§ (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.
2220§ (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. MITCHELL-THOMSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "at least one month before the end of the Session" ["Sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session "], and to insert instead thereof the words, "on or before the thirtieth day of June in any year."
The effect of the Amendment, if it were adopted, as I hope it may be, will be to substitute a fixed date at which a Money Bill must be sent up to another place. It would substitute the fixed date on the thirtieth day of June for that somewhat nebulous and indefinite quantity which is represented by the words "the end of the Session." I attach no especial value to the precise date which I have set down in my Amendment, and if there should prove to be any disposition on the Treasury Bench to consider this Amendment with any favour, I shall be quite ready to meet them and to change the time by a week or so, or perhaps a fortnight or so, upon either side. I say that to make my bona fides clear in the matter. What I am concerned about is that there should be a fixed date. I think it is about the right time of the year that I have chosen for a fixed date. In the first place, it may be objected on the Treasury Bench that Supply does not close until 21st July under the ordinary procedure, and that, therefore, it is the invariable practice to have the Appropriation Bill in the month of August. In case that objection is made 2221 the reply is at once obvious to the Committee and to every Member, that, as in the past, in future any controversy which arise between the two Chambers, will arise not upon the Appropriation Bill or any Bills of that kind, but upon Bills dealing with the remission or alteration of taxation on which controversies have, and indeed can and will arise, and therefore any argument drawn from the fact that the Appropriation Bill is to be introduced in the month of August hardly touches the question. I submit, looking at Money Bills as a whole, they are strictly regarded, in the first place, as Bills dealing with questions of taxation; in short, with what is known as the Finance Bill or Budget. I submit from every point of view, from the point of view of another place, from the point of view of this House, from the point of view of national finance, some such Amendment as this is urgently desirable.
I think it is desirable from the point of view of another place, because under the Government proposal they are to have a month in which they are to consider or discuss any Money Bill which is brought forward. I think the discussion on the subject of a Money Bill in another place is likely to be conducted more efficiently and with greater benefit to the community at large if it is not driven into being conducted in the dog days. I come to the consideration of the convenience of Members of this House. I submit from their point of view it is most urgently desirable that some fixed date, either in the month of June or before the middle of July, should be introduced into this Bill. Every Member knows what happens in an ordinary Session; every Member who is listening to me knows that, as the years go on, the tendency becomes greater and greater towards a state of things in which this House more or less marks time for some weeks at the beginning of the Parliamentary Session, and that at the end of July or the beginning of August the pressure is very great. I do not think that it either conduces to good business or to the health of Members. From that point of view I think this Amendment has a good deal to commend it. There is still more to be said from the point of view of Members of this House. If this Amendment were adopted it would go far—I do not say it would go entirely—to making it less necessary to have resort to what I personally regard as an abominable practice—the practice of holding Autumn Sessions. I do not know that I would be in order in discussing that 2222 question at any length, but I will merely state that I believe the practice of holding Autumn Sessions to be bad from every point of view. It is bad from the point of view of the Government, because Ministers can no longer get the time to attend to their Departmental affairs which they ought to have.
I am sure it is bad from the point of view of Departmental efficiency, and especially from the point of view of legislation, because when the Parliamentary draftsman has to sit constantly under the Gallery during an Autumn Session it is impossible, and it has been proved to be impossible as the Government know perfectly well, in the last few years, for him to be ready and in a forward state of preparation with the drafting of Bills for the next Session. There is a third reason, although of less importance, not without a certain amount of weight. I think the practice of holding Autumn Sessions bad from the broader, the more national and more Imperial point of view, because the very fact of an Autumn Session makes it impossible for Members who are anxious to be here, and in their places for the conduct of public business, to pay visits to other countries and to our own Colonies. I think it very important that every Member of the House should have time and opportunity to visit those places, and I submit, from that point of view, that a fixed date is desirable. From the point of view of national finance, which is the strongest reason of all, a fixed date such as I propose is not only desirable but absolutely necessary. The last few years have brought us an entirely new precedent in the history of Budget legislation. I say nothing about the circumstances of last year, because the Government may plead in extenuation that the circumstances of last year were peculiar. This year, at all events, no such excuse is open to the Government. I submit that, if the circumstances of those years, and if the practice which the Government are now carrying out, are to be regarded as a precedent, there is very great danger in regard to our national finances. I have been unable to discover any precedent for delaying the Budget beyond the month of April, or the beginning of May, ever since the year 1852, and the circumstances in that year, as every Member knows, were entirely exceptional. I do not believe there is a precedent, and I am perfectly certain that this precedent that the Government are now creating is a thoroughly bad one. It is a practice which would not be tolerated 2223 for a moment in any private business. Every company which is created under Statute is under statutory obligation every half-year to publish balance-sheets and estimates of expenditure. If those things be good for statutory companies, which are, after all, the creatures of Parliament, I submit that from every point of view they are good for Parliament itself. I believe the practice of past years to be a healthy practice. I believe it can be continued, that this Amendment would ensure that it would, and I submit it in consequence to the Committee.
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel)There are many objections to the Amendment of the hon. Member, but there are three which I believe will be considered by the Committee to be fatal to it. In the first place, the hon. Member has argued as though the only Bills which were within the purview of this Clause were Finance Bills. Whatever may be said with regard to measures which are on the border line of Money Bills, it is quite certain that the Appropriation Bill and the Consolidated Fund Bill are Bills which are clearly and distinctly Money Bills, and that any Clause dealing with Money Bills must also contemplate those measures, as well as the main Finance Bill of the year. The House of Commons, in asserting its rights as against the other House as regards Money Bills, should clearly not insert any date which would render the application of the principles laid down to the Consolidated Fund Bill and to the Appropriation Bill impossible. As the Committee is well aware, it is customary to have one Consolidated Fund Bill towards the very end of the Session and to have an Appropriation Bill also towards the very end of the Session. The fact of accepting this Amendment would be, so long as the sittings of the House remain in the period of the year in which they are now, to take those Bills entirely out of the scope of this Clause. Therefore the Amendment, although in form a very humble and modest proposal, really involves a great departure from the whole principle of the Clause.
The second objection is this, that it might be found to be altogether impracticable in certain cases, so far even as a Finance Bill is concerned, within the date specified. The classic instance of that is the Finance Bill of 1909, from the rejection of which this Clause has largely and 2224 mainly originated. That Bill, as the Committee are well aware, and as those are best aware who had share of its conduct in this House, was before the House for many many months, and did not pass from this House until the winter. Let us imagine a similar circumstance recurring in the future. In that case the House of Lords would be free to reject again a Bill precisely similar to that of the Budget of 1909. not because it was not a Finance Bill, not on any grounds of policy at all, but solely because the Bill was so large in its scope, and was regarded as being so controversial in its provisions, that the House of Commons was not able to dispose of it until winter. Obviously a proposition of that kind could not be accepted and embodied in this Bill. The third reason is that the House of Commons in the future may think fit to revise altogether the period of the year in which its sittings should be held. Already voices are heard suggesting that we should rise in the late spring, or possibly in the month of May, for the whole of that period of the year when there is some probability at least of fine weather, and that the whole of the sittings should be concentrated into the time of the winter months. If a proposition like the Amendment were embodied in the Parliament Bill this year, the hands of the House would be tied by that statutory provision, because it might be that the 30th of June, or whatever date would be fixed, would be totally unsuitable for the conditions which would arise if the House decided to re-model the period of its sittings. For those three reasons, any one of which would, I think, be regarded by an impartial man as being conclusive against this Amendment, the Government ask the Committee to reject it.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONNo doubt the objections of the Postmaster-General are good, as far as they go, but they are only good as far as they go. The truth is that all this comes from trying to legislate in tabloid form and to fix the British Constitution far more than it had ever been fixed before without considering the different cases that are bound to arise under this reform, or under this altered state of things. It is quite true, of course, that cases will arise which, under the Amendment as now proposed, would make this Clause unworkable, but, I submit, that it is unworkable because there has not been full consideration, and because there is an attempt in a very few words for the first time to sterotype by statute Parliamentary 2225 practice. There is no elasticity allowed, and we are going to fix a Constitution against all the advice of the experts who have ever written about or considered it, in a few words, without allowing such elasticity.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is not in order. The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment. He is speaking to the Clause.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONThis is an Amendment to the Clause. I venture to submit that it is very likely unworkable, so far as the Postmaster-General has pointed out, and I am afraid, because the words proposed to be left out, as well as those proposed to be inserted, do not provide, and cannot provide, for the cases that are bound to arise in the attempt to stereotype by statute the relations in regard to Finance Bills of the two Houses. I submit that that is the central vice of the whole of this attempt to stereotype and to fix our relations in this way. I believe, though these words may not be applicable, that you must have safeguards, and therefore that if these words cannot be put in it is for the Government to show how we can safeguard the rights of this House, and ensure due consideration of Money Bills under the altered conditions, by putting in words which will certainly effect it more fully than those which now stand in the Bill.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYThe right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General gave three reasons against accepting the Amendment, but every one of them I think might easily be got over. As to the Appropriation Bill and the Consolidated Fund Bill, may I remind him that they are practically the same. The Consolidated Fund Bill is only a temporary Bill with the same effect as an Appropriation Bill. The objection as regards the Consolidated Fund Bill could be easily got over by a definition clause, which would define what is a Money Bill, and which would exclude the Appropriation Bill from it. The right hon. Gentleman smiles, and I am reminded of what was said on that by the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley). But let me assure him a definition clause is really necessary. The Appropriation Bill undoubtedly does come at the end of the Session. A Consolidated Fund Bill generally comes early in the Session. We have already had one this Session, but I would point out that 2226 these Bills could be avided by not having too many Supplementary Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman also pointed out that the Budget of 1909 occupied a very considerable time, because it was a very controversial Budget. Why not introduce a controversial Budget on 1st April, and we then would have April, May, and June to discuss it. There is no earthly reason why a Budget, which is one of the most important measures, should be sandwiched in with all sorts of other measures. The granting of Supply was originally the chief work of the House of Commons, and the fact that the Amendment would procure that the House of Commons should devote a greater part of its time to Supply is a matter which I am sure will commend it not only to a great number of Members on this side, but to a very large number of Members on the other side, and to the Prime Minister himself, who has spoken about the great importance of the House of Commons devoting a large portion of its time to the consideration of Supply. I think I have disposed of two of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, which my hon. Friend said were good as far as they went, although I do not think they go very far.
