representatives fresh from contact with their constituents—we consider that if all this process has been carried out, ample safeguards will have existed and that the measure which finally receives the assent of the Crown will embody the settled will and convictions of the majority of the people of the United Kingdom. I pointed out, when speaking on other Amendments to the Resolutions, that it is, after all, possible for the hon. Gentleman to be exposed to all the perils of single-Chamber government, or what he calls single-Chamber government, in respect of a Home Rule Bill; for I think whenever the party of which he is now a member is in power it would be quite possible—and it has been in a time within a generation past—for the Conservative party, if they think it wise or desirable, to give a measure of Home Rule or self government to Ireland, or to any other portion of the United Kingdom. It is quite certain if, for a party purpose and in order to secure an electoral advantage, the Conservative party on this subject made one of the great changes which have in former times characterised their political history as a party they would find no difficulty in procuring the accommodating assistance of their friends in the House of Lords. But there is another reason which induces me to urge the House to resist this Amendment by a great and substantial majority. I have thought it a very extraordinary, and at the same time a very lucky thing that we were able to give a Constitution to South Africa by Letters Patent under the Crown, which required indeed the assent of this House, which required an expression of confidence from this House in order that the Government might remain the paramount power, but in which the House of Lords had absolutely nothing whatever to say. If to-day over the wide area of the South African sub-continent there is peace and goodwill, a revival of prosperity, and the union of the two races who have to dwell together in that land, it is because in the mercy of Providence it was not in the power of the party opposite, although outnumbered and out-argued in this House, although disproved as they have been in all their contentions by the stern march of events, to use their great strength at the other end of the corridor either to prevent or to mutilate that Constitution which alone has secured the unity and the prosperous continuance of South Africa within the circle of the British Empire.

Compared with that great step which we had the power to take dependent on this House alone, the grant of a Parliament to Ireland, subject to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, would be a less important and a less grave measure. I do not intend to pursue the parallel at length, but I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider carefully for themselves all the arguments for and against the two courses in respect of South Africa and in respect of Ireland, and to weigh them, not as the South African experiment looks now as a great success, but to balance those considerations as they were while the fortunes of the South African decision were unknown and unproved. If they do that honestly and conscientiously, I am convinced they will see that the step of giving a Parliament to Ireland is not so great or so far-reaching a policy on which the country could embark as the policy upon which they have successfully dared and triumphed in South Africa. Great changes have passed over Ireland since this question was fought out for the first time in 1886. Great changes have passed over English opinion on this subject. The new generation that has grown up in our country is not going to be frightened out of its wits by the nightmares and bugbears of a vanished past. Not only do we believe that the step would be one attended by circumstances less radical than in the case of the South African Constitution, but we also believe it will be one which will add even more enormous benefits to the strength, the unity, and the prosperity of the British Empire.

Sir EDWARD CARSON

I do not think anybody in this Committee supposes for a moment that the Home Secretary will ever be frightened out of his existence by the nightmares and bugbears of his vanished past. But I think, in replying to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Mr. Chambers), which was a maiden effort of considerable ability, the right hon. Gentleman might, at all events, have attempted to give some serious answer, and not have attempted a mere travesty of the statements made by my hon. and learned Friend. The Home Secretary said that my hon. and learned Friend had given a fillip to these wretched Resolutions which we have been discussing for the last few days by the fact that he was still willing to remain in association with the united Parliament even after the Resolutions were passed, if they were passed. Well, it may be that the time will come when the Resolutions will become law. At all events, if we are to be between the devil and the deep sea we would rather wait and see whether we would choose the devil or the deep sea. I think an argument of that kind adds but little to the discussion, which is a very serious one—at all events for those of us who represent Irish constituencies, and who, I think, have a right to fee treated with serious arguments as well as any other section of the House. In my opinion this question which we are now discussing, and the resistance to this Amendment, is really the origin, if you come to investigate it, of the whole of the 'Resolutions. Why do I say that? The right hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that the Conservative party might be tempted by the single Chamber which, he says we have always had in the past, to bring in a Home Rule measure. Well, I have no doubt if the right hon. Gentleman ibad remained a Member of the Conservative party, and had seen any political advantage of any kind to be gained from the introduction of Home Rule or from opposition to Home Rule, he would have been equally willing to adopt the particular view that suited his political interests best for the moment. Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that at the present moment if the Unionist party were as corrupt as he seems to think they are—and nobody abuses their former friends so much as those who have, fallen out with them and are always attributing to them the lowest and basest motives—by a mere promise of a Home Rule Bill we could defeat his Resolutions, his Budget, and everything else.

Mr. SIMON

Would the Lords pass it. if you brought it in?

Sir E. CARSON

What I said was that by a mere promise we could defeat the Resolutions and the Budget.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR

We would want-more than a promise?

