Commons Sitting of 4 April 1911

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Blackburn Corporation Water Bill,
Chichester Gas Bill,
Port of London Authority Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Sligo and Arigna Railway (Abandonment) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 25th April.
Belfast Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Luton Water Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

DERWENT FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1907, relating to the River Derwent and other waters," presented by Sir EDWARD STRACHET; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1."That, in the case of the Brighton District Tramways [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on the condition that Tramways 1, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

2. "That, in the case of the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the 'London Omnibus Owners' Federation' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

Resolutions agreed to.

TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD).
Return ordered, "of Street and Road Tramways and Light Railways authorised by Act or Order showing the amount of capital authorised, paid up, and expended; the length of line authorised, and the length open for public traffic down to the 31st day of December, 1910, in respect of companies, and the 31st day of March, 1911, in respect of local authorities; the gross receipts, working expenditure net receipts, and appropriations; the number of passengers conveyed, the number of miles run by cars, and the quantity of electrical energy used during the year ended on the foregoing dates respectively; together with the number of horses, engines, and cars at those dates (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 293, of Session 1910)."—[Mr. Sydney Buxton.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Congo State Administration.
  Sir EDWARD SASSOONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to inform the House as to any amelioration in the conditions of administration of the Congo State since Belgium assumed responsibility in connection with it; and whether, in view of the absence of former complaints by British and American missionaries, he will consider the expediency of formally recognising the annexation?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): As was stated on the 27th February, there has undoubtedly been improvement in the administration of the Congo State, but I cannot make a more definite statement until I receive the reports of the Consular Officers who are now on tour. With regard to the last part of the question, I have undertaken that His Majesty's Government will not recognise the annexation until they have laid before the House positive evidence that the state of affairs is satisfactory.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that annexation will not be recognised until this House has had an opportunity of considering the question?
  Sir E. GREY: The undertaking I have given in my reply is quite full enough: "His Majesty's Government will not recognise the annexation until they have laid before the House positive evidence that the state of affairs is satisfactory."

  United States and Canada (Tariff Agreement).
  Mr. REMNANTasked whether any request was communicated to the Government of the United States, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, for the extension to the United Kingdom, or to other parts of the Empire, of the reduced duties on Canadian goods included in the reciprocity agreement; and if so, what reply was made to this request?
  Sir E. GREY: The point could not have been raised with the Government of the United States until the negotiations with Canadian Ministers about Canadian duties were concluded, and their result known. I am not at present in a position to state what steps it may be necessary or desirable for His Majesty's Government to take in the matter.
  Mr. REMNANT: Is it not a fact that the terms have already been agreed to and submitted to the two Governments?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes, the result is known, but there are complicated points involved in the question of the most-favoured-nation treatment which are now under examination.
  Mr. REMNANT: In the event of these complicated points not being settled may I ask whether the reciprocal agreement is likely to be off?
  Sir E. GREY: No, Sir. They do not affect the reciprocal agreement. They are points which are under consideration from our point of view and not from the point of view of the United States and the Canadian Governments.
  Mr. REMNANT: I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but this question is so important to British trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] Surely this is a matter which does concern British traders. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these matters which so seriously affect British traders ought not to be considered and laid before those two Governments?
  Sir E. GREY: It is not a case for the Canadian Government at all, but what steps we should take ourselves with regard to the United States Government. There are complicated points involved in that which are under examination, and it is precisely because the question is important that I am not in a position to make any special statement.
  Mr. REMNANT: Have any steps been taken?

  Baghdad Railway.
  Mr. SANDERSONasked when the right hon. Gentleman would lay upon the Table the promised Papers respecting the Baghdad Railway; whether, in view of the public interest which attaches to the question, he would take steps to expedite their preparation; and whether, in the event of there being any further delay, he would lay upon the Table at once the Papers relating to the financial provisions of the concession of 1903, and especially those relating to Article 35.
  Sir E. GREY: I hope to lay all the promised Papers soon after Easter; they are being got ready as quickly as possible.
  Mr. SANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in consequence of arrangements recently concluded at Constantinople with reference to the Baghdad Railway, any new scheme has been or will be substituted for the existing kilometric guarantees; and whether, if His Majesty's Government arrange for this country to take any part in the railway east of Baghdad, every effort will be made to insure that the financial arrangements are not open to certain well-known objections widely entertained in regard to the concession of 1903?
  Sir E. GREY: These questions are the subject of negotiations, and I am, therefore, not in a position to make any statement with regard to them at this moment. The point referred to will, of course, receive consideration.
  Mr. SANDERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will consider any modification of the financial arrangements of Clause 35?
  Sir E. GREY: I did not know that Clause 35 was referred to in the question. Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that.

  Declaration of London.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked whether he is aware that the question of the proper English translation of the words in Article 49 of the Declaration of London—compromettre le succès des opérations dans lesquelles le bâtiment de guerre est actuellement engagé—is not in any way referred to in M. Renault's Report; and whether, in view of these facts, he will reconsider the question whether those words are accurately translated in the English version issued by the Foreign Office by the words—involve danger to the success of the operations in which the warship is engaged at the time?
  Sir E. GREY: The translation accurately renders the meaning of the French, and makes use of the term specifically indicated in the Report of the Conference.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the phrase "prejudice the success" is a much more accurate translation and involves an entirely different meaning than "danger to the success"?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not think it is. I think the phrase "involve danger" or "endangering" is the most accurate rendering of the meaning of the French.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked whether the scope of Article 34 of the Declaration of London, read in conjunction with Article 33, is correctly stated in the letter of the 13th October, 1910, from the Foreign Office to the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce (Cd. 5418, page 6), to be to relieve the captor of the obligation of proving in eases specified in Article 34 that the destination of foodstuffs, and other articles of conditional contraband, was the military or naval forces of the enemy, and to shift the onus of proof in these cases from the captor on to the owners of the captured goods; whether in those specified cases the practice apart from the Declaration of London, has been to throw the onus of proof on the captor; whether his attention had been called to a speech delivered by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at the Baltic, on the 15th March, 1911, in which, referring to Articles 33 and 34, the Under-Secretary stated that the past practice had been to throw the burden of proof as to the destination of conditional contraband on the owners of the captured vessel or goods; and whether, in view of the previous statements on the subject by the Foreign
  1974
  Office, this statement of the Under-Secretary can be regarded as accurate?
  Sir E. GREY: The statement in the Foreign Office letter referred to means relief from the obligation imposed by the Declaration of London, which is the opposite of the existing practice. Both it and the extract quoted from the speech of the Under-Secretary of State are accurate. In actual practice under the existing law, the neutral owners have always found that the burden of proof in proceedings before a prize court is laid upon them. This will be fundamentally changed by the Declaration of London, which, for the first time, establishes the general rule that the burden of proof shall lie on the captor. Only in certain exceptional cases, namely, those covered by the presumptions set up under Article 34, will the burden of proof, contrary to the new general rule, rest on the neutral owners and not on the captors. In these cases, but in these cases only, the present practice will be retained.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: May I have a copy of the answer?
  Sir E. GREY: Certainly.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman now has any information to show that the Government of the United States of America have declined to accept as authoritative the Foreign Office official translation of the Declaration of London, as published in Blue Book 4554 and have had a fresh translation made; and, if so, could he state what is the translation of the word commerçant, which appears in Article 34?
  Sir E. GREY: The United States Government have agreed to discuss with His Majesty's Government the question of the English translation of the Declaration, with a view to the adoption of the common version to be officially adopted for the use of the Navies of both countries. Pending the result of such discussions, I am unable to make any statement on points of detail.
  Mr. JAMES MASONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the expressed determination of other Powers to reserve to themselves the right to convert merchant liners into warships without notification, His Majesty's Government propose to take steps with a view to securing that British merchant liners shall be equipped with adequate means for meeting such contingencies in case of war?
  FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The Admiralty are prepared to meet the contingencies anticipated in the hon. Member's question, and to take all necessary steps for the protection of British trade.
  Mr. JAMES MASONasked the Prime Minister whether the Declaration of London will be submitted to the approval of Parliament or of the House of Commons only?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): A promise has been given that there will be a full opportunity for discussion of the Declaration of London in the House of Commons before ratification. That promise holds good, and I am not prepared to go beyond it.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say on what grounds he bases his application of Single-Chamber Government to this question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The House of Lords has spent three nights already upon it.

  Union Steamship Company (Danish Government Subsidy).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has yet made any inquiry to ascertain whether the Danish Government are now making a subsidy to the Union Steamship Company for the conveyance of agricultural produce to this country; what is the amount, if any, of such subsidy, and what the Union Company actually give in return in the way of facilities or encouragement to Danish export trade; and, if so, what are the results of his inquiry?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative. Inquiry shall, however, be made, as I now assume that the hon. Member desires it.

  Punjab (Torture Cases).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether in the two recent cases of torture in the Punjab, in each of which one of the victims died, any of the accused policemen were charged with murder; whether there was any appeal by the police against their convictions; and, if so, whether the verdicts and sentences of the subordinate courts were upheld; and whether the Secretary of State will place official copies of the judgments delivered by the courts in each case in the Library of the House?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): As regards my hon. Friend's first three questions I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to him on the 27th March. With regard to the last question, the Government of India will be asked to furnish copies for the purpose suggested.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will my hon. Friend ascertain in the first place the somewhat material details as to what was the nature of the outrages suffered by the victims; and, in the second place, what was the charge upon which the police were put on trial?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member made the suggestion that copies of the judgments should be put in the Library of the House. The Secretary of State agrees to that suggestion, and in those judgments the hon. Member will find all the information ho now seeks.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the judgments contain particulars of the outrages suffered by the victims?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The whole case is dealt with in the judgment.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the Government of India are contemplating altering the definition of "murder" in the Indian Penal Code so that the death sentence may be inflicted upon the policemen who tortured to death the people in their charge?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That point hardly arises on the question.

  Viceroy's Council (Insult to Member).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has yet received a report concerning the insult alleged to have been offered in a railway train to a member of the Viceroy's Council by an Army officer in India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I regret to say that the Government of India report that the account of this incident given in the newspapers is substantially correct. Prompt steps were taken as soon as the matter came to the knowledge of the military authorities, and the offending officer, Mr. Stones, was at once placed under arrest pending consideration of the case, and has since been punished. Mr. Stones' Commanding Officer expressed his personal regret to Mir Allahbaksh Khan and sent

  1977
  him a written apology from Mr. Stones. Mir Allahbaksh Khan accepted this apology and expressed the hope that Mr. Stones would not be severely dealt with.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the hon. Member say what punishment was meted out to Mr. Stones, the offending officer?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, Mr. Stones was censured by direction of the Commander-in-Chief; he wrote an apology to the gentleman insulted; and his leave has been stopped for a year, and the incident has been recorded in his confidential report.

  Coronation Durbar.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether any communication had passed from the India Office to the Indian Government concerning the forthcoming Coronation Durbar prior to the framing of this year's Estimates by the Indian Government?
  Mr. MORRELLalso asked whether the hon. Gentleman could say how the Estimate of a sum of £940,000, which has been provided in the Budget statement of the Government of India to defray the cost of the proposed royal visit, was arrived at; whether any instructions were sent to the Government of India by the Secretary of State upon the subject; and whether any particulars of the objects in respect of which this provision has been made have yet been submitted to him?
  Mr. MONTAGU: As I stated in the House on 14th March, 16th March, and finally in answer to the hon. Member for Burnley on 29th March, the Secretary of State has not yet received from the Government of India the full details which they are to submit regarding the Estimate. But the Government of India have informed him that £633,300 represents their estimate of the Civil expenditure that they will have to meet, of which the greater part will be for the Durbar at Delhi, and £306,700 represents their Estimate of the military expenditure consisting mainly of the cost of manœuvres and a Review at Delhi. The Government of India have also stated that a financial officer has been specially appointed to supervise the Estimates and to act as financial adviser regarding expenditure on the Royal Visit. Before sanctioning the publication of the Estimate in the Financial Statement the Secretary of State made some suggestions to the Government of India for financial supervision and economy, in consequence of which the
  1978
  figure is somewhat lower than the Government of India originally proposed. He has also asked that every effort shall be made to keep the actual expenditure well within the estimated amount. Beyond this he has issued no instructions to the Government of India.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can my hon. Friend tell me how the Indian Government obtained their instructions?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India received the welcome news that His Majesty the King-Emperor was to visit India and were asked to make arrangements to welcome him, and they then submitted their Estimate for the Budget.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I ask whether the Government of India received this welcome news from the Secretary of State?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Naturally the Secretary of State was the channel through which the Government of India were informed of the visit.

  Persia (Inroads by Afghan Raiders and Gun-Runners).
  Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been directed to the inroads into Persian territory of large bands of armed Afghan raiders and gunrunners; and, if so, whether, following the precedent of 1902, His Majesty's Government will sanction the co-operation by land of a small force of Indian troops to assist the Persian local governors and the Persian troops along the Baluchistan border to put a stop to these inroads and to protect the Central Persian telegraph line from damage, in addition to the assistance that has already been afforded them by sea?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for East Mayo on the 30th ultimo. The measures then described are, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, adequate to achieve the object in view.

  Police Administration (India).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the recent cases in Madras and Bengal, in which British subjects are admitted to have died under torture at the hands of the police, the Secretary of State will allow official copies of the judgments given by the courts which tried the cases to be placed in the Library of the House?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, Sir, the Government of India will be asked to furnish copies.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Under - Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State is aware that the Police Commission, appointed by Lord Curzon eight years ago, recommended in their Report that whenever a court of justice publicly or by a separate note thought fit to comment upon misconduct by the police engaged in the case under trial, the district magistrate should pay due attention to it by conducting, by some impartial and competent agency, an inquiry into the matter so judicially noticed; whether any steps have been taken, or are intended to be taken, to give effect to this recommendation; and, if so, whether he would state what they are?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The proposal of the Police Commission was approved by the Government of India and was commended be the local governments in order that steps might be taken to give effect to it. I am unable to specify in detail the orders that were issued, but I can assure my hon. Friend that any strictures passed by the courts on the police are invariably brought to the notice of the district magistrate, and are inquired into by him or, in important cases, by some superior authority.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will be prepared to recommend to the Secretary of State that an appointment in the Indian police should be offered to the hon. Member for Norwich so that he can ascertain——
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think these personal allusions are very much to be deprecated.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked whether the Secretary of State is aware that the Police Commission appointed by Lord Curzon in 1902 reported that the evidence before them showed that the practice by the police of working for confessions was still exceedingly common; that it was most objectionable; that on the one hand it led to gross abuse of power, and that, on the other hand, quite inexplicable instances occurred of innocent people making confessions; that the best police officers had no sympathy with the practice; whether it is still the practice in India that policemen may obtain confessions from suspects committed to their private custody, and then take them before a magistrate in order to
  1980
  have the confessions recorded, and when alleged to be voluntary used as evidence against the accused on their trial; and whether it is proposed to continue unamended the law which allows such confessions to be so recorded and used?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State is aware that the Police Commission expressed the views ascribed to them by the hon. Member. As I explained last week, confessions made to the police are inadmissible in evidence and only confessions made to a magistrate and certified by him to be voluntary can be used against an accused. It is proposed to amend the law on the subject to the extent indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Leicester last Tuesday.

  Manual of Drill and Training for Yeomanry.
  Mr. SANDYSasked whether it is proposed to issue a manual of drill and training for Yeomanry; and, if so, when it will be ready?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): A training manual for Yeomanry is now in course of preparation, and it is hoped will be ready for issue at the end of the year.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Yeomanry drill is already some months in progress and that this book has been in preparation some three or four years?
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he expects the Yeomanry to know what their duties are now?
  Colonel SEELY: The Yeomanry are fully aware what their duties are.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that they now have to learn what they can from the Drill Book dating back to 1907?
  Colonel SEELY: I have said we will expedite the publication as far as possible, but I cannot accept the Noble Lord's view.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask whether any officer expert in Yeomanry training has seen the draft of this edition?
  Colonel SEELY: We shall obtain information from every well qualified source.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is it not more or less in print, and has not the information been already obtained?
  Colonel SEELY: That depends what you mean by "more or less."

  Territorial Force.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the number of men belonging to the Territorial Force who were proceeded against in the law courts during the year 1909 for not putting in the required number of drills; and how many of them were fined or ordered to pay costs?
  Colonel SEELY: No statistics are available at the War Office to enable me to give the required information.

  Army (Supply of Petrol).
  Mr. ROTHSCHILDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fluctuations in the supplies of petrol in this country, he has made any arrangements to have a sufficient reserve in case of war for the use of mechanical transport vehicles and of those which would be supplied by the Army Motor Reserve?
  Colonel SEELY: It is anticipated that the stocks of petrol ordinarily maintained in this country would be ample for meeting the Army requirements of that article for war purposes. It is not, therefore, considered necessary or advisable to maintain any special Army reserves of petrol.
  Mr. ROTHSCHILD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the amount of petrol in this country has fallen during the last two months below two months' supply?
  Colonel SEELY: Our information at the War Office is that the supply is ample, but, if the hon. Gentleman has any special information on the subject, I should be very glad if he will send it to me.

  Army Aeroplanes.
  Mr. ROTHSCHILDasked if he will state the approximate number of æroplanes now being constructed for the French and German Governments; and how many efficient ones the Governments of Great Britain, France, and Germany will each own by the end of 1911?
  Colonel SEELY: With regard to the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Kensington on the 7th of March. I cannot give an estimate of the number of efficient aeroplanes which will be in the possession of France or Germany at the end of this year. With regard to this country we have obtained or ordered a sufficient number for instructional and experimental purposes, and further orders will depend upon our experience with these machines.
  Mr. LEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many we have at the present time?
  Colonel SEELY: No. I cannot say at the exact moment. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is aware they are constructed very rapidly, so the information would not be very valuable.
  Mr. SANDYS: Is it not a fact we have only five compared with sixty of the French Government?
  Colonel SEELY: I think that is quite inaccurate. Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question down.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask whether the War Office has just ordered four, and whether there was a fifth on order the other day?
  Colonel SEELY: That is not accurate either.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Arising out of that answer——
  Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps hon. Members will kindly take the trouble to put these questions down.

  Rifle Range Accommodation.
  Mr. HAMERSLEYasked whether the difficulty in obtaining extended accommodation for rifle ranges for use by the Territorial Forces consists in the War Office not having been able to select suitable land for ranges, or, having selected it, in not having the necessary funds available with which to purchase it and to construct the ranges thereon; how many rifle ranges were available for use by the Territorial Forces, independently of those used by the Regular Forces, at the date when the Territorial Forces were first organised; in how many instances has land been acquired for the use of the Territorial Forces, independently of those used by

  1983
  the Regular Forces, since the first organisation of the Territorial Forces; how many rifle ranges used by the Territorial Forces have been closed since the organisation of those forces, and how many of that number were closed owing to their proximity to golf links; how many rifle ranges are there now available for use by the Territorial Forces that are also used by the Regular Forces; and how many of those ranges used only by Territorial Forces are situated in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, respectively?
  Colonel SEELY: With regard to the last part of the question of the ranges used only by the Territorial Force, 416 are in England, 362 in Scotland and 83 in Wales. With regard to the remainder of the question I have no further information beyond that given in reply to the hon. Gentleman on 23rd March.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: May I ask whether that reply will be published or not? It was not published, and that is the reason of my bringing it on again.
  Colonel SEELY: I have the answer here, as taken from the Official Report.
  Mr. PEEL: Is not the number of ranges in England, compared with Scotland, very small, considering the relative population of the two countries, and the numbers of the Territorial Force?
  Colonel SEELY: I cannot do the sum in my head, but there are 416 in England, 362 in Scotland, and 83 in Wales, and certainly that would appear to show there are a great number in Scotland. I would not like to say what the proportion is.

  Army Meat Supply.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked in view of the fact that it is considered to be in the best interests of the soldier to vary his diet, what is the dietetic difference between chilled meat and fresh-killed meat?
  Colonel SEELY: There is practically no dietetic difference between chilled and fresh meat, the nutritive value of each having been pronounced equal.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: As there is no change in the diet, and as, apparently, it is not on the score of cheapness, may I ask if there is any reason why we should not have all home-killed meat in this country?
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether he is aware that a short time ago it was stated by the Financial Secretary to the War Office that the reason for having frozen meat supplied was to give the soldiers a change of diet, and, now that apparently it is no longer the case, whether he will consider the advisability of supplying the soldier with a change of diet one day in the week either by Irish pork or Irish bacon?
  Colonel SEELY: What I said was that there is no dietetic difference between chilled and fresh meat. There is variety, as there is between Irish and Scotch whisky.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind hon. Members that there are 117 questions on the paper. I am the recipient of many complaints from hon. Members that their questions are not reached, but if hon. Members insist on asking two or three supplementaries to each question, it is perfectly impossible that those who come at the end of the list should obtain verbal answers.

  Cavalry Horses.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked why Cavalry horses are boarded out at the commencement of the drill season, when every available horse is required for the ranks.
  Colonel SEELY: It has been found necessary to board out horses of Cavalry regiments this year in April owing to the decision that each regiment is to board out twenty-three additional horses. When all horses have been boarded out this procedure will not recur.

  Dirigibles.
  Colonel BURNasked the Under-Secretary for War whether, considering the extreme vulnerability of dirigibles, they would be likely in war to be at once destroyed by hostile aeroplanes, which possess greater speed and are able to rise to a greater height; and, if so, whether, seeing that a dozen aeroplanes can be constructed for the cost of one dirigible, he would consider the desirability of devoting the £28,000 which is named in the Estimates for the building of dirigible sheds to the construction of aeroplanes and sheds to house them?
  Colonel SEELY: Dirigibles are still in the experimental stage, and trials with them are necessary before the points raised in the question can be settled. In

  1985
  the meantime it is absolutely necessary to construct another shed at Farnborough in order to enable the trials to proceed and the dirigibles now being prepared for trial to be completed.

  Army Officers' Sashes.
  Mr. MALCOLMasked whether the Army Order concerning the new crimson and gold sashes has been, or is about to be, withdrawn in consequence of the general opposition to it recently expressed in this House; and whether, in the event of its withdrawal, the Secretary of State will recoup such officers as may have already purchased the new sash by placing their expenses on the Army Estimates?
  Colonel SEELY: The Army Order referred to was cancelled on the 30th ultimo. Any claims for out-of-pocket expenditure incurred before the Order was cancelled will be favourably considered.
  Mr. MALCOLM: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will convey our thanks to the War Office for that promise.

  Tunbridge Wells Drill Hall.
  Captain CLAYasked the Under-Secretary for War if he was aware that a Foreign-made roofing tile is being used in the building of the Drill Hall at Tunbridge Wells when, since the passing of the Patents Act, a similar tile of equal quality and cheaper price is being manufactured in this country; and whether he would give instructions that where the British article is as good and as cheap as the foreign, the British article should have the preference, thereby encouraging manufacturers to take advantage of the Parents Act and give increased employment at home?
  Colonel SEELY: This matter rests entirely with the County Association, with whose discretion the Army Council is not prepared to interfere.

  Special Reserve (Battalion Bands).
  Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that the bands of Special Reserve battalions are maintained by a deduction of two days' pay from each officer of the battalion, supplemented by a grant of £25 from the Government; that owing to the shortage of officers in the Special Reserve the amount received is insufficient for the upkeep of the band; and whether he will consider the question of increasing the
  1986
  Government grant and abolishing the deduction from the officers' pay?
  Colonel SEELY: The subscriptions towards these bands vary considerably, but the average contributions are as stated in the question. It is probable that in some cases owing to the shortage of officers these amounts are insufficient for their upkeep. It is hoped, however, that the alteration in the mode of appointment of officers to the Special Reserve recently announced will attract larger numbers to the Force, and that the contributions towards the band expenses will show a corresponding increase. There is no present intention of increasing the Government grant.
  Colonel YATE: Is there any intention to abolish the deductions from officers' pay?
  Colonel SEELY: I should prefer to have notice of that supplementary question.

  Military Works Loans.
  Mr. ROBINSONasked if the sum of £300,000 was being raised by loan to cover the current year's expenses; and, if so, whether the War Office will take steps to include in the Estimates such money as is required for the year's expenses and so avoid the raising of loans?
  Colonel SEELY: For many years prior to 1906 it was the practice to make provision for important works services under Military Works Loans. In that year it was decided to abolish the system of Military Works Loans altogether. Under the Loans Act already sanctioned by Parliament the sum of nearly six millions could be expended, but his Majesty's Government resolved to limit further issues to 1½ millions required to complete works in hand and ancillary services. These works are now nearing completion and the sum of £300,000 referred to represents the amount that it is anticipated will be spent in 1911–12. Provision for all new services is now made on Votes.

  Territorial Force (Officers' Provisional Promotion).
  Mr. SANDYSasked how many officers of the Territorial Force, who have been promoted provisionally, have failed during the past twelve months to comply with the conditions under which they received such provisional promotion; and how many of those who failed, if any, have been required to revert to their former rank or to resign their commissions?
  Colonel SEELY: The figures are as follows:—

  Numbers who have failed

  176

  Numbers who have reverted only

  9

  Numbers who have resigned only

  5

  Numbers who have reverted and resigned

  14

  Mr. SANDYS: Are we to understand that there are in the Territorial Force a large number of officers doing duty in ranks for which they are not really qualified?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think we can draw that deduction.

  Dutch Reformed Churches.
  Mr. ESSEXasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Dutch Reformed Churches Union Bill, now or recently before the South African Union Parliament, proposes to enact a colour disability upon the transfer of membership by certain persons from one church to another; and whether the Mahomedan churches in South Africa have any colour or racial barriers to membership with their adherents?
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked the Prime Minister, whether he can exercise power or give advice in such a way as to ensure the deletion from the Dutch Reformed Churches Union Bill, now or recently before the South African Union Parliament, of such clause or clauses as refuse the right of membership in such federating churches to persons for the sole reason that they are not wholly of white parentage?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): It is not correct that the Bill enacts a colour disability upon transfer of membership from one church to another, for the Bill is one for uniting the different Dutch Reformed Churches. I quoted the text of the clause in question in reply to a question in the House on 27th March. I see that Mr. Merriman stated in debate that no colour line existed in the Mahomedan churches, but I have no official information on this point. In reply to the hon. Gentleman's other question on the same subject addressed to the Prime Minister I would say that whatever views I may hold upon the matter it is one within the competence of the Union Legislature, and I do not therefore propose to interfere.
  Mr. BYLES: Does that agree with the answer given on the 27th March?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I think the two answers agree; they have been compared with that object.

  South African Immigration Bill.
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked whether the Orange River Colony is to be allowed, under the new Immigration Bill, to exclude Asiatics from the State, thus creating a racial bar against Asiatics on the Statute Books of the Union?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The Union Immigration Bill contains no reference to the Orange Free State, but leaves existing legislation there unaltered.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is there such a place recognised as the "Orange River Colony"?
  Mr. HARCOURT: That is obviously a misprint.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked if the admission of an Asiatic into the Union of South Africa, under the new Immigration Bill, also provides for the admission of his wife and minor children?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Since Ministers' minute, printed on page 18 of Command Paper 5579, was written the Minister of the Interior has given notice of an addition to Clause 5, which provides for the admission of the wife and minor children of Asiatics permitted to enter or re-enter the Union so long as such wife and children do not fall under the proscription of being prohibited immigrants in terms of Clause 4 of the Bill already published.

  Mauritius (Indentured Coolies).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary for the Colonies, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that many of the indentured coolies in Mauritius prefer prison to plantation work; and will he say whether the charges this condition of affairs involves fall entirely on the revenues of the island?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I understand that at one time coolies were inclined to prefer prison to work, but that this is no longer the case owing to alterations in the prison arrangements. The cost of the maintenance of prisoners in Mauritius is borne by colonial funds.

  Gold Coast Colony (Concessions).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the prospectus of the Werompi (Ashanti) Rubber and Gold Concession, in which the promoters claim to have titles from the Native chiefs to 64,000 acres in the Gold Coast Colony; and will he say whether these alienations have been approved by the proper authorities in the Gold Coast, or by the Secretary of State?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have no information on the subject, but I will make inquiries.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to the position taken up last year that on the Gold Coast native lands are not to be alienated to these syndicates?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I took up no position last year, but no doubt that taken up by my predecessor was the right one.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman prevent land on the Gold Coast being sold by the chiefs to white syndicates?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I shall examine that question very carefully and very sympathetically.

  Commissioners of Woods and Forests.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Secretary to the Treasury the amount paid to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests during the last twenty years by England, Ireland, and Scotland respectively; and the amount expended or invested during that period by the Commissioners in each of the three countries named?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The preparation of an answer to this question would involve investigating a mass of figures for twenty years past, and would entail a considerable amount of work on the part of the Office of Woods staff, which is already fully occupied. The hon. Member will find full information already published in the annual reports of the Department.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has Scotland received any equivalent to the grant of twelve millions to Ireland in the form of land purchase in Ireland?
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the annual reports of the Commissioners
  1990
  of His Majesty's Woods, etc., state that, although Ireland at present contributes about two-thirds of the capital receipts of the Commissioners, no less than 95 per cent. of the investments of capital are made in English, Scottish, and other securities, but not in Ireland; whether he will direct that in the future a substantial proportion of the Irish receipts on account of capital should be invested in the purchase of Irish land, as many of the owners of Irish estates would be willing to sell to the Commissioners at a moderate price in view of the fact that they would be paid at once in cash, and not in land stock with the delays attaching to sales through the Estates Commissioners; and will he take steps to ensure that part of these moneys from Irish sources be invested in the purchase of Irish land stock or Irish bank stock, instead of Indian and other stocks, and also that a portion be invested in the purchase of building land in the city of Dublin?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As stated in my answer to a question put by the hon. Member on the 16th ultimo, any suitable opportunities which may occur for investment in Ireland of capital moneys under the control of the Commissioners of Woods will be fully considered, and I may add that the local representative of the Commissioners has instructions to watch for and report any such opportunities. It is not one of the functions of the Commissioners of Woods to purchase Irish estates for resale to the tenants. Purchases of that kind are, as the hon. Member is well aware, carried out by another Department. As regards investments in stocks, it is important for the Commissioners to select such as may be bought or sold without difficulty in large quantities, at short notice, and without causing disturbance of the market. Consols and India Stock are specially suitable in these respects. It was found some years ago that an order for investment of a moderate sum in Bank of Ireland Stock led to a sharp rise before the required amount of stock had been secured, and part of the order had to be cancelled.

  Higher Grade Schools (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked whether a proposal has been received from the National Education Board of Ireland for the establishing of higher grade schools in Ireland similar to those already established in England and Scotland; and whether the Treasury have yet come to a decision in the matter?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Commissioners of National Education have recommended the establishment of higher grade schools in Ireland, but it was not found possible to make provision on the Estimates, 1911–12, for this proposal.