The third argument is that possibly we might revise the period of the year in which the House of Commons sits. The right hon. Gentleman must really be very hard up for argument when he brings that forward, because if the period is to be revised what is to prevent a new Bill being brought in which would alter the date suggested by my hon. Friend, and which would make it consistent with the revised period during which the House sits. I think I have shown that though there may be some good in the first two arguments there is absolutely nothing in the third and last. I come to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, which I have much pleasure in supporting. [HON: MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway cheer, but let me remind them it is an ancient custom of this House to answer first the arguments of opponents. It is an old established custom, and one which I hope will be maintained. The Amendment is an extremely good one, because, first of all, it ensures that the Budget should go to the House of Lords at a period when it would be considered by the House of Lords. It is only a short time ago that some of us brought forward a proposal that the Budget should not go to the House of Lords at all, but should go at 2227 once to the country. The Prime Minister refused to accept the suggestion on the ground that the Debates in the House of Lords might be of use. If that is so, it is necessary that there should be a time in which the House of Commons might consider those Debates; but, unless this Amendment is accepted, the Budget might not be passed before the end of July and be sent up to the Lords in September, and then any possible advantage to be gained from reading the Debates in the other House would disappear, because the attendance in this House would be small, and Members would be anxious to get away for the holidays. Therefore, if we really want to treat financial proposals properly, some such Amendment as this is absolutely necessary. I do not say that 30th June is a date which could not foe improved upon. I think it is a reasonable date, but if the Government tell us that another date would be preferable we would carefully consider their suggestion. On the face of it, it does not look a very important Amendment, but those of us who have sat in the House for a number of years and take a real interest in the financial business, and desire that it should be carefully guarded from any attempt at sharp practice on the part of the Treasury, an instance of which we have had during the last few days, ought to support it. I trust that some of my right hon. Friends below me will give us their opinion on the question.
Mr. BALFOURI think everybody will agree with my hon. Friend in thinking that we have fallen into a very lax practice in regard to the time at which Budgets are introduced into this House. The Prime Minister recently when speaking about the next Budget said that it might be introduced within a few weeks or, I believe he said, months. That the Prime Minister speaking at the end of one financial year should suggest that it might be months before the Budget for the next financial year was even introduced, is a very clear indication of the new practice which has grown up under the present Government—a practice which is inconvenient both from the point of view of finance and also from the point of view of the convenience of the House. But I rise rather to ask a question as to how this Clause would work. It is contemplated, I understand, that Parliament should sit for one month after the last Finance Bill is sent up to the House of Lords. If the 2228 House does not sit for one month, the Clause, as far as Finance Bills are concerned, becomes wholly inoperative; the House of Lords might reject a Budget, and, if Parliament were prorogued before a month had elapsed, that rejection would stand. Is not that so, as a matter of interpretation? I am not sure that that does not illustrate in the clearest manner the great inconvenience which arises from the very wide definition of Money Bills contained in the Clause. I entirely agree that many Bills might be brought in under the definition laid down by the Government which it would be perfectly absurd not to give the House of Lords the fullest opportunity to debate and suggest Amendments upon; but is it the idea of the Government that Parliament should never be prorogued until one month has elapsed after the Appropriation Bill has been sent up? It is quite a new policy. The House of Lords, as far as I know, has never amended or rejected an Appropriation Bill.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Joseph Pease)If the House of Lords passed the Bill a case would not arise.
Mr. BALFOURBut this is intended to be a limitation of the powers of the House of Lords. Is it the case that Parliament must go on for a month after a Bill has gone up to the House of Lords? I object to the whole provision, but I think we ought to be told whether it is the Government view that if the House of Lords modifies an Appropriation Bill, or any other strictly Money Bill, sent up in August, or in an Autumn Session, possibly shortly before Christmas, prorogation would be impossible for a month. That seems to me to be the proper interpretation of the Clause. If it is not, I should be glad to have an authoritative interpretation, and I will reserve any criticisms on the policy of the Government in this regard until I quite clearly understand what their policy is.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe answer is very obvious. If a Bill is sent up to the House of Lords less than one month from the end of the Session it does not follow that the Bill would not become law. All that would happen is that this Clause would not apply. The House of Lords cannot be overridden unless they have been given the period of one month proposed to be fixed in the Statute, during which they can, if they so desire, consider the Bill. Should the Bill be sent up to 2229 the House of Lords within a fortnight of the date fixed for the end of the Session, and that date were maintained, the House of Lords could not be overridden under the terms of this Bill. In almost all these cases naturally the House of Lords would pass the Bills which are largely uncontroversial in character. One cannot conceive the House of Lords out of sheer mischief holding up a Bill, and delaying it simply to cause inconvenience, so that the Session might be unduly prolonged. Whatever views we may have of the House of Lords, we have not so low a view of them as that. If, on the other hand, a Bill unexpectedly proved controversial and the House of Lords deliberately and out of policy rejected it or refused to pass it, then the Clause could not apply unless the Session were prolonged, so that a period of one month were allowed.
Mr. BALFOURThat is a very gratifying admission. I thought the whole point of the Government case was that the House of Lords could not be trusted to carry out their ordinary constitutional functions. It now seems that they stand much higher in the estimation of right hon. Gentlemen opposite than I had conceived, and absolute confidence is now shown that they will never use for controversial purposes what the Government think is an uncontroversial Bill brought up at the end of the Session. I am glad to have elicited that admission from the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. PEELThere are two further reasons why this Amendment should be accepted. One arises from the statement of the Postmaster-General that there are a large number of Bills to which this Clause might apply. This Bill being in the nature of a punitive measure, you ought to give as much liberty as possible to the culprits whom you are attacking. What might happen? There might admittedly be quite a large number of measures coming under the definition of Financial Bills. Those Bills might be run up to the House of Lords just before the beginning of the month, and the mere fact of so large a number of measures being sent up, would in itself prevent any fair or full discussion. For that reason, I think there ought to be some date fixed before which the measures must go up to the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman also stated that under the proposed Amendment the Budget of 1909 would have been in great difficulties. That is perfectly true; but under this Clause if it 2230 becomes part of an Act, you will never be able again to have a measure like the Budget of 1909, because everybody admits that that was a tacking measure, and contained a great deal which could not be considered purely financial. I need only refer to the proposed question of valuation, and the question of the Licence Duties. Let us remember that if the later portion of the Clause the attempting to, or defining provision, is left out, your Budget—to make a comparison with 1909—will be very much attenuated, and therefore you are not likely again to have a "tacking" Budget, or one of such very large bulk. Another point is this: When the hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Irish party was speaking about the Budget of 1909, he described it as "not one Budget, but a series of Budgets." I pay very great attention to what so old and experienced a Member of the House as the hon. Gentleman is says. You are not going to have a revolutionary Budget, with four or five Budgets rolled into it at one and the same time, directly brought before this House; and I think we may regard the Budget of 1909 as entirely a unique Budget.