7.0 P.M.

Sir E. CARSON

By a promise of acceding to a Home Rule Bill I say that we could have defeated the whole of these Resolutions.

Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN

It is not too late to try it now.

Sir E. CARSON

And I say once more that upon the eve of the last election the Prime Minister was driven to announce Home Rule as part of his policy without ever explaining what it was, and he never mentioned it again from the beginning to lithe end of the election. Everybody knows perfectly well now that unless the question of Home Rule was made a paramount question in the policy which the right hon. Gentleman proposed, and not an academic question, as the Prime Minister described it a few years ago, the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Redmond) would not for a moment accede to either the Budget or the Resolution. Therefore I say that this Amendment, and the opposition of the Government to it, go to show the very mischief that will arise the moment you constitute what would be in effect single-Chamber Government under the Resolution that is now before the House. For what happens? The Government go to the country on the Budget Bill. They come back here and find themselves in a position that they are not able to pass it without the Irish Members. Then, of course, they go to the Irish Members. The Irish Members say, "We will support your Resolution to get rid of the House of Lords," and they openly say, "We do so because we want to be in a position to pass Home Rule. And that is our sole reason."

Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN

Not our sole reason.

Sir E. CARSON

"Our main reason for supporting this Resolution." And, I do pray the House to look at the way matters will arise in the future when you are under procedure of this kind, and you can pass any Bills without any Veto of the other House. Why, every time a party is in power, and unable to maintain its power without the assistance of a particular group, you will have from day to day bargains made, not because you think they are the best thing for the Empire at large, but because you think that they are the best in accordance with the political exegencies of the moment. Look at the lengths that the Irish Nationalist Members —may I say in passing that I object to their being called the "Irish Members— are now prepared to go, apparently, as far as one can see. This, again, I say, illustrates what you are going to have under your new scheme. Irish Nationalist Members are prepared, in order that they may advance a step towards procuring Home Rule for Ireland, even to put their country into a state of bankruptcy. Everybody knows—I have heard it stated from that bench—that with the amount that is now given for old age pensions and the other matters which have been advanced to Ireland—and it is so—the revenue of Ireland does not pay its own way. If they are willing to take over Ireland as a burden of debt under which Ireland does not pay its own way, is not that to allow a state of bankruptcy to be put upon that country simply for the purpose of having a further step towards Home Rule? After all, I do not suppose that when we come to the House of Commons we leave our commonsense outside the doors, in the same way as the worshippers in the Eastern temples leave their boots. We all know what is going on, that the whole origin of the bringing up of this matter, as a preliminary to getting their Budget, has been at the dictation of the Irish Nationalist Members, and solely with a view to improving their position in regard to the great national question of the dismemberment of the Empire.

But look at the circumstances from which that arises. You would not dare tomorrow to put Home Rule as a net issue before the country, and the only issue. No, you tried it twice, and you were twice defeated. [HON. MEMBEBS: "NO."] Once through the action of this House and once through the action of the other House; but in each case it was emphatically decided by the people that they would have nothing of it. [HON. MEMBEES: "NO."] I know what is in the minds of hon. Members opposite—that whenever there is a Unionist majority it does not represent the views of the people. It is only when there is a Radical majority that it does. You have had it twice rejected, and now, by your bargaining with the Irish Nationalists for the sake of your Budget, for the sake of remaining in office, you want to sneak this Bill through, breaking up the United Kingdom, without the people having an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it, which they have expressed so emphatically on former occasions. After all, if ever there was a Bill which ought to be presented to the people, and allow me to say presented in a concrete form, it is a Bill which is to break up the Union between your country and mine. Why, we all know the argument that used to be advanced when the old Home Rule Bills were before this—at least, all of us who were through that controversy—and I regret to say that I am old enough to have been so. When you went down into a constituency where there was a narrow margin for the Liberals you used to tell them, "After all, it is only a Gas and Water Bill," and in Ireland, when Irish Members went over to speak there, they used to tell them, "It is absolute independence." And all through the whole of the controversy Home Rule became a phrase which meant anything between a Gas and Water Bill and absolute independence. What does it mean now? Nobody knows. It will be exactly the same thing when the controversy arises in a more acute form.

I know myself when arguing this question in the constituencies I asked the question of an audience: "Are you prepared to entrust the question of Home Rule to a single Chamber?" And a gentleman in the audience very politely said, "I am." And I said, "Have you fully considered the details of the question?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Very well, is the Home Rule you are in favour of a Home Rule which will exclude Irish Members from the English House of Commons?"—because that is what Mr. Gladstone proposed in his first Home Rule Bill—and he said, "Yes." And I said, "Are you in favour of the second Home Rule Bill, by which they were to be kept m the House of Commons?" and he said, "Yes." Everybody who has gone through those previous controversies knows perfectly well that the difficulties that were raised in the course of those controversies have never been attempted to be solved by any of the arguments put forward at the time. There is another question—the question of financial relations under the Home Rule Bill. What is the burden you are going to put upon England? What is the burden you are going to put upon Ireland? What portion of the National Debt? What will be the contribution from Ireland for Imperial purposes? These are all questions of such magnitude that when you are talking of Home Rule, and saying you are in favour of Home Rule, you are giving really no indication to the constituencies, or to the people, as to what it is you really mean at all.