  Road Board (Grants to Local Authorities).
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether the Road Board, before making grants to a local authority for the improvement of their roads, is making the condition that an expenditure equivalent to the grant shall be promised by the authority; and, if so, whether this gives a preference to the wealthier authorities and penalises economy of the rates?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Road Board before making grants to local authorities obtain estimates of the expenditure proposed to be incurred on the works of road improvement for which grants are sought and their grants take the form of contributions to the proposed expenditure, thereby reducing the burden on the rates. No local authority is obliged to proceed with any assisted work unless it desires to do so.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Is it not the fact the actual practice has been to make grants to local authorities likely to spend money out of the rates?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Naturally, and that would supplement the grant.
  Mr. PEEL: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say that the Road Board would impose no fresh burden, and is it not rather hard thus to put a fresh burden on the rates?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should like the hon. Gentleman to give me a reference for that. I do not carry it in my head.
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether the Road Board, in allocating grants for the improvement of main roads, has made the condition, either express or implied, that the county councils receiving such grants shall undertake the responsibility for the maintenance of those roads by their own staff instead of proceeding under Section 11 (4) of the Local Government Act, 1888?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Road Board do not attach any condition, express or implied, to their grants for the improvement of main roads that the county council to whom a grant is made shall undertake the direct maintenance of the road in question,
  1992
  but the Board, before deciding whether a grant should be made, endeavour to satisfy themselves that there is a reasonable probability that the proposed work will be efficiently and economically executed and will subsequently be properly maintained.

  Customs and Excise Officers (Amalgamation).
  Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the disparity in pay between Customs officers and Excise officers is being accentuated, to the detriment of the former, by the delay in the publication of the Amalgamation Committee's Report; and whether he will give an assurance that the scale of pay, so far as Customs officers are concerned, will take effect as from 1st January, 1908, the approximate date of Board's admission that the existing classification had broken down?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Pending amalgamation, promotion in the two branches of the service is necessarily proceeding separately in the line of their existing classifications. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked whether any circumstances have arisen recently in connection with the proceedings of the Customs and Excise amalgamation inquiry necessitating the taking of further evidence by the committee; and, if so, when and from whom such further evidence will be taken?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The inquiry is not completely closed yet.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) why Hugh Conaghan, an inmate of the Dunfanaghy workhouse, was not allowed the pension at the same time as the other inmates, 6th January, 1911; and what was the nature of the objection to him, seeing that it was not on the ground of age; (2) Why the pension of 5s. a week granted to John Diver, in the Dunfanaghy workhouse infirmary, was withdrawn at the end of last year; why was an appeal lodged in this case and by whose instructions, seeing that Diver was getting the pension since the inception of the Act, and also since his admission to the workhouse had paid the full cost of his in-maintenance; and will he give the necessary instructions for the restoration of the pension; and (3) why

  1993
  the pension has not been restored to Daniel Boyle, an inmate of the Dunfanaghy workhouse, in view of the fact that the clerk to the guardians wrote to the pension officer on the 22nd ultimo to the effect that Boyle was prepared to pay the cost of his in-maintenance in the workhouse; and will he give the necessary directions so that Boyle may again receive the pension?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am making inquiries into these cases, and will in due course inform the hon. Member of the result.

  Chancellor of the Exchequer's Absence.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Prime Minister if he has taken into consideration the position in which the House is placed in all financial discussions by the fact that the conduct of business is in the hands of a Member of the Government who has not the power or responsibility of Cabinet rank; and if he will undertake that some Member of the Cabinet shall always be present during debates on finance?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the recent discussions on the Revenue Bill was due to an unavoidable, and I hope and believe, a transient cause. His place in Committee was most ably filled by the Secretary to the Treasury, who of necessity was more familiar with the technical aspects of the Bill than any of his colleagues in the Cabinet. I have every reason for hoping that when we resume financial debate the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in his place.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of giving command pay to the right hon. Gentleman for undertaking these duties?
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary to the Treasury has not the authority to make the concessions which a Member of the Cabinet would naturally make in response to the arguments of the Opposition.
  Mr. MacNEILL: As a matter of practice observed by both parties when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is ill have not his duties invariably been carried on by the Secretary to the Treasury, and have not, on two occasions within recent memory, Budgets been introduced in this House by the Secretary to the Treasury on one side and on the other in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am sure my hon. Friend is right. He always is.

  Welsh Disestablishment Bill.
  Mr. WEIRasked the Prime Minister on what grounds he proposes to introduce a Welsh Disestablishment Bill prior to the Bill dealing with land legislation for Scotland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the answers which I gave yesterday and on 20th March, except that I have not committed the Government in any way as to the precise date for the introduction of Scottish land legislation.
  An HON. MEMBER: Does he not think that the time has arrived when he might do something for England?

  Returns of Cottage Property.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the action of Mr. Morgan, tax assessor at Pontypridd, who refuses to accept properly filled up returns from working men owners of cottages at Mountain Ash unless the title deeds to the cottage are produced before him at his office at Pontypridd; whether he has been informed that the title deeds can be seen at Mountain Ash, despite which he is threatening to distrain upon them unless they either comply with his demand or pay Income Tax in lieu of House Duty; and what action he proposes taking to protect the cottage owners in question from the expense and annoyance to which they are being subjected?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will cause inquiry to be made into the matter referred to by the hon. Member.

  Public Trustee.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Public Trustee is in the habit of advising the sale of British stocks with a view to the reinvestment of the proceeds in Foreign securities; whether such advice is given upon his own responsibility; and whether he will grant a Return showing the total sales of British stocks, with a view to such reinvestment in Foreign securities, since the establishment of the department of the Public Trustee?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The responsibility in this matter rests with the Public Trustee, who has, subject to the Act of 1906 and the Rules made thereunder, the same powers,

  1995
  duties, and liabilities as a private trustee. I understand that it is not his practice to advise the sale of British stocks merely for the sake of re-investment in foreign securities, but where the creator of a trust has elected to give the Public Trustee discretion to invest in foreign securities, the Public Trustee deems it his duty to give such consideration to that discretion given him by the settler as is possible and prudent under the circumstances of the case.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I take it that the advice which the right hon. Gentleman has just given has nothing to do with the theory propounded by the Prime Minister that one of the best things for a country is for its capital to be invested abroad?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I so entirely agree with that sentiment that I make no comment upon it.

  C.S.S.A., Ld.
  Mr. GLYN-JONESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a tablet, bearing the letters C. S. S. A., Ld., hangs in the entrance lobby at the Inland Revenue Department at Somerset House; that it is used by Government officials and clerks who desire to order goods from the Civil Service Supply Association, Limited, to indicate thereon the room in which an agent from the stores may find them and collect the order; that such an agent calls daily at the offices so indicated, collects orders, and frequently delivers to such offices later in the day the goods so ordered; whether, seeing that the association is a private trading concern, he will say what, if any, are the conditions and terms upon which the association is afforded such privileges; and whether he will grant the same privileges to any and every suitable trader who applies for them?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The reply to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. The practice which, I understand, also prevails in other Government Departments, is one of long standing and has proved both useful and convenient in the past. I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by adopting the suggestion contained in the last part of the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: Is it a proper thing for any Government Department to offer any private trading concern any special privileges?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understand that this practice has been in existence ever since the C.S.S.A., Ld., was founded, it has continued a very long time, and it seems not to have been inconvenient to the members of the staff.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: Docs the right hon. Gentleman suggest that it is only the members of the staff who purchase goods from these stores who should be considered and not the shopkeeping community?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is not a question of fact at all. This is an association started by Civil servants for their own benefit.

  Vaccination (Conscientious Objections in Sheffield).
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the President of the Local Government Board what were the number of declarations of conscientious objection to vaccination made, under the Act of 1907, in the city of Sheffield for the years 1908, 1909, and 1910, respectively, and their percentages to births in each of those years?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. J. H. Lewis): I am unable to give the numbers of statutory declarations of conscientious objection to vaccination made in the city of Sheffield, but the figures for the two Poor Law Unions of Ecclesall Bierlow and Sheffield, which include the city, and to which the city contributes about 96 per cent. of the population, are as follows:—

  Declarations.

  Percentage of Declarations to Births.

  1908

  …

  …

  1,047

  …

  …

  7.1

  1909

  …

  …

  1,537

  …

  …

  11.1

  1910

  …

  …

  2,026

  …

  …

  15.3

  Financial Relations (Burghs and Counties).
  Mr. FLEMINGasked the President of the Local Government Board when the joint committee on the financial relations between burghs and counties is likely to conclude its sittings?
  Mr. J. H. LEWIS: I am informed that the joint committee has been sitting regularly since 13th March last. Counsel are being heard on behalf of the principal interests involved, and will be responsible for the extent of the evidence which they bring forward. It is not at present possible to form any approximate estimate as to the date when the committee is likely to conclude its sittings. This must of necessity largely depend upon the time occupied by evidence of this class.

  Clubs Bill.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the proposals contained in the Control and Supervision of Clubs Bill introduced this Session; and whether the principle of the Bill will receive the approval of the Government?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): The expression of opinion invited by the hon. Member would more properly find a place in a Second Reading Debate, and I cannot at the present time add anything to the answer on the subject of club legislation given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for the Barkston Ash Division last Tuesday.

  Small Holdings Act.
  Dr. HILLIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board has, since the passing of the Smallholders Act in 1908, purchased or attempted to purchase land for small holders; and in what cases have they thought it desirable to stipulate that the rents of such land should be raised by the owners previous to the sale to the Board?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir E. Strachey): No, Sir.
  Dr. HILLIER: Is the hon. Baronet aware that the President of the Board of Agriculture did stipulate, in negotiating for the purchase of the Thorney estate, that the rents should be raised by the owner before the purchase was effected?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Any question with regard to the Thorney estate must be addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury, who represents Lord Carrington as Commissioner for Woods and Forests.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Pope, of Monkhall, South Shropshire, has lived on his farm for forty-seven years, and though turned out of his holding by the county council for no fault of his own, as a consequence of the Small Holdings Act, can get no compensation for disturbance, he can see his way to compel the Shropshire County Council to provide Mr. Pope with another small farm?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board has no power to compel the County Council to
  1998
  provide Mr. Pope with a similar farm, but he will be entitled to compensation under the Act of last year.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the hon. Baronet aware that there is no Section in the Act which gives compensation because a farm is sold, and, as the Board of Agriculture compels county councils to provide farms, why cannot they do it in the case of a man who is turned out?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: There is power to give compensation to men who leave their farms in consequence of their having been acquired for the purpose of small holdings.
  Captain GUESTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the fact that there has been a miscarriage on the part of the Dorset Council in the case of the Winterborne Zelston small holdings farm, he proposes to make an investigation into the whole question?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: One of the Small Holdings Commissioners will visit this farm on the 26th instant and go into the whole question.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: Does the hon. Baronet now think, on examining the figures, there has been a miscarriage in this matter, or does he consider the whole facts of the case point to it being due to an alteration of the term of loans by the Local Government Board and the period over which the loans were payable?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I will not express an opinion on that till after the Commission has reported.

  Sheep-Scab.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused by the sheep-scab regulations of the Board during the non-dipping season of the year to flock owners in a non-infected area where the only sheep market of the district is within the boundary of a large adjoining scheduled area; and whether the Board will consider the desirability, as suggested to them by the Gloucestershire Farmer's Union, of limiting the scheduled area to a radius of five or six miles round the site of an outbreak of the disease, except in districts where mountain sheep are kept?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The local authority for Gloucestershire have made regulations

  1999
  with a view to prevent the spread of sheep-scab in their district, and there seems no reason to interfere with their discretion in the matter. No "areas" are "scheduled" in connection with outbreaks of sheep-scab, but the infected plot and the contact sheep are dealt with by means of detention notices.

  Dutch and Cheshire Cheese.
  Mr. STANIERasked whether the Board of Agriculture are in touch with the Cheshire Milk Association regarding the negotiations between the association and the Dutch Government to prevent Dutch cheese being sold as Cheshire in this country; and whether they have brought their influence to bear in the usual official channels requesting the British Government to use its influence to get the Dutch Government to accede to the request that Dutch cheese should be marked as Dutch?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board are cognisant of the communications between Dutch cheese-makers and the Cheshire Milk Association, but I understand there have been no official negotiations between the Netherlands Government and the Cheshire Milk Association to which the hon. Member refers. At present the Board do not think that official representations should be made to the Netherlands Government. In the meantime any misrepresentation of the place of origin of the cheese in question can be dealt with under the Merchandise Marks Acts.

  Cattle (Fraudulent Marking).
  Viscount HELMSLEYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he has received any complaints as to the fraudulent marking of English cattle as Irish; and, if so, what steps are contemplated to put an end to this practice?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board have received representations on this subject and inquiry will be made.

  North Sea Fisheries Exhibition.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture: (1) whether he is aware that the Danish Government has made a Grant of £5,000 to the Copenhagen Fisheries Exhibition; and what assistance was given by his Department to the North Sea Fisheries Exhibition at Yarmouth last November; (2) whether a Report has been
  2000
  made by the Board of Agriculture on the North Sea Fisheries Exhibition held at Yarmouth last November; and (3) whether he is aware that the North Sea Fisheries Exhibition was attended by the marine superintendent of the Scottish Fishery Board, by a representative of the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, by an officer of the Imperial Fisheries Bureau of Japan, by the director of the German Sea Fisheries Association, and by a representative of the Norwegian Government; and, having regard to the need for enlightening fishermen here on the value attached to motor fishing craft by other countries, will he obtain the reports made by these representatives to their various Governments, and issue them to the local fishery officers in each district?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: So far as can be traced, no information of the holding of the Yarmouth Exhibition was received by the Board, and no application was made for their assistance. No report with regard to it was therefore made by any officer of the Department. We will endeavour to obtain copies of the Reports to which the hon. Member refers and issue any information on the subject to the fishing industry which is likely to be useful. The Board are aware of the grant made by the Danish Government to the Copenhagen Fisheries Exhibition.

  Highlands (Emigration).
  Mr. FLEMINGasked the Lord Advocate if he has any official information showing what percentage, if any, of the increased emigration from the Highlands within the last three years is properly attributable to the conversion of sheep farms into deer forests?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I have no official information showing the percentage to which the hon. Member refers.

  Sheriff Courts (Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether, since the Sheriff Courts Act, 1907, became law, litigants for sums between £20 and £50 have been obliged to pay more in expenses than before the Act; and if so, will he take steps to remedy this?
  Mr. URE: There are no statistics available to enable me to answer my hon. Friend's question, nor could they be procured without an undue expenditure of time and money. I may refer my hon. Friend to the Report on the Judicial Statistics of Scotland for the year 1909,

  2001
  Cd. 5417, pp. 102 and 104, where will be found all the statistics available relative to expenses in ordinary and small debt actions in the Sheriff Court.
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether he has any statistics showing the increase of small debt cases in the sheriff courts in Scotland since the maximum that could be sued for was raised from £12 to £20; and will he say whether the experience gained from the change will lead to the introduction of legislation raising the small debt jurisdiction to £50, with a view to saving expense to litigants for sums under £50?
  Mr. URE: The statistics which my hon. Friend desires will be found at p. 116 of the Report on the Judicial Statistics of Scotland for the year 1909. The statistics for the year 1910 are not yet available. The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is in the negative.

  Police Courts (Interpreter's Fees).
  Mr. SUMMERSasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to a case tried at the Colwyn Bay Police Court on the 11th instant, where a Welsh woman, appearing on behalf of her husband, summoned on a charge of neglecting to send her son to school, was told by the chairman that if she had the interpreter sworn and a conviction resulted, the costs would be increased by an additional fee for interpreting; whether he will make arrangements that these fees for interpreting, in eases where the English language is not understood by Welsh-speaking witnesses, shall be made a public charge, and if legislation is required will he at once introduce a Bill for the purpose?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The remark in question was due to a misapprehension on the part of the chairman. When it is necessary to pay for an interpreter at Colwyn Bay Police Court the cost is borne by county funds.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the fees of the interpreter in the case of David Davies, arrested on a charge of burglary at Oswestry, fall on my Constituents?

  Lead-Poisoning.
  Mr. HILLSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that fifteen cases of lead-poisoning occurred in the china and earthernware trade in the first two months of 1911 against eight in the same period of 1910; whether the report of the principal chemist of the Government
  2002
  Laboratory for 1910 called attention to the fact that samples of glaze taken from works where lead-poisoning occurred contained lead oxide in proportions varying from 12.6 to 47.5 per cent.; and what action he intends to take?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware of the increase in the number of reported cases, which coincides with increased activity in the trade, and also of the results of the analyses referred to which were undertaken by the Government Laboratory for the Home Office. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the whole question has been the subject of an exhaustive inquiry by a representative committee, and I am proposing to take steps to give effect to their recommendations.

  Coal Mines Bill (Treatment of Pit Ponies).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the admission in the Third Report of the Royal Commission on Mines of the existence of cases of overwork and ill-treatment of pit ponies, and of certain recommendations in such Report as to statutory enactment to prevent their continuance, it is proposed to amend the Coal Mines Bill by the addition of clauses referring thereto; or whether it is intended to deal with this subject by Departmental regulations, without submission of their policy or provisions to this House?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: In order to avoid overloading the Bill, it is proposed to deal with this and other matters by means of regulations made in pursuance of the powers given by the Bill for the purpose. This is in accordance with what I understand to have been the intention of the Royal Commission. The procedure prescribed by the Bill provides for the hearing of all parties concerned before the regulations are finally made and reference to an arbitrator if necessary. When made, they will be laid before Parliament.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Royal Commissioners specifically reported that these regulations should be incorporated in the Bill, and therefore brought before the cognisance of the House, and not made by the Department under it?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is better to proceed in the manner in which we have decided.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will there be any opportunity for the House to discuss the regulations?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I say they will be laid before Parliament. There will be an opportunity. I am as anxious as the hon. Gentleman to prevent cruelty to pit ponies.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Shall we have the right hon. Gentleman's valuable co-operation on the Committee to introduce a Clause to this effect?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I think we had better leave the proceedings in Grand Committee until the Grand Committee is actually set up.

  Akbar Reformatory School.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked whether, upon the issue of the Report of the recent inquiry into the management of the Akbar reformatory school, the various officers who had been examined at such inquiry were awarded a double month's pay, on the condition that they would remain loyal to the superintendent of the school?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that the managers resolved that, in view of the "train on the officers of the school during the last few months, they should be given one month's extra salary, and that this gratuity has been paid to all the officers with the exception of the superintendent, the chaplain, and one individual who had joined only in January this year. This compensation for the extra work caused by the inquiry, which involved all the staff being kept on the premises for ten days and nights without a break, had nothing to do with the giving of evidence at the inquiry, and it was given unconditionally.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman simply base his answer on what he is told, or has he taken any step to inquire whether the suggestion in the question is true that the condition of this gratuity was that those people who were witnesses at the recent inquiry should in future be loyal to the authorities of the Akbar school?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have said the compensation was given unconditionally. I have not been down to Liverpool myself, if that is what the hon. Member means, but I have relied on the usual sources of information.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Home Secretary whether a shorthand note or other record was taken of the proceedings at the recent inquiry into the management
  2004
  of the Akbar reformatory school; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay the same upon the Table of the House?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: A shorthand note of some of the proceedings was taken for the convenience of the inquiry; but as none of the evidence was on oath, I do not propose to publish it.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked whether Mr. Robertson, the chief inspector of reformatories, has since the recent inquiry visited the Akbar school and intimated to some of the witnesses that, unless in future they are loyal to the superintendent of the school, they will be dismissed?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The managers having stated that they were contemplating the dismissal of one of the officers on the ground that he was not only disloyal but untruthful, the chief inspector saw them, and asked them to overlook the man's conduct because of the indemnity promised to witnesses at the recent inquiry. To this they agreed; but they have since reported that the officer has been detected in making fraudulent use of the stores, and that he will probably be prosecuted. There is no other case to which the suggestion in the question can refer.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that he is now being prosecuted, and that the case is now before the court?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: In that case it is still more unsuitable to make the suggestion and then ask the question the hon. Member has asked.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: It is an instance of the lack of inquiry which is made before official answers are given.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The information which reaches us does not always reach us within a few days of any particular action being taken. I gave the answer in good faith on the information before me.

  Marriages (Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that registrars in England have greater power in celebrating marriages than have registrars in Scotland; that, in the latter country, the expense of drawing out a declaration of marriage and of a petition to the sheriff to warrant the registration is necessary, besides attendance before the sheriff with witnesses, whereas in England all these

  2005
  forms are unnecessary; and, if so, will he take steps to remedy this inequality?
  Mr. URE: It is, of course, the case, as my hon. Friend points out, that there is not in Scotland the same provision for regular Civil marriages as in England, the method provided by law for regularising an irregular marriage being as stated in the question. I am not aware of any general desire to assimilate the marriage laws of the two countries in the respect referred to, and the facilities for marriages in Scotland, considered as a whole, are certainly not less than in England.
  Mr. WATT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the case that the sheriffs are an overworked body in Scotland, and that their overwork is to the detriment of the trading community?

  Fishermen's Dwellings (Brora, Sutherland).
  Mr. MORTONasked the Lord Advocate if he will say why suitable dwellings are not provided for the fishermen at Brora, Sutherland; and whether the Scottish Office, which has had the matter before it for some years, is doing anything in the matter?
  Mr. URE: The question of the fishermen's houses at Brora has been under consideration by the Local Government Board for Scotland. Some of these houses are in an unsatisfactory condition; but there are difficulties in the way of proceeding under the Housing Acts owing to the hardship which might be caused to fishermen who are said to own the houses which they occupy and to be too poor to provide themselves with others. The Board are anxious to do anything in their power and will make every effort to secure some improvement.

  Old Sea Fishing Fund (Norwegian Government).
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the Lord Advocate whether he has any information concerning the Old Sea Fishing Fund of the Norwegian Government; whether, since the fund was started, sums exceeding £100,000 in value have been lent out for the purchase of about 750 fishing vessels and motor-boats; and whether the benefits to the Norwegian fishing industry have been considerable; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of taking similar steps with a view to loans to Scottish fishermen?
  Mr. URE: I am informed that loans have been issued from the Norwegian Old Sea
  2006
  Fishery Fund to the amount stated by my hon. Friend. Of recent years, however, loans have only been made on the guarantee of a municipality from which the repayments are collected as they fall due. On the general question of loans to fishermen I would refer to my reply of yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty.

  Contractors for Public Works (Board of Trade's Register).
  Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked whether the confidential information given to the firms whose names are on the special register of the Board is abbreviated from the reports of the Trade Commissioners; if so, to what extent; why there is any restriction on the general publication of such reports; whether, as stated, the notification of tenders for public works in the dominions over-seas is frequently too late for effective action on the part of British manufacturers; and whether the advice of the business community can be taken as to the form and methods adopted?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Sydney Buxton): The reports are occasionally abbreviated for purposes of convenience, but not in such a way as to involve the omission of any commercial information of importance. I have repeatedly explained the reasons which have led to the creation of the special register and the system of distribution of confidential information. I am sending the hon. Member copies of the recent questions and answers on this subject. As regards the date of notification of tenders, I have to refer to the reply given by me on 22nd March to the hon. Member for Peuryn and Falmouth. The system has been introduced on the advice of the Board's Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence, which includes a number of representatives of the business community.

  Safety Appliances on Railways.
  Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will be prepared to co-operate with the Home Secretary in setting up a permanent exhibition of safety appliances in this country, so far as a railway department is concerned?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Board of Trade have in their possession no collection of safety appliances or models thereof, but if it is found that the Board of Trade can be of assistance to my right hon. Friend the

  2007
  Home Secretary in connection with, the proposed museum they will be glad to co-operate with him.

  Labour Exchanges (Buildings).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state when it is intended to erect suitable buildings for the carrying on of the work of the Labour Exchanges, in accordance with the expressed intention of the Government when the Bill was first introduced, so that the workpeople using the exchanges may be provided with adequate accommodation inside the building instead of, as at present, being compelled to stand about on the sidewalks?
  Mr. BUXTON: It was necessary at first to house Labour Exchanges in such temporary premises as could be obtained and these have, in some cases, proved unsuitable for carrying on the work of the Exchanges. The question of obtaining more suitable premises in these cases is now under consideration.

  Benbecula Mails.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Postmaster-General whether ho is aware that the mails for Benbecula have to be carried by road for about twenty-five miles and also over one dangerous ford; and whether, in view of the fact that the mail steamers pass daily within about three miles of a pier at Petersport, in the island of Benbecula, especially constructed for landing the mails, he could see his way to having a harbour light put up at Peters-port and the mails delivered by the passing mail steamers?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The facts are as stated. But there are serious objections to the proposed alternative, which I would ask leave to explain to the hon. Member in detail by letter.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these steamers do call once a week, in the summer time at all events?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I must ask the hon. Member to give notice of the question.

  Postal Staff.
  Mr. WILESasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Department, in its evidence before the Hob-house Committee, stated that some overseers'
  2008
  work in London was equal in importance to some second class assistant superintendents' work in the provinces, and that the Report mentions this fact in Paragraph 409; that the Hobhouse Committee, following on this evidence, recommended the creation of a class of assistant superintendents, second class, in the London Postal Service into which the inspectors were to be merged; and that the Department, instead of making the inspectors a portion of the new class, caused them to solely constitute it, and so made no provision for the increased status of the duties alluded to in Paragraph 409; and whether, seeing that he has recently increased the status of the duties in question and caused them to be merged with those of the assistant superintendents, second class, he will state why these appointments are not dated from 1st January, 1908, in accordance with the Hob-house recommendation?
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: I am aware that the Department in its evidence before the Parliamentary Committee stated that some Overseers' work in London was equal in importance to some second class assistant superintendents' work in the provinces, and that the Report mentions this fact ill Paragraph 409. I am not aware however, that the Committee recommended the creation of a class of second class assistant superintendents in the London Postal Service in consequence of that evidence. As I understand the recommendation, the Committee considered that the class of inspectors should be abolished, that the members of it should become assistant superintendents, second class, reserving their rights to their old maximum, and that all future appointments arising from vacancies or the creation of additional posts should be made to the new class. The Committee evidently desired to get rid of the anomalous title of "inspectors," which was shared by other classes whose work and scales of pay were quite dissimilar. Under the recent revision of the supervising force of the London Postal Service a number of additional higher appointments were found to be justified, but there is no reason to think that the Committee contemplated a revision of the numbers of the various classes as from the date of the adoption of their recommendations.

  Clapham Murder.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I desire to ask the Attorney-General a question, of which I

  2009
  have given him private notice. It is whether he has received from the legal advisers of the man Stinie Morrison, now under sentence of death for the Clapham murder, a request to grant the necessary certificate to enable him to appeal to the House of Lords, and whether he has declined to grant a certificate; and, if so, whether he has any objection to state the reasons?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): Such an application was made to me by Morrison's solicitor, supported by arguments of his counsel. I have already communicated my decision refusing the certificate. Before the Attorney-General grants the certificate he must be satisfied that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal involves a point of law of exceptional public importance, and that it is desirable in the public interest that a further appeal should be brought (Section 1 (6) of Criminal Appeal Act, 1907). This is the only ground which the Statute permits the Attorney-General to take into consideration. No such point of law was involved in the decision in question, and it was therefore my duty to refuse a certificate.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not think that, having regard to the somewhat remarkable character of the evidence in this case, he might strain the technical point, as he is the sole authority, in favour of giving the man the right of appeal?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is quite impossible for me to do that, because I should be taking upon myself the functions of Parliament.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LYTTELTON: May I ask the Prime Minister to state what will be the business on Friday?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Friday we shall take the Second Reading of the Copyright Bill, and some of the smaller Bills which are on the Paper, if there be time.
On Monday and Tuesday we shall continue the Committee stage of the Parliament Bill.
On Wednesday we shall ask the House to sit at twelve o'clock, when we propose to take the Motion for the Adjournment for Easter.
2010
When the House resumes on Tuesday, the 18th, we shall take the Committee stage of the Parliament Bill, and that will be continued on Wednesday.
Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will take the Second Reading of the Labourers (Ireland) Bill on Friday after the Copyright Bill?
Mr. KING: May I ask whether the Army Bill will be taken on Friday next?
The PRIME MINISTER: In answer to the hon. Member for West Limerick I have to say that it will depend on the progress we make with the Copyright Bill.
Mr. REMNANT: May I ask whether among the smaller Bills to which the right hon. Gentleman referred he will include the Police (Weekly Rest-Day) (Scotland) Bill, which is practically agreed to on all sides of the House?
The PRIME MINISTER: We can only take Government Bills.

NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to give notice that to-morrow fortnight I will call attention to the constitution and procedure of the Imperial Conference and move a resolution.
Major GASTRELL: I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the same subject and move a resolution.
Mr. MORRELL: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood)——
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme must give notice himself.
Mr. JOSEPH KING: On a point of Order, may I remind you that last Session you allowed me to give notice on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire under precisely these same conditions.
Mr. SPEAKER: I was a little taken by surprise by the absence of the hon. Member. I call upon the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) to give notice now, and I will look further into the point.
Mr. MORRELL: I beg to give notice that I will on 19th April call attention to the administration of the Development Fund.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (BALLOT) BILL.
  "To consolidate and apply the Militia Ballot Acts to the Territorial Force," presented by Sir SAMUEL SCOTT; supported by Mr. Ashley, Viscount Castlereagh, Viscount Helmsley, and Major Stanley; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next.
  SUNDAY TRADING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To provide for the regulation and control of Sunday trading and of refreshment houses and places of public resort in Scotland," presented by Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT; supported by Mr. Cameron Corbett; to be read a second time upon Monday next.