When you are considering how this Clause will work the right hon. Gentleman is falling into that logical error rather common to schoolboys and young persons: that is generalising from a single instance. The right hon. Gentleman is generalising from a single instance. It is hardly likely that there will be any other occasion that a Budget of the vast bulk of that of 1909 and requiring so very much discussion will be introduced into the House of Commons. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman can dismiss entirely from his mind that idea. "Ah, yes," says the right hon. Gentleman, "but that will entirely prevent our altering the time and period of our Sessions." I think that is a very remarkable argument indeed. We may bear in mind what Professor Dicey says in his "Law of the Constitution." In that book there is a long discussion as to the supremacy of Parliament. The very fact of that supremacy is shown in this way: that any successive Parliament can revoke the work of any previous Parliament. Professor Dicey says, very clearly, that that is one of the points about this Parliament. It has those supreme and sovereign powers which are hardly accorded to any other Parliament in the world. Really, in that case the right hon. Gentleman is objecting to our enacting a particular Amendment which would be of great value to this particular Clause, 2231 merely because it may prevent some other change in the future. You cannot legislate merely on the hypothesis of the future. We must legislate for the present. I quite agree there are great difficulties in putting these definite times and places down in a Bill of this kind. But, after all, this is a difficulty in which you must fall when you begin to have a written Constitution. You cannot have one portion of your Constitution written and the other portion unwritten. You will be inevitably led in the direction I have indicated, and this difficulty in the Bill is one of the inevitable signs of it. The same difficulty was experienced by the founders of the American Constitution.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is not entitled to a general discussion, but to discuss the different ways of dealing with the point at issue.
Mr. PEELI do not want to enlarge upon the American Constitution. I only wanted to point that this is one of the difficulties which you will be led into if you are going to write your Constitution. You will have to go into further definitions. Though I do not agree with the date suggested by my hon. Friend below me, I think he is justified in urging that some date should be fixed in which these financial measures ought to go up to the House of Lords in order that they may have proper discussion.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELMay I appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on this comparatively small point, and go on to the next matter?
§ Viscount MORPETHThis House, or some Members of it, have a complaint against the other House, and this Bill is the outcome of that complaint. It is something new to hear that the other House has some complaint of its own which has been expressed by several hon. Members in these Debates. Hon. Members will remember that when the Leader of the Opposition was in power the House of Lords made very bitter complaints that in the very last day or two of the Session whole shoals of Bills went up to their House, and they were asked to debate and decide upon them in the last day of the Session when there was no time, not only for proper discussion, but even for the barest consideration. The same complaint has been reiterated 2232 during the reign in office of the present Government. If I remember aright, the effect of the Debate, I think, the House of Lords found their hands rather tied by the fact that they had acquiesced in the practice during the Ministry of the predecessors of the present Government, and they found it a little difficult to remonstrate with vigour against a practice which they had tolerated from the Ministry of the right hon. Gentleman the now Leader of the Opposition. Under this Bill, supposing this practice is continued, supposing on the very last day of the Session a large batch of Bills goes up to the other House for consideration. Is it so very certain, as the Home Secretary seems to imagine, that the House of Lords will not take the obvious remedy that lies to their hands, and will not use perhaps even comparatively innocent Bills as a means of reprisals upon this House and upon the Government for indulging in a practice to which they object? I think they may, if they do not throw out, at any rate amend somewhat drastically Bills sent up to them, merely in order to secure that they shall be sent up in time to receive proper consideration.
There is this further consideration, without trespassing upon Sub-section (2) which deals with what a Money Bill is. It has already been pointed out that it will include a great deal more than the Budget and that a great deal of the legislation of past years could be included in Money Bills. Under the terms of this Bill the House of Lords would be unable to amend these Bills. The Bills would only have a month's delay, after which they would become law over the heads of the House of Lords. It is not to be supposed that these important Bills will be sent up much before the end of the Session. Things, it is almost inevitable, are rushed at the end. The effect of this Amendment will be that the right to amend these so-called Money Bills will be restored to the House of Lords; that the whole of this category of Bills will be taken out of Clause 1 and relegated to Clause 2. Unless this House, this branch of Parliament, is to remain sitting some extra months, probably with no work to do, simply marking time, in order to afford that month's duration which is necessary to bring these Bills within the purview of Clause 1, the Amendment had better be carried. Sitting further will be not only very inconvenient to this House, but it will give a lesson in unbusinesslike methods and it 2233 will introduce confusion into the Bills that may be amended, and must be amended, by the House of Lords. Bills dealt with in the method suggested by the Government will cause greater confusion and chaos in a written than even an unwritten Constitution.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL 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, 271; Noes, 170.
2235| Division No. 113.] | AYES. | [4.40 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Adamson, William | Essex, Richard Walter | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Esslemont, George Birnie | M'Callum, John M. |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Farrell, James Patrick | M'Kean, John |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Fenwick, Charles | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Alden, Percy | Ferens, Thomas Robinson | M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester) |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Ffrench, Peter | M'Laren, F. W. S. (Line. Spalding) |
| Anderson, Andrew Macbeth | Field, William | Marks, George Croydon |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Fitzgibbon, John | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Martin, Joseph |
| Baker, Harold T, (Accrington) | France, Gerald Ashburner | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Baker, Joseph Allan (Finsbury, E.) | Furness, Stephen | Masterman, C. F. G |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Gelder, Sir William Alfred | Meagher, Michael |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Gill, Alfred Henry | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Barnes, George N. | Ginnell, Laurence | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co) |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick) | Glanville, Harold James | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Millar, James Duncan |
| Barton, William | Goldstone, Frank | Molloy, Michael |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Benn, W. (T. Hamlets, S. Geo.) | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Mooney, John J |
| Bentham, George J. | Guest Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Morgan, George Hay |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Morrell, Philip |
| Boland, John Pius | Hackett, John | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | Muldoon, John |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Hancock, J. G. | Munro, Robert |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. |
| Brace, William | Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Brigg, Sir John | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Neilson, Francis |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Bryce, John Annan | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Norton, Captain Cecil William |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hayden, John Patrick | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N,) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Higham, John Sharp | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Hinds, John | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Hodge, John | O'Dowd, John |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Holt, Richard Durning | Ogden, Fred |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Horne, C Silvester (Ipswich) | O'Grady, James |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Clough, William | Hunter, Wm. (Lanark, Govan) | O'Malley, William |
| Clynes, John R | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Johnson, William | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Cowan, William Henry | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Jowett, Frederick William | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Crooks, William | Joyce, Michael | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Crumley, Patrick | Keating, Matthew | Pointer, Joseph |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Ponsonby, Arthur A W. H. |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Kilbride, Denis | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) | King, Joseph (Somerset, North) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Delany, William | Lansbury, George | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Devlin, Joseph | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Rainy, Adam Rolland |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire) | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Doris, William | Levy, Sir Maurice | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Duffy, William J. | Lewis, John Herbert | Reddy, Michael |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Logan, John William | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lundon, Thomas | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Lynch Arthur Alfred | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Elverston, Harold | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Roberts, George (Norwich) |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Sutton, John E. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Robinson, Sidney | Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe) | Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth) |
| Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Tennant, Harold John | Wiles, Thomas |
| Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Thomas, James Henry (Derby) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Rowlands, James | Thorne, William (West Ham) | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Runciman, Rt. Hon Walter | Toulmin, George | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Verney, Sir H. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Scanlan, Thomas | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. | Wardle, G. J. | Winfrey, Richard |
| Sheehy, David | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Simon, Sir John Alisebrook | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Watt, Henry A. | |
| Soares, Ernest Joseph | Webb, H. | |
| Strachey, Sir Edward | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Summers, James Woolley | White, Sir George (Norfolk) | |
| Sutherland, J. E. | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Middlemore, John Throgmorton |
| Ashley, W. W. | Fleming, Valentine | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Astor, Waldorf | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Forster, Henry William | Moore, William |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Foster, Philip Staveley | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gardner, Ernest | Morrison-Bell. Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.) | Gibbs, George Abraham | Mount, William Arthur |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Goldman, C. S. | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Goldsmith, Frank | Newman, John R. P. |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. Guy Victor | Gordon, John | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Barnston, Harry | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Grant, James Augustus | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.) | Greene, Walter Raymond | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Pole-Carew, Sir R. |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington) | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Quilter, William Eley C. |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Harris, Henry Percy | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Bigland, Alfred | Helmsley, Viscount | Rawson, Col. Richard H |
| Bird, Alfred | Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith- | Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. | Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan |
| Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) | Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Burgoyne, Alan Hughes | Hills, John Waller (Durham) | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Butcher, John George (York) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Campion, W. R. | Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Carlile, Edward Hildred | Horner, A. L. | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Cassel, Felix | Houston, Robert Paterson | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hunt, Rowland | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Cator, John | Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Cave, George | Joynson-Hicks. William | Stewart, Gershom |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Kerry, Earl of | Swift, Righy |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Kimber, Sir Henry | Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Chambers, James | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Kirkwood, John H. M. | Touche, George Alexander |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Larmor, Sir J. | Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford) |
| Courthope, George Loyd | Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End) | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Croft, Henry Page | Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale) | Wood, John Stalybridge |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich) | Worthington-Evans. L. (Colchester) |
| Dixon, Charles Harvey | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.) | Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Yerburgh, Robert |
| Falle, Bertram Godfray | Mackinder, Halford J. | Younger, George |
| Fell, Arthur | M'Mordie, Robert | |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Magnus, Sir Philip | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Finlay, Sir Robert | Malcolm, Ian | |
| Fisher, William Heyes | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words 'at least one month before the end of the Session' stand part of the Clause."