I followed as far as I could during the last election anything said on this subject by responsible Ministers, among whom I include the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War, and I noticed that both of those said that in any Home Rule Bill there must be one financial system for the whole of the United Kingdom. Do you think you will carry that with the assent of the Irish? Do you not know perfectly well that the moment the Irish come to you they will have a word to say for it, and will probably dictate what you will do; but when you have said that to the constituencies, and before you alter it, do you not think it is a matter upon winch the constituencies might well be consulted? Of course, we know that finance now has become a very immaterial question in the hands of responsible Ministers. But I think the time will again arise when it will be looked upon as the most vital element in the administration of the country, and you will in all these questions, whether you like it or not, have to solve problems which Mr. Gladstone himself was never able to solve, and for which he had himself to bring in alternative proposals. This is a vastly serious question, and a vastly serious question cannot be solved by the kind of speech the Home Secretary was good enough to give us. It cannot be solved by thanking the Lord that we had no House of Lords in dealing with the South African settlement. We had no House of Commons as far as that goes. It was a purely Executive act, and not an act of this House, no more than an act of the other House, and I think that the Home Secretary might have known that much. What is the parallel with South Africa?

Has South Africa ever had Members here? Has South Africa ever been part of the United Kingdom? Has South African finance become intertwined with the finance of this country, so as to make it almost impossible to disentangle and find out; where the finance of the United Kingdom was and where the other finance was? No; we ask the House to seriously consider this Amendment. I can assure hon. Members opposite that although what the Home Secretary says is quite true, that vast changes in England have occurred since the last Home Rule Bill, and many things, I think, for the good of Ireland, and some things, perhaps, not for her good, yet I can assure him that the moment he again makes Home Rule a part of the Liberal programme there will be found the same dislike to and the same determination to resist the proposal as there were in 1886 and in 1892, and all we ask and I think we have a right to ask, is that a Bill of this kind should not by any procedure or any process be smuggled through by a Resolution of this sort, but should be the deliberate will of the people of the United Kingdom.

The PRIME MINISTER

I am not going to deal in any detail at this stage with the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman which, indeed, comes to this, that however clearly the electorate of this country have expressed their opinion upon a scheme, however specific, laid before them at the General Election, and by how- ever large a majority they have approved of it, yet the House of Lords should still retain an absolute Veto on Home Rule as an excepted topic with regard to which the voice of the representatives of the people is not to be decisive, even after an election. That is the Amendment. Any such exception from the scope of this Veto Resolution would, of course, destroy its efficacy and value. I say so advisedly. This Resolution is intended to apply to legislation of all kinds without any limitation or exception in favour of this or that particular topic. The Resolution, under the Closure Rule, will, in the course of a very few minutes, be put to the Committee, and this is the last opportunity we shall have of saying anything about it before it seeks its fortunes elsewhere. I am not, I hope, going to travel beyond the Rules of Order. If I do I shall be at once reminded of my error from the Chair. But there are two or three observations I am going to make which I think are relevant to this Resolution and to this Amendment, or to any Amendment which may be proposed, because they refer to what I think it is only right, on behalf of the Government, I should now state, and which the House in all quarters should understand, namely, the procedure which we regard as essential to this Resolution, amended or unamended—unamended as we think it ought to be.

When the Committee has given its assent—as I hope it will in the course of a few minutes—after negativing this Amendment to the Resolution as a whole, then, as far as this House is concerned, except in so far as it is the foundation of a Bill to be hereafter introduced, it will pass beyond our province. It will still have to meet its fortunes, good or bad, elsewhere. I do not know what those fortunes may be; I do not venture to predict them. But I do think it right to say that if the House of Lords fail, in regard to this or any of the other Resolutions—this, of course, is the centre and core of the scheme—

Mr. BALFOUR

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in order or not. That is not for me to say. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is now beginning to discuss what is to happen if in another place this Resolution meets with what he calls "bad fortune." That raises, and must inevitably raise, a great Debate outside this Amendment altogether, and outside, as I think, the Resolution proposed by the right hon. Gentleman himself. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet finished his statement, and under the very peculiar system under which we are carrying on our Debates, I do not see that there would be any possibility [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order." "A speech."] I do not think hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are improving their own case. I will, however, put this direct question of Order: Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in dealing with what is going to happen to this Resolution when it gets to another place?