CONTRIBUTORIES' ANNUITIES BILL.
Sir WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask leave to introduce a Bill to establish a system of life annuities for persons over fifty-five. The Bill establishes a system of life pensions for persons over the age of fifty-five. As the House knows, I have taken a very deep interest in the subject of old age pensions long before the Government brought in their measure, and since then I have been looking round to see the best way of extending that measure, and I have come to the conclusion that some scheme of contributory pensions would be the best way of doing so. A great deal of the credit for the Bill is due to Sir John Filter, a merchant living in Paris, who is well known in connection with philanthropic work in that city, and in the autumn of his days has spent a great deal of time and a great deal of money in getting the Bill into shape. He has had actuarial advice with regard to its soundness from an actuarial point of view, and I believe this is a Bill which the Government could very well favourably consider. Indeed, I have hopes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to take some part of it for the system of trade insurance which he is now considering. In the first place, it gives every person in the country, after the age of fifteen, a stake in the country in this way. Every boy and girl at the age of fifteen can go to the local post office and ask for a certificate, in the shape of a book, which will be handed to him or to her, as the case may be. That book will give credit on the State funds for a sum of £30. That sum will be credited in the book for the benefit of the boy or girl after the time when he or she reaches the age of fifty-five. During that time the State
2012
practically never loses sight of the boy or girl, and at various times in his career the boy will receive certain other emoluments from the State. Any money which the boy chooses to put into the book will go into that book, and the State will encourage the child by doubling the bonus up to a certain amount. In addition, when the boy passes an examination, which will not necessarily be a very difficult one—reading, writing and arithmetic, and some of the ordinary subjects, he gets an additional £5 for that. If the boy chooses to go into the Territorial Reserve Force another bonus of £5 will be given for that, and if after he has completed his time in the Territorial Reserve and chooses to become a marksman, a further sum of £5 will be paid over to the boy for that. All this, of course, is not paid over at once, but is put to his credit in this book. Anything up to £10 that he chooses to deposit as a matter of saving will be doubled. By this means an accumulated sum will be gradually collected which will enable the State at an age varying from sixty-five to fifty-five to give a pension far more adequate than the pension which is given at the present time.
I was moved to this consideration by seeing that one of the results of the present Act has been that a number of old people have been induced to leave the workhouse and go into the world. That has resulted in a sadly large percentage of people—considering the small number who have gone out—dying of starvation, and, therefore, the benefits of the Old Age Pension Act have resulted in the death of a great number of old people who would probably be far more comfortable in the Workhouse. That is briefly the scheme. The compound interest on the savings will be calculated at 4 per cent., and the pensions will be served out at the rate of 5½ per cent. between fifty-five Bind sixty-five years of age, and 11 per cent. afterwards. The husband and wife, each with a pension capital of £120, will have, under my scheme, 5s. a week during this first period, which, of course, is a great improvement on the present Act, under which they do not benefit until they are seventy, and 10s. a week in the second period, namely from sixty-five. If they should secure the maximum deposit of £400, their joint income will be 17s. a week in the first period and £1 14s. in the second. If brought into law the scheme would not, of course, abrogate the present scheme. This scheme would start next year and pensions would be payable forty years later. By that means

2013
a large sum of money will be collected by the State to meet these pensions and once for all settle the question of old age pensions for the deserving poor. I propose, therefore, that the local authorities—I am bound to put them in for the purpose of getting carriage of this Bill—will have to borrow a sum of £5,500,000 each year. By this means a sum of £220,000,000 will be collected during the course of the forty years. That will be sufficient to give the necessary amount to these various individuals who would be entitled to the pensions.
4.0 P.M.
Once the Pension Book is established it would naturally become the channel for acknowledging acts of civic virtue and consistent excellence of work. The author of the scheme aims at creating in it a sort of permanent character and testimonial, which each citizen—especially those to whom the possession of it is indispensable—may produce on occasion, and always be proud of. It would surround the initial gift of it with a certain solemnity, imprint upon it the monarch's sign manual, and foster a respect that would react on its owner's life. It will practically be a character for the lad in which everything to his credit is put down, and nothing to his discredit. It will give future citizens of this country a stake in it, and will therefore be of further use in that way. Briefly, therefore, this scheme would be universal in its application. It would allow an adequate and comfortable annuity from the age of fifty-five. It would be voluntary as to the payment of premiums, and thus allow the working classes to cease their contributions in any periods of sickness or distress. The payment of premiums would be made so attractive and advantageous as to ensure success. The scheme would be such that even the illiterate could see the progressive and gradual increase of the pension for each premium paid in or success achieved. It would contain every incentive to live an honourable, useful, and patriotic life, and would induce the working classes to obtain the education best suited to help them to gain their livelihood. The scheme should disseminate technical knowledge in every walk of life, and reward the individual for his efforts. It applies to women as well as to men, and strikes at the root of pauperism, and is not a merely palliative measure. As I have said, it would be a life record of everything to the advantage of the individual, and of nothing to his disadvantage; nor should it be a heavy burden on the
2014
present generation. The scheme should induce young men to join the Territorial Forces, and reward them for doing so; and it should make every man and woman understand that he or she, as a citizen of the Empire, has a part to perform, and that their King and their country are anxious for their welfare. With those few words I ask leave to bring in this Bill, and I hope the Government, if they have time, will very favourably consider it.
Bill to establish a system of life annuities for persons over fifty-five, ordered to be brought in by Sir William Bull, Sir Harry Samuel, Major Gastrell, Mr. Robert Pearce, Dr. Chapple, and Mr. Fell. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 18th April.

RAILWAY CLERKS' WEEKLY REST BILL.
Mr. GOULDING: I beg to ask leave to bring in a Bill "to secure for every clerk employed by a railway company Sunday rest or a free and uninterrupted rest day of twenty-four hours in each week."
It is certainly bad policy to allow, except under necessity, labour on seven days a week, as no opportunity is afforded to the citizen for any rest or recreation. It is now universally admitted that the State must be a model employer of labour, and must provide for those directly under their control, reasonable opportunities for rest and leisure. It is obvious that in the spheres of employment those who come close to the standard of the State, created by Parliamentary authority, have certain privileges accorded to them by reason of that fact. The State has for years back taken a definite interest in the hours of labour of those connected with railways. The Act of 1887 and the Act of 1903, while unfortunately excepting the clerks of the permanent staff, have secured great advantages; to the employés, to the public, and, without much injustice or any injustice, to the railway companies themselves. The Board of Trade has no discretionary control whatsoever over the clerical staff. During recent years the tendency of Sunday traffic and travelling has been to enormously increase, and that day is often the hardest day's work in the year for station masters and clerks. The tendency of the public is to travel on a Sunday and get out into the country. Railway companies encourage that traffic as a source of profit to themselves, and it is equally

2015
right that those who have this extra duty put upon them should also share in some of the advantages. Some of the railway companies have recognised their obligations and have re-arranged their conditions of labour; but I regret to say that some of the chief and wealthiest in the country have done nothing whatsoever to meet their obligations in regard to this matter. A memorial was presented in February, 1907, asking that six days should constitute a week's work, and Sundays should be counted as extra duty. Deputations and negotiations have gone on ever since that date until now, and this grievance still remains unredressed. I am only going to give two or three examples of the conditions of some of these people to-day.
Clerks work six days; they have no half-holiday; and they work on alternate Sundays from 8.40 a.m. to 8.20 p.m., with simply intervals for meals. They receive no extra remuneration whatsoever. They have annual leave, but against that is set off the fact that they have always to work on Bank Holidays. There is a certain railway where there is no Sunday extra pay whatsoever, and the men work alternate Sundays for 11¼ hours with no intervals for meals. Station masters are in exactly the same category. They are on duty the whole year round, week-days and Sundays; they must not leave the locality, and their annual leave gives them the opportunity for only one or two Sundays away. The Bill proposes that the clerical staff and station masters should have a Sunday free or a rest day in each week; the clerks should be free on at least alternate Sundays, and Sunday duty shall be paid for at not less than time and a quarter, the Board of Trade to see that the Act is enforced. The evils are manifest and they call for a remedy. This week we have been dealing with the shop hours of assistants, but I am perfectly convinced that if we are to check the growth of class passion in this country, this House must show its actual consideration for the lives and duties of the people themselves. We must remove and lessen the mischievous and cruel evils which are often enforced upon those individuals who have often no time to discharge the obligations of home life. There are two problems before us to-day—always present—the problem of unemployment and the problem of over-work. I believe that we may mitigate the one by alleviating the other. I am equally certain that class hatred is
2016
really entirely foreign to the national instincts of our people, and it can only be engendered if legislators in this House simply seek party triumphs for themselves and do not bestir themselves to deal with the pressing social reforms which confront them to-day.
Bill to secure for every clerk employed by a railway company Sunday rest or a free and uninterrupted rest day of twenty-four hours in each week, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Goulding, Sir George Doughty, Mr. Frederick Edwin Smith, Viscount Wolmer, Mr. Ernest Pollock, Major Archer-Shee, Mr. Cooper, Sir Gilbert Parker, Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson, Mr. Leslie Scott, Mr. Paget, and Mr. Page Croft. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 18th April.

PARLIAMENT BILL.— [Second Day.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

PARLIAMENT BILL.— [Second Day.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Powers of House of Lords as to Money Bill.)
  (1) If a Money Bill, having been passed by the House of Commons, and sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, is not passed by the House of Lords without Amendment within one month after it is so sent up to that House, the Bill shall, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified, notwithstanding that the House of Lords have not consented to the Bill.
  (2) A Money Bill means a Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects—namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; charges on the Consolidated Fund or the provision of money by Parliament; Supply; the appropriation, control, or regulation of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or matters incidental to those subjects or any of them.
  (3) When a Bill to which the House of Lords has not consented is presented to His Majesty for assent as a Money Bill, the Bill shall be accompanied by a certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons that it is a Money Bill.
  (4) No amendment shall be allowed to a Money Bill which, in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons, is such as to prevent the Bill retaining the character of a Money Bill.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: On a point of Order. I wish to say that I last night put down an Amendment covering the point which I wish to raise, and it does not appear upon the Paper.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite entitled to move his Amendment.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move in Section (1) after the word "If" ["If a Money Bill"] to insert the words "in any future Parliament."
  Whatever may be said of the provisions of Clause 2 of this Bill, un-doubtedly the provisions of Clause I have not been understood, nor publicly argued or properly discussed, as I think I shall be able to show. With regard to Money Bills, the contention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite has always been that the House of Lords by desuetude have waived all right to reject a Money Bill, and that during the period from 1860 to 1909 no Money Bill was rejected. Again and again it has been pointed out that when the House of Lords rejected the Budget of 1909 they set up a principle that could not be maintained, because the Government would then be dependent on the will, not of one House, but of two Houses. All the discussions which have taken place in the country and here turned on that point, so far as Money Bills are concerned. This was the breach of Parliamentary continuity which was alleged when the Budget of 1909 was thrown out, and it was said that this was a dangerous precedent for the Government. When you examine this Bill you find that it contains provisions which go far beyond the arguments that have ever been addressed to this House or to the country. It would not be in order to call attention to the merits of the Clause, but it is in order, and necessary for my argument to call attention to the scope of the Clause. If you read the latter part of the Clause you will find that a Money Bill means something very different and very much wider than it ever meant before these Debates, and than it ever meant when it applied to former usages of Parliament. Going back to 1860 to the famous controversy about the Paper Duty, of course that was a Money Bill, and the Finance Bill of 1861, which was debated by
  2018
  the House of Lords, and which they consented to pass, was strictly referring to the finances of the year. But a Money Bill under this Clause may mean not only the finances of the year, but any Bill which is founded upon a monetary basis, even though, as I would submit, it only affected rating. To make my contention clear, I will read the defining words:—
  "A Money Bill means a Bill which, in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; charges on the Consolidated Fund, or the provision of money by Parliament; Supply; the appropriation, control, or regulation of public money;——"
  That goes far beyond anything that was understood to be a Money Bill
  "the raising on guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof——"
  That possibly might mean a loan by some local authority or an authority like the Port of London or the County Council
  "or matters incidental to those subjects or any of them."
  I am perfectly certain the significance of those words was not understood in the country at the last General Election or at the preceding General Election. I have taken the trouble to examine the principal Acts that have been passed by this House since 1896, and I find that there is hardly one of them which either did not come within this definition or which, with a little ingenuity on the part of the draftsman, might not have been made to come under it. In the year 1896 there was passed the Agricultural Rating Act, which was undoubtedly a Money Bill under this definition. In 1897 there was the Voluntary Schools Act, undoubtedly a Money Bill under this definition. The Workmen's Compensation Act was not a Money Bill, but it might have been made so if a contribution had been given by Parliament, as will be the case in the Invalidity Insurance Bill. In 1898 the Irish Local Government Act was not based on a Grant, but a Grant was involved in it, and if that Bill had been so drafted that the Imperial Parliament, for the sake of relieving the rates in Ireland gave a certain grant, and if it were arranged that the persons to administer that should be elected by the different county councils, and if provisions were inserted as to what should be the share of

  2019
  the local authorities, then that would be a Money Bill under the words "matters incidental to." In the next year there was the London Government Act, which could have been drafted in the same way, and would have been a Money Bill as "matters incidental to." In 1900 there was the War Loan, which clearly was a Money Bill, although it involved a large question of policy. In 1901 there was the Civil List Act, and in 1902 there was the Education Act. That, as drafted, undoubtedly was not a Money Bill, but there again a large grant from the Exchequer was involved, and the whole of the rest of the structure could have been made to depend on it.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I rise to a point of Order. The Amendment is that this Clause should not come into operation until some future Parliament. I venture to submit that what the hon. Gentleman is saying as to the definition of a Money Bill has no relevance whatever to that proposition.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: My argument was this. That authority is claimed for this Bill as having been brought in as a result of two General Elections, and I wish to show that the significance of this Clause has not been appreciated or understood, and that the arguments with regard to Money Bills have been founded on a neglect of the true provisions of this Clause. Therefore it is necessary to my argument to show that the Clause does contain matter, the merits of which I will not now discuss, but which has not been hitherto generally understood. I do not propose to go into the merits of the definition, but simply to show what the definition is.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine his argument to showing that the operation of this Clause ought to be delayed until after the next General Election. He must not discuss the merits or discuss the question of how far the electors might be supposed to understand or misunderstand this Clause, except with the view to bringing that argument to bear on the Amendment. I concluded that was what he was going to do, and he must carry that out.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I shall be able, I hope, to carry it out. I ran through the Acts of a Session, merely as an example of what the Clause did contain, and which it certainly has not been supposed, either in this House or in the country, to contain.
  2020
  I can go further and give Bills later than 1902. There was the Irish Land Purchase Act of 1903, the Licensing Act of 1904, and the Education Bill of 1906, which could have been framed in the same way, and also the Irish Councils Bill and the second Education Bill, and of course the Old Age Pensions Bill, and the third Education Bill, and the Development Bill of last year. In all the arguments that have been used throughout the country, this question of the Money Bill has been put in a secondary position, and I quite agree if a Money Bill under this Clause was as it was understood, under the ancient usage of Parliament, that it would be in a secondary position. As I ventured to argue yesterday, a Money Bill as here defined means any Bill that is founded upon the control of public money whether apparently from the Exchequer or the rates. Therefore, it could be made to comprehend three-fourths of all the general legislation of the country. I am perfectly certain hon. Members opposite cannot contend that that is what was intended. They have always devoted their arguments to the necessity for some check on the House of Lords, but at the same time fully admitting that there was the need of a revising Chamber. It must come as a shock to them if it can be proved that three-fourths of the legislation at least can be passed without any revising Chamber at all. I do not say passed in the best way or in the convenient way, but the measures can be so drafted that three-fourths of the subjects of legislation can be passed without coming under the purview of a revising Chamber. That, I submit, has never been understood, and it has never been explained to the electors and to this House, and it would be a presumption against all the facts of the case if authority can be claimed for this Clause, and I do not think it can be claimed for the Bill at all, on the ground that it has been understood and approved by the people of the country. Therefore if this Clause is to be persevered in by the Government, they must be able to show that a Money Bill means the old Money Bill as understood formerly.
  The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on the Amendment we are discussing. The hon. Member is discussing the Clause itself; he must make his remarks relevant to his own Amendment.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: My point is, that at the last election this was not understood, and was not appreciated by the country,

  2021
  and the Government had no right to obtain the authority of the country. In common fairness they should allow this matter first to be threshed out in Parliament, and not to attempt to force it through until it has been explained, and until they are able to show that they have the authority of the electors for it.
  The PRIME MINISTER: After a long experience of Debates in Committee of this House, I do not think I ever heard a speech in which the arguments bore so little relation to the proposition. The hon. Gentleman's speech has been entirely confined to criticism of the language and the effect of Sub-section (2), a Sub-section we have not yet reached, and I do not know when we shall reach it, but which, when we do reach, I shall be perfectly prepared to discuss. What is his proposition? His proposition is that this Clause shall not come into effect until after a new Parliament has been elected. We are really repeating the experience of yesterday. Last night we spent four or five hours in discussing a proposition that the operation of this Clause should be confined to the next three years, and now the hon. Gentleman, after all that time has been spent, solemnly gets up and invites us to discuss another proposition that the Clause shall not come into operation until after this Parliament, which is an exact replica of the discussion we had in an earlier part. Those contrary propositions are successively put forward by the same people and voted for in the same Lobby, although it is quite clear, if one is true, the other must be false.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: If the right hon. Gentleman had accepted yesterday's Amendment perhaps there would have been no necessity for this.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that ingenious explanation. My answer is a very simple one of one sentence. This country and the electors of this country, if they determined anything at the last election, determined that in this Parliament we should assert the supremacy of the House of Commons in all matters of finance. That is my answer.
  Mr. BALFOUR: It is a very bad answer. The whole of my hon. Friend's argument is this: That under the phrase, "Everything connected with finance," the country, which in the right hon. Gentleman's view supported this at the last election, were not aware that this Bill meant
  2022
  not merely Budgets, not merely what in ordinary discourse would be described as the financial arrangements of the year, but all the innumerable things which would appear to come within the very wide ambit of the definition of Sub-section (2). All the answer the right hon. Gentleman has got to that is that the country did understand this Bill in the light of Subsection (2).
  The PRIME MINISTER: I did not say so.
  Mr. BALFOUR: What is his argument then? If that was not so he will forgive me for saying, with all respect, that he cannot appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend. What my hon. Friend said was, "You try to ram this Bill down our throats on the ground that it has been before the electorate twice." That means, and it can only mean, that the electorate have been thoroughly seized of all its bearings and all its provisions. My hon. Friend then points out that under Subsection (2) it is quite obvious that the people have not been seized of it in all its bearings and in all its provisions. Therefore, he argues, that you ought not to act as if this Bill or this Clause had received the general assent of the electorate; because, although the electorate may very likely have given their assent to the broad proposition that the House of Lords should not be allowed to interfere with Budgets or Appropriation Bills or with the strictly financial work of the country, the public has never understood that this Bill was intended to make it possible for the House of Commons to call anything a Money Bill and pass it over the heads of the Lords within one month of its reach the the Upper Chamber. That argument does not deserve the treatment the Prime Minister has chosen to mete out to it. He seems to think there is a wonderful inconsistency between the arguments advanced to-night and those advanced last night. The policy on which the Amendment of last night was based and the policy recommended by the present Amendment are perfectly consistent. The contentions of last night and of to-night, taken together, are these: that you ought within the next three years to bring in your scheme for dealing with the House of Lords, and you ought not to frame your Bills in the guise of Money Bills so that, although they are not really Money Bills, the House of Lords has nothing whatever to say to them. Those are the two points urged last night and to-night. Will any human being say that they are inconsistent? The right hon.

  2023
  Gentleman has taken advantage of a mere verbal point to suggest that those who support this Amendment will be acting contrary to the intentions which animated their arguments last night. That is wholly inaccurate. The two policies are perfectly consistent, and they are both right. The Government ought to bring in their reform of the House of Lords within the next three years, and they ought not to stretch the circuit of Sub-section (2) so wide by the use of such phrases as "the regulation of public money," "matters incidental," and so on, that they could include all those Bills mentioned or indicated in the speech of my hon. Friend. I entirely agree with what I understood to be the ruling of the Chairman, that it would be extremely inconvenient to discuss on this Amendment the very complicated subject that will arise on Sub-section (2), but I do not think that my hon. Friend was open to the charge that he was dealing with those matters which will have to occupy the time of the Committee later on. The point now raised is much broader. Granting that Sub-section (2) passes in its present form, acting on that hypothesis, as he is bound to do, until the Government make any declaration to the centrary, my hon. Friend's interpretation of Sub-section (2) is that it might take in an enormous number of Bills which the country believed would come under Clause 2 and not Clause 1. I believe he has rightly interpretated the view which the country took of Clause 1. I think there was a feeling—in my judgment a mistaken but a genuine feeling—that the House of Lords had gone beyond their propoer constitutional functions in referring the Budget of 1909 to the popular vote. The comman view of the public is that this Clause is intended, and intended solely, to prevent a recurrence of that action. That is how the Clause was interpreted, naturally enough, in all the broad presentments on popular platforms. Will anybody contradict me on that broad statement? Will any Member deny that what the party opposite really aimed at and what the public believed they aimed at in this Clause was the prevention of a repetition of the rejection of a Budget or anything in the nature of a Budget? If we are to read this Clause in the light of Sub-section (2), the electors who voted for hon. Gentlemen opposite never for one moment intended to express the view that everything which could be dragged in under that Sub-section was to be dealt with as a Money Bill, that in regard
  2024
  to them the Second Chamber should be prevented from exercising even that control which it has under Clause 2, and should be allowed no more power of delay than that of one month which they have in regard to Money Bills. I think my hon. Friend was well advised in bringing forward this Amendment, but he has received very scant courtesy from the Prime Minister, who has distinctly failed to understand the perfectly legitimate argument which my hon. Friend addressed to him.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: The Prime Minister was so much concerned with the alleged irrelevance of the mover of the Amendment that he did not in any way deal with the merits of the proposal. The Government apparently attach extraordinary importance to the function of delay. Surely, in view of what they have said of the value of delay, they sought to justify their refusal to grant such delay as would afford a reasonable opportunity for the electors to change their minds on the most far-reaching change in our financial procedure ever brought before Parliament. I will not discuss the limits of Money Bills, as the Prime Minister says that that point is irrelevant; but I think my hon. Friend dealt with it very fairly. According to Members of the Government, themselves, the Government have no authority for putting through a matter of this importance as a result of so inconclusive a General Election as the last. I could quote many speeches, but I will content myself with a quotation from a speech by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, delivered so recently as November last. He said:—
  "He had always taken the view that in regard to constitutional questions there ought to be an over whelming opinion in favour of a change before it carried be carried into law. Constitutional questions ought to have the overwhelming support of the masses of the people before——"
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not see that that point arises. The Amendment proposes that there should be another election. There is nothing in it about the size of the majority.
  Mr. GUINNESS: My point is that I want another election. If the last election but one was not conclusive, I do not see how the last election, which gave the Government a smaller majority, was any more conclusive. But I bow to your ruling, and will not pursue the point further. The Government suggest that the House of Lords should have power to delay for two years ordinary matters of legislation. If it is

  2025
  right that they should be able to hang up for two years a matter of merely local interest, perhaps a private Bill promoted by a county council, surely there is every reason why they should be able to suspend this matter until the electors have had an opportunity of considering it in all its bearings. It is no answer to say that the Resolutions have been before the House. Many Bills are dealt with in general terms by Resolutions, and it is well known that vague principles have often passed muster in the House of Commons and been endorsed by the country, but have absolutely broken down and been repudiated by the people when the Government came to grapple with the details. One might compare the present position with what happened in regard to the first Home Rule Bill. Mr. Gladstone got the support of the country to the outlines of his Bill before the election of 1885. It was only when ho filled in the particulars that he came to grief. He talked of preserving the unity of the Empire——
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must make his remarks relevant to the Amendment.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I was referring to the experience of a Government which obtained the general assent of the country to the broad principles, but broke down over the details, and I was making a comparison which I think is absolutely on all fours with the position to-day. I think it is relevant to show that just as Mr. Gladstone, when he came to frame his Bill, was unable to carry out his Midlothian pledges as to preserving the unity of the Empire, so the Government are unable to restrict their changes in the financial relations between the two Houses in the way broadly laid down at the General Election. The field has been very much extended since then. As by your ruling I am not allowed to make any comparison with the past, I will only say that the matter is of such importance that the country ought certainly to have an opportunity of considering it with the details embodied in the clauses of a Bill; they ought not to be committed to this particular proposal until it has been thoroughly thrashed out in Committee and they have had an opportunity of declaring their opinion, not merely on the broad principles, but on the essential details which must make or mar a measure.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Prime Minister said that this question was discussed for
  2026
  some hours yesterday, but I submit that there is a considerable difference between three years and the next General Election. Three years is a fixed period, but the next election might, for all we know, come within three months, and what my hon. Friend suggests is that this proposal should then become operative and not before. If the Amendment were carried, the country would have an opportunity before the next election of making themselves acquainted with what the Bill proposes and with what it will actually do. I say it will be a very great advantage.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is talking about the Bill. This Amendment deals only with this Clause.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I was endeavouring to confine my remarks to this Clause, which is a revolutionary Clause, because hitherto the other House has always had the opportunity of rejecting Money Bills. Therefore, this is a very considerable change. But I apologise if I have alluded to the Bill instead of to the Clause. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite urge that the country has determined that this Clause shall become law within this Session. I say that the country has done nothing of the sort. What the country did undoubtedly was to give, in some cases, a sort of mandate that there should be some alteration of the financial relations between the two Houses, but it never gave any mandate for this particular Clause. I do not really see what harm would be done if this Clause was postponed until after the next General Election. Certainly, the Prime Minister brought forward no reason why this Amendment should not be accepted, unless it is that, having a chance majority, and fearing that when the people came to understand this Clause they will not have it, he is taking advantage of his majority to pass the Clause. The House should have some further explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary or from the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Joseph Pease), who, on a former occasion, made some enlightening remarks upon this Bill. I would like to draw attention to some remarks made by the Prime Minister on the somewhat similar occasion in this House on the 5th of April of last year:—
  "That the resolution would have to be embodied in the Bill, and that it should have a second reading stage, a Committee stage, a Report stage, and third reading, and will receive as full discussion as the House can give it."
  The present action of the right hon. Gentleman is against the spirit of the

  2027
  statement which he made in the House of Commons last year, and which, of course, we all accepted as his statement of what would be carried out.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It is, of course, not possible—to reply to the misapprehension as to this Amendment—to discuss any amendment to a Clause without pointing out what the Clause means. You must understand what a Clause means in order that you may form a judgment upon the merits of the Amendment. This is an Amendment for, in effect, referring this Clause to the people. It provides that this Clause is not to come into effect until the people have had an opportunity of pronouncing upon it. I myself do not think that a General Election is the ideal way of referring such matters to the people. I should prefer a system of Referendum. For this purpose, however, for the present occasion, it is only possible to move a reference to a General Election. No one, I suppose, imagines that in this present Parliament disagreements about finance are likely to arise between the two Houses. The precaution the Government is taking I have not the least doubt, and doubtless they have not the least doubt, has reference to future Parliaments. We do not really suppose, at least we may hope, that financial proposals in the near future will be as controversial as in 1909. At any rate, the Government, I suppose, do not imagine that the majority in the House of Lords again during this Parliament will take the course they did. Therefore there will be no practical loss or injury in adopting the Amendment. It would have the advantage of giving the people the opportunity of pronouncing upon the merits of this Clause before it came into effect. I think it is true that this Clause has not been sufficiently discussed by the country. It is hardly possible by platform discussion to bring out the details of Parliamentary proposals. That was one of the great inconveniences of the course pursued by the Government in hurrying the last General Election. The country did not have the opportunity of seeing what really it would be called upon to pronounce judgment upon. Had we been through, as the Prime Minister in his earlier speeches seemed to indicate, this Clause word by word and line by line, as we are going through it now, then the last General Election would have carried very much more weight than possibly it can at the present time. So that my hon. Friend is
  2028
  entitled to say that there is a strong case for deferring the operation of this Clause till after a General Election. It is silly for the Prime Minister to treat this proposition with contempt. The Government are apparently preventing their supporters from speaking. That is part of their respect for the House of Commons, and part of their idea of the value of the House of Commons discussion. Nobody except hon. Members on the Front Benches opposite are to be allowed on that side of the House to take part in the Debate. Happily, we are so far free from that position, and are able to urge our points one by one, and we urge that this particular Clause should be referred to the people before it becomes law.
  Mr. G. J. SANDYS: It appears to me that the whole question of this Parliament Bill would be very much settled and simplified if the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment which has been brought forward. I think that every reasonable person will agree that the contention which has been made by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University that the people at the time of the last election were not in a position to thoroughly appreciate the true significance of this Bill is one that can hardly be denied. The election which we have just passed through, and in which, according to the testimony of the Government, so many mandates were received from the people, was not one in which important constitutional measures could be in any way adequately discussed. I am perfectly certain if a national settlement of this constitutional difficulty is ever to be arrived at it can only be obtained after another General Election, distinctly fought upon this issue, and upon this issue alone. By this method we shall be able to place before the people the true significance of this Parliamentary Bill.
  This Amendment is of particular importance, because it deals with the question of the possible action, or rather the prevention of any action, on the part of the House of Lords in regard to Money Bills. We understand, from the statements which have been made by the Government, that this part of the Parliament Bill is to be permanent. We understand that whatever happens in regard to the Preamble, as to the reconstitution of the Second Chamber, reform of the House of Lords and the relationship between the two Houses, the Clause in regard to Money Bills is to remain as stated in the Parliamentary Bill.
  Therefore, it seems to me particularly necessary that the people of this country should thoroughly appreciate exactly what the changes are that are intended to be made, because these changes are to be, so we understand, of a permanent character. I am quite sure that during the recent General Election very few of the people of this country thoroughly appreciated the very wide and far-reaching changes which will be brought about by the Parliament Bill so far as Money Bills were concerned. I think it is perfectly true to state that should this Bill become an Act of Parliament it will be quite possible in the future for the Civil List to he abolished; for the salaries of the judges and entire administration of justice to be stopped; for an income Tax of 20s. in the £1 to be imposed; for the rating of houses and lands to be raised to occupation value; and it will be quite possible, without a Second Chamber having any say at all in the matter, by imposing an annual rate upon the railways equivalent to annual value to bring about a scheme for the nationalisation of railways. In that short, sharp, but singularly indecisive election from which we have just come, I am perfectly certain from my own experience that there was no possible opportunity of explaining to the people of this country the far-reaching, revolutionary changes, the character of which I have indicated, and which it would be quite possible to bring about by the mere operation of this Bill. Therefore I do urge upon the Government to reconsider this question, and to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend. In this way we may have a further opportunity of placing these matters before the people, so that, as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are so fond of saying, the will of the people may actually prevail.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I think the Government may very fairly and safely accept this Amendment. It is not likely, as the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University has reminded the House, that during the present Parliament there will be introduced between the two Houses any matters of contention about money matters. May I remind the Government of what took place in the House of Lords last year. Lord Lansdowne said:—
  "In regard to this provision about Money Bills, the Lords are prepared to forego their constitutional rights to reject or amend Money Bills which are purely financial in character, provided that effectual provision is made against 'tacking.'"
  In view of that statement, if there is no "tacking" in a Governmental Money
  2030
  Bill right hon. Gentlemen opposite may be perfectly sure that that Bill will go through the other House. If they do "tack," well, of course, it will be another matter! The Government may be perfectly sure that during the present Parliament the House of Lords will not reject a Budget—which is only a Budget! The acceptance of this Amendment will give the people during the next three years the opportunity of expressing their opinion.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: The Prime Minister, in answer to my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, laid great stress on his statemnt that this Amendment was precisely contrary to and paradoxical with the one moved last night. I venture to think that is a superficial answer, because if one looks at the Amendment closely it will be found that the principle underlying it is the same as that of last night, and that is a principle which the Government always ignore, namely, that the people of the country ought to be consulted. If the Amendment moved last night was carried, the people would be consulted at the end of three years. Now it is proposed that the Clause should not come into operation until the new Parliament, roughly in about three years. The Government do not ask whether the people want the Clause to come into operation or not. If they had consulted the people on the principle of the Clause, one could understand their refusing this Amendment. The Government profess to believe in the theory of mandate to justify their action. They say they had a mandate from the country at the last election. Surely when it is alleged, as it was alleged this afternoon by us, that this Clause does not carry out their mandate it rests with them to show that it does, but they have not attempted to do anything of the kind. They are tame and dull this afternoon. They will reject this Amendment in the same humour and in the sam effective manner as they propose to reject all other Amendments. We are entitled to point out that, as a matter of fact, this is only one more example of the imposture imposed upon the electorate at the last General Election. The Government did not like the word "fraud" when used by the Leader of the Opposition at the beginning of the Session. I have no doubt they will get accustomed to it in the course of these Debates, or if they do not get accustomed to the word they will become accustomed to the feeling. Perhaps they have already become accustomed to it. No one will deny that this Clause does

  2031
  not carry out what the people of the country were led to believe would be carried out. It goes much further, and, as a matter of fact, I do not see what necessity there is for the rest of the Bill if this Clause is carried as it stands.
  The CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with the Amendment under discussion.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I was pointing out, with all respect, how important this Clause is and how essential it is that its operation should be postponed to another
  Parliament. But I will not pursue that argument further if you rule me out of Order. I say this Clause does not carry out what the country was led to suppose would be carried out by the financial proposals of the Government Bill. And, therefore, this Amendment ought certainly to be accepted so as to give the country another opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it.
  Question put. "That these words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 296.