2238§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 282; Noes, 175.
2239| Division No. 114.] | AYES. | [4.51 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Essex, Richard Walter | M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Esslemont, George Birnie | Marks, G. Croydon |
| Adamson, William | Falconer, J. | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Farrell, James Patrick | Martin, Joseph |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Fenwick, Charles | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Ferens, T. R. | Meagher, Michael |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Ffrench, Peter | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Alden, Percy | Field, William | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Fitzgibbon, John | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Anderson, A. | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Millar, James Duncan |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | France, G. A | Molloy, M. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Furness, Stephen | Moiteno, Percy Alport |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Gelder, Sir W. A. | Mooney, J. J. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Gill, A. H. | Morgan, George Hay |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Ginnell, L. | Morrell, Philip |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Glanville, H. J. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Barnes, G. N. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Muldoon, John |
| Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick) | Goldstone, Frank | Munro, R. |
| Barry, Redmond John | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. |
| Barton, W. | Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Neilson, Francis |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Benn, W. (T. H'mts., St. George) | Hackett, J. | Nolan, Joseph |
| Bentham, G J. | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Hancock, J. G. | Norton, Captain Cecil W. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Roland, John Pius | Hardie, J. Keir | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | O'Brien, William (Cork, N. E.) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Brace, William | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Brigg, Sir John | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Dowd, John |
| Brunner, J. F. L. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Ogden, Fred |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor | O'Grady, James |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Higham, John Sharp | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hinds, John | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Hodge, John | O'Malley, William |
| Byles, William Pollard | Holt, Richard Durning | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Palmer, Godfrey |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Hughes, S. L. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Chancellor, H G. | Hunter, Wm. (Lanark, Govan) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Chapple, Dr. W. A. | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Johnson, W. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Clough, William | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Pointer, Joseph |
| Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Jowett, F. W. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Joyce, Michael | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Keating, M. | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Primrose, Hon. Neil James |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Kilbride, Denis. | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Crean, Eugene | King, J. (Somerset, N.) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Crooks, William | Lambert, Gorge (Devon, Molton) | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. |
| Crumley, Patrick | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Lansbury, George | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Reddy, M. |
| Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd, Cockerm'th) | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Delany, William | Lewis, John Herbert | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Logan, John William | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness) | Lundon, T. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Doris, W. | Lynch, A. A. | Robinson, Sidney |
| Duffy, William J. | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Roche, John (Galway, E.) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Rowlands, James |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | M'Callum, John M. | Samuel, J. (Stockton) |
| Elverston, H. | M'Kean, John | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | M'Laren, H. D. (Leics.) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Sheehan, Daniel Daniel | Verney, Sir Harry | Wiles, Thomas |
| Sheehy, David | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | Williams, P. (Middlesbrough) |
| Smyth, Thomas F. | Wardle, George J. | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Soares, Ernest J. | Waring, Walter | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Strachey, Sir Edward | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Summers, James Wooley | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Sutherland, J. E. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Sutton, John E. | Watt, Henry A. | Winfrey, Richard |
| Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Webb, H. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Young, W. (Perthshire, E.) |
| Tennant, Harold John | White, Sir George (Norfolk) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Thomas, James Henry (Derby) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) | |
| Thorne, William (West Ham) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) | TELLERS FOR THF AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Toulmin, George | Whitehouse, John Howard | |
| Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Fisher, W. Hayes | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fitzroy, Hon. E. A. | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Middlemore, John Throgmorton |
| Archer-Shee, Major M. | Fleming, Valentine | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Ashley, W. W. | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas |
| Astor, Waldorf | Forster, Henry William | Moore, William |
| Baird, J. L. | Foster, Philip Staveley | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) |
| Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) | Gardner, Ernest | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gastrell, Major W. H. | Mount, William Arthur |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gibbs, G. A. | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Goldman, C. S. | Newman, John R. P. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Goldsmith, Frank | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Baring, Captain Hon. G. | Gordon, J. | Norton-Griffiths, John |
| Barnston, H. | Coulding, Edward Alfred | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Grant, J. A. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) | Greene, W. R. | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Guinness, Hon. W. E. | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Pole-Carew, Sir R. (Cornwall, Bodmin) |
| Benn, I. H. (Greenwich) | Hamersley, A. St. George | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) | Quilter, William Eley C. |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Beresford, Lord C. | Harris, Henry Percy | Rawson, Colonel R. H. |
| Bigland, Alfred | Helmsley, Viscount | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bird, A. | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Rice, Hon. W. |
| Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith- | Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesball) |
| Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid) | Hill, Sir Clement | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hillier, Dr. A. P. | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Burgoyne, A H. | Hills, J. W. | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Butcher, J. G. (York) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Campion, W. R. | Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Horner, A. L. | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Cassel, Felix | Houston, Robert Paterson | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hunt, Rowland | Starkey, John B. |
| Cator, John | Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath) | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Cave, George | Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Joynson-Hicks, William | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Kerr-Smiley, Peter | Swift, Rigby |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Kerry, Earl of | Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Chambers, J. | Kimber, Sir Henry | Touche, George Alexander |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Clay, Captain H. Spender | Kirkwood, J. H. M. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Knight, Captain E. A. | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Larmor, Sir J. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End) | White, Major C. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Lee, Arthur H. | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Croft, H. P. | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.) | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Dixon, C. H. | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton) |
| Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Yerburgh, Robert |
| Falle, B. G. | Mackinder, H. J. | Younger, George |
| Fell, Arthur | M'Mordie, R. J. | |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Magnus, Sir Philip | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Morpeth and Mr. Mitchell-Thomson. |
| Finlay, Sir Robert | Malcolm, Ian |
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BARNSTONI beg to move in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "one month ["at least one month before the end of the Session"] and to insert the words "two months." One reason why I ask the Government to accept this Amendment is that it will affect the Unionist party just as much as the present Government when we change sides. May I suggest a case which might happen? Assuming a very contentious Budget was produced by our side, such as a Tariff Reform Budget. As the Clause now stands, it might be rushed through by the Closure, provided it passes a month before the end of the Session, unless my Amendment or one something like it is accepted. In this way very injurious taxation might become law without having been fully discussed. One object achieved by my Amendment would be that the Budget would be passed at such a time in the Session as would be convenient, instead of being rushed through at the end of the Session. The people would then know what was being done, and they would have an opportunity of letting their representatives know their wishes. In future, however unfair a Budget is produced there will be no other way except defeating it or altering it by popular opinion outside this House. I move this Amendment so that popular opinion may have time to assert itself, and when a Budget in this House has taken its final shape at any rate there should be two clear months, so that the people may have time to think it over. I suggest this Amendment, because there is no other check of any sort or kind in the Bill.