The CHAIRMAN

I have not yet arrived at what the right hon. Gentleman is going to say, and I am not yet in a position to judge whether what he is going to say will be in order.

The PRIME MINISTER

What I was going to say is this: If the Lords fail to accept our policy as embodied in these Resolutions—

Mr. BALFOUR

The right hon. Gentleman has now explicitly told us that what he proposes to present to the House is his view of the policy which the Government will pursue not in relation to this Amendment, but in relation to something that is going to happen, or may happen, in the House of Lords. He has distinctly said that, and I wish to ask whether that is in order?

The CHAIRMAN

I should have preferred to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say. So far as I can tell at present, it is not strictly in order. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends desire to stop the Prime Minister or not. I should not myself have interfered with the Prime Minister if he desires to make a statement which he thinks ought to be placed before the Committee, even if it were somewhat outside the strict Rules of Order. But I should only allow a privilege of that kind if it were generally accepted by the House. Therefore, if the Leader of the Opposition, having called my attention to the fact that the Prime Minister appears to be outside this Amendment, and desires me to rule in that way, then I take it that the leave of the Committee is not given to him.

Mr. BALFOUR

I am entirely in favour of giving all latitude to the Leader of the House, whoever he may be, to make a statement which may be for the convenience of the House; but I venture to point out, if I may, that it is not tolerable that it should be made unless there is an opportunity of debating it. The last thing I wish to do is to put a too rigid limit on what may be for the convenience of the House; but everybody who knows anything about procedure in this House— [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide"]—and the hon. Members who cry "Divide," do not—must be perfectly aware that never are such statements made of a controversial character, unless an opportunity of debating them is permitted.

The CHAIRMAN

Clearly, that being the case, I must ask the Prime Minister not to proceed with his remarks.

The PRIME MINISTER

Of course, Sir, I defer to your ruling. I am sorry I have not been permitted the opportunity to make a statement, which would not have occupied more than two or three minutes, which I do not think necessarily or naturally would have led to any Debate on this occasion, and which I think would have been in the interests and for the convenience of the House. I will take the opportunity of making the statement on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Question put, "That the words proposed be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 351.