  Division No. 107.]

  AYES.

  [5.4 p.m.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon Sir Alex. F.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor., Droitwich)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  M'Mordie, Robert James

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Astor, Waldorf

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Forster, Henry William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Moore, William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Achburten)

  Barnston, Harry

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Mount, William Arthur

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)

  Gordon, J.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Newman, John R. P.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Grant, J. A.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Gretton, John

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Bird, Alfred

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Boyton, James

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs.)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Ouilter, William Eley C.

  Butcher, John George

  Hills, John Walter (Durham)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Carille, Edward Hildred

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Cassel, Felix

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Cator, John

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Rothschild, Lionel D.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Royds, Edmund

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rork. (Bath)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Chambers, James

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Kerr-Smiley Peter Kerr

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Kerry, Earl of

  Spear, John Ward

  Clyde, James Avon

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stanier, Beville

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Stanley, Hen. G. F. (Preston)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Kinloch, Cooke, Sir Clement

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Swift, Rigby

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Sykes, Alan John

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Croft, Henry Page

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Valentia, Viscount

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Yerburgh, Robert

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Younger, George

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mackinder and Major Morrison Bell.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Elverston, Harold

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Adamson, William

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Falconer, James

  M'Callum, John M.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Farrell, James Patrick

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Splading)

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Field, William

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Armitage, Robert

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Marks, George Croydon

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Meagher, Michael

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Barnes, George N.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Millar, James Duncan

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Molloy, Michael

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Barton, William

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Mooney, John J.

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Hackett, J.

  Morrell, Philip

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hancock, John George

  Muldoon, John

  Black, Arthur W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Munro, Robert

  Boland, John Pius

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Neilson, Francis

  Brace, William

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Harwood, George

  Nolan, Joseph

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Byles, William Pollard

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Dowd, John

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hinds, John

  Ogden, Fred

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Hodge, John

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Malley, William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Clough, William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Shee, James John

  Clynes, John R.

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Johnson, William

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jones, William (Ca narvonshire)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pointer, Joseph

  Crean, Eugene

  Joyce, Michael

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Keating, Matthew

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh. Central)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Delany, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lansbury, George

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Doris, W.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Duffy, William J.

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reddy, Michael

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  2034

  2035

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, N.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Snowden, Philip

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Scares, Ernest Joseph

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Webb, H.

  Robinson, Sydney

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Summers, James Woolley

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Sutton, John E.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Rowlands, James

  Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

  Wiles, Thomas

  St. Maur, Harold

  Tennant, Harold John

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Toulmin, George

  Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, W. T. (West Houghton)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Winfrey, Richard

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Sheehy, David

  Walters, John Tudor

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Simon, Sir John Alisebrook

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Ciltheroe)

  Wardle, George J.

  TELLERS FDR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Guiland.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Waring, Walter

  Mr. JAMES HOPEMoved on Sub-section (1), after "a" ["If a Money Bill having been passed"] to insert the word "public."
  The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment is not in Order here, but should come in on Sub-section (2).
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: On a point of Order, Mr. Emmott, I submit this Amendment is a proposal to limit the operation of this Clause to public Bills, and I submit certain private Bills, such as corporations attempting to get certain borrowing powers or the like, would under the definition, be included. I submit that there would be a difficulty in raising this point later on.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may raise it on Sub-section (2).
  Mr. REMNANT: May I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to Standing Order 44, where a distinction is clearly drawn between public and private financial measures. That being so, would it not be in order for the hon. Member to move his Amendment specifying that this is a "public" Money Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: As I have already pointed out, that question can be raised on Sub-section (2), and that is the right place to raise it. A Money Bill can be confined to a public Money Bill on Sub-section (2).
  Mr. POLLOCK: May I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the Amendments standing on the Paper to leave out the word "money." I think we ought to have a definition of what a Money Bill means. If we leave the words "Money Bill" in, it will be difficult to argue the point on Sub-section (2).
  2036
  There is an Amendment standing in my name to leave out the word "Money,' which I wished to move, in order that we may get a full definition of what is meant by the word "money" in Clause 1. It will be very difficult later on to get a definition of a Bill which has already been established by the House to be a Money Bill.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the Amendment standing in my name to leave out the word "Money." If you rule that I am not able to move my Amendment now I may not get a future opportunity.
  The CHAIRMAN: There may not be any future opportunity of getting rid of the word "Money," but a Money Bill can be defined in Sub-section (2), and it can be dealt with there.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Evidently it is a matter for the Committee to determine whether a Bill shall be called a Money Bill or not. How can we decide that point if we do not omit the word "Money"?
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: This is a new term which the House of Commons has not known before. In all Resolutions dealing with finance it has always been called a Bill of Aid or Supply. The term "Money Bill" is entirely new, and I think it is competent for the Committee to say whether they are going to engraft the term "Money Bill" upon financial legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN: I still adhere to my opinion. We have been discussing in the Amendment already dealt with what we are to do with Money Bills. In Sub-section (2) the definition of Money Bill is given, and these points must be left until we deal with that Sub-section. With regard to the

  2037
  Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Derby (Mr. Watson Rutherford) that is a question which can be raised on Sub-section (3), and it will not be in order here.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The Clause provides that a Money Bill "having been passed by the House of Commons," and so on. What I want to make clear is before that Bill is dealt with, in order to be passed by the House of Commons it should be a Money Bill, because then we should know what we are discussing when we are dealing with Money Bills. It would be in an entirely different category from other Bills. I do not see any other place where we can make it clear that when the House is passing a Money Bill it should pass it as such, and it should be certified to be such before it is passed by the House of Commons upon that footing. That is the point of the Amendment. I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that there is no other place but this at which that intention can be conveniently expressed. You have got in the Clause the words "having been passed," and that is a question of time. My Amendment deals simply with the question of time, and not with the question whether the Bill should be certified or who should certify it. The point I am raising is that before a Bill is passed it should bear the imprimatur of being a Money Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled that the question dealt with by the hon. Member can be raised upon a later Subsection.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Do I understand from your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that in reference to my Amendment to leave out the word "Money" I shall be able to raise it on Sub-section (2)?
  The CHAIRMAN: Money Bills are limited and defined in Sub-section (2). Amendments relating to their further limitation must be raised upon that Sub-section. I call upon the hon. Member for Oswestry to move his Amendment.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: Before the hon. Member for Oswestry moves his Amendment I want to ask whether, if a discussion is taken on this rather wide Amendment, it will cut out the discussion later on a qualifying form of Amendments bearing upon the same question. There are several such Amendments standing in the name of hon. Members as well as in my own name. That is a very important
  2038
  question, and I should certainly desire an opportunity of raising it quite separately from the Amendment now before the Committee.
  The CHAIRMAN: In all probability it will cut out those Amendments if it is adopted. If the hon. Member desires to move a different form of Amendment at this point he may do so.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask that you should cause your ruling to be recorded at the Table, in order that a Motion disagreeing with it may be submitted.
  The CHAIRMAN: My ruling will be recorded.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "passed" ["passed by the House of Commons"], to insert the words "without restriction of debate."
  In ordinary circumstances I should expect a very large measure of support for this attempt to retain some portion of freedom of speech for private Members of Parliament. Hon. Members are aware of the history of the closure, the different defences which have been made in applying it, and the severity with which it has been applied from year to year. During the tenure of office of the present Government the closure has been applied far more rigorously than it was ever applied before. I am anxious to speak against the closure, but if I went into a very long history of what is familiar to most hon. Members of this House I might be providing an argument for the other side instead of for myself. I will content myself by merely stating that I believe everybody in this House will agree that the closure has become more and more severe during the last five years, and that, whether we like the closure or not, there can be no dispute about what I have said on the point. I think hon. Members will agree with me when I state that wherever it is possible to avoid the closure and the guillotine it is desirable to do so. I think that hon. Members will also agree with me that in reference to any financial questions which the representatives of the people have always been free to discuss the guillotine should, if possible, be eliminated altogether. So far I think we are all agreed. I think most hon. Members will agree that when the power of amending a Money Bill is taken away from the other Chamber there is a still greater necessity that it should be fully discussed

  2039
  in this Chamber. Nobody will dispute that proposition.
  Lastly, if these Money Bills are to be Money Bills in the restricted sense, which hon. Members opposite tell us they will be, and if they are strictly confined to raising taxation and entirely free from tacking, then the reasons for curtailing debate will be much smaller than they would be in regard to Finance Bills combined, as they have been lately, with matters foreign to finance. As a matter of fact, the only time in which we have had a very long debate upon a Finance Bill has been the occasion when the Government thought fit to introduce legislation which they could not introduce in any other way than in the form of a Finance Bill. If these Bills are purely Money Bills and purely connected with finance, then the closure and the guillotine will be much less necessary than it ever has been before. Apparently these propositions are agreed to by all sections of this House, and under ordinary circumstances I should expect a very large number of hon. Gentlemen opposite to follow me into the Lobby in favour of this Amendment. I am afraid that on this point they are not enjoying the same liberty which the hon. Member for Somerset told us they were enjoying on the Preamble, which they were allowed to look upon in any way they liked. The Government and their supporters have been going about the country making bombastic speeches about passing this measure without the alteration of a comma, and having the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill. That is a very good illustration of their desire for free discussion in this House. Before this Bill has been discussed here they go about the country saying, "we shall accept no amendments," and consequently they are making discussion here absolutely useless and futils. What is the use of anything being discussed in this House if every-thing is to be pushed through, and if no amendments are to be accepted, however much hon. Members desire them. The Government seem to consider themselves in the position of Ulysses when he was trying to pass the syrens without giving way to their attractions. Those who sit behind them have had their ears and indeed their mouths closed on this subject. The Government, like Ulysses, have tied themselves as well as their colours to the mast, and, although they condescend to listen sometimes to what is being said, they very seldom answer and never agree,
  2040
  however much they might wish in their conscience to do so. They are not really very much like Ulysses, because Ulysses after all, having seen the cities of a large number of men and having mastered their ideas, used that experience when he came home. The Government, if they have seen the customs and constitutions of cities and countries, certainly have not taken much advantage of their experience, because they are trying to impose on us a system which no civilised country of the world has thought fit to adopt. Therefore, however right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on our Front Bench may be regarded as syrens, a great compliment to their personal and vocal attractions, let me say that, so far from desiring to lure hon. Members opposite on the dangerous rocks, our desire is to put them on safe ground and on ground which has been regarded as safe by their own party for many years past. If they persist in being suspicious of what is said by hon. Members on this side of the House I will refer them to some of the speeches of Members of their own party. The hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. Byles), who I feel certain has absented himself from this discussion for fear of having to allow his principles to rule and to be obliged to support my Amendment, spoke very plainly and very well on this subject on 15th June, 1909, when he said:—
  "The use of the guillotine is one which affects the efficiency and Credit and almost the existence of the House of Commons. …There are two main objections to these guillotine resolutions. One is, they tend to put too much power in the hands of the Executive, and to take too much power out of the hands of the House of Commons, and the evil is they inevitably afford justification for the interference of the Upper House in the decisions arrived at by this House. …It is impossible to justify condemnation of the House of Lords, if Bills are pushed through this House without ample opportunity for private Members of this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1909. cols. 889 and 891.]
  You are taking away any control of the House of Lords over finance, and therefore it is impossible and unfair to insist on the use of the Closure in forcing a Bill through the only House where it is possible to discuss it with any advantage or effect. If the hon. Member for Salford is not a sufficiently high authority on Constitutional questions, although he has been a great champion of free speech in this House, let me refer to Mr. Bryce, who, I suppose, would be regarded even by hon. Gentlemn opposite as an authority on Constitutional questions. He said in this House, in 1889:—
  "I believe, generally, there is a strong feeling in the country that the House of Commons ought not to have the sole charge of the interests of the nation. The introduction of the Closure, and the way in which the

  2041
  Closure is worked, makes this House a totally different body from what it was before, and renders it necessary to provide safeguards against the danger of precipitate action which did not exist in 1884."
  If Mr. Bryce chose to bring his remarks up to date, how very much more forcible he could make them in view of the great—
  The CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss the question of the Guillotine in general. This is a question of Bills with which this Bill deals, and the hon. Gentletman's remarks ought to be relevant to them.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: With great respect, my quotation related to the point of my Amendment. If we are to have Single Chamber Government for financial questions, then the Guillotine and Closure should be avoided in this House. With great respect, I think it is perfectly in order to illustrate my point by a quotation from a high authority. I am satisfied you will agree with that, and I certainly will confine myself to the Amendment, as I think I have done up to this moment. If that was the case then, still more is it the case now when the Guillotine is being used so much more freely. We have not only the old forms of Closure, hut we have the Kangaroo and other innovations, which make that point all the stronger. If the right hon. Gentleman will not listen to reason, whether it comes from their own side or from ours. I will ask them not to go about the country claiming they are passing this Bill in order that the will of the people may prevail. I should like to remind them of an instance we have only just had of this way of dealing with the Finance Bill. No one can say that Clause 10 of the Revenue Bill was according to the will of the people. It was the exact opposite the Government themselves had promised, and the people wanted the opposite. The Government, by means of the Closure and by means of methods for which the Prime Minister is not responsible, but for which the right hon. Gentleman next to him (Mr. Churchill) is responsible, brought it on for discussion, first of all at a time of night when no discussion was possible, and, secondly, the guillotine was used in such a way as to make it absolutely impossible to discuss it on the Report stage.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is in Order in referring to the guillotine, but he cannot reflect upon the Closure adopted on that occasion.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My Amendment is to have no restriction of Debate, and I should have thought I was entitled to
  2042
  argue that the use of the guillotine on the Finance Bill a few nights ago is a very good illustration. I say the guillotine was used so that it was impossible to debate the Clause on the Report stage. That shows how possible it would be for any Government to force financial measures through although they were absolutely contrary to the wishes of the people, and contrary even to the pledges the Government had given to the people. I must also quote in this connection a speech which the Prime Minister himself delivered on 11th April last year in this House. He said:—
  "There are conceivable and indeed actual cases in which the decision of the House of Commons does not necessarily and perhaps does not even presumptively express the opinion of the people. You might have a case, a conceivable case, of what is called a scratch majority coming together under the coercion of Party exigencies for a particular and transcient purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1910, cols. 896–7.]
  It is to avoid that which is so present to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that I move this Amendment. It is to make it impossible for party exigencies to overrule the will of the people and to make it impossible for Finance Bills to be passed through this House by means of the guillotine and never to have any discussion of any effect anywhere else. The Government are claiming, not that the will of the people should prevail, but that they, as a Cabinet, shall have the power of forcing through this House, without proper discussion, and with no effective discussion in the other House, Finance Bills which affect the liberties and the property of every citizen.
  Dr. HILLIER: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Amendment which immediately follows will be in order if this Amendment is dealt with? I would venture to point out that it practically covers this Amendment. It is another alternative. It reads: "Either without the application of the Closure, or after Debate of not less than twelve Parliamentary days in all on the different stages of the Bill."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. H. Whitley): I will deal with that question when it arises.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): The hon. Member who moved the Amendment devoted a good deal of his speech to the subject of the guillotine, but the Amendment which he asks the Committee to accept is not limited to guillotine procedure. The proposal which he commends to the Committee is that the powers of the

  2043
  House of Lords to reject a Money Bill shall be be operative over any Finance Bill in the course of which a single application of the Closure has taken place. A Government might be confronted by obstruction so persistent and so prolonged that it would be impossible to finish the measure upon which the whole of the supply of the Public Service for the year depends, within the limits of a Session of Parliament, and perhaps within the limits of a financial year. If a Government were to apply the Closure on a single occasion, no matter how grave the provocation or how urgent the public necessity, then the House of Lords would be invited to exercise the power which, as is well known and as has been abundantly stated, we on this side of the House deny that they have had effectively for generations, and which certainly they have not used, except on the disastrous occasion for them, in 1909, within the currency of the present generation. The position in which the Government would be put would be either that its Budget might be destroyed by obstruction in the House of Commons, or else that it might be rejected in the House of Lords. It is only Liberal Governments against whom these inconveniences would operate. There would be no danger when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power, because, having a friendly Assembly to support them, any use of the Closure they might find it necessary to make to carry the schedule of a Tariff Reform Budget would be leniently and indulgently viewed by the great majority which support them in another place. It would only work against Liberal Administrations, and it would expose Liberal Administrations either to be stale-mated by obstruction in the House of Commons or to have the whole finances of the country pulled about their ears by another rejection of the Budget by the House of Lords. I need scarcely say that it is not possible for the Government to accept this Amendment. The position which we adopt is the old position which this House has always adopted. We affirm the old practice, and I cannot put that practice better than in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when he said, "It is the House of Commons uncontrolled which settles our financial system." It is the House of Commons uncontrolled which settles the procedure by which its own debates are conducted. It is unthinkable that the House, at this time of day, should consent to allow
  2044
  another body to be the judge and censor of any procedure it may think it necessary to adopt in the course of public business. We agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is desirable to avoid the guillotine in debates, and it is especially desirable to avoid it, and, indeed, to avoid any form of closure in regard to finance. But is there any reason to think, from the past records of this House, that it cannot be trusted to consider these matters gravely, according to the importance of the issues with which they are dealing.
  I do not propose to enter into any controversy as to the Budget of last year. We threshed that out ad nauseum in the different debates on the subject during the spring. I think everybody's opinion is made up on whichever side of that controversy. But let the House go back to the two most memorable Budgets of modern times—the Budget of 1894 and that of 1909. The 1894 Budget was carried without any application of the closure at all. Although a wicked Liberal Government Administration was in power, and although it had but a very small majority to fall back upon, it carried it through without the closure. The controversy over the Budget of 1909 must be fresh in our memories, and no one can doubt that the temptation to apply the guillotine and closure must have been present to the minds of many hon. Members who sit on these benches. No form of guillotine or closure was, however, applied to that Budget because the opinion of the supporters of the Government, and of Ministers themselves in charge of the Bill, was against the application of such procedure to a measure of such financial importance and of such diversity. That shows very clearly that there are real safeguards for the security of the House of Commons which do secure fair and reasonable discussion in debate for important measures.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he proposes to follow the procedure of 1894 and 1909.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not quite understand the point of that question. I was simply showing the House what had been done on notable occasions in the past, when full and ample discussion had been given to novel provisions in the Budget. We have no intention of taking away from the House of Commons any power it has hitherto possessed. We claim the right to control our own Debates and conduct our own procedure in our own way. We are not going to surrender any right, and least

  2045
  of all those rights we have long enjoyed which are most obviously within our proper authority.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: The right hon. Gentleman finished his speech in a very different tone to that which he adopted at the beginning. He found fault with my hon. Friend for moving the Amendment, because he said it proposed to exclude not merely the guillotine but the closure, and he went on to say that persistent obstruction on the part of the Opposition was calculated to paralyse the Government and to prevent it passing its legislation unless it retained these powers. I do not think this Amendment would have been put down if it were not for the fact that the Government has departed from old traditions. Right hon. Gentlemen have given us recent instances of their desire and their intention in this Debate to use a system of closure quite as destructive, and therefore when the right hon. Gentleman points to the past and says the House is entitled to remember how it did its work on the Budget of 1894, we cannot admit that that entitles him to ask us to reject this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman also dwelt upon the obstruction which he said was being indulged in, and he indicated that the Government would be prepared to do all that was necessary in order to get their legislation through. What is the main justification for the Amendment which has been moved. It is that the present Government have indicated their intention to largely use the powers of Closure in this debate. I believe, without any exception, these extreme powers were never employed by the Leader of the Opposition when he sat on the other side of the House; they were never used except when without them it was found impossible to make progress with the Bill. The present Government have not only used their forces more frequently, not only have they made their Closure regulations more violent, but they have used them for their own defence without waiting for any such evidence of obstruction as that to which I have referred. On previous occasions, when we have been confronted with a Resolution for taking time, hon. Gentlemen opposite have risen one after the other and have expressed a dislike for this form of procedure—procedure of closure by compartments because they have looked upon it as contrary to freedom of debate. But things are very different to-day, and hon. Members who support the Government are content to sit
  2046
  silent and listen while the Home Secretary appeals to the past. They are content to leave it to us entirely to urge—as we are justified in doing—reasons why an Amendment of this kind should be adopted.
  The Home Secretary began by pointing out first that this Amendment goes too far, and second that the guillotine is, under certain circumstances, necessary. But does that mean that he is prepared to accept a revised form of this Amendment? Does it mean that they are willing to accept something in a somewhat modified form. I have no doubt that if that be the intention of the Government my hon. Friend will be perfectly willing to modify his Amendment. The Home Secretary, dealing with the Budget, said it would be ridiculous to ask the Government of the day not to retain in their own hands the power, by the use of these extra opportunities, to pass their Budget. Under Sub-section (2) of the Clause we are now discussing the Government propose very largely to carry the financial legislation under which these new powers are to be retained. Therefore supposing the Government were to lay it down that these limitations ought not to be imposed on their strict Budget proposals, would they be willing to consider its application to the other suggestions made by my hon. Friend on the discussion of the previous Amendment.
  I am afraid that the language used by the Home Secretary does not indicate any intention on the part of the Government to consider any modification of the proposal Their object is to pass the measure as it stands: to avoid any Amendment. I realise quite as well as they do that these are the conditions on which certain sections of their supporters insist, and that consequently no concession is to be made to fair and reasonable demands from this side of the House. It is in order that this shall be done that hon. Gentlemen opposite are willing to sit silent, whereas on previous occasions they have been most eloquent. We who are opposing this measure will take note of this attitude which the Government have adopted so early in these Debates. We cannot fail to see their determination to resist any suggested Amendment, however reasonable. It is a warning to us, and we realise that nothing but the most vigorous opposition on our part will be of any avail.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: It is difficult to imagine why the Home Secretary dragged into his speech on my hon. Friend's proposal

  2047
  the Budgets of 1894 and 1909. If my hon. Friend's Amendment were accepted it would have the result of ensuring that all future Budgets would be discussed in this House without restriction of Debate; and to quote the procedure of twenty years ago surely is not a good objection to the proposal of my hon. Friend. If we ask ourselves why the guillotine was not imposed on those occasions, I think the answer readily presents itself. I do not imagine the right hon. Gentleman will deny that the reason which made the Government so much more considerate of the feelings of the Opposition in 1909 than they now show themselves is that they were seeking to occupy a strong tactical position for their coming contest with the House of Lords, because they saw how enormousely their position would be weakened under other circumstances. That, I believe, was the reason for their failure to apply the guillotine to that particular Budget. If these observations of mine are well founded it becomes clear at once that the precedent of 1909 upon which the right hon. Gentleman somewhat illogically founded himself is no precedent at all, and we are driven to ask what is likely to be the conduct of financial business in this House assuming that the present proposals of the Government become law without any such Amendment as that of my hon. Friend, and I need not point out the unanswerable force of the arguments which my hon. Friend has addressed to the Government. It is useless for the right hon. Gentleman, and he ought not to condescend to such an argument—it is useless for him to say that our words are too wide, if he does not mean to assent to any narrowing words at all. It is waste of time to put forward such a plea when the right hon. Gentleman does not mean to assent to this proposal or any other of a similar character. What is the position in which the House will find itself when the present Bill becomes law? I hope the House will like the securities which it will have in dealing with financial matters. The Government are at liberty to propose any restriction of Debate which commends itself to the Cabinet, and, having arrived at a conclusion in the Cabinet, they can come here and make it a matter of confidence in this House that it should be carried through, and they can carry through measures without the sanction of this House, as has been shown by the experience of the last five years. The House of Commons, according to the
  2048
  Government, has always, in the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman, been in an uncontrolled position. I deny that, and it is common knowledge to every Member of this House that since 1906, and on some measures going over a limited Parliamentary area before 1906, but still more strongly since 1906, the House of Commons has not enjoyed an uncontrolled position in this matter.
  In fact, it has not enjoyed any real right of deciding questions of finance, and the condition which we have established for the moment is this, that not since 1906, so incredible have been the developments, has the House of Commons, or any considerable section of it, opposed any resistance to the financial proposals of the Government of the day, and when we are told that unrestricted opportunities of Debate will be afforded by a future Government is there any Member in the House of Commons who foretold the development which the control of the Government over our Debates has assumed since so recently as 1906. There is not one of us who does not know that in regard to every important Bill which has been brought forward since 1906 there has been this restraint in an ever-growing degree, and it is no defence to say that these restraints are provoked or justified by obstruction. These are the fallacies by which, in our party Debates, we deceive ourselves. The Government always say the Opposition obstructs, and I quite agree, and I daresay the right hon. Gentleman has himself taken part in many Debates which he would not think obstructive, but which probably somebody else would. I have not, however, a particular occasion in my mind with regard to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am not entitled to press it upon him, but I have many Debates in my mind in which the Home Secretary has played a part, and in which there was a general concensus of opinion among my Friends in the House I then—I was not here myelf—that it would not be unfair to describe the right hon. Gentleman's attitude as an obstructive, one. Every Government accuses every Opposition of obstruction, and you have not got rid of the real point of importance which underlies the Amendment by saying that the Opposition will obstruct. Let us suppose that the Opposition always will obstruct. Are you justified in giving to the Government of the day the power of insisting on a Bill passing into law one month after it has been passed by this House?