§ Mr. JOSEPH PEASEThe Government have considered the amount of time which ought to be allowed to the House of Lords to review a Money Bill, and we have come to the conclusion that one month would be really ample. If the Committee considers the course of a controversial Bill through this House they will at one realise that the country has ample time to consider what the character of any new taxation is which may be proposed in any Budget. There are so many stages in connection with a controversial Money Bill that it is practically impossible to rush it through the House of Commons. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have done it."] Such a Bill cannot be rushed through without the country having a reasonable opportunity of realising what the new taxation is that is being proposed. The Leader of the Opposition has admitted that 2242 the House of Lords at the present time has no power, whatsoever to amend a Money Bill, and it is really a question of what time should be allowed the House of Lords to review finance as proposed in any Money Bill which may be submitted to them. We have concluded that one month is ample time to review any measure which may be sent to the House of Lords which they have no power to amend, and which they have only the power to reject. The proposal of the Government allowing one month is really calculated to induce a Government to pass its controversial Money Bills not later than one month before the expiration of the Session. To that extent I think it will have a wholesome influence upon the Government of the day. If we were to extend the period to two months, the other House might experience a great deal of inconvenience in getting through the necessary Money Bills before the anticipated end of the Session, and the House of Commons might be called upon to do exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has just condemned—namely, to remain here when we were all anxious to bring the Session to an end, waiting for the decision of the House of Lords to reject a Money Bill. If the other House wish to reject a Money Bill they will have ample time to do it within the twenty Parliamentary days which one month would give them. For these reasons the Government cannot accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member opposite.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEIt seems to be the custom of Ministers to deal with these Amendments as if they referred only to Budgets and Appropriation Bills, but may I point out that this Sub-section applies to an immense amount of legislation in no way confined to Appropriation Bills or Budgets. There may be a variety of measures introduced under this Clause, some of them very long and complicated, which are quite outside the ordinary financial proposals. It is quite clear from the Debate on Monday that the Government contemplate the possibility of discussions which may have important results, because they have inserted into this Clause the words "Unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary." That must clearly indicate the possibility that during the discussions in the House of Lords the House of Commons may change its opinion before presenting a measure to His Majesty to receive the Royal Assent. In that case one month would not be enough. The House of Lords may have other business in hand when a Money Bill is sent up to them, and 2243 they may not be able at once to devote their attention to that particular measure. For this reason I think a greater space of time ought to be allowed. As regards Budgets and Appropriation Bills I think a provision of this kind is very valuable, because it will attract the House of Commons back to its main function, that is, the business of Supply. At the present time we have every August the very unseemly practice of passing millions of money——
§ The CHAIRMANThis Amendment raises similar points to the last Amendment, and I think as far as posible the discussion ought to be confined to the question of the applicability of two months instead of one month.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI will endeavour to confine my remarks to that point. I do not think the extension of the period of one month to two months can be open to many objections. If the Government cannot get through their financial business in a reasonable time it will be much better to have an Autumn Session. May I say how very much interested I was to hear the statement of the Postmaster-General that the rejection of the Budget was largely and mainly the cause of this Clause. That is a most interesting statement, because the way the Clause is drawn up shows that it goes far beyond the range of Budgets and Appropriation Bills.
§ Mr. CHARLES CRAIGOne argument put forward by the Chancellor of the Duchy against this Amendment struck me as being rather significant. The right hon. Gentleman said that one of the main objects of limiting the time to one month was that it might ensure that a controversial Money Bill will always be passed at least a mouth before the end of the Session. I presume we are to take it from that statement that had it not been for that consideration the Government might probably have reduced the time to be allowed to the House of Lords down to even a week or two days. It seems to me that this is a ridiculously short time to allow, and it is only another instance of holding a pistol to the head of the House of Lords. I think if the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite will think of some of the Bills mentioned by my hon. Friend they will realise that it is quite possible at any rate that the twenty full Parliamentary days of which the right hon. Gentleman 2244 spoke might be utterly insufficient for the proper discussion of a so-called Money Bill when it went up to the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman, in saying that twenty Parliamentary days will be ample, omits to consider the fact that the House of Lords may be engaged on some other important matters which may require a great deal of attention. They may be in the middle of the Committee stage of some important Bill. Apparently the view of the Government is that upon all occasions when a Money Bill is sent up to the House of Lords their Lordships should be there sitting expectant twiddling their thumbs waiting for the measure to come before them. The House of Lords are not always engaged in that way, for they are often doing very useful work, and it is absurd to say that they should be prepared to give up their entire time and always be ready to receive a Money Bill. I think to make the period two months is a very reasonable suggestion, and it would be ample to dispose of any inconvenience which might arise and leave the other House ample time to deal with a Money Bill. Seeing that the Government have not shown the slightest indication of accepting any Amendment suggested from these benches, I think a most excellent opportunity is now offered for the Government to show what reasonable people they are.
§ Mr. CASSELI am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman has not fully appreciated the purport of this Amendment or of that part of the Clause with which it deals. His argument was merely directed to the point as to what length of time the House of Lords was to have to consider a Bill. This Amendment does not deal with that point, but with the question as to the time before the end of the Session when a Bill is to be sent up to the House of Lords. The distinction is of vital importance. Assuming you only give the House of Lords a month to consider the Bill, the House of Commons, under the Clause, may direct to the contrary, so that before the end of the Session you must leave some time for the House of Commons to consider the decision to which the House of Lords has come. How can you work the Clause otherwise? Supposing the House of Lords took its full month and did not pass the Bill in the course of that month and the Session was at once to come to an end, the House of Commons would never have the opportunity of reconsidering the Clause. If you consider a month is the proper time to leave to the House of Lords for the con- 2245 sideration of a Bill, then you ought to allow some reasonable time, whether it be a month, fourteen days or a week, more than a month in order that the House of Commons may have an opportunity of considering, in the light of the discussions in the House of Lords, whether possibly it might introduce some Amendment in consequence of those discussions. No doubt, as a rule, this House does not accept Amendments of the House of Lords to financial measures, but, if you are to have a discussion in the House of Lords, and that discussion is to be valuable, and if you have in the Clause the words "unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary," then I do not see how you can logically carry out your intentions unless you make the period before the end of the Session longer than the time you allow to the House of Lords.
§ Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI wish to join in asking the Government to give a little more time before the end of the Session when the Bill is to be sent up to the House of Lords, and also a little more time for the House of Lords to consider it. We are informed that this Clause is to apply not only to the existing House of Lords but to a reformed House of Lords, and, under a reformed House of Lords, a totally different state of things may exist. At present you have a Liberal Government and a Conservative House of Lords. When this Bill is passed, there may be a Conservative Government and a Liberal House of Lords, if the House of Lords is reformed in accordance with the words of the Preamble. Under those circumstances, would not the Government think it reasonable that the House of Lords should have a little more time to revise a Conservative Budget? Let us imagine that a Conservative Government under these conditions passed a Tariff Reform Budget. I sincerely hope they will. Would not the Government think it perfectly right that a Liberal Second Chamber should have ample opportunity of considering it? They might want to refer it to a Select Committee—that would be a very reasonable course to take—and surely, if they did, it is only reasonable they should have more than one month in which to do it. They could not do it in one month, and the result would be that a Tariff Reform Budget, which, in the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite perhaps might never have been before the country, and on which the country might not really have spoken the last word, might be 2246 passed through both Chambers simply and solely because the Government of to-day will not give a future Second Chamber more than one month in which to consider a Budget. We have got to look at the matter, not only from the point of view of present circumstances, but also from the point of view of circumstances of a totally different character which may arise in the future, and for these reasons I sincerely hope the Government will be willing to give way on this point. After all, this is not an unreasonable Amendment. I had the honour last night of moving an Amendment which the Government declared was absurd and unreasonable. I do not admit it for one moment, but, at all events, no one can say this is unreasonable. It is simply designed to improve the conditions under which the new Constitution will work. I venture to say the Government have tied up the new Constitution in a most ridiculous way by putting in these limitations. To say that every Finance Bill must go to the House of Lords within one month of the end of the Session and that there is only to be one month in which to consider it is not giving a Second Chamber in the future any opportunity of carrying out their duties at all. I rose, not in any controversial spirit, but simply to ask the Government to show their sweet reasonableness by making this very reasonable concession.
§ Sir R. FINLAYI think it will be admitted on all hands that the House of Lords have shown themselves very sparing in the exercise of their legal and constitutional rights with regard to Money Bills. They have put those rights in force only on occasions of very great gravity. That must be admitted on all hands; in fact, it does not admit of any controversy whatever. Surely for measures of great gravity, even though they are Money Bills, a month is too short. The House of Lords may have other business on hand. The point I wish to emphasise, however, is that we are not dealing with what everybody understands by Money Bills, because the definition contained in this Clause proposes to include within that phrase many things which no one would understand to be Money Bills. Bills dealing with public money really raise questions of the utmost possible importance which deserve discussion and which certainly cannot receive discussion in the House of Lords if one month is the time provided. I would respectfully ask the Government to consider the time to be allowed in the light of their 2247 own extensive definition of what is to fall within the words "Money Bills." If they do that I hope it will be realised that one month, having regard to the other engagements of the House of Lords, which often accumulate at the end of the Session, is too short.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe right hon. Gentleman has advanced three arguments against this Bill, and all of them, I venture to say, are wrong. He said it would be quite impossible to pass a Finance Bill in so short a time that the public was unaware of its provisions. It has been done within the last three weeks. We not only passed the Bill in such a hurry that the public were not aware of its provisions, but it took away a provision which the Government had already granted to the local authorities in a Bill which was introduced and passed under similar circumstances. That Budget was twice guillotined within five months. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman therefore has no weight in it at all. His second argument
§ was that the Leader of the Opposition had said great inconvenience would result to the House from one month being part of the Bill. It is not often the right hon. Gentleman or his colleagues attaches very much importance to the statements and protests of my right hon. Friend. [An HON. MEMBER: "Always."] Then perhaps on another occasion they will accept an Amendment which he supports. They have not yet done so. The protest of the Leader of the Opposition was not against one month being either insufficient or too long. He pointed out that the proposal of the Government was wrong and might result in great inconvenience. We do not object to inconvenience if it is to the advantage of the country, and it is to the advantage of the country that there should be sufficient time for the House of Lords to consider the various Bills sent up. I really think the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider his decision.