Division No. 30.]	AYES.	[7.29 p.m.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.	Craik, Sir Henry	Hill, Sir Clement
Adam, Major W. A.	Cripps, Sir C. A.	Hillier, Dr. A. P.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Croft, H. P.	Hills, J. W.
Archer-Shee, Major M.	Dalrymple, Viscount	Hoare, S. J. G.
Bagot, Captain J.	Dalziel, D. (Brixton)	Hohler, G. F.
Baird, J. L.	Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott	Hope, Harry (Bute)
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)	Dixon, C. H.	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Balcarres, Lord	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)
Baldwin, Stanley	Du Cros, Alfred (Tower Hamlets, Bow)	Horner, A. L.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)	Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)	Houston, Robert Paterson
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Duke, H. E.	Hume-Williams, W. E.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Duncannon, Viscount	Hunt, Rowland
Baring, Captain Hon. G.	Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark)	Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)
Barnston, H.	Eyres-Monsell, B. M.	Jackson, Sir J. (Devonport)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Faber, George Denison (Clapham)	Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)
Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)	Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)	Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Falle, B. G.	Jessel, Captain H. M.
Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase	Fell, Arthur	Kerr-Smiley, Peter
Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Kerry, Earl of
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish	Finlay, Sir Robert	Keswick, William
Bird, A.	Fisher, W. Hayes	Kimber, Sir Henry
Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)	Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)
Boyton, James	Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Brackenbury, H. L.	Fleming, Valentine	Knight, Capt. E. A.
Brassey, H. L. C. (Northants, N.)	Fletcher, J. S.	Knott, James
Brassey, Capt. R. (Banbury)	Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.)	Lane-Fox, G. R.
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Foster, J. K. (Coventry)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
Brotherton, E. A.	Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)	Lawson, Hon. Harry
Brunskill, G. F.	Gardner, Ernest	Lee, Arthur H.
Bull, Sir William James	Gastrell, Major W. H.	Lewisham, Viscount
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Gibbs, G. A.	Llewelyn, Venables
Butcher, J. G. (York)	Gilmour, Captain J.	Lloyd, G. A.
Butcher, S. H. (Cambridge Univ.)	Goldman, C. S.	Locker-Lampson. G. (Salisbury)
Calley, Colonel T. C. P.	Goldsmith, Frank	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.	Gooch, Henry Cubitt	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Carlile, E. Hildred	Gordon, J.	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Grant, J. A.	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)
Cator, John	Greene, W. R.	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)
Cantley, H. G.	Guinness, Hon. W. E.	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Cave, George	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Mackinder, H. J.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Haddock, George B.	Macmaster, Donald
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	M'Arthur, Charles
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.	Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)	M'Calmont, Colonel James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Magnus, Sir Philip
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	Hamersley, A. St. George	Mallaby-Deeley, Harry
Clive, Percy Archer	Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)	Mason, J. F.
Coates, Major E. F.	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)	Middlemore, John Throgmorton
Colefax, H. A.	Harris, F. L. (Stepney)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)	Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas
Compton, Lord A. (Brentford)	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Mitchell, William Foot
Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.)	Heath, Col. A. H.	Moore, William
Cooper, R. A. (Walsall)	Helmsley, Viscount	Morpeth, viscount
Courthope, G. Loyd	Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)	Morrison, Captain J. A.
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Craig, Norman (Kent)	Hickmann, Colonel T.	Mount, William Arthur
Newdegate, F. A.	Ridley, Samuel Forde	Thompson, Robert
Newman, John R. P.	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)	Thynne, Lord A.
Newton, Harry Kottingham	Rolleston, Sir John	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)	Ronaldshay, Earl of	Tryon, Capt. George Clement
Nield, Herbert	Rothschild, Lionel de	Tullibardine, Marquess of
Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)	Salter, Arthur Clavell	Valentia, Viscount
O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)	Verrall, George Henry
Orde-Powlert, Hon. W. G. A.	Sanders, Robert A.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Sanderson, Lancelot	Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)
Paget, Almeric Hugh	Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)	Whole., Granville C. H.
Parkes, Ebenezer	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert	White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)
Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)	Stanier, Beville	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Perkins, Walter F.	Stanley. Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Peto, Basil Edward	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Pollock, Ernest Murray	Starkey, John R.	Winterton, Earl
Pretyman, E. G.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Proby, Col. Douglas James	Steel-Maitland, A. D.	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Quilter, William Eley C.	Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)	Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)
Randies, Sir John Scurrah	Stewart, Sir M'T (Kirkcudbright)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Rankin, Sir James	Storey, Samuel	Yerburgh, Robert
Ratcliff, Major R. F.	Strauss, A.	Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel	Sykes, Alan John
Rawson, Colonel R. H.	Talbot, Lord E.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Remnant, James Farquharson	Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)	J. Chambers and Captain Craig.
Rice, Hon. Walter F.	Terrell, H. (Gloucester)
NOES.
Abraham, William	Collins, G. P. (Greenock)	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)
Addison, Dr. C.	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Hackett, J.
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.	Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Hall, Frederick (Normanton)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Hancock, J. G.
Alden, Percy	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)
Allen, Charles Peter	Cowan, W. H.	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Anderson, A.	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Harmsworth, R. L.
Armitage, R.	Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Crosfield, A. H.	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Crossley, Sir W. J.	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.	Cullinan, J.	Harwood, George
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry
Barclay, Sir T.	Dawes, J. A.	Haworth, Arthur A.
Barlow, Sir John E.	Delany, William	Hayden, John Patrick
Barnes, G. N.	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Hayward, Evan
Barran, Sir i. (Hawick)	Devlin, Joseph	Hazleton, Richard
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)	Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)	Healy, Timothy (Michael)
Barron, A. W.	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Helme, Norval Watson
Beale, W. P.	Donelan, Captain A.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Doris, W.	Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)
Bentham, G. J	Duffy, William J.	Henry, Charles S.
Bethell, Sir J. H.	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	Higham, John Sharp
Black, Arthur W.	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Hindle, F. G.
Boland, John Pius	Edwards, Enoch	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.
Bowerman, C. W.	Elverston, H.	Hodge, John
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)	Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Hogan, Michael
Brace, William	Falconer, J.	Hooper, A. G.
Brady, P. J.	Ferens, T. R.	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Brigg, Sir John	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Ffrench, Peter	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Burke, E. Haviland-	Field, William	Hudson, Walter
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Hughes, S. L.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	France, G. A.	Hunter, W. (Govan)
Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)	Furness, Sir Christopher	Illingworth, Percy H.
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)	Gelder, Sir W. A.	Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)	Gibbins, F. W.	Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)
Byles, William Pollard	Gibson, James P.	Johnson, W.
Cameron, Robert	Gill, A. H.	Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Ginnell, L.	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	Glanville, H. J.	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Glover, Thomas	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Chancellor, H. G.	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Jowett, F. W.
Channing, Sir Francis Allsten	Greenwood, G. G.	Joyce, Michael
Chapple, W. A.	Greig, Colonel J. W.	Keating, M.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Grenfell, Cecil Alfred	Kelly, Edward
Clancy, John Joseph	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Kemp, Sir G.
Clough, William	Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Clynes, J. R.	Gulland, John W.	Kettle, Thomas Michael