  2049
  The right hon. Gentleman dealt in a very cavalier manner with the argument of my hon. Friend in relation to the Budget discussions of the present Session. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is rather late in the day, and would not serve any useful purpose to discuss whether the Government were or were not right in regard to Clause 10, but using that as an illustration, were the Government actually doing as we say in relation to Clause 10 that of which we complain, namely, depriving the House of Commons of any opportunity of discussing one of the most important features of the Budget? Whether they did so or not, if this Bill becomes law they could do it, and we have not the slightest doubt that the Government would do it if it suited their purpose. This Amendment is one of the most important that could be brought forward. It is a proposal that there should be some prohibition to restriction, and my hon. Friend proposes an alternative to the Government Bill. It is one of the most important Amendments that can be considered in regard to this Bill, and I hope the House of Commons and the country will understand that if this Bill goes through in its present form it is in the power of the Government of the day to impose any of those restrictions which it is in their autocratic power to bring into force for Parliamentary convenience in order to pass into law without the control of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords, proposals upon which the country has never been consulted. It may be right that we should do this, but do not let any Minister get up and say that this is a very negligible change and does not mean a great advance on everything that has been done before in Parliamentary history. I would say that in contradistinction to all that has gone before, of all the revolutionary changes which are contained in this Bill there is none more revolutionary than this which leaves the full powers of the repression of debate, grown as it has grown during the last six years, as a deadly weapon in the hands of the Government of the day in regard to Amendments which have not been discussed here and cannot be discussed elsewhere.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to move to amend the proposed Amendment by adding at the end thereof the words, "by the application of any Resolution for limiting the time of Debate."
  The criticisms that were made by the Home Secretary were really addressed to
  2050
  one particular side of this Amendment, namely, that it could be used so as to provide that no closure of any sort as contemplated by our Standing Orders can be used on any Money Bill in future. I propose to amend my hon. Friend's Amendment, and I hope that he will accept my suggestion, so as to make it read, "without restriction of Debate by the application of any Resolution for limiting the time of Debate." That leaves all the closure which is possible under our Standing Orders at the command of the Government if they choose to make use of it. That is certainly giving them a very large power in consideration of the increase of the powers of the limitation of Debate which were put into our Standing Orders at the time the Budget was passing into law. I desire, therefore, to confine my remarks, as indicated by my Amendment, to the question of guillotine Resolutions, as they are usually called, and surely it is quite clear that this House—and I think we have every right to appeal to hon. Members opposite on this point—if they desire and are going to demand that which the Prime Minister laid down; so strongly last night, namely, the unchallengeable supremacy of this House in point of finance—surely it is necessary for us to ask for this Amendment to a Clause in a Bill which has the object of this one. The object of this Clause is to assert the power of this House against the Second Chamber, but the object of this Amendment is to assert the power of this House against the power of the executive—that is, really in order to restore to and keep for this House that unchallengeable supremacy to which the Prime Minister alludes. What is the analogy we can get from the course of events in connection with the House of Lords. Some Members on the other side challenge the right of the House of Lords to reject a Finance Bill. They certainly cannot object to the right which the House of Lords used to have of rejecting portions of a Finance Bill when they were presented to them as different measures. If we once allow the Government to have in this Chamber the right to put in force those guillotine Resolutions, we really hand to them also the power of forcing this House to decide upon omnibus portions of the Finance Bill and not upon separate Clauses and Sections of it. We had an instance of that last year.
  There was well known in this House to be a reluctance on the part of the Government to challenge a Division on particular sections of the Finance Bill of 1909–10 in

  2051
  connection with the whisky duty. The Government did not wish an issue to be taken upon that question alone, and we find that by means of guillotine Resolutions applied to both Budgets which came before the last Parliament—that of 1909–10 and the main portion of 1910–11—they avoided giving this House an opportunity of voting upon that special matter upon which they knew there was considerable doubt, and upon which they had a doubt as to whether they had a majority. Therefore we see that these guillotine Resolutions would enable the Government to take exactly the same action with this House as they did with the House of Lords when they compelled that assembly to consider all the financial questions in the Finance Bill together instead of separately. So we ought to be very jealous of yielding to the Government in this House now when they are making a written constitution the right to state what portions of a Finance Bill are to be put to the vote and what portions are not. Can anybody get up in this House after the experience of the last few years and say that when a guillotine Resolution has once been passed a really free and full Debate takes place in this House with a possibility of getting those Amendments in the Bill which is the object of discussion in this House. Everybody knows what the effect of the guillotine Resolution is. The Government are careless as to how the Debate goes, and when the guillotine proposal falls everybody else's work is swept away and only their own work will be voted upon. The result of this is that in criticising a Bill the helpfulness of Debate is taken away and I defy anybody to get up and say we have really had a fruitful useful Debate under a guillotine Resolution. If that be so it is an admission of the fact that when we pass this Clause we hand over the fate of a Bill not to the liberty of the House, not to the unchallengeable supremacy of the House, but to the unchallengeable supremacy of the executive and of the particular Cabinet which is in existence.
  So it is that we may very fairly say that, whereas certain forms of Closure have been embraced in our Standing Orders, so far as we have embraced them, those Standing Orders should apply to Money Bills as well as to other Bills. The Closure, which is entirely outside our Standing Orders, which is to be the subject of a special resolution of the House, is always introduced with apologies and fortified
  2052
  by tu quoques against Members of the Opposition Front Bench, never supported on its merits, but always grudgingly supported, because the Government decided that it must be so—a mode of proceeding which has been condemned even by the present Prime Minister. Everyone recollects that at the end of the Session of 1909 he himself agreed to a Committee of the House to decide whether it was not possible to find some better means of helping forward debates without having recourse to these guillotine resolutions. That Committee has been forgotten, but the opinion of the Prime Minister still stands on the journals of the House, and in his opinion this is not a good system of overcoming any opposition which may require limitation of debate. This system has never been put forward as applicable, or in any way appropriate, to Bills which come under the definition of Money Bills under this particular Clause. It might have been said that there was no danger of a Government ever proceeding to such an extremity as to propose a guillotine resolution in connection with ordinary Finance Bills. We might have believed it two years ago. We knew that great Finance Bills have been carried through the House without the use of the Closure, much less the use of the guillotine, but when in our experience within ten months three Budgets have been guillotined, it is time for us, when we are re-writing our Constitution, to take thought as to whether it is not very necessary to introduce a limitation of this character. I most earnestly plead with the Government who have, so far as they have replied on the Amendment, only committed themselves to a negative attitude with regard to the larger question, at all events to consider my much more limited proposal with a favourable eye. I think it is necessary for the protection of the liberty of the House for us no longer to trust to unwritten matters, and it is therefore that I propose the Amendment, which I most earnestly ask my hon. Friend to accept in lieu of the Amendment which stands in his name.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I think I should not be justified in leaving the House in any doubt as to the view the Government take of the modification which the hon. and learned Gentleman has proposed to the Amendment. When I was replying to the hon. Member (Mr. Bridgeman) I dealt with the specific Amendment which he moved, and I pointed out the effect of the Amendment,

  2053
  but I also made the argument more general and took up the general position that we could not allow our procedure in the House to be regulated in relation to any view which may be taken of the procedure in the House of Lords. That is the broad general position, and the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose Amendment I do not deny mitigates some of the objection to the original proposal, will see that that general principle which I have laid down, and which we must adhere to, equally covers the modified form as well as the form in which the Amendment was originally moved.
  Mr. BALFOUR: May I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman? He recognises the spirit in which the Amendment has been moved, and certainly it removes a great deal of the objection which the right hon. Gentleman expressed in his first speech. I would put before him a point of view which I think, judging by what he said, did not really occur to him. His first speech was entirely based upon two hypotheses. The first was that the original Amendment referred only to such matters of national necessity as Budgets, Appropriation Bills, and other Bills dealing with the immediate necessities of the country. Now it is no doubt conceivable, though it has never happened, that the Opposition in this House to a Budget might be carried to such lengths that the public service would suffer. Officials might be unpaid and great inconvenience might ensue to the whole administrative efficiency of the country. This Clause does not deal with Money Bills only in that sense. It goes far beyond Budgets and Appropriation Bills. We do not know precisely what the Government limitation is, but I think the right hon. Gentleman would admit that Sub-section (2) as it now stands includes an enormous number of Bills to which his arguments have no relevance at all. They are not Bills of immediate public necessity. They rank, and ought to rank, as the ordinary legislation of the year, and should be dealt with on the same principle as the ordinary legislation of the year. My second observation is that the right hon. Gentleman apparently is deeply moved in his objection, either to the original plan or to the modification that has been suggested, by the consideration that the House of Lords will be an obstacle to Liberal and Radical legislation, but no safeguard when a Unionist Government is in power. He said that in his speech. The
  2054
  right hon. Gentleman is one of those who say this Clause in its present state is to remain in operation both before and after the House of Lords is reformed. Let us consider, then, the operation of the Clause after the House of Lords is reformed, when that obligation of honour of which we heard so much last night is really carried into effect. Why does the right hon. Gentleman assume that when the House of Lords is turned into a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of an hereditary basis it would always have a majority favourable to Gentlemen on this side of the House and unfavourable to himself? I see no reason to believe in this immutable ascendancy of one party in the State when the right hon. Gentleman has carried out his obligation of honour, and I ask him whether he does not think, when that time comes, and when we are dealing not with Bills of immediate necessity to the administrative means of the country, but with ordinary legislation, it would be right to introduce some such Amendment as this, which would ensure that if one Chamber really is to control, unchecked by the other, the so-called financial legislation of the country at all events that one Chamber shall have an opportunity of hearing the arguments on both sides with regard to the measures which it intends to pass into law.
  Sir Alfred Cripps: I wish to call the attention of the Home Secretary to what he has said, because I do not think he can have understood the constitutional changes which this Clause introduces.
  The CHAIRMAN: Strictly speaking we are supposed to be discussing the Amendment to the Amendment. It might be convenient, and I have no objection if that is the case, to allow it to go on on the original Amendment as well as on the Amendment to the Amendment.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman referred to precedents and to Standing Orders. What the right hon. Gentleman lost sight of was this different factor when a Parliament Bill of this kind operates in the future. Instead of having our powers dependent on Resolutions of this House and on our Standing Orders, they will be determined by statutes, and there is all the difference between the unwritten Constitution that we now have and the written statutory Constitution which will come into operation when the Parliament Bill is passed. I do not think the Home Secretary met

  2055
  that point of my hon. Friend at all. For the first time we are giving statutory sanction to the supremacy of a Single Chamber in matters of finance, and surely at the same time we give that statutory sanction we ought to introduce it with proper restrictions, both from the public point of view and from the point of this House itself, because when you once put the powers of this House under statute, we no longer have the same authority under our Standing Orders as we have in relation to our unwritten Constitution and therefore it is right at the same time that we introduce a statutory change, that we should introduce any necessary restriction with which that statutory change had to be accompanied. It appears to me that when you introduce words of this kind, we shall be giving an increase of power by statute to this House which can be used, not only to the detriment of the public, but to the detriment of the proper privileges and authorities of this House itself, because when we introduce restrictions of this kind, not only would it be possible to have no discussion of a valuable character upon very important financial matters—that is a very important question as regards the public—but this House will be subject wholly and entirely to what I may call Cabinet dictation, and we ought, when we are giving a statutory power of this kind for the first time, to introduce and accompany it by restrictions which will preserve to this House the liberties to which we are justly entitled. What is the objection of the right hon. Gentleman opposite? It is very difficult to follow. Does he mean to say that if we are to be a Single Chamber to discuss matters of this kind, we are not to have the privilege preserved to enable us to discuss these important questions when they are brought forward? Does he mean to say that so far as the rights of this House are concerned, when we are a Single Chamber, they are to be the absolute dictation of the Cabinet supported by a majority at any particular time? It does not matter for the purpose of my argument which party is in power, but when we introduce a restriction of this sort at the same time as we are giving statutory sanction to what our powers may be in the future, we shall not only deprive ourselves of the opportunity of fair public discussion but we shall leave this House at the absolute mercy and dictation of the Cabinet for the time being with out any power to preserve what ought
  2056
  properly to be regarded as our free right and the liberty of discussion.
  I want to point again a question which arose very acutely some years ago, when dealing with matters of private business. So long as you have an unwritten Constitution we can deal with matters of this kind under our Standing Orders, but when you have a written Constitution entirely different considerations arise, and without, at the same time as you develop your written Constitution, you introduce proper safeguards, you leave this House without any safeguard at all. The Home Secretary did not deal with that aspect of the case at all. I want to call attention to that because I think it goes to the very foundation of many of the discussions we are holding at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman referred to what was done in the past. What was done in the past was done under an unwritten Constitution, and when we were governed by our own Resolutions and Standing Orders. The conditions in future will be entirely changed. We shall be acting within the four corners of statutory powers, and these statutory powers ought to be defined, as they are supposed to be given in order to enable the business of finance, for which we are the representative body primarily, to be properly carried out under Debate in this House. Therefore, I strongly urge on the Government that in the extreme constitutional change which is being made between a written and unwritten Constitution they should in bringing forward a written Constitution have regard, not only to those old precedents which have been referred to, but should introduce the Bill in such a form as will both ensure the public interest and preserve the liberties of this House and of the Members of this House against the dictation of any Cabinet whether Liberal or Unionist, at any particular time.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The Home Secretary in his rather trite argument put in the forefront the most extreme case he could imagine. The moving of the Amendment to the Amendment makes it no longer possible for that argument to be advanced. It removes the argument of the Home Secretary that this Amendment, if carried in a modified form, would impede Liberal Governments, but not Unionist Governments. The right hon. Gentleman forgets that there is another possible set of circumstances in which this Bill might reach the Royal Assent and pass into law, and that is the set of circumstances in which the House of Lords would be reinforced by

  2057
  500 indentured legislators. You might have a Unionist Government wielding power in this House and anxious to introduce a Tariff Reform Budget. It would be very easy to cast a Tariff Reform Bill, which must necessarily assume the form of a Money Bill, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should understand that in opposing the Amendment the Government are not merely withdrawing Money Bills from the cognisance of the Second Chamber, but also withdrawing from the influence of debate in this House, and the influence of debate upon people outside, a Tariff Reform Budget moved by a Unionist Government in this House under circumstances in which Liberals might be quite glad to find a Free Trade House of Lords which might be inclined to reject that Budget and give the chance of an appeal to the people.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Home Secretary, in the first place, having taken the line of argument in reply to my hon. Friend who moved the original Amendment that it is impossible to accept it on the ground that it is too wide has found himself driven from that line and compelled to rely on the other portion of the argument which he originally addressed to the Committee, but the very much smaller portion of it, which based the case on what he called the old principle. The right hon. Gentleman is audaciously controversial, but I venture to say that seldom has his audacity carried him further than when ho relied on the old principle in regard to matters of finance. The right hon. Gentleman began by referring to what happened in the case of the Budget of 1894. No doubt the Death Duties Budget was a great and revolutionary Budget. Hon. Members opposite consider it great and revolutionary, but the greater you consider it, and the more revolutionary you consider it, the stronger becomes the case for this Amendment, because the greater and more revolutionary it was the more remarkable it was that it was carried without the application of the Closure at all.
  My point is this: If these things were done in 1894, ever since that year Liberals have been pursuing a sort of "Rake's Progress" in the matter of Closure, and we want some guarantee against the further pursuance of this progress in future. The right hon. Gentleman relied upon the precedent of the 1909 Budget. He pointed with a certain amount of pride to the fact that in the course of Committee on that Budget the guillotine was not used
  2058
  at all. While it is quite true that the guillotine was not used, the right hon. Gentleman forgets that the Government went out of their way to invent a special new instrument of torture for the purpose of getting that Bill through Committee. Still pursuing the historical line of argument, the right hon. Gentleman went on to make mention of the last Budget, and very wisely said that he was not prepared to discuss the Closure of that Budget any further. All I say about it is that the closure which was applied to the Budget of 1910 was only following out the whole line of conduct which has marked the course of the Government during the time they have held office. More and more they have been twisting the screw tighter round the neck of this House. Hon Members know it well. It is all very well for hon. Members to speak of the uncontrolled exercise by this House of its own pleasure. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that, will he the next time he has a guillotine Motion guarantee to take off the Government Whips? He knows very well that he will not. When hon. Members opposite go into the Lobby to vote against this Amendment they will know, at all events, that they are voting for the continuance of a system of things under which the liberties of this House, to which the right hon. Gentleman appeals, are fast becoming in the hands of the Government a mockery and a sham.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The Amendment before the House is directed against a real and substantial danger, not only to the liberties of this House, but to the whole future of democracy which we profess to serve. The real danger to the democracy in future is corruption, and no doubt Governments less virtuous than that which we see before us will be tempted to indulge in gross local jobbery and gigantic bribes to the people. That is the danger which nobody can fail to foresee as possible who has taken the trouble to study the political and financial history of the new countries of the world. It is just that sort of local jobbery and public bribery on a big scale which it is necessary to have the right of free discussion to prevent. The only safeguard against the corruption of democracy is public and free discussion, and it is just that free discussion which the refusal by the Government to accept this Amendment Tenders thoroughly insecure. Nobody can say, after our experience of last week, that a safeguard of this sort is not necessary. I will only point out to the Prime Minister that

  2059
  we never had an answer during the discussion of the Finance Bill as to what was to be the principle of appropriations of local grants in future, and what was to be the nature of the Committee the Government was going to appoint to inquire Into and settle the principles of those grants. In fact, the last Finance Bill is the most striking example we have had of the necessity of some guarantee for free discussion, and it is just in those local appropriations that the danger to the future is going to be, and it is the possibility of having these appropriations forced upon the House of Commons without proper discussion, that we ought to consider now. As to the increasing demands for arbitrary power on the part of the Government, it is not only party organisations which put this forward, but every writer who has any pretence to authority, who has inquired into the working of our Constitutions in recent years, has admitted that the danger to the liberty of the people and to Parliament is the arbitrariness of Government—the increasing insatiable greed of the Government for further powers. What Bagehot pointed out as the danger to the future, Mr. Sydney Lowe has pointed to as the great curse of our present system.
  I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the very serious change which is proposed in the way of handling finance. In a learned book to which the Clerk of this House has written a preface recently published, he says that the forms of our procedure in the past were so elaborate as to guarantee the freedom and the rights of the minority. Now our forms and procedure and Standing Orders are directed against the liberty of the minority, and it is only by guaranteeing our liberty in our financial debates that in the future we can prevent the grave evils of corruption that are threatening us in common with every other democracy. It is quite true that the hon. Member for South Bucks (Sir Alfred Cripps) pointed out that, of course, the Standing Orders of this House have been in a sense a written Constitution, but now you are going to substitute statutory powers. We used to be governed by Standing Orders which could be altered by a vote of the House, but in the future we are to be regulated by statute law. What is passed by statute can only be repealed by statute, and we shall not have the power in future as we have had in the past to deal with our Standing Orders as we have done in countless cases.
  2060
  Even under the revised Constitution it will not be so easy to carry Statutes through Parliament. Therefore, the words of the Amendment are necssary if we are to safeguard the democracy from the greatest danger which threatens it and which is just as much a danger to those who claim to speak especially for the democracy as it is to those who sit here. They want to be I protected against themselves, and yet we are doing our best to throw aside every safeguard and to open a very evil future to this country.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I suppose it is quite hopeless to try to persuade this Government to accept any Amendment of this character. We have had now five years' experience of the Government at present in office, and we have seen them year by year growing more fond of the use of the Closure; so much so that for their own convenience they have invented a new system of torture called the "kangaroo" Closure. I suppose we may regard it as hopeless to impose our wishes on them in view of their past, and in view of the actions they have perpetrated in the past. It is only reasonable that some sort of restriction should be imposed on them, or on any Government that may be in office at any time in future, and that some Amendment such as this ought to be carried by this Committee. I believe that until the Government came into office no important Money Bill has even been forced through this House by means of a Closure Resolution. It is this Government that is responsible for establishing this new principle. Unless an Amendment is included on this Bill it will be possible for any Government to force a Money Bill through this House practically without discussion. There is nothing to stop them forcing it through in a day or two, and it is bound to become law. It is essential that the Committee should look after their own interests and safeguard against any such procedure as that. I appeal to hon. Members opposite below the Gangway. Why do they not speak up? Time after time in years gone by they have spoken in defence of free debate in this House. They were the great upholders of free speech. But now a conspiracy of silence appears to reign on those benches. Are they going to accept these conditions imposed upon them by their Government? Are they not going to say something in favour of free speech in the future? I have often addressed the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy on this subject, and I appeal to him once again. He has always been the

  2061
  advocate of the rights of private Members. Is he going to allow this Government to impose restrictions such as these upon him and his little body of followers; the defenders of the liberties of this House? I appeal to the Government, and I ask them finally to be reasonable. It is their intention by means of this Bill to take away the power that the House of Lords have in regard to Money Bills. They are going to make the House of Lords simply a debating society with regard to Money Bills, so I appeal to them, in view of what is going to happen, at any rate to give this House the power of free and unfettered discussion when any Money Bill comes before us.
  Dr. HILLIER: I sincerely hope that the Government will respond to the very eloquent appeal by the hon. Member who has just sat down. If they should still continue obstinate, if they will neither accept the Amendment nor the amendment to that Amendment, I beg respectfully to suggest to them that they should embody the proposal which stands in my name, and which I am precluded from moving. I invite the Prime Minister's consideration of the alternative which I have proposed to "Debate without restriction"; it is "either without the application of the Closure or after Debate of not less than twelve Parliamentary days in all on the different stages of the Bill." It is a milder Amendment than either of the two preceding ones, and does seem to represent the very minimum in the way of consideration which this House is entitled to ask of the Government in regard to the discussion of Finance Bills. This Clause if passed in its entirety will give to this Chamber more absolute powers over the control of finance than are possessed by any other civilised Single Chamber in the world. Surely under those conditions we are at least entitled to ask that we shall have safeguards and guarantees inserted in the Bill for full, free and fair discussion of any financial measure which is brought forward. What will be the position if this Clause is carried? Even by this Amendment this House will remain supreme in regard to Money Bills. It is true not only that powers will be vested in this House, but actually we know that with the assistance of those terrible engines for the restriction of Debate which are now at the disposal of any Government they will practically be vested in the Cabinet of the day and if all the safeguards to which we have been accustomed with regard to finance and other measures are to be removed
  2062
  we are at least in common justice and all reason entitled to ask that there shall be reserved to us the guarantee of full, fair and free discussion.
  I am aware that in suggesting a limit of twelve Parliamentary days I am suggesting one which is totally inadequate to many Financial Bills in this House, but at least it would be a guarantee of some minimum on which the House could absolutely rely. In speaking of a Parliamentary day I understand it to mean not a portion of an all-night sitting, but such portion of the time as this House may choose to give to the conduct of controversial business during any twenty-four hours which is usually regarded as constituting a day. Unless we have some Amendment of this sort introduced we are without any guarantee on which we can rely that Money Bills will receive anything approaching fair consideration. We have had some experience of closuring Debates on Money Bills, and with that experience in mind is it unreasonable to ask to be afforded some guarantee for freedom of Debate in the future. Is it to be the policy of the Government to accept absolutely no Amendment whatever to the measure on which we are now going into Committee? Are they absolutely so tied hand and foot to hon. Members below the Gangway and in other portions of the House that they have no discretion at all to make any single concession, however reasonable it may be, in regard to this measure? This Bill has been spoken of frequently as a temporary expedient. The character of this Bill is given to it by these two Clauses—the Clause which we are now discussing and that which follows. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Lord Haldane) spoke of the Bill as an instrument or as a stepping-stone. He evidently regarded it as merely a temporary expedient, yet we are assured by hon. Members speaking on this Clause in the last few days that this Clause is to be permanent and to embody a great principle for all time and under all conditions. If that is so it is still more than ever necessary that some vestige of liberty to Members of this House should be embodied in a statute of this tremendous importance. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman to whom I have referred spoke of this Bill as an instrument and as a stepping-stone. He might with equal justice have added a few more descriptive terms and have spoken of it as a makeshift, a thing of shreds and patches, a log-roller's charter.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not speaking now to the Amendment before the Committee.
  Dr. HILLIER: I bow to your ruling. But I was pointing out that the character of this Bill was given to it by these particular Clauses, and I ventured to quote what had been said as a comment on that character by the right hon. Gentleman to whom I have referred. Unless the Government responsible for this Bill are prepared to take into consideration Amendments of so moderate a character as that now under consideration by the House, guaranteeing some minimum of parliamentary time in the discussion of Money Bills, one fate and one fate alone awaits this Bill and all its Clauses, and it is this: it will inevitably be repealed hereafter by an indignant people.
  Sir F. BANBURY: If there was any possibility of influencing by argument the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister I would be in favour of an Amendment by adding "or by any Resolution empowering the Chairman to select Amendments," because I think that what is called the Kangaroo Closure is one of the worst Closures ever introduced into this House. It casts an invidious duty upon the Chairman of the Committee and should be abolished. But I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman would accept such an Amendment, and, therefore, I will not put the House to the trouble of discussing it, but will say a few words upon the general question. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why really he does object to this Amendment in its present form? It would permit of the Closure being moved, should this Bill become law, and therefore the argument that it might not be possible to get a Bill through without the power of Closure falls to the ground. All this Amendment does is to prevent the guillotine being used to excess. The right hon. Gentleman, at the end of 1905 or the beginning of 1906, speaking in Scotland, said that the decline in the control of the House of Commons over financial matters was rendering the House of Commons useless, or words to that effect. We come now to a very much stronger position, when the House of Commons has not got a check over it which it had in those days, namely, the House of Lords, and we ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow us to discuss these financial Resolutions without moving the Closure, the right hon. Gentleman, through the Home Secretary, refuses
  2064
  to accede to our request. The real reason is perfectly clear. The Government contemplate closuring a Money Bill the moment they have got rid of the House of Lords. The moment the House of Lords is got rid of free discussion here will be abolished in exactly the same way as the House of Lords will be abolished, and we are going to have Money Bills, or what were called so in this House, a sort of Finance Bill, brought in and treated in exactly a similar way to what those Bills were treated.
  7.0 P.M.
  It is because the right hon. Gentleman is afraid that if this Amendment is carried it will be impossible, when he gets up, or the Home Secretary gets up, for him to talk in a vague sort of way about the Finance Bill of 1894. I would remind the Home Secretary that the Budget of 1894 was in those days considered to be one of the most revolutionary proposals ever brought forward. In that year we were only a minority of forty, but a very determined minority, conspicuous for ability both on the Front Bench and on the benches behind. Notwithstanding all the ability there was in the House on that occasion, and all the determination which was exhibited in the opposition to that particular Bill, nevertheless it was passed without any very enormous or lengthened Debate. I think that shows that the right hon. Gentleman's alarm as to what would take place if he was in power and we were in Opposition is not really justified. He may rely on the sense of honour and patriotism of the Conservative Opposition, and he may rely also on the fact that, though we fight, we will fight in the proper manner and never use obstructive means to delay or avoid the passing of the finances of the country. I do not know whether anything I have said will influence the right hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite laugh, but I do not know why, unless they suppose that nobody on this side of the House can advance any possible argument which would have that effect. If so, that is an explanation why they do not want any argument, and why they are prepared to support the Prime Minister in his desire to pass everything without discussion either on this side or on that. That is why we are supporting the Amendment of my hon. Friend. There is really no possible harm which can arise to any party in this House if this Amendment is accepted. All it will do is to preserve, not altogether

  2065
  unfettered, the right of free discussion in this House—to give a fair opportunity to this House—not within two days or three days, as has been done last year and this year on the Budget—to bring forward arguments which it thinks apposite, and such as will enlighten the public on the proceedings of this House, because nowadays it is not to hon. Members opposite, but to the public we appeal, and it is for that reason I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  The PRIME MINISTER The PRIME MINISTER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Sir R. FINLAY: I rise for the purpose of calling attention to one of the most ominous features of the proceedings of this House in Committee this evening, one which augurs ill for the future under the system which the Government are apparently determined to establish. We have been engaged in a most important discussion on the Amendment for the purpose of securing that measures shall not be forced through this House without adequate discussion, and under conditions which make any effective discussion at all impossible in another place. The effect of this Clause is intended to render the Second Chamber powerless with regard to what are called Money Bills, and Money Bills are so defined as to include a vast mass of measures of the utmost importance, and which, I venture to say, no man in the street would suppose to be comprehended under that title. What has been the demeanour of the supporters of the Government. They hold very strong views on the subject of the Closure. Often have I heard them speak upon it and express indignation as to the way in which this House was being muzzled. Have they any views upon this subject now? To what is their silence due? It is
  obvious that the power of the Government in controlling Debates will in future be extended not only under the power of applying the guillotine, the selection of Amendments, and the restriction of criticism by the Opposition, but it will be also employed for the purpose of restricting the criticism of their own supporters. In the whole course of this Debate there has not been a single word uttered on the opposite side of the House from the back benches except the shout of "Divide, divide." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough), who now sits on the back benches, on one occasion, I observed, got up as if to speak. He was not successful in catching the Chairman's eye, and he speedily sat down. What took place I do not know, but he has not repeated the experiment, and I do not see him now in the House. I can only infer that he is better employed than in addressing the House, in the opinion of those who control their followers. Surely it is a most extraordinary thing in what used to be a House of Debate, that we should have come to this pass. It is perfectly obvious that orders have been issued to the supporters of the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, it is not true; It is absolutely untrue."]—to hold their tongues in the House and to use their legs in the Lobby.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL Sir HENRY DALZIEL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH (seated and wearing his hat): On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Question can be put when no Member on either side of the House rose to continue the Debate?
  The CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
  The Committee divided; Ayes, 300; Noes, 208.

  Division No. 108.]

  AYES.

  [7.13 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Adamson, William

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Addissn, Dr. Christopher

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Barton, William

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Alden, Percy

  Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney O. (Poplar)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Byles, William Pollard

  Anderson, A. M.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Armitage, Robert

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Boland, John Pius

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Brace, William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Clough, William

  Clynes, John R.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Reddy, Michael

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Crooks, William

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'ri'nd, Cockerm'th)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Crumley, Patrick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Logan, John William

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lundon, Thomas

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Delany, William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Robinson, Sydney

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Doris, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Duffy, William J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rowlands, James

  Edwards, Alien C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  St. Maur, Harold

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leics., Bosworth)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Elverston, Harold

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Esmonde, Dr John (Tipperary, N.)

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeten)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Sheehy, David

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Falconer, James

  Meagher, Michael

  Simon, Sir John Alisebrook

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Ciltheroe)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Menzies, Sir Waiter

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Millar, James Duncan

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Field, William

  Molloy, M.

  Snowden, P.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  France, G. A.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Furness, Stephen

  Mooney, John J.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Morgan, George Hay

  Summers, James Woolley

  Gill, A. H.

  Morrell, Philip

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Ginnell, L.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Sutton, John E.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Muldoon, John

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Munro, Robert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcilffe)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Neilson, Francis

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Toulmin, George

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hackett, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Hancock, J. G

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  O'Dowd, John

  Wardle, George J.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Ogden, Fred

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Harwood, George

  O'Grady, James

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Webb, H.

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  O'Shee, James John

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hinds, John

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Hodge, John

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Wilson, Hon G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Johnson, William

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

  Keating, Matthew

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  2068

  2069

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Forster, Henry William

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nield, Herbert

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Goldman, C. S.

  Orde-Powtett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Baicarres, Lord

  Gordon, John

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Grant, James Augustus

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darilngton)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gretton, John

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Barnston, Harry

  Hambre, Angus Valdemar

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bonn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Hickman, Colonel T. E.

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Boscawen, Suckville T. Griffith-

  Hills, J. W.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

  Royds, Edmund

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwon)

  Bridgeman William Clive

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Horner, A. L.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Butcher, John George

  Houston, Robert Peterson

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Campion, W. R.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carille, Edward Hildred

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cassel, Fellx

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Starkey, John R.

  Cator, John

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cave, George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Swift, Rigby

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Sykes, Alan John

  Chambers, J.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cilve, Percy Archer

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Beetle, Lancs.)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Touche, George Alexander

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lonsdale, John Browniee

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  White, Maj. G. D. (Lanc., Southpert)

  Croft, Henry Page

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dixon, C. H.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripen)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Malcolm, Ian

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Yate, Col., C. E.

  Falle, B. G.

  Moore, William

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Fell, Arthur

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton)

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Fitzroy, Hen. E. A.

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Question, "That the words by the application of any resolution for limiting the time of debate be added to the proposed Amendment" put accordingly, and agreed to.

  Question put, "That the words without restriction of debate by the application of any resolution for limiting the time of debate' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 303.

  Division No. 109.]

  AYES.

  [7.23 p.m.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fleming, Valentine

  Newman, John R. P.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nield, Herbert

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Baird, J. L.

  Goldman, C. S.

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gordon, J.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Parkes, Ebenerer

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Grant, J. A.

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Greene, W. R.

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Gretton, John

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Baring, Captain Hon. G. V.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Pete, Basil Edward

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Barnston, Harry

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hardy, Laurence

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Henderson, Major H, (Berks.)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hickman, Colonel T. E.

  Rice, Hon. W. F.

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hills, J. W.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Royds, Edmund

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hohler, G. F.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Horner, A. L.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Butcher, J. G.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Campion, W. R.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cassel, Felix

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Starkey, John R.

  Cator, John

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Steet-Maitland, A. D.

  Cave, George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Swift, Rigby

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Sykes, Alan John

  Chambers, J.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Clyde, James Avon

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinal

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Touche, George Alexander

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Tuillbardine, Marquess of

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lecker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lowe, Sir F. W, (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Croft, H. P.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Malcolm, Ian

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Moore, William

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Falle, B. G.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Morrison-Bell, Capt, E. F. (Ashburton)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Mr. Pike Pease.

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Mount, William Arther

  Filzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Alden, Percy

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Adamson, William

  Anderson, A. M.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Armitage, R.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bakar, H. T. (Accrington)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  2072

  2073

  Barton, William

  Hardie, J. Keir

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  O'Dowd, John

  Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Harwood, George

  Ogden, Fred

  Bentham, G. J.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Grady, James

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Boland, John Pius

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Malley, William

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Henderson, J. M'D. (Aberdeen, W.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Brace, William

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  O'Shee, James John

  Brigg, Sir John

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hinds, John

  Palmer, Godfrey M.

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hodge, John

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Carr-Gomm, H. W

  Johnson, William

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Clough, William

  Keating, M.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lardnel, James Carrige Rushe

  Reddy, Michael

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crooks, William

  Lawson, Sir W, (Cumb'ri'nd, Cockerm'th)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Logan, John William

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lundon, Thomas

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Delany, William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Robinson, Sydney

  Devlin, Joseph

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Doris, W.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Duffy, William J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rowlands, James

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  St. Maur, Harold

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leics., Bosworth)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Elverslon, H.

  Markham, Arthur Basll

  Schwann, Rt Hon. Sir C. E.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Sheehy, David

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Falconer, J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Millar, James Duncan

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Field, William

  Molloy, M.

  Snowden, P.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  France, G. A.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Furness, Stephen

  Mooney, J. J.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Morgan, George Hay

  Summers, James Woolley

  Gill, A. H.