§ Question put, "That the words, 'one month' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 282; Noes, 179.
2251| Division No. 115.] | AYES. | [5.30 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Clancy, John Joseph | Gelder, Sir W. A. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Clough, William | Gill, A. H. |
| Adamson, William | Clynes, J. R. | Ginnell, L. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Glanville, H. J. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Goldstone, Frank |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) |
| Alden, Percy | Cotton, William Francis | Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Gulland, John William |
| Anderson, A. | Crooks, William | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Crumley, Patrick | Hackett, J. |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Hancock, J. G. |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Hardie, J. Keir |
| Barry, Redmond John | Delany, William | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Barton, W. | Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Devlin, Joseph | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Dewar, Sir J. A. | Harwood, George |
| Benn, W. (T. H'mts., St. George) | Dickinson, W. H. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Bentham, G. J. | Doris, W. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Duffy, William J. | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Hayward, Evan |
| Boland, John Pius | Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Hinds, John |
| Brace, William | Elverston, H. | Hodge, John |
| Brigg, Sir John | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. | Essex, Richard Walter | Hudson, Walter |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Esslemont, George Birnle | Hughes, S. L. |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Falconer, J. | Hunter, W. (Govan) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Farrell, James Patrick | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Fenwick, Charles | Johnson, W. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Ferens, T. R. | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Ffrench, Peter | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Field, William | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Fitzgibbon, John | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney) |
| Chapple, Dr. W A. | France, G. A. | Jowett, F. W. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Furness, Stephen | Joyce, Michael |
| Keating, M. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Kilbride, Denis | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Smith, H. B. (Northampton) |
| King, J. (Somerset, N.) | O'Doherty, Philip | Smyth, Thomas F. |
| Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) | O'Donnell, Thomas | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | O'Dowd, John | Summers, James Wooley |
| Lansbury, George | Ogden, Fred | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | O'Grady, James | Sutton, John E. |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd, Cockerm'th) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe) |
| Lewis, John Herbert | O'Malley, William | Tennant, Harold John |
| Logan, John William | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Low, Sir F. (Norwich) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Thomas, James Henry (Derby) |
| Lundon, T. | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Palmer, Godfrey | Toulmin, George |
| Lynch, A. A. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| M'Callum, John M. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| M'Kean, John | Pirie, Duncan V. | Wardle, George J. |
| McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Pointer, Joseph | Waring, Walter |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Leics.) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Power, Patrick Joseph | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Marks, G. Croydon | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Marshall, Arthur Harold | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Webb, H. |
| Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Wedgwood, Joslah C. |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Rainy, A. Rolland | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Meagher, Michael | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Menzies, Sir Walter | Reddy, M. | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Millar, James Duncan | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Molloy, M. | Redmond, William (Clare) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Rendall, Athelstan | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Mooney, J. J. | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Morgan, George Hay | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Williams, P. (Middlesbrough) |
| Morrell, Philip | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Muldoon, John | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Munro, R. | Robinson, Sidney | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Needham, Christopher T. | Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Neilson, Francis | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Winfrey, Richard |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Nolan, Joseph | Scanlan, Thomas | Young, W. (Perthshire, E.) |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B. | |
| Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Sheehy, David | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Barnston and Mr. C. Craig. |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Cassel, Felix | Gardner, Ernest |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Castlereagh, Viscount | Gastrell, Major W. H. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Cator, John | Gibbs, G. A. |
| Archer-Shee, Major M. | Cautley, H. S. | Goldman, C. S. |
| Ashley, W. W. | Cave, George | Goldsmith, Frank |
| Astor, Waldorf | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Gordon, J. |
| Baird, J. L. | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) | Chambers, J. | Grant, J. A. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Greene, Walter Raymond |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Clive, Percy Archer | Guinness, Hon. W. E. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Hall, D. R. (Isle of Wight) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Courthope, G. Loyd | Hamersley, A. St. George |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) |
| Baring, Captain Hon. G. | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Craik, Sir Henry | Harris, Henry Percy |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.) | Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan | Helmsley, Viscount |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Dairymple, Viscount | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Dalziel, D. (Brixton) | Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Hill, Sir Clement |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hillier, Dr. A. P. |
| Beresford, Lord C. | Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | Hills, J. W. |
| Bigland, Alfred | Falle, B. G. | Hill-Wood, Samuel |
| Bird, A. | Fell, Arthur | Hohler, G. F. |
| Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith- | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid) | Finlay, Sir Robert | Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Fitzroy, Hon. E. A. | Horner, A. L. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Burgoyne, A. H. | Fleming, Valentine | Hunt, Rowland |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath) |
| Butcher, J. G. (York) | Forster, Henry William | Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Foster, Philip Staveley | Joynson-Hicks, William |
| Kerr-Smiley, Peter | Morpeth, Viscount | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Kerry, Earl of | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Kimber, Sir Henry | Mount, William Arthur | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Newdegate, F. A. | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Newman, John R. P. | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Kirkwood, J. H. M. | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Stewart, Gershom |
| Knight, Captain E. A. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Norton-Griffiths, John | Swift, Rigby |
| Larmer, Sir J. | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.) | Parkes, Ebenezer | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Lee, Arthur H. | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Lewisham, Viscount | Perkins, Walter Frank | Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford) |
| Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Peto, Basil Edward | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Pole-Carew, Sir R. (Cornwall, Bodmin) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Pollock, Ernest Murray | White, Major C. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Quitter, William Eley C. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.) | Ratcliff, R. F. | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude |
| Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Rawson, Colonel R. H. | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagn | Remnant, James Farquharson | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Mackinder, H. J. | Rice, Hon. W. | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| M'Mordie, R. J. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Ronaldshay, Earl of | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Malcolm, Ian | Rothschild, Lionel de | Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton) |
| Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Royds, Edmund | Yerburgh, Robert |
| Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) | Younger, George |
| Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Salter, Arthur Clavell | |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Soares and Mr. Howard. |
| Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Sanders, Robert A. | |
| Moore, William | Sanderson, Lancelot |
Question, "That those words be added in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. MALCOLMrose to move——
§ Viscount HELMSLEYMay I submit that my Amendment, as hereafter defined, should be taken next, because, supposing those words were carried, the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Malcolm) will still be in order, whereas if the Amendment were carried it would not be possible for me to move mine.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not know to what the Noble Lord's Amendment refers.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI have not put down any definition of the word "Session," but I do propose to put down a further Amendment later on defining them.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Noble Lord's Amendment is not in order because it is not complete.
§ Mr. MALCOLMmoved, in Sub-section (1), after the words "end of the Session," to insert the words,—" and moved within seven days in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown."