Kilbride, Denis	O'Grady, James	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S..)
King, J. (Somerset, N.)	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Lambert, George	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)	Scares, Ernest J.
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	O'Malley, William	Spicer, Sir Albert
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)
Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Leach, Charles	O'Shee, James John	Summers, James Woolley
Lehmann, R. C.	O'Sullivan, Eugene	Sutherland, J. E.
Levy, Sir Maurice	Parker, James (Halifax)	Sutton, John E.
Lewis, John Herbert	Pearce William	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Lincoln, Ignatius T. T.	Pearson, Weetman H. M.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.	Tennant, Harold John
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Low, Sir F. A. (Norwich)	Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Pembroke)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Lundon, T.	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Thomas, J. H. (Derby)
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Lynch, A. A.	Pirie, Duncan V.	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Pointer, Joseph	Toulmin, George
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Pollard, Sir George H.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Twist, Henry
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Power, Patrick Joseph	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Verney, F. W.
M'Callum, John M.	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Vivian, Henry
M'Curdy, C. A.	Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)	Wadsworth, J.
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leices.)	Primrose, Hon. Neil James	Walsh, Stephen
Mallet, Charles E.	Pringle, William M. R.	Walters, John Tudor
Manfield, Harry	Radford, G H.	Walton, Joseph
Markham, Arthur Basil	Raffan, Peter Wilson	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Marks, G. Croydon	Rainy, A. Rolland	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Martin, J.	Raphael, Herbert H.	Wardie, George J.
Masterman, C. F. G.	Rea, Walter Russell	Waring, Walter
Meagher, Michael	Reddy, M.	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)	Redmond, William (Clare)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Menzies, Sir Walter	Rees, J. D.	Waterlow, D. S
Middlebrook, William	Rendall, Athelstan	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Millar, J. D.	Richards, Thomas	Weir, James Galloway
Molloy, M.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Molteno, Percy Alport	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Mond, Alfred Moritz	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Montagu, Hon. E. S.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Mooney, J. J.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Whitehouse, John Howard
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Robinson, S.	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Wiles, Thomas
Muldoon, John	Roche, Augustine (Cork)	Williams, A. N. (Plymouth)
Munro, R.	Roche, John (Galway, East)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.	Roe, Sir Thomas	Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)
Muspratt, M.	Rowntree, Arnold	Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)
Nannetti, Joseph P.	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Neilson, Francis	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)	Samuel, J. (Stockton)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Nolan, Joseph	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Norten, Capt. Cecil W.	Scanlan, Thomas	Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)
Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Schwann, Sir C. E.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Nuttall, Harry	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)	Winfrey, Richard
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Seddon, J.	Wing, Thomas
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Shackleton, David James	Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
O'Doherty, Philip	Shaw, Sir C. E.	Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)	Sheehy, David	Yoxall, Sir James
O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Sherwell, Arthur James
O'Dowd, John	Shortt, Edward	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master
Ogden, Fred	Simon, John Allsebrook	of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

And, it being after Half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 5th day of April, proceeded to put forthwith the Question on the Resolution to be

concluded at Half-past Seven of the clock this day.

Question put:

The Committee divided: Ayes, 351; Noes, 246.