  Morrell, Philip

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Sutton, John E.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Muldoon, John

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Munro, Robert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Murray, Capf. Hon. Arthur C.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Neilson, Francis

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Toulmin, George

  Hackett, John

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hancock, J. G.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  2074

  2075

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wardle, George J.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Winfrey, Richard

  Waring, Walter

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Wiles, Thomas

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Wason, Jahn Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Waton, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Webb, H.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, West)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Viscount CASTLEREAGHmoved, in Sub-section (1), after the words "passed by the House of Commons," to insert the words "by a majority of not less than two-thirds."
  In moving this Amendment, I feel in a rather hopeless condition, because we have seen that the Government are prepared to take up an absolutely uncompromising attitude with regard to this Bill, and have apparently issued orders to their followers, and compelled themselves to adopt an absolutely negative attitude in regard to any Amendment put forward on this side of the House. I propose this Amendment on the ground, which I think will be generally admitted, that it is a dangerous principle to allow a financial measure of great importance to be passed in this House possibly by a majority of 1. Hon. Members opposite are, so to speak, legislating for the moment. They are legislating as if they were convinced that they would sit on that side of the House for all time. But it is absolutely certain that in a few years they will occupy the benches on this side, and they will then realise that in agreeing to the proposition embodied in this Clause they have done great injury to the House of Commons, of which they profess to be desirous of maintaining the dignity. If this Amendment is not accepted it is possible that a great financial measure, involving serious and important consequences may be passed by a majority of so small a character that it cannot be said to have obtained such overpowering support as would entitle the Government of the day to carry it into effect. I do not wish to speak controversially, but when it is realised that the Government of the day may be a Coalition, and when we have seen an extension of the logrolling system, with bribes held out for the purpose of controlling the support and sympathy of the various sections which make up the coalition, this Amendment will be seen to be a more important one than it might appear at first sight. The attitude of the Nationalist party with regard to the Finance Bill of 1909 is within the memory of all. On one occasion the Nationalist Members voted against that Bill, and
  2076
  although they were bitterly opposed to the principles contained in that measure, still, for reasons which I am precluded from going into on this occasion, it suited them at a later stage to support the Government in passing it into law. If in future a financial measure of great importance can be passed by a very small majority possibly made up of Members who themselves are hostile and represent people who are hostile to that measure, it will reduce the proceedings of this House to an absolute farce. After such a measure has been carried through this House there will be no further opportunity for discusssion. The Prime Minister has laid great stress on the academic discussion which is to be permitted in another place during the period of one month; but that does not affect the issue at all. There will be no opportunity for Amendments to be made in another place and reconsidered in this House. I have suggested a two-thirds majority, but I am perfectly willing to give way on the question of number. What I want is that the Committee should insist on a substantial majority being obtained before an important financial measure involving serious consequences can be passed into law. There is a precedent for this proposal in the Standing Order with regard to the Closure. It is there stated:—
  "If when a Division has been taken it appears by the numbers declared by the Chair, that not loss than 100 Members voted in the majority in support of the motion. …"
  It has, therefore, been accepted that on so important a matter as the Closure at least one hundred Members should vote in the majority. I bring that forward in support of my contention that a substantial majority should be obtained before any financial measure is passed into law. The Amendment is one of substance, which I appeal to the Prime Minister to consider. I ask him to regard it as an uncontroversial Amendment, and to do what he can to support the contention which I have put forward.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: On a point of Order, may I submit that, verbally, the Amendment does not make sense? The Noble Lord proposes to insert the words "by a

  2077
  majority of not leas than two-thirds." Two-thirds of what? I assume that the Noble Lord means either two-thirds of the House of Commons or two-thirds of those voting. I submit that it should be two-thirds of something.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is rather a question of merit than a question of Order. If I had had to do with the selection of the Amendment to be proposed, I should have suggested that that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. James Hope)—to insert the words "either without opposition on the Third Reading, or by a majority of not lesss than three to two of those voting"—was a better one to discuss.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: May I enlighten the hon. Member? There is a minority, as well as a majority, in this House, and if I remind him of the statement that minorities must suffer he will understand what I mean when I refer in my Amendment to the majority.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that the last remark of the Noble Lord was either courteous or very much to the point. My hon. Friend was perfectly entitled to point out the defect to which he has referred. The Amendment as it stands, if it is capable of any, is capable of three interpretations. It may mean simply two-thirds, which we may dismiss as being beyond the region of speculative possibility, or two-thirds of the whole House, or two-thirds of those taking part in the actual Division. I do not know which of these alternatives the Noble Lord desires. Let me offer one or two observations on general grounds upon his proposal as to the desirability that there should be a specified majority—he called it at one moment a "substantial," and at another time a "specified" majority. The word "substantial" is capable of various interpretations. Let me say, first of all, that the Noble Lord is totally wrong in saying that the Government are not prepared to accept suggestions which are reasonable from any quarter of the House which are consistent with the general scope of this or any other measure. We will very gladly welcome any improvement in the phraseology of the Bill, or in other ways so long as they are consistent with its main principles. The reason I am going to object to this Amendment is because it is not consistent with the object of the Bill, nor does it seem in any way justified by reason. The contention is that particular financial proposals should be carried by a majority of two
  2078
  thirds; for the moment I will assume that that is two-thirds of the total Members of this House. That is a majority of two to one. In other words, no Government shall be able to take advantage of the provisions of this Clause unless it can secure on Money Bills a majority of two to one. That Amendment would deprive the Clause of effective meaning. What Parliament is there since 1832—with possible doubtful exception of the Parliament of 1906—in which any Government—I do not care from which side of the House it is drawn or from which party—could count upon a majority of two to one? I do not know of any. Even in the Parliament of 1906, where the proportions of parties were abnormal, so far as I remember the figures, I do not think it would have been possible for the Government of that day to have satisfied entirely the condition proposed, unless it had voting with it not only the Members of the Liberal party—its own followers—but also the Irish and the Labour parties; and this although the Liberal party were in a preponderance above all the other parties in the House combined. Therefore, I say, from a practical point of view, this is an Amendment which would deprive the Clause of meaning.
  The Noble Lord says he is not wedded to a particular figure, but we must deal with proposals as they are made. It is not for us to amend his Amendment. The Amendment that is before the Committee is the Amendment that has been put down. It would make the Clause wholly ineffective. There is no precedent for it in our legislation. The only pretence at precedent which the Noble Lord has cited is the Closure rule. The Closure rule does not say that the Closure shall be carried by a certain majority. All it says is that the Closure shall not be carried in an unduly thin House. The Closure is an exception which is not a real exception at all, and I am not aware of any provision in our legislation which denies or qualifies a decision of this House when it has been passed by a majority of this House. It is a totally new principle which the Noble Lord seeks to introduce. Let me further point out, in addition to other objections, that the provision proposed is one which would operate most unfairly as between the two big parties. If the Noble Lord is right, what would be the practical operation of his proposed provision? Whenever his party was in power they would not be bound by this necessity of having a two-thirds majority, because they would know perfectly well that their financial proposals would receive

  2079
  sanction elsewhere. Therefore, it would be no safeguard whatever, and would have no application to Conservative finance. It would only be when the Liberal party was in power that they would be hampered by the necessity of requiring this artificial majority before they could in the domain of finance overcome the House of Lords.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: In order to meet the objection of the Prime Minister I desire to amend the Amendment so as to make it run that the majority of the House of Commons shall not be less than 350 Members of this House on the Third Reading of the Bill. The Prime Minister's speech divides itself into two arguments. The first argument was directed to a verbal criticism of the Amendment, and the second argument was that any figure would be unfair to his party. That is a very good argument for reform of the Second Chamber. It has no meaning to this Bill as this Bill is framed. The Government have deliberately elected to take the House of Lords as they found it, and now the Lord Advocate has adopted that alternative with positive enthusiasm. He has explained to an audience that the House of Lords is an ideal Second Chamber; that there never was a better Second Chamber in the world; and that the very last thing he wants to do is to alter its character. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks so highly of the House of Lords, if he thinks it cannot be improved upon, then it is unreasonable to object to its having an opportunity to decide a great question. If, on the other hand, you think it is habitually unfair, as the Prime Minister evidently indicates, then the proper course to follow is to reform the House of Lords, to have a better Second Chamber, and then you will get over that difficulty. But the worst way of solving the problem is to allow a bare majority of one to carry financial proposals of a most important character. The right hon. Gentleman said again that this Clause is only restoring the well-recognised practice of Parliament. How untrue that is is shown by this very Amendment and speech. Does he really suppose that if the Budget of 1909 had been carried by a majority of one on the Third Reading that anyone would have blamed the House of Lords for rejecting it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Would the Noble Lord inform the House by what majority the Budget of 1894 was carried?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The answer to that is that the Budget of 1894 was carried by a majority of fourteen, and not by a majority of one, and it was a much less controversial Budget than the Budget of 1909. But on neither point is the right hon. Gentleman's remark an answer to my observation. The question is whether if a Budget so controversial as the Budget of 1909 had been passed by a majority of one, anyone would have dreamed of objecting to the action of the House of Lords which would have been told that it was only doing its duty in rejecting such a Budget. That is a very good illustration of how untrue it is to say that these rarely used powers are no use or no value. There is always the extreme case like that of a very small majority, when they become important and valuable. Now you are going to abolish that safeguard altogether you must put in sonic alternative, and you must secure that a Bill should be passed by a reasonable majority of this House. I submit that 350 Members supporting a Bill would be a sufficient adhesion of this House to a proposal of that kind. Within the apparatus of this Clause you can deal with almost anything. You might have a proposal to raise the Income Tax to 5s. in the £. Is it really suggested that a majority of one or two would be sufficient to justify a proposal of that kind? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members below the Gangway think it would. That shows how necessary it is to introduce a statutory safeguard. I am quite sure that a majority of this House as at present constituted would not pass such a proposal, would not consider that it would be reasonable to carry an Income Tax of 5s. in the £ by a bare majority of one or two. The Government must introduce safeguards to take the place of the safeguard they are destroying. At present we will be left absolutely face to face with the despotism of a bare majority without any safeguard whatever. Taxation may be made an instrument of tyranny and often has been so made. To say that a bare majority of a certain partisan assembly is to have this jurisdiction is to set up the apparatus of tyranny in our Constitution. How can anyone doubt that it might be used most unreasonably and unfairly by a party majority in this House? Of course hon. Members opposite below the Gangway no doubt disclaim such a suggestion. No doubt they think they are always right, and that they are always going to be in a majority, and that therefore there is no danger of what I say. On the con-

  2081
  trary, our position is that they are very often wrong, and that there might be worse majorities than now. Therefore, it is necessary to have a statutory safeguard.
  The CHAIRMAN: As I understand the Noble Lord desires to amend this Amendment by leaving out "two-thirds," and inserting, "350 Members of this House on the Third Reading of the Bill." If it is the general wish of the Committee that we should amend this Amendment, I shall put it. It will make the Amendment read as follows, "by a majority of not less than 350 Members of the House of Commons on the Third Reading of the Bill."
  Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: This Amendment really raises a question of principle whether or not we are to pass these Money Bills by bare majorities or by substantial ones, and there are a number of subsequent Amendments on the Paper which propose other means for carrying out this object. I think there are more reasons than the Prime Minister seems to think for suggesting that something should be done in this direction to ensure the effective working of such a proposal as is contained in the Clause. The Prime Minister based his objection to a very great extent on the fact that the Noble Lord who proposed the Amendment had no precedent to rely upon. After all, I think we have got rather beyond precedents in the whole question of this Bill. This Clause proposes that the House of Commons proposes in financial matters should take upon itself the whole responsibility for passing Money Bills into law. That is the position which is wholly novel in this country. And we have also to consider the fact that the definition of a Money Bill, as proposed in this Bill, is a very wide one and includes a great number of matters which had not heretofore been generally regarded as coming under that title. Finally, we have the fact that the Government has refused anything in the way of a definition as to the use that it is to be made in future of the Closure. When these reasons are taken into account a very good case has undoubtedly been made for securing that these Bills which are not to come before the other House for sanction, should be passed by a substantial and not a mere nominal majority.
  Let it be borne in mind that the question of substantial majorities would have
  2082
  no effect if this House was constituted in anything like the shape it has taken in the last five years. The majority on all Bills has been substantial in recent times, but this Amendment would have the effect when this House was constituted by very nearly equal divisions of parties of providing a very necessary safeguard. It is the doctrine of hon. Members opposite that Members of this House represent the will of the people, and, therefore, if the number of the two great parties are nearly equal it means that the will of the people is equally divided. If that is so, it is fair that it should be in the power of one-half of the Members of this House on a measure on which the people are about equally divided that forthwith without any safeguard, to pass it into law.
  The case of the Budget of 1894 has been quoted as an illustration of where a measure was carried by fourteen votes. But it should be borne in mind that the Radical party lost power the next year. There is one more argument why a substantial majority should be substituted for a nominal one, and it is this. That in a great number of organisations—trade union organisations, for instance—when dealing with matters of importance there is an arrangement by which decisions can only be come to by substantial majorities. That is found to be necessary, I presume, by (hose who frame the rules of these organisations, and if in such cases a substantial majority has been found necessary it can hardly be denied that in this House, and on subjects of such vital importance as decisions of financial questions affecting the whole interests of the Empire, and when such decisions are to be come to by one House and by one House only, a good case has been made out why it should be only done by substantial majorities and not by a bare majority of one.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: The speeches made in connection with this matter remove, I apprehend, at all events, some of the objections of the Prime Minister. I do not suppose for one moment, after the speech he has made just now, that anything would induce him to accept anything containing the principle of this Amendment to the Clause now before us. I heard one remarkable statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and it is in order to call attention to that that I have risen at this moment, because it is the second occasion during the evening that such a statement, or one of a similar character fell from another Minister sitting beside the Prime

  2083
  Minister. Earlier in the evening, when speaking on another Amendment, a right hon. Gentleman opposite said its effect if it was carried could only affect the Liberal party. Because, he said, if the Opposition were in power they would always get a majority in another place. Now the Prime Minister comes forward and says, "Let us examine this proposal for a moment. The way in which it is going to work is this," says the right hon. Gentleman, "if the party opposite had only a majority of one it would be quite sufficient, because their friendly majority in the other House will pass their Bills without any difficulty whatever." Yes, but that assumes that the constitution of the House of Lords is to remain as it is now. Both right hon. Gentlemen opposite have let the cat out of the bag. They seem to have entirely forgotten the Preamble of their own Bill. It was only last night we heard a great deal about the obligations of honour which, under no circumstances whatever, were to be departed from. But see how quickly they are obliterated from the minds of those two distinguished Ministers. It is perfectly clear now they at least contemplate no alteration of the constitution of the House of Lords and no reform, and that they have no intention whatever of giving effect to the Preamble of their own Bill.
  Captain JESSEL: I was very glad to hear the Prime Minister say he was not going to give an uncompromising resistance to any Amendment of this Bill put forward by hon. Members on this side of the House. I venture to say, however. Judging of the course of the two days' Debate we have had upon this Bill, the Prime Minister and those associated with him in the conduct of this Bill have not given the House much evidence of their wish to assent to any Amendment moved from this side. In to-day's Debate we raised the question with regard to the closure, and we pointed out that the House of Commons, which is the only House to decide financial Bills, would be supreme unless some proviso of this kind is accepted. But the Prime Minister refused any concession in this regard at all. We are driven, therefore, to move for some further safeguards in the interest not only of this House, but of those outside the House which we represent. The Noble Lord the Member for Maidstone (Viscount Castlereagh) in putting his Amendment upon the Paper did not wish to bind himself
  2084
  too strictly to a two-thirds majority, and he readily undertook to give way when the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford (Lord Hugh Cecil) moved to modify it, which showed that he really only wanted some substantial majority so as to ensure that great measures of finance should not be forced through by a majority of one.
  The Prime Minister reminded the Committee that the Finance Act of 1894 was passed by a majority of fourteen. That no doubt was a small majority, and the measure was a very important one. But the circumstances under this Bill would be entirely changed. There would only be practically one Chamber to discuss finance, and it would be the first time the country would be working under a written Constitution. I appeal to the Prime Minister as the representative of the ancient Solon, and not as the champion of the modern Constitution mongers, to at least safeguard matters like this, especially as regards Finance Bills, by accepting some such Amendment as that indicated by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mason) has alluded to the well-known practice of other bodies, such as trade unions, of requiring large majorities on important matters. No doubt if that is wrong some hon. Members opposite on the Labour benches will correct it. I am one of those who think that finance is the most important matter with which this House has got to deal, and if that is the case it ought not to be laid down that by a majority of even one vote some great revolutionary change could be carried out. The Prime Minister will be the first Prime Minister who is the author of a written Constitution, and if we are not to have adequate safeguards he might at least take some steps to prevent a great and important measure being passed by a bare majority of one. He might even have some regard to what is done in municipal institutions.
  Upon municipal bodies it may be said that by the introduction of aldermen there is set up a species of the House of Lords upon democratic assemblies like county councils or town councils. Even upon those bodies no great fundamental change is made without a substantial majority, and if it is wished to reverse anything which has already boon passed, it cannot be done without a two-thirds majority of those present. In view of those circumstances is it too much to ask the Government upon matters of finance to allow this House to have a similar safeguard? I doubt if the Noble Lord the Member for

  2085
  Oxford University, really attaches very much importance to the actual number being 350. That does not mean a majority of 350, and all the Noble Lord wishes to secure on the third reading of a Bill is that there should be 350 Members voting for it. The total number of Members of this House—counting Mr. Speaker, who does not vote on these matters—is 670. I do not think it is too great a proportion to ask that 350 Members should be called upon to vote for the third reading of a Bill. I can assure the Prime Minister that we raise this Amendment in all seriousness. The situation which will be brought about if this power is taken away from the Upper House will be very dangerous, because it has always been in the power of the Second Chamber to throw out a Budget, and under this Bill there is to be no such power. It is now proposed to allow this House an absolute uncontrolled power over finance without any substantial majority voting in favour of the Finance Bill.
  Mr. PETO: I support this Amendment with greater confidence than I should have supported the original Amendment of the hon. Member for Maidstone. As I had a similar Amendment standing in my name I should like to say what I meant by suggesting a two-thirds majority. I meant two-thirds of the Members voting: I think that is an obvious and natural interpretation to put upon my proposal. Nothing so extravagant as two-thirds of the Members elected to this House was ever contemplated. I think that was obvious to nine out of every ten hon. Members who read the words of this Amendment. In the Amendment before the House we have a most important principle. If the Finance Bill is supported on the third reading by 350 Members of this House it is perfectly obvious that it must have a clear majority of the elected Members of this House. That, I think, is absolutely essential if the Government desire to ensure any measure of confidence whatever in their financial proposals—and more particularly in the financial proposals of this Parliament Bill—on the part of people outside who have any stake in the country, or any interest great or small in the retail or wholesale or manufacturing trades. Take the Bill as it stands without Amendment. There is nothing in it to ensure that a financial proposal, no matter what nature it may be, shall have more than a majority of one solitary Member. In the Bill as it stands there is nothing to ensure that
  2086
  there shall be a clear majority in favour of any financial proposal. It is quite easy to conceive a case where the Government might be in a small nominal majority and on account of the weakness of their position might be placed in the power of one group or other, who might form the coalition majority of the Government.
  I appeal to the Government to consider seriously the principle of this Amendment even if they will not accept the actual words. Many appeals have been made to right hon. Gentlemen opposite in the course of the Debates we have had upon the Parliament Bill. Appeals have been made to them to consider the real interests of the country before they press forward with this revolutionary and unconstitutional proposal. We know that all those appeals have fallen up to the present upon absolutely deaf ears. The Government do not consider the interests of the country or the Constitution, or anything but the interests of the Radical party. I will not waste time by making another appeal upon the same lines, but I appeal to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite not to save the country but to save the Liberal party. If they leave the Liberal party in the position in which these proposals unamended leave them they will be entirely in the hands of groups who are not of them, but who may support for the moment the policy of the Liberal Government. If there is to be a clear majority of the Members voting, and if the Government have only got a majority which just about represents that, they can secure themselves from pressure from below the Gangway to incorporate in their financial measures utterly extravagant proposals which they do not believe themselves are in the true interests of the country as a whole. If they had the Amendment which is now before the House incorporated in their Bill they could point out that if they were to gain the thirty votes of some extreme section—either the teetotal section, the 20s. in the £ taxing Gentlemen, or anybody else holding strong views on finance—it would be no use incorporating those extreme views in their Budget because they would lose the support of more of their solid Liberal and Radical supporters than they would gain by the support of a small section who believed in these extreme proposals. The Amendment we have now before us is undoubtedly one which would tend towards solid and orthodox legislation in financial matters, and it would be a safeguard against proposals which we do not believe

  2087
  in on this side of the House, and which right hon. Gentlemen opposite are no more in love with than we are. We want to do for the Government what is generally called saving them from their friends, and it often happens that a party stands in greater danger from this cause because hon. Members appear in the guise of friends only when it suits their special interests. I do not blame them for that. I very much admire the way in which hon. Members below the Gangway have engineered their power and made the very utmost of it, but I think it is in the interest of the country as a whole that the Government should accept this Amendment, because it gives some sense of stabliity in matters of finance if we are to have Single-Chamber Government in that most essential department.
  Mr. BARNES: I rise mainly because the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Captain Jessel) and the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason) professed to have found some justification for this proposal in the practice and rules of trades unions. Speaking with same experience of trades unions, having been a member of one for thirty years, and having been chief secretary of the largest one in this country, I know of no justification whatever for this proposal in the rules or practice of trades unions. The trades unions of this country are ruled in the democratic way by majorities. If a majority votes in favour of any particular proposition, then the will of the majority is carried out in all normal business. There are, so far as I know, two exceptions—a two-thirds majority of the Members remaining must vote for the dissolution of any society or trade union. There is a good reason for that. If that was not protected in some way it would be possible for the remaining members of a trade union, very much shrunk in numbers, by a snatch vote to take to themselves the money subscribed by all the members, and the trade unions very rightly protect themselves against that by requiring a two-thirds majority. They also require a two-thirds majority in the event of one trade union desiring to amalgamate with another trade union. I want to remind hon. Gentlemen, however, that that exception has been found to be unworkable, because we cannot get a two-thirds majority for any purpose under the sun. At this very moment a Bill has been promoted by the Labour party, and is now in print and in the hands of Members of this House, in
  2088
  the name of the hon. Member for East Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) to abolish that rule.
  In some cases trades unions, including the engineers, require a substantial majority—I do not think there are any so large as two-thirds—before any rule is altered which involves breaking faith with its members. Trades unions, in the course of a year, take in tens of thousands of members, and promise to pay them, say, 10s. a week in the event of being sick. Many Unons require that a certain substantial majority must vote before the rule can be altered and before the Members of one generation can break faith with Members who joined in the preceding generation. I think hon. Members will admit there is justification for that exception, but is there the slightest justification for citing the experience or practice of trades unions in favour of this Amendment? I venture to say there is absolutely none. Is this a question of making any alteration? We are dealing, as has been said, with the financial powers of the House of Commons. It has been said that the House of Commons for many generations has had exclusive power over finance, and we therefore seek to make no difference by this Clause. Why, therefore, drag in the trade union practice in regard to things which are quite exceptional in their nature in justification of a proposal which would really throttle the House of Commons and prevent it carrying out its legitimate functions? The Noble Lord, the Member for Oxford (Lord Hugh Cecil) has put forward an Amendment to the Amendment, and he said it ought to make it more acceptable and more intelligible, but, according to the last speaker (Mr. Peto), the Amendment to the Amendment involves no alteration at all. He told us that the original intention was not that there should be a two-thirds majority of the whole House. I suppose a two-thirds majority of the whole House would seldom be obtained for any financial proposal.
  Mr. PETO: I said so.
  Mr. BARNES: Therefore that is ruled out, and the hon. Gentleman says the intention was not two-thirds of the whole House, but two-thirds of those voting. What is the difference between that and this proposal?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The original question of a two-thirds majority has been disposed of, and we must only discuss the Amendment, as amended.
  Mr. BARNES: Then I will put it that this proposal is a ridiculous one, because 350 Members are required to vote for any financial proposal before the House of Commons is to be allowed to get on with its business.
  Captain JESSEL: On the Third Reading.
  Mr. BARNES: That docs not make any difference. Before the House of Commons can even pass a financial measure it has got to have 360 votes for it at its final stage.
  Captain JESSEL: May I ask you, Sir, to read the Amendment to make it quite clear?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. I presume hon. Members make themselves acquainted with the Amendment.
  Mr. BARNES: I presume I am quite right. If my figures are wrong, of course, I am all wrong; but, as I understand the proposal of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford, before the House of Commons can pass a Finance Bill 350 Members have to vote in favour of it. We seldom get 525 Members. I do not know that we have had 525 this Session. We have not had so many at any rate for some weeks, and if we do not get 525 we shall not get 350 voting for any proposal. The Amendment is really tantamount to the original Proposition. It is no modification at all. It is seldom you can get 350 to vote for any proposition, and this Proposition, therefore, is tantamount to reducing the House of Commons' proceedings to a farce; to say that the immemorial right of the House of Commons to manage its own business is to be denied to it and that the House of Lords shall take that duty on. I can only characterise this Amendment as an attempt to induce the House of Commons to substitute the despotism of a minority for that of a majority. I am having none of that.
  Sir R. FINLAY: The hon. Member who last spoke has referred in some detail to the proposed figures and I think his criticism on that ground is a little exaggerated. We are not engaged in discussing the precise size of the majority. We are engaged in discussing the question whether there should be some security that the majority shall be a substantial one and not a mere chance majority of one vote. As a matter of fact the voting might be equal and the matter have to be decided
  2090
  by the casting vote of Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has also referred to the practice of Trades Unions, but I think the ultimate result of his argument was to show that questions could only be decided when they were of an exceptional nature by a substantial majority. In one instance, which he cited, and it was of a startling nature, he pointed out that a certain majority was required before the Union could break faith with its members. I should have thought that no majority of any kind should have been able to carry a motion of that kind. But the whole point is that on matters of special importance it is required, as a safeguard, that there shall be a substantial majority. That is the point to which this Amendment is directed. Here we are dealing with a Clause which brings within its net all sorts of measures, labelling them as Money Bills, and proposals of a most sweeping character may be carried by a chance majority of one vote, or by the casting vote of the Speaker, and would receive the Royal Assent without any check elsewhere. If there ever was a case for such a safeguard being introduced is not this the very case?
  There was one other observation made by the hon. Member in his most interesting speech with which I should like to deal. He referred to the past relations between the House of Commons and the House of Lords with regard to Money Bills, and he said, "Do you want anything of this kind, because of what has happened in the past?" Yes. The practice of an assembly when it is subject to the possibility of check elsewhere is one thing. The practice of that assembly in a position when it is subject to no such check may be very different indeed. As to the existing constitutional right of the House of Lords there is absolutely no doubt. It was held in reserve to be used only on extraordinary occasions, and, during the fifty years which elapsed after Mr. Gladstone introduced the alteration in the way in which the Budget was set up, so as to combine all in the one financial measure of the year, the occasion never arose for the exercise of the powers which the House of Lords undoubtedly possessed until the Budget of 1909. But the power was there. Now it is proposed that this House is to be emancipated from all control with regard to Money Bills defined in the very extensive terms contained in the Clause under discussion. I would respectfully appeal to the hon. Member for the Black-friars division of Glasgow to reconsider the conclusion which he has formed in his

  2091
  own mind. Surely that is a trade union argument for this Amendment, and the fact that the House of Commons in the past has behaved in a way to which he has referred, with very rare exceptions, affords no security whatever as to what would be the state of things in the future when the House of Commons is emancipated from all control.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us we are not discussing the terms of the Amendment as amended by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, but that we are discussing a different Amendment, which is not before the Committee at all, and in which we are invited to consider as to whether there is to be a substantial majority. Much depends on what is meant by the words "a substantial majority." We have had one indication from the Noble Lord which was that the majority must consist of not less than 350 Members supporting the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Sir R. FINLAY: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman indicate any figure which the Government is prepared to accept?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am prepared to consider any figure the right hon. Gentleman may introduce as an Amendment, but now I can only deal with the Amendment before the Committee. I am quite sure the ingenuity of my right hon. Friend is equal to devising another scheme to lay before the Committee. I am not surprised he does not wish to support this particular Amendment. Let hon. Members consider for a moment what it means. In the 1906 Parliament, when the Liberal party had an abnormal majority in this House, they carried their Bills by majorities consisting of 335 for the Plural Voting Bill (the actual majority was something like 200), of 350 for the Licensing Bill, of 379 for the Finance Bill of 1909–10, and of 369 for the Education Bill, 1906, so that in an abnormal House we had on the Third Reading of all these measures a majority which would have been barely sufficient to carry them through if this test had been applied. Nobody could expect to see such majorities except in abnormal times. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University spoke of the Finance Act having been passed by a majority of fourteen, but that Act was described as one of the most revolutionary ever introduced into the House
  2092
  of Commons. It made a new departure, and it was only carried by the support of the Nationalist Members of this House; yet the Marquess of Salisbury told the House of Lords that it was their duty to pass it, because it was necessary for the Government of the day, so long as it had a majority, to be able to carry its Finance Bills, otherwise it would paralyse its operations. I notice one other matter, and one only, to which I think I need refer. I wonder if it has occurred to the Noble Lord who made this proposal that it would be extremely difficult in a House where you have even an abnormal majority to get for the minor Money Bills which would have to be introduced and passed through this House anything like the majority mentioned. It would be practically impossible, and therefore, if this Amendment was passed by this Committee the result would be really that we should destroy all the provisions of Clause 1 of this Bill which are introduced in order to give effect to what we believe to be the principle which has been already established and for which we have contended for some time, that the House of Commons is supreme in finance and the House of Lords has no power in regard to it. I am not going to be drawn into a discussion with my legal friends as to the legal aspects of the matter, because I am ready to concede to them that there was in the House of Lords a legal and technical right to throw out the Bill, but that is an entirely different thing to saying that the House of Lords has a constitutional right. We have fought that battle before, and I do not think anything is gained by fighting it over again, but I do ask the Committee to resist this Amendment, which would have the effect of destroying all the proposals that we are putting forward in Clause 1 of this Bill.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I am sure the Members on this side of the House are very much indebted to the Attorney-General for telling us that he will be ready to consider an Amendment which may be specifically moved in which the numbers may be different from those proposed by the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford. I am glad to think that he will have the opportunity of making good his words upon an Amendment which stands three or four lower down on the Paper, because I see that the hon. Member for Windsor has one in which he suggests that certain measures should be carried by a majority of not less than 100. We