I should think that this is quite a non-controversial Amendment, and that there will be very little difficulty in incorporating these words in the Clause. The Prime Minister said yesterday that he had no objection to inserting words which would improve the Bill. He did not object to a Report stage being taken later on. I hope to be able to prove that this Amendment is of value, and to receive from the Treasury Bench some assurance that it will be incorporated in the Bill. As the Bill at present stands, these Money Bills, or Bills 2252 connected with money, may be laid on the Table of the House of Lords on passing from this House for so many days, and at the end of the statutory month referred to in the Clause, might be passed into law without any discussion at all. That I admit is a reductio ad absurdum of the policy of sending up a Bill to the House of Lords complete in all its parts. I think it can only be necessary to call attention to the desirability of inserting some such provision as would avoid this absurd use of the Second Chamber to ensure the adoption of this provision against it. Manifestly that cannot be what is intended, but at the same time it might happen if the House of Lords were engaged in discussing some measure of importance. It might happen that in abnormal circumstances, in circumstances of emergency, something might turn up which had to be discussed at once during that period of one month, and there would be no opportunity consequently of discussing the Money Bill at all. It might occur under a Cabinet far more drastic than the present Cabinet that a Bill might be sent to another place and lie on the Table there for the statutory period and be passed into law without any discussion at all. We have, of course, before us a recollection of what was done in reference to another Bill only the other day, showing that even the present Cabinet, not being at all anxious for a discussion in the House of Lords allowed only three hours for a debate on it before it was passed into law. Freedom of speech is, however, still left to the House of Lords. It is one of the very few things left to it, 2253 and that freedom ought to be insisted upon wherever possible. Hence my Amendment. We desire that this Finance Bill shall get proper discussion when it goes to another place. I observe that the Secretary for War said not very long ago that a Second Chamber properly constituted would be a sympathetic Second Chamber, just like the perfect wife of the poet who
would counsel, warn und demand, but still not be in the position of the dominating authority.I am sure this perfect wife would insist upon speaking. That we can all be assured of, and it is that privilege which I want to keep for the House of Lords, and by inserting these words to see that they get that time and opportunity of discussing a Finance Bill within the statutory month which it is desirable they should have. As regards the second part of the Amendment that a Minister of the Crown should introduce the Bill, that is a point upon which I think there will be no division of opinion in this House because it will bring the matter on all fours with the procedure of this House, where it is understood that any Bill which conveys a public charge, or a charge upon the public purse, cannot be introduced except by a Minister of the Crown, and we want to be sure that a Minister of the Crown in the House of Lords shall introduce such a Bill in such a way and at such a time when full discussion is likely to follow. We wish that full discussion should be had there, and that the Commons should have such advantage as may result from the Debates which take place in the House of Lords. I think this Amendment would, if accepted, improve the Bill.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe hon. Member has put his case in such a way as to suggest that this Amendment was open to no objection, and was an improvement of the Bill, and if that were the case the Government would, of course, be very glad to accept it. In the course of a few words, however, I think I shall be able to show the hon. Member that this Amendment is unnecessary, and, in the second place, it opens a door to a danger he has possibly not yet suspected. The hon. Member pictures the case of a Government who want to preclude the possibility of the House of Lords even debating a Bill, and who hold the measure over until the last day of the month, or even do not move it at all. In the first place, no responsible Ministry would so treat the House of Lords in view of the terms of this statute, and, in the 2254 second place, even if they did so any Opposition peer could primâ facie move the Bill in order that it should be discussed, and then the purpose of the Government would be defeated. Therefore, this Amendment is unnecessary. In the second place it is dangerous. Let us assume a highly controversial Finance Bill passed by this House towards the latter part of the Session. It goes across the Lobby into the other House, but the Act, if we do as hon. Member's desire would provide that unless that Bill is moved within seven days from the moment it leaves this House and is sent up, then the whole of this Act would not apply to that Bill. What could be easier than for a determined opposition on the day that the Bill comes up there to move a resolution, "That this House do adjourn for eight days." There would be no means, assuming the Opposition in the Upper House were in a majority, of defeating that Motion, and the effect would be that the House of Lords having adjourned for that period, the Bill could not be moved by a Minister of the Crown within seven days, and the whole of this Act, so far as it relates to that Bill, would fall to the ground. The House of Commons would look extremely ludicrous if, having spent all this time upon this subject, in order to secure complete control of this House in regard to finance, they are to be defeated by the simple process of moving the adjournment in the other House for a few days. We must always do all we can in framing legislation to prevent a coach and four being driven through our measures. Of course, hon. Members opposite dislike this Bill and this Clause, and they think it would be a very good thing if it could be so defeated and derided, but those who support the Clause and the Bill cannot do otherwise than object to the Amendment of the hon. Member.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEI wish to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, and I am rather disappointed that the Postmaster-General has given the answer that he has, for I think the Amendment is an eminently reasonable one. I am afraid I do not agree with him that it has dangers, because obviously there can be an alteration of it which would meet the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. In one thing I certainly agree with him, I never pretended to like the Parliament Bill, and I do not conceal that I dislike it, lock, stock, and barrel, but if we are to 2255 have this measure forced upon us by the mere mechanical majority opposite, I should think that hon. Members opposite would have liked a Bill which would work in practice as well as possibly in theory. The Amendment is proposed to fill up what I think is an obvious omission, for as the Clause stands at the present moment there is nothing arranged whereby a Bill really could be discussed in the House of Lords. Nor can I see that there is anything at all to provide that the Minister who is responsible for sending this Bill there shall ever bring the measure before that House. Surely the main point of the whole Clause is not a mere mechanical travelling up from this House to the other House, but it is rather the point of the Bill being brought before the other House. That is the time we have now to legislate for, and if the Government will not accept this Amendment, I think the whole Clause really becomes a farce, because it will simply mean if the measure were not discussed, legislation could be sent up to the Upper House, laid on the Table, and it would ipso facto become law after so many days, whether it was discussed or not. I should have thought that those hon. Gentlemen who talk so much about a Second Chamber would have supported the principles of a Second Chamber as they appear in this Amendment. I had rather hoped that my Friend the Lord Advocate would have done so. We know he sowed his wild oats at the beginning of 1909, when he favoured a Single Chamber, but quite lately the right hon. Gentleman has been making speeches of a precisely different character. In fact, if I might say so without wishing in any way to be rude, I think he would probably be described in Scotland at the present moment as a very douce and cannie body, and as one not anxious to bring in any wild legislation without it having been discussed.
I think if hon. Members opposite do want to be taken as serious politicians and wish to improve the methods of legislation in this country, they ought to do something to insure that Bills, when they do go up to the Second Chamber, should not be laid on the Table, or pigeon-holed and thus mechanically passed into law. The reason why it is suggested that a Minister of the Crown should move the Bill in the House of Lords is because the Clause relates to Money Bills, and we wish, as far as possible, that what has been thought the best method of dealing with Money Bills in this House, should become the habit, even in 2256 the Upper House. The regulations here say that whenever a Money Bill is dealt with in this House, it must be moved by a Minister of the Crown if it imposes a charge upon the people, and I should have thought that the same practice would have been a very good one to have started in the Upper House. Of course, the Standing Orders of the Upper House provide that a Commons Bill, not taken up within twelve days, drops, but that surely could be altered in view of any new legislation being passed by this House. I think the right hon. Gentleman will grant me this that the Amendment has not made the slightest alteration in the sense of the Clause. We still have a measure which is sent up to the other House and which will be deemed to be rejected if it is not passed, although that is somewhat of an Irishism. The Committee will still keep in the Bill that which is desirable from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, and the Amendment makes the Bill far more easy to work in practice than it is at present. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will think over what I have said, because I know how very amenable he is when matters are properly put before him.
Mr. BALFOURThe right hon. Gentleman says it is impossible to believe that a Government will be so perverse as not to move a Bill, but he holds that it is quite possible that the House of Lords would be so perverse as to adjourn for a month and not allow the Bill to be brought before them. Personally, I think both contingencies are rather remote. I think it is rather unlikely that a Government would desire to use this as an instrument to prevent the House of Lords from discussing a Finance Bill, and I think, on the other hand, it is extremely unlikely that the House of Lords, in order to defeat this Clause, would adjourn for a month. But I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if we are trying to shut the door against perversity on the part of the Government, it is not right to leave it open as regards perversity on the part of the House of Lords. I think we ought to assume that both have equal capacity of perverse action, and the Clause ought to be framed in order to secure that the avowed intention of the Government must be carried out. What is that avowed intention? It is that although the House of Lords are not to be allowed either to amend or to reject, they ought to be given ample time for discussion. I think the right hon. Gentleman has shown ground 2257 for believing that if the Amendment of my hon. Friend were carried in the terms in which it was moved, it would be possible for a perverse House of Lords to take advantage of it and stop discussion. Let him be equally fair and admit that the Clause which the Government have provided leaves it in the power of a perverse Government to defeat the very intentions of the framers of this Bill and so arrange matters that no discussion shall take place in the House of Lords within the prescribed month. I cannot think it is beyond the resources of draftsmanship to see that both these holes are stopped, and that both courses are prevented. A very few words would safeguard the Government against the House of Lords adjourning for a month, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, and equally prevent a Government depriving the House of Lords of the privilege which they have and which ought to be maintained of fully considering and discussing and laying before the country any arguments for or against any Money Hill sent up to them. I hope he will consider the matter before Report.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELAs the right hon. Gentleman has been so good as to allude to the remarks I made, I would point out that he appears to have overlooked my statement that if a Minister did not move the Bill it was open to any Member of the Opposition to move pro forma that the Bill should be discussed.
§ Sir ALFRED CRIPPSI beg to move to amend the proposed Amendment by adding after the word "and" the words "if the House of Lords shall be then sitting."