Division No. 31.]	AYES.	[7.40 p.m.
Abraham, William	Allen, Charles P.	Baker, H. T. (Accrington)
Addison, Dr. C.	Anderson, A.	Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Armitage, R.	Balfour, Robert (Lanark)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.	Ashton, Thomas Gair	Barclay, Sir T.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Barlow, Sir John E.
Alden, Percy	Atherley-Jones, Llewelyn A.	Barnes, G. N.
Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)	Greig, Colonel J. W.	Mallet, Charles E.
Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)	Grenfell, Cecil Alfred	Manfield, Harry
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Markham, Arthur Basil
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)	Marks, G. Croydon
Barton, W.	Gulland, John W.	Martin, Hon. J.
Beale, W. P.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Masterman, C. F. G.
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Hackett, J.	Meagher, Michael
Bentham, G. J.	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Bethell, Sir J. H.	Hall, Frederick (Normanton)	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Hancock, J. G.	Menzies, Sir Walter
Black, Arthur W.	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)	Middlebrook, William
Boland, John Pius	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Millar, J. D.
Bowerman, C. W.	Harmsworth. R. L.	Molloy, Michael
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Molteno, Percy Alport
Brace, William	Harvey, T E. (Leeds, W.)	Mond, Alfred Moritz
Brady, P. J.	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)	Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Brigg, Sir John	Harwood, George	Mooney, J. J.
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Haworth, Arthur A.	Muldoon, John
Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid.)	Hayden, John Patrick	Munro, R.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)	Hayward, Evan	Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.
Byles, William Pollard	Hazelton, Richard	Muspratt, M.
Cameron, Robert	Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Healy, Timothy Michael	Neilson, Francis
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	Helme, Norval Watson	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Nolan, Joseph
Chancellor, H. G.	Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)	Norton, Capt. Cecil W.
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Henry, Charles S.	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Chapple, W. A.	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor	Nuttall, Harry
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Higham, John Sharp	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Clancy, John Joseph	Hindle, F. G.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Clough, William	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Clynes, J. R.	Hodge, John	O'Doherty, Philip
Collins, G. P. (Greenock)	Hogan, Michael	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Hooper, A. G.	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	O'Dowd, John
Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)	Ogden, Fred
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Howard, Hon. Geoaffrey	O'Grady, James
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Hudson, Walter	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Hughes, S. L	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Cowan, W. H.	Hunter, W. (Govan)	O'Malley, William
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Crosfield, A. H.	Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)	O'Shee, James John
Crossley, William J.	Johnson, W.	O'Sullivan, Eugene
Cullinan, J.	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Parker, James (Halifax)
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)	Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)	Pearce, William
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Pearson, Weetman H. M.
Davies, M. (Vaughan- (Cardigan)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.
Dawes, J. A.	Jowett, F. W.	Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)
Delany, William	Joyce, Michael	Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Pembroke)
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Keating, M.	Phillips. John (Longford, S.)
Devlin, Joseph	Kelly, Edward	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)	Kemp, Sir G.	Pirie, Duncan V.
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Pointer, Joseph
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Kettle, Thomas Michael	Pollard, Sir George H.
Donelan, Captain A.	Kilbride, Denis	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Doris, W.	King, J. (Somerset, N.)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Duffy, William J.	Lambert, George	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis	Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Edwards, Enoch	Leach, Charles	Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Elverston, H.	Lehmann, R. C.	Pringle, William M. R.
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Levy, Sir Maurice	Radford, G. H.
Falconer, J.	Lewis, John Herbert	Raffan, Peter Wilson
Ferens, T. R.	Lincoln, Ignatius T. T.	Rainy, Adam Rolland
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Rapnael, Herbert H.
Ffrench, Peter	Lough. Rt. Hon Thomas	Rea, Walter Russell
Field, William	Low, Sir F. (Norwich)	Reddy, M.
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lundon, T.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
France, G. A.	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Redmond, William (Clare)
Furness, Sir Christopher	Lynch,- A. A.	Rees, J. D.
Gelder, Sir W. A.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Rendall, Athelstan
Gibbins, F. W.	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Richards, Thomas
Gibson, James P.	Macnarmara, Dr. Thomas J.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Gill, A. H.	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Ginnell, L.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Glanville. H. J.	M'Cullum, John M.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Glever, Thomas	M'Curdy, C. A.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Robinson, S.
Greenwood, G. G.	M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leics.)	Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Sutton, John E.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Roche, Augustine (Cork)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Weir, James Galloway
Roche, John (Galway, East)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Roe, Sir Thomas	Tennant, Harold John	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Rowntree, Arnold	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	Whitehouse, John Howard
Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Thomas, J H. (Derby)	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Samuel, J. (Stockton)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)	Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Thorne, William (West Ham)	Wiles, Thomas
Scanlan, Thomas	Toulmin, George	Williams, A. N. (Plymouth)
Schwann, Sir C. E.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)	Twist, Henry	Williams, P. (Middlesborough)
Seddon, J.	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander	Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.	Verney, F. W.	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Shackleton, David James	Vivian, Henry	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Shaw, Sir C. E.	Wadsworth, J.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Sheehy, David	Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Sherwell, Arthur James	Walsh, Stephen	Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)
Shortt, Edward	Walters, John Tudor	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Simon, John Allsebrook	Walton, Joseph	Winfrey, Richard
Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)	Wing, Thomas
Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Soares, Ernest J.	Wardie, George J.	Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
Spicer, Sir Albert	Waring, Walter	Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)
Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Strachey, Sir Edward	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Summers. James Woolley	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master
Sutherland, J. E.	Waterlow, D. S.	of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.
NOES.
Adam, Major W. A.	Cooper, R. A. (Walsall)	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)
Arson, Sir William Reynell	Courthope, G. Loyd	Harris, F. L. (Stepney)
Archer-Shee, Major M.	Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)
Bagot, Captain J.	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.
Baird, J. L.	Craig, Norman (Kent)	Heath, Col. A. H.
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)	Craik, Sir Henry	Helmsley, Viscount
Balcarres, Lord	Cripps, Sir C. A.	Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)
Baldwin, Stanley	Croft, H. P.	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)	Dairymple, Viscount	Hickman, Colonel T.
Banbury, sir Frederick George	Dalziel, D. (Brixton)	Hill, Sir Clement
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-	Hillier, Dr. A. P.
Baring, Captain Hon. G.	Dixon, C. H.	Hills, J. W.
Barnston, H.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Hoare, S. J. G.
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Du Cros, Alfred (Tower Hamlets, Bow)	Hohier, G. F.
Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)	Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)	Hope, Harry (Bute)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Duke, H. E.	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase	Duncannon, Viscount	Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)
Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)	Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark)	Horner, A. L.
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish	Eyres-Monsell, [...]. M.	Houston, Robert Paterson
Bird, A.	Faber, George Denison (Clapham)	Hume-Williams, W. E.
Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)	Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)	Hunt, Rowland
Boyton, J.	Falle, B. G.	Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)
Brackenbury, H. L.	Fell, Arthur	Jackson, Sir J. (Devonport)
Brassey, H. L. C. (N'thamptonshire, N.)	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)
Brassey, Capt. R. B. (Banbury)	Finlay, Sir Robert	Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Fisher, W. Hayes	Jessel, Captain H. M.
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.	Kerr-Smiley, Peter
Brunskill, G. F.	Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue	Kerry, Earl of
Bull, Sir William James	Fleming, Valentine	Keswick, William
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Fletcher, J. S.	Kimber, Sir Henry
Butcher, J. G. (York)	Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.)	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)
Butcher, S. H. (Cambridge Univ.)	Foster, J. K. (Coventry)	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Calley, Colonel T. C. P.	Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)	Knight, Capt. E. A.
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.	Gardner, Ernest	Knott, James
Carlile, E. Hildred	Gastrell, Major W. H.	Lane-Fox, G. R.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.	Gibbs, G. A.	Law, Andrew Sonar (Dulwich)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Gilmour, Captain J	Lawson, Hon. Harry
Cator, John	Goldman, C. S.	Lee, Arthur H.
Cautley, H. S	Goldsmith, Frank	Lewisham, Viscount
Cave, George	Gooch, Henry Cubitt	Llewelyn, Major Venables
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Gordon, J.	Lloyd, G. A.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)	Gouldinq, Edward Alfred	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)
Chaloner, Colonel R. W. G.	Grant, J. A.	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Greene, W. R.	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Chambers, J.	Guinness, Hon. W. E.	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Clay, Captain H. Spender	Gwyrne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)
Clive, Percy Archer	Haddock, George B.	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)
Coates, Major E. F.	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)
Colefax, H. A.	Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Mackinder, H. J.
Compton, Lord A. (Brentford)	Hamersley, A. St George	Macmaster, Donald
Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.)	Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)	M'Arthur, Charles