  2093
  shall be very interested to see what the Attorney-General will say when the number is 100 instead of that which is under discussion. But what, after all the Committee are considering is whether or not some safeguard should not be put in in order to see that a Money Bill should have a sufficient force behind it to justify its being passed over the heads of the House of Lords, without any possibility of Amendment, and without any responsibility being thrown upon another place.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In dealing with one Amendment, I must point out that the hon. and learned Member must not rely upon another Amendment dealing with the same point.
  Mr. POLLOCK: Of course, I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I was just replying to the Attorney-General, because I know at some particular time it will be possible for him to make good his offer. I pass from that, because I want to deal with the observations made by the Prime Minister, The Prime Minister tells us that the reason why he does not accept Amendments to this Clause is that it is declaratory only, and he has endeavoured in the Section to declare what the law always has been for a very considerable number of years. I desire to call the attention of the Committee to what was incidentally mentioned by my right, hon. Friend who spoke from this side of the House, that the practice or the system under which Finance Bills have been passed has by no means been so consistently limited to the House of Commons and the House of Commons only as the Prime Minister suggests. Up to 1860 each tax was the subject of a separate Bill, and each tax had to be separately passed, and the consequence was not only was there a separate responsibility for each tax, but also there was a safeguard for each tax in respect of its being separately submitted to the House. That was a safeguard, but there is no safeguard at the present time, and the Prime Minister tells us he is merely repeating the practice in regard to Money Bills. We ask him what the practice was before 1860, and it is to be observed that Lord Morley, in his "Life of Gladstone," in discussing the question of what happened in 1860, tells us that:—
  "The abiding feature of constitutional interest in the Budget of 1861, was the inclusion of the various financial proposals in a single Bill, so that the Lords must either accept the whole of them or try the impossible performance of rejecting the whole of them. …Until now (1861), the practice had been to make the different taxes the subject of as many different Bills. …By including all the taxes in a
  2094
  single Finance Bill, the power of the Lords to override the other House was effectually arrested."
  That is an admission that up to that time the power of the Lords had not been arrested, and that the greater power was only arrested in 1860. The Prime Minister says, however, he has only declared what was the system of the Constitution.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must protest against the development of the discussion into one upon the constitutional question. The question is the majority by which the Bill is to be carried.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I bow to your ruling at once, Sir; but the reason why the Prime Minister, when you were not in the Chair, told us that he declined to accept this Amendment was that the Clause merely declared what was the system of the Constitution in respect to the Money Bill. It was on that ground that he based his refusal to accept the Amendment, and I was discussing it.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will allow it is impossible to reopen that discussion on every one of the Amendments to this Clause. We really must deal with one thing at a time.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I bow to your ruling, Sir. I was only pointing out the need of a safeguard, and I was showing whether or not there is one in this declaratory Clause. I am quite sure I am in order in saying that, because I am using only a paraphrase of the Prime Minister's words that there is a declaration, and no more than a declaration, of what has been the practice so far, but we are pointing out the necessity of a safeguard. Before 1860 there was a safeguard, and until 1909 there was the safeguard which was exercised by the House of Lords; but when this Clause lays down what the Constitution is there is no sort of safeguard at all, and there is, therefore, a necessity that we should have some number put into this Clause as a minimum by which the Bill should be passed. There is a need of some safeguard of this sort, otherwise we are starting on a new venture and declaring a new system whereby a Money Bill shall be passed by this House without any of the safeguards which existed before. It is on the ground that we desire to put in some safeguard that we support the principle of this Amendment.
  Mr. GARDNER: The hon. Member (Mr. Barnes) entirely misapprehended the point of the Amendment, and I am not at all certain that the Attorney-General did not

  2095
  follow his example, for he said if it were passed the Government of the day would be unable to get their small Finance Bills. The whole of the Bill from beginning to end appears to me to deal with abnormal circumstances and it is to abnormal circumstances that this Amendment is supposed to apply. There is nothing in it which makes it necessary for any Bill, finance or other, to have a two-thirds or 350 majority. It only provides for this majority in case of acute difference of opinion between the two Houses, and surely in that case a majority of thirty in a House of 670 is not too large to ask for to force the Bill over the heads of the Second Chamber. To suggest that the Second Chamber is going to reject every small Finance Bill that the Government brings forward is to suggest that they are a body of idiots, and in that case the sooner the Government reforms them the better. But that is exactly what they will not do. Looking to the fact that the Amendment only applies in these conditions, surely it is necessary. It only asks that if there is this acute difference where a Finance Bill has provisions altogether outside the region of finance there should be a substantial majority. The Attorney-General showed that in some past and bygone Parliament only 350 Members turned up when the Government had a majority of perhaps more. If on the Third Reading of a Bill to which the Government attaches so much importance they cannot get 350 Members in a House of 670 on one occasion to force a Bill that they want to pass through the other House it is obvious that they do not possess the confidence of the House, and the sooner their existence is put an end to the better.
  Mr. CASSEL: I only intervene to raise a short point with regard to the speech of the Attorney-General. We have to deal with the Clause as it stands un-amended. The Government may possibly accept some Amendments in Sub-section (2). If they state now that they will accept Amendments which would really limit this Clause to purely financial matters there might be some force in what the Attorney-General said. But so long as this Clause stands as it is there is a danger of Bills which are not purely financial in character being carried without their being any kind of control by a Second Chamber. We have already had several instances put. May I put this instance? Do the Government propose to
  2096
  bring in a Home Rule Bill as a Finance Bill? If I may suggest that to Irish Members as rather a good plan for trying to get Home Rule through quickly.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman had better defer that until Sub-section (2).
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. CASSEL: If the Government tell me now that they are ready to accept Amendments to Sub-section (2) I quite agree, but I am bound now to discuss the Clause on the assumption that Sub-section (2) remains as it is. If I am to discuss it on that assumption I am pointing out that a Home Rule Bill should be carried without the House of Lords having the opportunity even to reject it three times. It would become law at once without their assent being in any way required. And when there is a danger of a measure of such importance as that going through without any assent of the Second Chamber at all we want some kind of safeguard to ensure that at the least there is an adequate majority in this House before it goes up to the Second Chamber. I have myself attempted to draft a Home Rule Bill as a Finance Bill which was on the lines of establishing an Irish financial council, to which only had to be entrusted powers of remission, imposition, repeal, alteration, and regulation of taxation.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman must reserve that till a later stage.
  Mr. CASSEL: If I knew how to raise the point after we had passed Sub-section (1) I should endeavour to do it in that way, but my difficulty is that when once you have passed Sub-section (1), and then when Sub-section (2) comes the Government refused to accept Amendments to that Clause my opportunity of discussing it will be gone. This is the only occasion on which I can raise the point. I think I have perhaps sufficiently indicated it. There is a danger, unless some such Amendment as this is adopted, something to ensure that something more than a bare majority is necessary, we run the risk of the greatest possible constitutional changes being carried in a sparsely-attended House by a majority of one, and without the possibility even of having the assent of the Second Chamber even once, quite apart from the question of having it three times, to give some opportunity for subsequent discussion in the country. Under these circumstances I most strongly

  2097
  urge upon the House to adopt this very necessary safeguard.
  Mr. SANDERSON: It is very apparent, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Gardner) says, that the hon. Member (Mr. Barnes) entirely misinterpreted the object of the Amendment. We have had an instance given by the Attorney-General just now of the most important Finance Bill of 1894, which was only passed by fourteen votes, and yet it was accepted by the House of Lords because they recognised that it was necessary for the finances of the country, although the Attorney-General reminded us that at that time it was described as a very revolutionary method. Therefore, under the present system, we get Finance Bills adopted by the House of Lords even when they are passed by a small majority of this House, and even when they include proposals of a revolutionary character. The Amendment is only intended to provide for an exceptional occasion, and surely upon such an occasion it is only right to provide that there should be a substantial majority consisting of something like 350 Members, and in that case it may be right to disregard the decision of the House of Lords and ask the King to give his Royal Assent to the Bill. Unless that exceptional occasion arises matters will go on as at present, the Finance Bill will go through the House and be presented to the House of Lords and will pass in the ordinary course of events. The object of the promoters of the Clause is to ensure that the will of the democracy as regards financial questions should prevail, and that the will of the democracy as represented in this House should prevail. I would ask the Committee to consider whether this House does register at the present moment the opinions of the democracy. I submit that this Amendment is necessary in order that the opinions of the democracy should be adequately represented and registered in this House. I read the other day an extract from a letter which was written by one of the most prominent of the hon. Members who sit below the Gangway on the other side on this very question. I should like to quote it, for he seemed to express the point I wish to put before the Committee very concisely and forcibly. He said:—
  "The will of the people as represented by the House of Commons is a patent delusion. Under the system of Party Government, the will of the people is the will of the Cabinet. Nine-tenths of the measures passed by the House of Commons would not be passed in the form in which they are passed, if the House of Commons had free and unfettered power to express its will, The British Cabinet is a despotism. …"
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see that the letter which the hon. and learned Gentleman is quoting is relevant to the Amendment now before the Committee.
  Mr. SANDERSON: If you say so I will not finish the sentence I was reading. I was using the argument to show that inasmuch as the Cabinet may be able to obtain a bare majority on any measure in this House, even such a majority as fourteen, then according to this Section as it stands at present if the Bill under discussion were a Finance Bill, and the House of Lords did not accept it, it would obtain the Royal Assent. My point is that, even although there is a majority in this House in favour of a Bill, it may be a majority which does not adequately represent the will of the people. If you will allow me to finish the sentence I was reading, I will do so.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think you should read what I have already described as irrelevant.
  Mr. SANDERSON: In that case I bow to your ruling. My point is this. You may get a majority which, according to the opinion of the hon. Gentleman I have just quoted, does not really represent the will of the people. If you are going to override the powers of the other House in regard to any particular Bill you ought to take measures to ensure that the majority of this House which does override the opinions of the other House should be a substantial majority, such as the one proposed in this Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: A very important question arises on this Amendment, not so much as to whether or not a Bill will represent the will of the people, but whether it will represent the will of the House of Commons unless the Amendment is passed. We very often find snatch Divisions in the House of Commons. Over and over again it has been done. There is not a single Member of the House of Commons who has been here for more than three years who will contradict me when I say that over and over again a snatch Division which has been designedly taken upon a question has not really represented the will of the people or the will of the House of Commons. If we are going to put this House in the position of having supreme control over the finances of the nation, at any rate we ought to see that the will of this House is effectually expressed.

  2099
  Unless something of this sort is done, I am perfectly certain the will of this House will not be properly expressed. I am not alone in holding this opinion. There are plenty of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who hold that view. One of them unfortunately has been elevated to another place, which we are soon going to abolish. The Noble Lord said in November, 1909, that he could imagine a state of things where a Second Chamber might be resisting the wildest proposals of a demented House of Commons. These remarks were made, not by a reactionary Tory——
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The extent of the dementia does not depend on the size of the majority.
  Sir F. BANBURY: There might be occasions on which, owing to certain circumstances, a large number of people who are mad might come down and take advantage of the absence of a minority in order to force their will. I think, with the utmost respect, that that is an apposite illustration, and one that is likely to occur. That was the opinion of one of the Leaders of hon. Gentlemen opposite less than two years ago. Is that not to have any weight? Are hon. Members going to sit with folded
  arms and do nothing more than accept the will of the Cabinet above them. That does not promise a happy state of things when the Cabinet will be master of all it surveys. On 11th April, 1910, the Prime Minister said:—
  "You might have a case, a conceivable case, of what is called a scratch majority."
  We have got that now.
  "combined together under the coercion of Party exigencies."
  I think we have got that now.
  "for a particular and transient purpose."
  That is what we are going to have unless this Amendment is passed. I believe in short speeches on certain occasions. I have been able to demonstrate in four or five minutes what I venture to say nobody can contradict. I hope the Postmaster-General, whom I see present, will impart to the Prime Minister that it would be advisable to accept the Amendment.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL The POSTMASTER-GENERAL rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 155.

  Division No. 110.]

  AYES.

  [9.16 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Clough, William

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Clynes, John R.

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Adamson, William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Alden, Percy

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Cowan, W. H.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Armitage, Robert

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hackett, John

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Crooks, William

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Baker, Joseph Alien (Finsbury, E.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hancock, John George

  Barnes, George N.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Delany, William

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Barton, William

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Devlin, Joseph

  Harwood, George

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Benn, W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Doris, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Duffy, William J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hayward, Evan

  Black, Arthur W.

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Boland, John Pius

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hodge, John

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Brace, William

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brigg, Sir John

  Elverston, Harold

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Bryce, John Annan

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Johnson, William

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Burns, Rt. Hon John

  Falconer, James

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones, W. s. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Field, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Keating, Matthew

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Dowd, John

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Ogden, Fred

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  O'Grady, James

  Sheehy, David

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clithero)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'ri'nd, Cockerm'th)

  O'Malley, William

  Snowden, Philip

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Logan, John William

  O'Shee, James John

  Summers, James Woolley

  Lundon, Thomas

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Sutherland, John E.

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Sutton, John E.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcilffe)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Tennanl, Harold John

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  M Callum, John M.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Therne, William (West Ham)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Toulmin, George

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Pointer, Joseph

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Marks, George Croydon

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Mason David M. (Coventry)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wardle, George J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Webb, H.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Molloy, Michael

  Reddy, Michael

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  While, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Mooney, John J.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Whyte, A. F.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Muldoon, John

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Munro, Robert

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mld)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Robinson, Sydney

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Neilson, Francis

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Russell

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Rowlands, James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Guiland.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Clyde, James Avon

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

  Barnston, Harry

  Gripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Croft, Henry Page

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Kehty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Bird, Alfred

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Fell, Arthur

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Law, Andrew Bunar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Campion, W. R.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Carlile, Edward Mildred

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Macmaster, Donald

  Cassel, Felix

  Gordon, John

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Cator, John

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gretton, John

  Moore, William

  Cave, George

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Newman, John R. P.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hambre, Angus Valdemar

  Nield, Herbert

  2102

  2103

  Norton-Griffiths. J. (Wednesbury)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Valentia, Viscount

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mld)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Scott, Leslio (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  White, Maj. G. D. (Lanc., Southport)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Stanier, Beville

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel

  Steel-Maltland, A. D.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Swift, Rigby

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Balcarres and Mr. Sanders.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Sykes, Alan John

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Question put, "That the words, as amended, be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 260.

  Division No. 111.]

  AYES.

  [9.25 p.m.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fell, Arthur

  Nield, Herbert

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Forster, Henry William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baring, Captain Hon. G. V.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Barnston, H.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Gordon, J.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Greene, W. R.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gretton, John

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bird, A.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Rice, Hon. W. F.

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hardy, Laurence

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Boyton, J.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool. W. Derby)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hills, John Waller

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Campion, W. R.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Cassel Felix

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Stanier, Beville

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cator, John

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cave, George

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Swift, Rigby

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Clipps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Macmaster, Donald

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Croft, H. P.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Moore, William

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Mount, William Arther

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord Balcarres and Mr. Sanders.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Newdegate, F. A.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Alden, Percy

  Adamson, William

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Armitage, R.

  Harwood, George

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Phillipps, John (Longford, S.)

  Barnes, George N.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Barton, William

  Hodge, John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Priestly, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Primrose Hon. Neil James

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Plack, Arthur W.

  Johnson, W.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Boland, John Pius

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Reddy, Michael

  Brace, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Joyce, Michael

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Brunner, J. F. L

  Keating, M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Kellaway, Frertrick George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Robinson, Sydney

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid., Cockerm'th)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Clough, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rowlands, James

  Clynes, John R.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  St. Maur, Harold

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Logan, John William

  Samuel, Right Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, T.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Cowan, William Henry

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Sheehy, David

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Crooks, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Snowden, Philip

  Dalzlel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  McCallum, John M.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Dawes, J. A.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Delany, William

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Summers, James Woolley

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Marks, George Croydon

  Sutherland, John E.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Sutton, John E.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Doris, W.

  Meagher, Michael

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duffy, William J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Molloy, Michael

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Toulmin, George

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Elverston, H.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Muldoon, John

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Munro, R.

  Wardle, George J.

  Falconer, J.

  Needham, Christopher, T.

  Waring, Walter

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nellson, Francis

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nolan, Joseph

  Watt, Henry A.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Webb, H.

  Field, William

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Flavin, Michael J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Gill, A. H.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Wiles, Thomas

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Ogden, Fred

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Grelg, Colonel J. W.

  O'Grady, James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Malley, William

  Winfrey, Richard

  Hackett, J.

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Hancock, John George

  O'Shee, James John

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Palmer, Godfrey M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), is not in order. The Committee has already decided against deferring the operation of the Clause, and the subject matter of the Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: On a point of Order. May I ask whether, if I put in the words, "by Act of this Parliament," that would bring the Amendment within the Bill? An Act of Redistribution might be passed in this present Parliament.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That objection would apply equally, as it is quite outside the scope of this Bill.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, after the word "Commons" ["passed by the House of Commons"], to insert the words, "voting by ballot on the Third Reading." This Amendment is one of very great importance, and it is that in the case of Bills which are sent up to the Crown without going to the House of Lords it would be necessary that the Third Reading in this House should be carried by ballot. I regard this as an absolutely essential point for the reason that we are setting up, as regards finance, absolute Single-Chamber Government. Of that there can be no doubt. Hon. Members below the Gangway cheer the sentiment because they want to see Single-Chamber Government as regards finance. If we do that we are setting up a system which is unlike any other system in the whole world. [An HON. MEMBER: "What does that matter?"] I do not suppose it does particularly matter to the hon. Member. So long as he gets what he wants he does not care what will happen to the Constitution. There is no other country in the world, either our own Colonies or foreign countries, which have got a Second Chamber which has got no control over finance at all. That being so, and having regard to the fact that there is no Second Chamber to check the question of finance, I say it is all important we should ascertain what is the real opinion of the Members of the First Chamber. We can only do that by taking a vote on the Third Reading by ballot.
  It is absolutely notorious that Members very often do not vote according to their views. I know hundreds of occasions in which Members voted in this House in divisions on questions and they did not "even know what they were voting about.
  2108
  Besides that, it is absolutely the fact that because the voting is open and because the party system prevails and party discipline is so strong that Members frequently vote according to their party, although they do not approve of the manner in which they are voting. I remember very well in the year 1893, on the Home Rule Bill, I had a friend on the other side of the House who told me candidly he would not have voted for the Home Rule Bill except for the fact that his party had proposed it and he felt quite confident that the House of Lords would throw it out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] I could name several, but I am not going to give hon. Members away. I am going to afford them the protection of the ballot. Hon. Members opposite who are so keen on the ballot in the country invariably tell us at every election, and placard every hoarding, that the ballot is secret, and just as they are so keen for protecting electors in the country against unfair influences, so they ought to be protected in the House of Commons. If any hon. Member thinks this is unnecessary let me quote to him what was said in the House of Lords only last week by a Noble Lord who was a very well known Radical of this House. I mean Lord Weardale, who was known as Mr. Philip Stanhope. This is what he said showing the necessity of keeping free of the party system. After speaking as to the number of pledges a candidate had to give before he could get into this House, he said——
  Mr. KING: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in quoting from a Debate in the other place?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As the hon. and gallant Member knows, there is an ancient rule of this House that we do not quote Debates of the other House.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: So I understand I am not allowed to quote words reported in every public newspaper and used by Lord Weardale in another place.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is a well-known rule of the House.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: My hon. Friend is not referring to the House of Lords. He is referring to another place.
  Mr. PEEL: Is it not the fact that the hon. Member for Kingston and the Prime Minister both yesterday quoted from a statement made by Lord Lansdowne in

  2109
  another place as to the action of the House of Lords, and that they were not called to order or prevented from speaking by the Chairman?
  Mr. KING: The point was not raised.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I would like to ask whether you are aware that the other day, in the Debate on foreign affairs, the same question arose on a point of Order, Mr. Speaker in the chair, and that he gave this ruling that this ancient rule had fallen into desuetude of late. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]—and that the circumstances of the present day were such that it was impossible to avoid making such allusions.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was in the House when that ruling was given. I understood it perfectly clearly that it is not possible in the case of announcements of policy by Ministers and matters of that kind to avoid quoting statements of policy made in the other House. But what the hon. Member was proposing to do was quite a different thing, namely, to quote merely a part of a speech in a Debate that took place in the other House.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I bow to your ruling, but at the same time I think it is very characteristic of hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they know the most damaging statements have been made by Lord Weardale in the other place, to shield themselves behind that ruling. It does not in the least matter that I cannot quote the actual words. The substance was that when Members got here they were tied and bound by party discipline, that many Members had part of their election expenses paid by the central organisation, and that the Whips said to them "If you do not take care and vote with the party we will remember it when the next election comes round." There is also the question of preferment and honours. There are peerages, baronetcies, and knighthoods to be given, and there is frantic competition at present to be among the "five hundred." Unless Members vote with their party they are marked men. That was the substance of what Lord Weardale said, and hon. Members know that it is absolutely true. I say, therefore, if we are to have Single-Chamber Government let it obtain the real opinion of the Single Chamber by getting rid of all this unfair pressure which is put upon Members by the discipline of the party system. If I am not allowed to quote what was said in another place I can at any rate quote something written by a prominent
  2110
  Member of the Labour party in this House. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), writing in the "Christian Commonwealth" in August last, pointed out with absolute truth the disability under which Members labour at present. He said:—
  "The will of the people as represented by the House of Commons is a patent delusion. Under the system of Party Government, the will of the people is the will of the Cabinet. Nine-tenths of the measures passed by the House of Commons would not be passed in the form in which they are passed if the House of Commons had free and unfettered power to express its will. The British Cabinet is a despotism wielding greater power than any crowned autocrat, and exercising authority in the name of democracy under the nominal sanction of a popularly elected House of Commons."
  The point of that quotation is that the House of Commons has not free and unfettered power to express its will. What I say is that we ought to give the House that power by enacting that in all cases where a Bill is to become law without the check of a Second Chamber the Third Heading shall be passed not by open voting but by means of the ballot. I cannot understand how hon. Members opposite can resist the proposal. Are they not the champions of the ballot? Are they not always telling us that the ballot is secret? Do they not suggest that we intimidate the people in the country? They are intimidated a great deal more in the House of Commons. If the people in the country want protection against their wicked landlords, so hon. Members opposite want protection against their wicked Whips. It may be said that the ballot is inapplicable to a Legislative Assembly. It is true that it has never been applied in this House, but it is not true that it has never been used in a Legislative Assembly. I find that the Scottish Parliament in 1662 carried their measures in their Assembly by the ballot, and we have always been informed that Scotland was one of the best-governed countries in the world.
  Mr. WATT: They never had a House of Lords.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am informed that that statement is inaccurate. If it were true it would be an argument for adopting here the same system—namely, coupling the absence of the House of Lords with the ballot in the House of Commons. In France, from 1840 to 1845, the ballot was the method by which questions were decided in the Chamber of Deputies, and it is still the law in certain special cases. This Amendment will test the sincerity of the Government. If they really mean to obtain the will of the people they will take

  2111
  steps to secure that they really obtain the will of the representatives of the people. I believe that that can only be done by the proposal I am making, and it is with confidence that I move this Amendment.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: On a point of Order. I think it is customary in this House when an Amendment is proposed to see that all necessary consequential Amendments are on the Paper. The hon. Member has spoken about the ballot, but he has given no indication as to how the ballot should be taken or of the machinery that would be necessary. I have obtained the complete list of Amendments, but I can see no subsequent proposals on the subject.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that in a case like this it is necessary to put the complete scheme on the Paper. Everybody understands what voting by ballot means.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): In the course of the prolonged Debates which usually attend the passage of an important Bill to which the Opposition of the day is much opposed some strange Amendments usually find their way on to the Order Paper. But I think that within the experience of any of us a more remarkable or more unreasonable Amendment than this has never been known. It assumes that a Financial Bill, presumably of importance, which has passed its Second Reading when the voting is open and the names of Members who vote upon it are known, will be rejected on Third Reading under a system of secret ballot. In other words, that a number of hon. Members, having voted in the face of their Constituents for the Second Reading, will turn round with no public expression of their change of views and repudiate their own votes when they are under the protection of a secret ballot. I have no hesitation in saying it is a most gross reflection upon the honour of Members of this House, and I am sure that the speech with which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley moved this Amendment will be much resented by Members of this House. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman imagine the constituencies will not inquire into these circumstances? Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that constituencies keenly interested in the fate of a Bill that they find has been passed on the Second Reading and rejected on the Third
  2112
  Reading will not inquire from their representatives which way they had voted in the ballot? [HON. MEMBERS: "The ballot is secret."] Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman hold the view that Members of this House are entitled to conceal from their constituents how they have voted, and refuse to reply to inquiries as to the vote they have cast as representatives? It is true that the hon. and gallant Member can quote many ancient precedents in support of the concealment of the votes of Members of this House; for there was a time in earlier centuries when this House concealed with jealous secrecy the action of its Members, and punished, sometimes by severe penalties, any who presumed to publish the vote of those Members. But that was for the purpose—to use an old phrase—of "protecting the patriots from the displeasure of the Court." When the House of Commons was reformed, and the danger of that displeasure had passed away, four years after the great Reform Bill was passed, this House ordered that every vote of every Member should be printed and should be published freely on the following day. The hon. and gallant Gentleman desires to go back to a practice deliberately abandoned nearly seventy years ago. He proposes that this House nowadays should withdraw from constituencies all knowledge of the manner in which their Members vote on the final stages of important Bills. I sincerely trust that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will carry this Amendment to a Division in order that the House and the country may fully understand that among the new constitutional devices of the Unionist party is concealment of the votes of Members of Parliament.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I have listened with interest to the speech of the Postmaster-General, and I think it furnishes really a very good argument in favour of the Amendment. Let me first point out that this Amendment follows the sequence of the arguments from the two previous Amendments. We are face to face with a proposal to make the House of Commons supreme in finance. That is to say, no other power whatever is given of checking the House of Commons. We first asked that that power should be exercised under conditions of free debate, and next we asked that the matter should be decided by a substantial majority. In both of these cases the Committee decided against us. Now we ask that a question shall be decided independently and without fear of

  2113
  external pressure. Hon. Members of this House are so familiar with how the House of Commons votes that they perhaps do not realise how entirely unknown that method of voting is to the world outside. During the Wrexham election I was very much struck wherever I went with the fact that when I described the ordinary process of a Division in the House of Commons it was a cause of amazement. Meetings at which I spoke were always profoundly impressed with the defects of the system that now prevails. What is that system? Let me put it into words in order that hon. Members may see how much it is open to criticism. The Debate is commonly conducted in the House much less well-filled than it might be if all those Members who are in attendance about the building were in attendance at the Chamber. When a Division is called Members troop in. The other day, Sir, you had your attention called to the difficulty that they trooped in in such a mass that they could not get into the Lobby within the prescribed time. They come in at the door of the Lobby and they find the party Whips ranged in line. The Member asks the Whip or the Whip volunteers a statement as to how the Member is to vote.
  10.0 P.M.
  What is the relation of the Whip to the Member? The Whip is a person who is at once the judge and the informant to the leaders of the party as to the loyalty of the members of his party. Largely in accordance with the Whip's judgment the disposal of honours and offices depends. Absolutely in accordance with the Whip's judgment depends also whether the expenses of a Member are or are not paid out of the party funds at the next election. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] These are plain truths. Finally the Whip—I am not saying that hon. Members on either side——
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: The Noble Lord is accusing every Member on this side of getting his expenses paid. That is a libel.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Many Members of Parliament have their election expenses paid. It is not part of ray argument that one party is worse than another. I am not blaming one party more than another. But the Whips control their expenses. Finally the Whips stir up all sorts of trouble in the constituencies. To give an illustration of what I mean. I remember that, in 1893, a question arose in the House of Commons in which many of us were voting against our party. We were met
  2114
  by a member of the then Government who said: "You will all lose your seats." What would be said if a voter, on going to the poll, was met by his landlord, who told him that if he voted in a certain way he would lose his cottage? It would be intimidation. It would certainly invalidate the election if agency could be proved. Therefore that attitude in the House of Commons, when applied to Members of Parliament would certainly be called "undue influence" if applied to voters at an election.
  This is a matter of very great importance. I do not think that Members who live in the midst of this system realise how strange it is to those who are not familiar with it—how strange, and even how scandalous. Recently there has been published a very striking book by Mr. Belloc and Mr. Chesterton, entitled "The Party System." There are grave exaggerations in that book. There are also very great truths in it. But there is a particular part in which is described how the Whips influence members of a party, and, so far as I am able to judge, it is substantially true. Hon. Members really must try for a moment to think of how this Constitution they are setting up is going to work. They are going to give supreme power to the House of Commons. I say of the House of Commons as it is now constituted, that if you take together all these different points—how it decides by a bare majority, how it deliberates under the guillotine, how it votes influenced by the Whips, Members constantly not knowing what the question is as they go into the Lobby—take, I say, these points together, and I do not believe there is any human being who has not got his mind into a party groove who would not say that it is insane for an assembly so constituted to work in such away. Let us speak the truth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] Yes, if hon. Members opposite think I am inaccurate let them point out the inaccuracy. I am not conscious of having said a word more than is strictly accurate. I wish I could persuade the Press, who in these matters has immense influence, to speak the exact truth about the House of Commons, and to describe exactly to the public how it works—how Members do not listen to the Debates, but how, on the orders of the Whips, with all their great influence behind them, they Vote as they are told to vote. This House is not a deliberative Assembly. If you judge it by these things you must probably say in large measures it is a corrupt

  2115
  Assembly, for it is largely influenced by indirect motives and not by direct motives. Members vote because they are afraid of losing their seats. Because their prospects may be injured.
  Mr. STEPHEN COLLINS: On a point of Order, Mr. Emmott, is it in order for the Noble Lord to call this Assembly a corrupt Assembly.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord would not be in order in attributing financial corruption to individul Members. The Noble Lord is not doing that.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It is the last thing I desire to do to make any imputation upon any individual Member. I do not want in the least to discuss this matter as between party and party. I wish to reiterate, I am not saying a word against hon. Members opposite that does not apply to hon. Members on this side as well. I am saying nothing against individual Members. What I am concerned about is the whole Assembly, which is in the future to exercise supreme power. Do hon. Members really think, and does the country outside really think that an Assembly which is so influenced and controlled by the party whips and by the party system is fit for the gigantic powers which are to be entrusted to it under this Bill. If by a miracle we could get the Electorate into the House for a few nights they would understand the position as it is. If they could see the House of Commons as it is, with all its levity and party feeling and disposition, with all its indirect motives, with its total indifference to argument and reason, they would not dream of making it the single supreme authority in the State. I do not think we realise what the danger is. The Postmaster-General said with perfect truth in his very interesting observations and contribution to the Debate, that in old times the proceedings of this House were secret. They were secret up to the beginning of the nineteenth century. The reason for that secrecy, as the right hon. Gentleman most truly said, was that the House of Commons desired to be protected, partly against the bribery and partly against the intimidation of the court. And let me say that upon certain things the House had recourse to an inner wall of secrecy. When matters of very great difficulty were to be decided they appointed a Secret Committee by ballot. For example, the Committee
  2116
  that was appointed to inquire into the conduct of Sir Robert Walpole was so appointed. It is not, therefore, a new thing to apply the ballot to proceedings of this House. The reason was, of course, to secure absolute secrecy to those who voted and to protect them against influence that might be used against them.
  I say that the interval between 1832 and a few years back was a time in which there were many courses working for independence that do not now operate. A great many Members were returned for boroughs over which they and their friends had great influence. A great many Members were also returned for county constituencies, and were elected upon a franchise more restricted than the present, and over which they exercised great personal influence, so that they were not at all over-pressed by their constituents. That gave a large nucleus of independent Members in the House of Commons, and it gave a tone of independence to the House now altogether lost. I was not in the House, indeed I was a child, but I recollect very well what was said about Mr. Gladstone's Parliament of 1880 and 1885. It was a matter of common observation that a large number of Members of the Liberal party would vote against their party on particular occasions. There was a large independent body in that majority and they fulfilled a very important place in the politics of the time. Now Members vote absolutely with their party—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]—and if they dissent from their party at all, if they are driven to dissent from their party, they find it easy to dissent by being rather more extreme. If they are more extreme they have behind them the stalwarts. If they are more modern and inclined to the party opposite they have against them the stalwarts and the strong party feeling. We want to revive, against the new danger, the old safeguards used in the eighteenth century against intimidation by the Court; we want to provide against intimidation by the caucus. I am quite sure if hon. Members would see these things as they are most hon. Members would agree with me that there is grave danger in the power of the party system reducing the House to a position which will make it a danger and not a service to the public.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is travelling much too wide of the Amendment. He is treating the position too generally.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I will confine what I have to say strictly to the finance question before us. The Postmaster-General said that where a Second Reading of a Finance Bill was carried by a majority, on the Third Reading it might be negatived by, perhaps, the vote of Members who voted differently on the Second Reading. The Government have rejected previous Amendments which propose to deal with the question of a majority of a few votes. Theoretically it might be one vote. You have only to suppose one man influenced to give his vote for the Second Reading because of the Whip's throat, or because he was afraid his Constituency or the caucus in his Constituency would not return him again. You have only to suppose one man in that position to make this Amendment a necessary and desirable change. Having regard to the grave dangers which threaten the position of the House, having regard to the force and the influence brought to bear on Members to vote according to the party system, it is very desirable in these financial matters in which the House of Commons is to be absolutely supreme to secure by means of a secret vote that we should have a free and independent vote.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Noble Lord has a very bad opinion of the institutions of his country. He is not only in favour of reforming the House of Lords, but he shows us, in speech after speech, in Amendment after Amendment, on subject after subject, that he would like to accompany and precede that operation by abolishing the existing House of Commons. The Noble Lord has the worst possible opinion of His Majesty's Ministers, and he has frequently expressed that view in terms which have secured the utmost enthusiasm in the Opposition part of this Assembly. His opinion of this Assembly is quite on a par with his opinion of His Majesty's Government, but his bad opinion of this Assembly is limited to the time when there is a Liberal Government in power. It is only the Liberals who are corrupt; it is only when a Liberal Government is in power that voting by ballot must be instituted. I remember the Noble Lord in years gone by, when the Conservative party was in power, never thought it was necessary to introduce this provision of voting by ballot. Does this not illustrate a characteristic in the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to the discussion of this question? We are asking for political equity under the Constitution.
  2118
  Every speech of the Noble Lord shows that he regards the forces which we represent in the country as unworthy of political equality, and that when there is a Liberal majority in the Division Lobby it is corrupt, and is bullied by the Whips. That is a gross libel upon hon. Members of this House. The Noble Lord says hon. Members are coerced under the threat that their election expenses would not be paid if they vote according to their own consciences.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I did not say anything against your party which I do not say against my own. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If I have said anything unparliamentary I will withdraw it, but, after all, there ought to be freedom of debate. Let those hon. Gentlemen opposite who applaud those sentiments set the example. I never complain of hard words across the floor of the House, but I claim to be allowed to match them with arguments equal to the attack which has been made. I think it is to the general advantage that these things should proceed on both sides with composure. I say that the view of the Noble Lord and those who support him is that voting by ballot will be necessary after the House of Lords have been deprived of the right of rejecting Budgets in order to make sure that Liberal Members do not vote contrary to their convictions. It never was thought to be necessary in the long years when we had Single-Chamber Government under the Tory party, when we had Single-Chamber Government under the party opposite, to propose voting by ballot. If it had been many important things might have been decided under the ballot. One of my earliest recollections on coming to this House was that an Amendment to the Address was moved from the Conservative Benches complaining of the undue proportion of offices in the Government allotted to Members of the Noble Lord's family. Nobody got up then and suggested that there should be voting by ballot.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: How did you vote?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I protest against the Noble Lord's view that our institutions are rotten and corrupt. I think it is an insult to hon. Members of this House that it should be assumed that they cannot rise superior to the pressures, the ordinary working pressures of our Parliamentary system. I think it has been shown over

  2119
  and over again on both sides of the House that individual Members have stood up against Governments, that groups have done the same, and have not hesitated to voice effectively their views, and defeat the ordinary Parliamentary pressures which are at work.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman, as I pointed out to the Noble Lord in regard to his speech, that he is treating the matter in a much too wide and general way.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If I have strayed, I have erred in consequence of the speech of the Noble Lord, and I do not propose to follow in his steps any further. This question of a vote by ballot is a very important change in our Parliamentary proceeding. It is really a fundamental change, because it does away, from another point of view, with the representative character of the House of Commons, We remain in a central position, whether it is against the Vote by Ballot or whether it is against the Referendum. Both derogate from the representative character of the Member of Parliament and the work he should do. We consider a Member of Parliament should act responsibly in the full light of day under the scrutiny of his constituents. We believe that in the great majority of cases, and overwhelmingly so far as the House of Commons as a whole is concerned, Members of Parliament undoubtedly face the difficulties with which they are confronted, withstand them, and rise superior to them, and that not merely the will of the country but the knowledge of the House of Commons is imprinted upon our legislation and proceedings. It would be a very important change to leave a system which has been in vogue for so many years, and go to a system of vote by ballot—a very important change indeed—but there is nothing to prevent the House of Commons in the future from amending its proceedings, if it chooses to do so. If, after the Veto Bill has passed through, the House of Commons is inclined to think vote by ballot would be an improvement, there is no reason why they should not occupy the discussions of a Session in deciding that important point. Of course, once the Veto of the House of Lords is removed, a great barrier and an impediment to legislative effect being given to any decision we may come to on this or any other subject will have been effectively removed. I only rose to make my
  2120
  protest against the air of superiority assumed by the Noble Lord opposite. That air of superiority only arises from superior advantages under the Constitution. When those superior advantages have been removed, we shall meet him on equal and even terms.
  Major WHITE: I was not much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was interrupted in the middle of his speech, because he certainly raised questions wide of the Amendment, and none wider than when he imputed to my Noble Friend the intention of attributing to Members on the other side of the House corruption as compared with Members in other parts of the House. He distinctly disclaimed that on several occasions. Is there anyone on that side of the House, whether be is on the Front Bench or not, who conscientiously believes in his heart that every Division in this House shows exactly what each individual Member thinks? Members opposite have jeered when we have mentioned the autocracy of the Cabinet and the despotism of the party Whips. I should like to quote the opinion of a very distinguished Liberal on the question of the system of the party Whips. This is what Mr. Whiteley said:—
  "Any Chief whip worth his salt has no political conscience whatever, nor does ho hold Ute political conscience of his party in his hands. … He is a very valuable piece of party mechanism. He does what he is told. When he is instructed to go he goeth; when he is instructed to come he cometh. and when he is told he must whip for any self-evident proposition such as that black is white, he does so with the same alacrity as if he believed it."'
  The author of those words was the Chief Liberal Whip, and is one of the numerous Members of the party who, no doubt from motives of patriotism, have accepted a peerage. I cannot see why the Government should have any objection to accepting this Amendment. It refers not to one party, but to both parties in this House, and to all questions in the future affecting Money Bills. The party opposite are very fond of praising the ballot and its secrecy; surely they ought to be prepared to accept the same principle in this House. They very often speak of the opinion of the chosen representatives of the people: if that is really their opinion they ought to be pleased to have its expression unfettered and unbiassed.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am sorry I was not in the House when the Postmaster-General addressed the Committee. I understand he made a violent speech. I did not hear it, and I will not therefore

  2121
  comment on it. But I did hear the speech of the Home Secretary, and I confess that though I am not in sympathy with the general conclusions arrived at by my Noble Friend (Lord Hugh Cecil), I thought his speech extremely interesting, and I thought also that it was absurdly dealt with by the Home Secretary. Anybody who listened to the speech of my Noble Friend must have realised that, well founded or ill-founded, it was directed against no special section. My Noble Friend chose for the subject of attack the whole system of House of Commons Government as we know it now, and as even the oldest of us have experienced it in our Parliamentary life. The speech certainly was nothing but serious, and although I do not agree with the conclusions of my Noble Friend, I recognise the absolute sincerity with which he endeavoured to put his criticism with admirable impartiality against the occupants of every bench, and perhaps not least against the bench on which I sit. Certainly no charge was made against the other side which was not equally levelled against us. I do think the view he has put is one which does deserve, when brought forward in so able and serious a speech, more respectful treatment than that given by the Home Secretary. I think the view of my Noble Friend confined no doubt according to the Amendment to Money Bills, but capable naturally of expansion to all subjects which come before this House is a superficial view, and I do not agree with the theory that this House has gone through a process of deterioration within the memory of living individuals, or indeed in an historic sense. Some people hold the view that we are far inferior to our fathers, not merely in the superficial graces of eloquence, but also in the honesty of purpose which animates us on whichever side of the House we sit. I do not honestly agree with that. I have been in this House since the year 1874. Possibly it was the year in which my Noble Friend was born—it was there or thereabouts, and it is a great mistake to suppose that the Whips of either party, wicked and unscrupulous as no doubt they are, are more unscrupulous and more wicked in the year of Grace 1911 than they were in the year 1874, or 1784 or 1684. I remember talking over with Sir Charles Dilke this question of general Parliamentary practice and management, and he said and I agree with him that there had been no deterioration, neither in his nor in my Parliamentary experience. But what says
  2122
  my Noble Friend and what say the critics of this House outside the House who attack our methods of doing things which may be open to criticism, and I have no doubt are open to criticism. My Noble Friend seems to think that the Press are always engaged in covering our deficiencies by a decent veil of constitutional fiction. In my opinion I confess when our actions are represented by outside critics they are represented in far too unfavourable terms. He referred to a book which I have never read, but I hope some day to give myself the pleasure of reading, and which is called "The Party System." I looked at the first two pages of it, and it has given me an appetite which as yet has not been satisfied for reading the remainder. I noticed in those first two pages that it was recorded as a fundamental quality of this House that everything we did was done by the two Front Benches in concert, and all the Debates across the floor of this House so far as the two Front Benches are concerned was a mere sham fight; there was no substantial difference of opinion, and, as I understood the book, we were engaged in exploiting in common the credulity of the other 640 Members, or whatever the number may be who compose the rest of the House. I thought that a book which began in that way might have a great deal to amuse, but could not have anything to instruct, as it is most distantly remote from anything with which we are acquainted. I think there is a fundamental fallacy underlying all the criticism to which my Noble Friend gave powerful expression to-night. The fallacy is that in this House the business of each man is simply to judge on the value of each argument as it conies up and to act upon it, absolutely irrespective of any collateral effect which the vote he may give may have. I do not believe it is possible for the most ingenious casuist to lay down a demarcation between that which is mere subservience to party pressure and that which is an honest determination to keep in office—I speak for the majority—or to turn out of office, as the case may be, a Government of which they respectively approve or disapprove. There is a distinction—not a distinction which may be laid down in a book, but not a distinction which can be ignored because it cannot be laid down in a book—that under our system—and it is the most extraordinary part of our system—the Ministry of the day are not merely the guides of legislation, they are also the people responsible

  2123
  for the administration, foreign and domestic, and they cannot keep in office a day unless they are supported. Therefore, evidently a vote which does not support them is a vote which is not given upon one question alone, but on the most complicated issues.
  My Noble Friend said, "Let us look at the facts of the situation." I do not think critics who follow usually at some distance, and with much less ability in the steps of my Noble Friend, when they say, "Look at the real facts of the case," do look at the real facts of the case. They do not face the facts of the case. They take a theory and say, "Of course Members of the House of Commons are sent to listen to arguments, and vote as the arguments tell them to vote." If they are sent to do that, I admit that they do their duty extremely badly—if that is the beginning, the middle and the end of all they have to do, because, as my Noble Friend most truly pointed out, often there are arguments of immense importance addressed to practically empty benches, and when the division comes it is quite true from the smoking room, the library, the dining room, and the rest, people stream in who have not heard a word of the argument and give their votes as is suggested by those in whom they have confidence. They are a very easy target for satire, and I do not say the satire is not very often deserved, because it is deserved. All that my Noble Friend has said is true, and it is a real criticism upon our procedure. But nevertheless, it is a great mistake to suppose that argument does not tell in this House. There is no greater fallacy than to suppose that it is useless to argue well or to speak well. It makes the whole difference. The difference may not be at the moment. Any case brought forward in this House which day after day gets hammered, and to which there is no reply, and to which the Government or the Opposition, as the case may be, who support the particular case, never get the best of it, and in which all impartial spectators know they do not get the best of it—do not tell me that has no effect in this House. It has such an effect, and the idea that our Debates are perfectly useless, never resulting in any difference in the Division Lobby, never resulting in any change of public opinion, I believe to be a gross, though profoundly unintentional, misrepresentation of the real facts of the case. When my Noble Friend talks as if all the evils which he so eloquently and admirably
  2124
  described will be cured by the ballot——
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I said it would be a mitigation.
  Mr. BALFOUR: That is all we can expect from medicine. When he brought forward as an illustration of that, an episode which I very well remember, it seemed to me that his illustration led to the precisely opposite conclusions to that which he desired us to draw. He reminded my Friends on this bench of the time, eight years ago, when we sat on that bench—it was before the fiscal controversy arose—when there was something in the nature of a dead set against a particular Member of the Government. There was an organised attack made upon that Member of the Government. Well, how could that be dealt with by the ballot? That was not a case of coming into the House and listening to arguments and settling how you are going to vote after you have heard the arguments. It seems to me that against an organised attack of that sort the party system is a very good protection, a very necessary protection, and a very desirable protection, and I do not see that any change for the better would have been made then, or in a recent Debate in the course of this Session, when something very similar, if I mistake not, occurred on the other side of the House, if the votes had been taken by ballot. Depend upon it, the Parliamentary system as worked in this country has many defects, it is open to many criticisms, but I do not believe those defects would be cured, or those criticisms met, by substituting vote by ballot for the vote we have now. I think the root principle which lay at the base of my Noble Friend's brilliant argumentation was a mistaken premise.
  I think I said earlier in my speech that I might venture to conclude that the action which each of us takes on our own responsibility, in the face of our Constituents, and in the face of the country, is a responsibility which goes far beyond the individual controversy of the moment. The way this House now modifies and affects policy is shown in the first instance in the Lobby, but, of course, everybody knows that if this Government are, or that we on this Bench when we were a Government were, subject to the kind of attack which moves their own followers, these followers do not go and necessarily vote against them in the Lobby. But there is the pressure of opinion which modifies the policy

  2125
  of the Government, and that is immediately and directly due to the force of the arguments used in public debate. I do not believe you can seriously improve our existing system if you do not maintain what it is absolutely necessary to maintain, namely, some stability of administration, some probability in the face of our countrymen, and still more in the face of foreigners, that the Government which is brought into existence at the will of the people is not a mere leaf driven about with every gust of wind and of doctrine, but that the policy they are carrying out shall be a coherent and consistent policy—coherent and consistent because those who carry it out know that they have the solid support of an organised party. Organised party has its defects, and they are great, but I am sure that if he shattered them my Noble Friend would be the first to discover the new evils that would arise in their place far exceeded in magnitude those which they had displaced.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I only rise to say one or two sentences. In the first, I think this Amendment, if it were adopted, would imperil the responsibility, indeed the representative power, of the House of Commons. In the next place—a very rare experience—I agree with every word the right hon. Gentleman has said. I think his speech is one of the finest vindications of the representative and independent character of the House of Commons that has ever been made in this House.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: As I am against both Front Benches, may I be allowed to say a few words. I quite agree with the very generous tribute which the Prime Minister has paid to my right hon. Friend and desire to associate myself with it. But my answer is quite a simple one. In the days of Mr. Gladstone's Government, from 1868, in those of Lord Beaconsfield's, from 1874, and in those of Mr. Gladstone's, from 1880 to 1885, the Government were repeatedly defeated, and there were not produced any of those evils of instability which militated against the proper use of the party system in any degree whatever. Since that day defeats of the Government have become rarer and rarer. My right hon. Friend does not remember small details; he does not remember how often the Government of which he was a Member was defeated; he was never defeated, except in an unreal Division, that is to say, a Division that took place when there was a garden party at the Sovereign's palace, or something of that sort. His Government,
  2126
  from 1895 to 1905, was never defeated on a real Division, except once, and that was on an Amendment in Committee on a factory Bill, a very secondary point. It is not credible that there cannot have been at work causes for that change in the character of the House, that there was not some change, a change which I think is still operating. The party system is stronger now than it was ten years ago; Members are becoming less and less independent. I think my right hon. Friend, as too often happens, thinks he is still living in the world of his youth. He thinks there has been no change. There has been a great change. There was a time when many Members of Parliament would venture, not upon great questions which involved the life of the Government, but on subordinate matters, to vote against their party. There was more real independence. I think it a pity that it is gone.
  I do not want to say anything controversial, but I suggest, at the same time, it is hardly possible to believe that the present Government and the late Government were both so ideally more perfect than Mr. Gladstone's and Lord Beaconsfield's Governments, that whereas they were often defeated, my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour), the present Prime Minister, and the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman were never, or almost never, defeated. There must have been some cause for this change by which the independence of the House has become much less common than it was, and I believe that this influence was that of the Whips, backed up by the stronger influence to which I have called attention. There is a practical question before us, whether we are to divide on this Amendment. I am very anxious to divide. I am not at all sure whether, in view of the agreement of the two Front Benches—which, by the way, exactly vindicates this criticism—it can be done. I shall certainly divide if I can get anybody to tell with me, as I really believe that this is a very serious vote, and that, quite irrespective of any party point whatever, the House of Commons is steadily becoming less independent. I believe that a ballot would be a mitigation of the evils of the party system, and for its introduction this Amendment provides the first opportunity.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 84; Noes, 363.

  Division No. 112.]

  AYES.

  [10.50 p.m.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Hambre, Angus Valdemar

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hills, J. W.

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Hohler, G. F.

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Stanier, Beville

  Boyton, J.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kirkwood, J. H. M.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Cator, John

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. Hmts., Mile End)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  White, Major C. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Croft, Henry Page

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Moore, William

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Achburton)

  Younger, George

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newman, John R. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Col. Griffith Boscawen and Lord Hugh Cecil

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Grant, J. A.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Campion, W. R.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Adamson, William

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Falconer, J.

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fell, Arthur

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Alden, Percy

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ffrench, Peter

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Dough, William

  Field, William

  Anderson, A.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Armitage, R.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  France, G. A.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Furness, Stephen

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Gardner, Ernest

  Barlow, Montagu (Salford, S.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Gill, A. H.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Glanville, H. J.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Barry, Redmond John

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Barton, W.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Crean, Eugene

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Benn, W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Crooks, William

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Daiziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Davics, E. William (Eifion)

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Bird, A.

  Davies, Timithy (Lincs., Louth)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hackett, J.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Boland, John Pius

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hail, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Delany, William

  Hancock, J. G.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Brace, William

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Harmsworth, R. (Leicester)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Doris, William

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Duffy, William J.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Harwood, George

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Byles, William Pollard

  Elverston, H.

  Hayward, Evan

  2128

  2129

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Morrell, Philip

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Muldoon, John

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Munro, R.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Neilson, Francis

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Hinds, John

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Hodge, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sheehy, David

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Smyth, Thomas F.

  Hunter, Wm. (Lanark, Govan)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Snowden, P.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Dowd, John

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Johnson, W.

  Ogden, Fred

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Grady, James

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Summers, James Wooley

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Malley, William

  Sutton, John E

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Swift, Rigby

  Jowett, F. W.

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Keating, M.

  O'Shee, James John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Suilivan, Timothy

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Toulmin, George

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd, Cockerm'th)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Logan, John William

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Pointer, Joseph

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lundon, T.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wardle, George J.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Waring, Walter

  Lytlelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Watt, Henry A.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Webb, H.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Radford, G. H.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Reddy, M.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  M'Wicking, Major Gilbert

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Marks, George Croydon

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Rendan, Athelstan

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Martin, Joseph

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Molloy, M.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Mooney, J. J.

  Rowlands, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report progress; to sit again I to-morrow (Wednesday).

MILITARY MANŒUVRES ACT, 1897 (ORDER IN COUNCIL.)
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely)moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His

2131
Majesty, praying His Majesty to make Orders in Council under The Military Manœuvres Act, 1897, authorising the execution of military manœuvres in the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Hertford, Huntingdon, Bedford, and Cambridge, and also in the county of Ayr, drafts of which were presented to this House on the 7th day of February last."
Mr. CARLILE: Before this Motion is agreed to, I should like to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman if he can give us a few particulars as to the nature of the area to be included in the Schedule. Without some knowledge of that I should not be inclined to allow the matter to pass at this stage.
Colonel SEELY: This is purely a formal I stage. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] As hon. Members will see, this Motion was presented to the House on the 7th February last. Of course it would be impossible for me at this stage to state what the nature of the manœuvres will be, but as hon. Members are aware every care is taken that any damage done should be fully paid for in compensation. I trust the House will allow this formal stage to be taken as was done with hardly an exception in former years without a Division. I shall be very glad to inform the House on any point I can elucidate, but there is really nothing to state except it is proposed to hold manœuvres in the counties named. The military authorities could, not state the precise nature of the manœuvres at this stage because it would be better not to do so.
Lord HUGH CECIL: Is this business that may be taken after 11 o'clock, or is it business that can only be taken if unopposed?
Mr. SPEAKER: It is exempt.
Viscount HELMSLEY: I am not sure I understand this matter. A Paper entitled Report of the Military Manœuvres Commission, 1910, was presented to the House on the 7th February last. I find on page 7 a draft of the proposed Orders was deposited for public inspection, but the depositing of this Order is nothing but a farce. The draft is entirely in blank. It is not even signed by the Commissioners responsible for carrying out the Orders. It merely says:—
"We, the undersigned members of the Military Manœuvres Commission appointed under the Military Manœuvres
2132
Act, 1897, do by this Order made in pursuance of the said Act, determine that all lands, roads, and sources of water within the limits of the area described in the Schedule to the Order in Council dated the 28th day of June, 1909, made in pursuance of the said Act subject to the exceptions mentioned in Section 2 of the said Act, are to be authorised lands, roads, and sources within the meaning of the said Act."
You are supposed to find them in the Schedule, but there is no Schedule here that I can sec. I do not understand why this Order is presented in dummy. If this is to be a definite procedure to be adopted by this House, I think we should have full information upon it.
Colonel SEELY: I can assure the Noble Lord that this Order is laid in the form in which it always has been laid before.
Mr. CARLILE: Last year I can assure the right hon. Gentleman we had the Schedule before us specifying the exact area.
Colonel SEELY: I think everything has been done in the usual form. It is signed by the Secretary of the Military Manœuvres Commission. There is no mystery about the matter whatever. If at any subsequent period the House wishes to raise the question of having the manœuvres in this or any other area an opportunity will occur on the salary of the Secretary of State. If I could give any other information I should be glad to do so, but it is difficult to give any other information than that which I have already given.
Viscount HELMSLEY: This Paper refers to the military manœuvres area for 1910, and there is nothing about the area contemplated by this Motion. Why is it alleged by this Motion that Papers have been laid describing the position when no such Papers exist?
Mr. GRETTON: The Under-Secretary has informed us that a state of preparation has been reached in regard to these manœuvres. It seems to me to be treating the House of Commons with a little less courtesy and frankness than is due to it to put before us a proposal in this way. When a sufficient amount of information is in hand the War Office should ask the House openly for the powers it requires and give the details of what they want to carry out. The House would be well advised if it signified its desire that this

2133
Motion should be withdrawn until the War Office is prepared to lay before us a full statement. I am sure my hon. Friends on this side would be the last to delay anything connected with the proper training of our troops, but we have a duty to perform in seeing that we get full information.
Colonel SEELY: There seems to have been some misapprehension. I have just received the Paper and the House will excuse me, seeing that these documents were drawn up before I went to the War Office. I am not of course blaming any of the officials. I may explain to the Noble Lord opposite that he has got the wrong Paper. It begins with the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Hertford, Huntingdon, Bedford, and Cambridge. If the Noble Lord will go to the Vote Office he will find there the correct document giving full information, and then he will see that it is quite in order.
Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
It is very refreshing to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House to find a Minister on the Bench who does not throw over a subordinate. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has had the courage to acknowledge that the mistake has been made in his office.
Colonel SEELY: No.
Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: Well, at all events, the blame is not thrown on a subordinate. Nobody on this side of the House wants for a moment to delay military manœuvres. But we say it is in the best interests of carrying out these manœuvres without any friction with the farmers, labourers, or residents, that they should know beforehand exactly what districts are to be occupied. Really we are entitled to have further information, and it is in the interests both of the House and of the War Office and the manœuvres that we should have that information.
Colonel SEELY: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has misapprehended the Paper which I have handed to the Noble Lord below the Gangway. The fullest information has been given to the House, as I am sure the Noble Lord will now be the first to tell the House with regard to this matter. If he will read to the House a portion of the document he now holds in his hand—and I understand it has been in the Vote Office since February 8—it will be seen that the House is in possession of the fullest information on the
2134
matter. Therefore, I trust the House will not immediately adjourn a purely formal stage to enable military manœuvres to be carried out, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself says they should be carried out, in the best interests of the nation.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I should like to ask whether there is any further stage on which we can discuss this Paper. At present I have every reason to suppose there is no such Paper in the Vote Office. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be under an entire misapprehension if he thinks the Paper he has just handed to my Noble Friend is in the Vote Office.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I may say I have been to the Vote Office, and it is perfectly impossible to find the Paper of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken. I really think it is unreasonable to ask us to discuss the matter when we cannot get the Papers necessary to intelligently do so.
Colonel SEELY: We got the Paper from the Vote Office, so I suppose anybody who goes to the right place will be able to get it. I think the Noble Lord has not gone to the right place.
Viscount HELMSLEY: I went to the Vote Office before the Noble Lord. I was told this was laid in draft, and that it was only in dummy. I asked to see the dummy laid, and the only thing I saw was the Report of the Military Manœuvres Commission of 1910. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for handing his copy to me, but I have not had time to master its details in the short time it has been in my hands. I notice that in the Report of the Military Manœuvres Report for 1910 there are some animadversions cast on the restrictions on various kinds of property which have been imposed by persons in the area scheduled in previous Acts, and we have not had time to ascertain whether anything is being done under the new proposals to meet the objections alleged in previous years. We really do not know in the least what the position is. I have no wish to interfere with the manœuvres. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the "Patronage Secretary to the Opposition" (Sir A. Acland-Hood), if I may so describe him, is well aware of that fact. We wish on this side to encourage manœuvres to the fullest possible extent, but I do not see any urgency in this Schedule, and I think we should have a further opportunity of mastering the details. I certainly shall

2135
support the Motion for an Adjournment, and, indeed, I shall be surprised if it is not acceded to by the Under-Secretary for War.
Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: The full details which the Noble Lord below the Gangway now has were obtained only a short time after this discussion commenced, and there has been no time to study them.
Major MORRISON-BELL: No hon. Member on this side of the House has the least wish to put any obstacle in the way of the manœuvres or of anything connected with the training of our soldiers. I rise merely to support my hon. Friend's Motion, as a protest against the incurable sloppiness we have seen in the House during the last two days and again to-night.
Lord BALCARRES: There appears to be some mistake about this Order. The Address to the Throne refers to manœuvres in the county of Ayr, but that county is not mentioned in the Order, and if you pass it the Address to the Throne will not comply with the antecedent Orders of this House. So far as the county of Ayr is concerned, therefore, the Motion is out of order: it is not in accordance with the Statute. I would also point out that the Paper I hold in my hand, and which could not be got at the Vote Office just now, lays down in the most explicit terms the exact line of route, and the roads in the area selected for the manœuvres; and therefore the House is not in possession as yet of the information which would enable it to judge the value of the proposed manœuvres. As to the county of Ayr, the right hon. Gentleman must, I think, deal only with that portion of the Schedule which has been laid before the House.
Colonel SEELY: I can only speak again by leave of the House. But I would like to point out, as regards the Noble Lord's suggestion respecting the description of the areas to be taken for the manœuvres, that the Order does not imply that every part of the scheduled areas will be used by the troops. We cannot give all the details asked for, as we cannot say beforehand what particular details of the manœuvres will be carried out. Everything has been done in accordance with the usual form. This draft has been laid for forty days. The forty days have now expired, and I obtained it through
2136
the usual channels after the Debate had begun. I am informed it may be obtained in the Vote Office, or it may have been in the Library. At any rate, it has been available in the ordinary way as it has been for years, and I appeal to Members not to obstruct this business as the necessary formalities have been complied with.
Mr. COURTHOPE: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman once more to give his attention to this question, and to tell us definitely whether this Order which, according to him, was laid forty days ago was laid only to-night, and whether the details are obtainable to-night, and tonight only, and they have never been available to Members before. This is not the first time that this sort of thing has occurred. The same thing was done by the Board of Agriculture, and, after an official document had been, it was said, laid on the Table, it was found, on inquiry at the Vote Office and the Library, that it had been laid in dummy, and was absolutely a blank piece of paper. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman, who is new to the Department, but I appeal to him to see that this is not done in future.
Colonel SEELY: There seems to have been some misunderstanding. I do not know how it has arisen, but every hon. Gentleman who has addressed the House seems to have assumed that there has been a departure from the usual procedure. I am informed that that is not the case. It will be very undesirable that in any matter of purely formal military concern, which cannot conceivably raise any party feeling, there should be any attempt on the part of the Government to take advantage of what seems a misunderstanding; and if it is thought, as it appears to be, that there has been a departure from the ordinary procedure, or that we are proceeding in a way which is unusual, I say, on behalf of the Government, that we do not wish to proceed with this Order any further to-night. It is a purely formal military measure involving no question of principle, and there having been a misunderstanding, I am perfectly prepared, after the objection which has been taken, to put this down on Thursday, when it cannot take long. It is the fact that any hon. Member on that side who goes to the Vote Office cannot get a copy of the Paper, and I suppose I got the last one. Therefore I propose that we should accept the Motion for adjournment of the Debate, and put this down again on Thursday.
Mr. TOULMIN: I have an official list of Papers presented during the Session, which shows that it has been laid. There is one for Scotland presented and laid on 7th February for thirty days. The other is a similar Order for England. I have also been to the Vote Office, and have been unable to get a copy.
Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed upon Thursday next (6th April).
And it being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Tuesday, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two minutes before Twelve of the clock.