M'Calmont, Colonel James	Proby, Colonel Douglas James	Storey, Samuel
Magnus, Sir Philip	Quilter, William Eley C.	Strauss, Arthur
Mallaby-Deeley, Harry	Randies, Sir John Scurrah	Sykes, Alan John
Mason, J. F.	Rankin, Sir James	Talbot, Lord E.
Middlemore, John Throgmorton	Ratcliff, Major R. F.	Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)
Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel	Terrell, H. (Gloucester)
Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Rawson, Colonel R. H.	Thompson, Robert
Mitchell, William Foot	Remnant, James Farquharson	Thynne, Lord A.
Moore, William	Rice, Hon. W.	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Morpeth, Viscount	Ridley, Samuel Forde	Tryon, Capt. George Clement
Morrison, Captain J. A.	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eccleshall)	Tullibardine, Marquess of
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.	Rolleston, Sir John	Verrall, George Henry
Mount, William Arthur	Ronaldshay, Earl of	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Newdegate, F. A.	Rothschild, Lionel de	Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)
Newman, John R. P.	Rutherford, Watson	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Newton, Harry Kottingham	Salter, Arthur Clavell	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)	White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)
Nield, Herbert	Sanders, Robert A.	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)	Sanderson, Lancelot	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)	Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert	Winterton, Earl
Paget, Almeric Hugh	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)	Stanier, Beville	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Parkes, Ebenezer	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)	Worthington-Evans, L, (Colchester)
Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)	Starkey, John R.	Yerburgh, Robert
Perkins, Walter F.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)	Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)
Peto, Basil Edward	Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Pollock, Ernest Murray	Stewart, Gersham (Cheshire, Wirral)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir A.
Pretyman, E. G.	Stewart, Sir MT. (Kirkcudbright)	Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Resolved, "2. That it is expedient that the powers of the House of Lords, as respects Bills other than Money Bills, be restricted by Law, so that any such Bill which has passed the House of Commons in three successive Sessions and, having been sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, has been rejected by that House in each of those Sessions, shall become Law without the consent of the House of Lords on the Royal Assent being declared: Provided that at least two years shall have elapsed between the date of the first introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons and the date on which it passes the House of Commons for the third time. For the purposes of this Resolution a Bill shall be treated as rejected by the House of Lords if it has not been passed by the House of Lords either without Amendment or with such Amendments only as may be agreed upon by both Houses.