6.0 P.M.
I think this will remove the difficulty pointed out by the Postmaster-General. The effect of it is that if the House of Lords has adopted this perverse attitude the seven days would not apply. If these words are put in it is an absolute answer to the suggestion of difficulty made by the Postmaster-General. As regards the other point, it may be possible, under the Standing Orders of the House of Lords, for any Peer to move the Finance Bill of the year when it goes to the House of Lords, but that would be a very improbable and a very clumsy proceeding. You could hardly expect the Bill to be moved by some Peer who is very likely adverse to the provisions contained in it. The proper person to move it would be a Minister of the Crown.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Amendment will now read, "moved within seven days, by a Minister of the Crown, if the House of Lords is then sitting."
§ Mr. F. E. SMITHI cannot help thinking this is one of the first Amendments which I have heard discussed in the Committee stage on which there ought to be some prospect of arriving at an amicable conclusion. I am quite sure the Government will not take the view that the period of a month, which is given to the House of Lords for discussion, is a period which ought not to be enjoyed by them in its fulness for the purpose of discussion. My hon. Friend has stated some reasons for supposing that apprehension may exist that the whole of this month might not be available for the purpose, and it is quite easy to see that the suggestion which my hon. Friend indicated does not necessarily involve any charge of perversity against the Government of the day. One could think of a dozen contingencies which might make it easier for the Government to delay the Bill a little in its passage to the House of Lords. The position is this: that the Government have undertaken by this Bill, in substance, to give the House of Lords a month, and my hon. Friend has unanswerably called the attention of the Government to the fact that the month is not secured to the House of Lords under the Bill as at present drafted. The observations of the Postmaster-General are not unsympathetic in character. I do not think there is any substance at all in his point about any Peer being left to introduce the Bill. I accept the assurance that pro forma this can be done, but, assuming that the doctrine is sound, it is quite clear that it is not a point of substance. It is inconceivable that any one on the opposition side of the House should introduce a Finance Bill with the object of raising difficulties, and that objection is plainly not an objection of substance. As to the other point, that is met by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Alfred Cripps). I can quite understand that the Postmaster-General might desire to take a little further time and consider whether or not from his point of view the words proposed are objectionable in fact. I would earnestly press on the right hon. Gentleman not to give the appearance on the part of the Government which I am sure 2259 they will be anxious to avoid, that where we have shown that there may be some real grievance they will not give us any assistance at all to meet it. They might assure the House of Lords that they shall have the month—a very meagre allowance we think—which is promised them. The Government my say "we do not think any Government would act so in future, and we decline to relieve your apprehensions." They certainly give some ground for the supposition that they do not desire to meet reasonable grievances.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe Government are very ready to accept any Amendments which are shown to be desirable and necessary to the proper fulfilment of the purposes of the Bill. I still think this Amendment is unnecessary. The Leader of the Opposition said we ought to bar the road to perversity on the part of the House of Lords, and we also ought to bar the road to perversity on the part of the Government of the day, and, unreal as the danger of perversity on either side may be, it should be remembered that the Government of the day will have no real motive to be perverse, because, after all, the Bill will pass through the House of Lords, and all they will be doing by the trickery which is supposed will be to prevent discussion. On the other hand, if the House of Lords succeeded, by postponing discussion, in defeating the whole purpose of the Clause they would be able to win a very great victory. If the House of Lords is occupied with other business or if, for any reason, the seven days were to elapse, most tremendous consequences would follow, because the whole Bill would be in peril. I shall be very happy to respond to the appeal to consider this matter between now and Report, with a view, if necessary, to accepting it.
§ Lord HUGH CECILSo far as I understand Standing Order 38, it only provides that if a Bill is not moved it lapses, except after eight days' notice. I do not think it gives any special power to any particular Lord of Parliament to move the Bill. I cannot help pointing out that the right hon. Gentleman, in his last speech, takes a rather different view of the value of discussion in the House of Lords from that taken by the Prime Minister and other speakers a day or two ago. Then we were told it was a very valuable and important thing that the House of Lords should have this power of discussion. Now he tells us 2260 it is so insignificant a thing that no Government would think it worth while to deprive them of it. It is really a great check which enables the country to check the Government in a perverse proposal owing to the enlightenment given by a discussion in the House of Lords. A perverse Government would naturally wish to prevent being checked and would set down the Bill for discussion. Though I agree that is not very likely to happen over the Finance Bill of the year it might very easily happen to one of these Money Bills which would fall within the ambit of this Clause. It might very well be that a particular Bill which really was open to serious criticism might be wished to be got through without too much notice being called to it, and after recent experiences of the use of the guillotine in this House it might very easily be passed through this House after a very little discussion indeed, so that it might slip through unamended, unless there is security of discussion in the House of Lords. Therefore, there is, I think, a danger which the Government might very reasonably meet. I am obliged for the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the matter will be considered before Report. Some of us were beginning to be apprehensive that there would not be a Report stage at all.
§ Mr. C. CRAIGI think the right hon. Gentleman, while on his lags, might have given some more definite assurance that the actual point we have raised would be dealt with. He says that it will be considered. I do not think that is sufficient. The speeches which have been made show that this is a very important point. It seems to me it will be entirely in the hands of the Government of the day to say how much of that month which is specified in the Bill the House of Lords is to have for the discussion of a Budget. That is very undesirable. It seems to me that the Government of the day may take the view that their Budget is very uncontroversial, and one which the House of Lords might easily dispose of in a week, and, therefore, they might not take any steps, after having sent it to the other House, to begin the actual discussion of it for possibly a fortnight or three weeks. The Bill should provide against such a contingency as that. It appears from the conversation between my Noble Friend and the right hon. Gentleman that there is considerable doubt as to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that any private peer may introduce a Finance Bill in the House of Lords. If 2261 that is so—and we have not had any answer from the Front Bench opposite—this Amendment is still more necessary than it was before. But even if it is proved to be the case that a private peer is within his rights in starting a discussion on a Finance Bill, we should have to wait many centuries before, any peer was found who would introduce legislation which he perhaps disagrees with from start to finish for the sake of facilitating the work of the party to which he did not belong. Whether that be so or not, we ought to have it made perfectly clear in this Clause that a substantial portion of the month should be absolutely secured by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has said he will look into the matter before Report. That is satisfactory as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. He should admit that the point we raise is one of substance, and he should give a promise that he will deal with it fully and accede to our wishes either now or on Report.
§ Sir R. FINLAYI desire to express the satisfaction with which I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that this should be considered by the Government before a further stage of the Bill. Under the circumstances, I do not know whether my hon. Friend will consider it a proper course to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Mr. MALCOLMAfter what has fallen from the Postmaster-General, and in consequence of his promise to reconsider the matter and let us know his decision on the Report stage, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Lord HUGH CECILI beg to move, after "Session" ["one month before the end of the Session"], to insert the words "as hereafter defined."
The purpose of the Amendment is to define the word "Session" as being of a certain length of time—not less than six months. I shall be quite satisfied if the Government will explain exactly what they contemplate, and it might then not be necessary to press the Amendment further. I suggest that the Bill as it stands cannot be worked unless you have some limit of time to a Session, because you have a time limit introduced into the Clause giving one month, and if the House of Lords is to have at least one month the matter will not work unless the Session is of a certain minimum length. It would not work so far as I can understand if a Session was only a very short 2262 Session, such as is occasionally held—a Session, for example, like that held in the latter part of 1899, merely for the purpose of voting supplies for War. That Parliament was hastily assembled for a week or two until the necessary business was gone through. I do not know how these safeguards would have any meaning in regard to a Session of that character. A Session would require to be of a certain length if these safeguards are to apply. I understand that the Government are contemplating the ordinary working of Parliament. If you have an abnormally short Session, I do not understand how these intervals of a month would work, and therefore it seems to be necessary to define the length of a Session.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI do not think the Noble Lord has shown any necessity whatever for this Amendment. The time which is to precede the month need not be restricted. All that is necessary in order to secure fair discussion by the House of Lords before a Session terminates is that there shall be an adequate interval during which Debate takes place. I do not see why we should attempt to define "Session." It must consist of a certain number of months. Let us assume that there may be a Session which lasts only five months of the year. The Noble Lord contemplates a Session lasting five months. Why should a Finance Bill passed in that Session be subjected to amendment or rejection at the hands of the House of Lords? I can see no reason whatever. Therefore I ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment
§ Sir ALFRED CRIPPSMay I ask one question as regards the use of the word "Session" in reference to the Amendment which has been proposed? Take a ease where there is an Autumn Session, and suppose that a Bill is sent up from this House to the House of Lords at the beginning of August. What would happen in that case? Would a Finance Bill become law during the month of September, although the House of Lords had had no chance of discussion? On the other hand, does the right hon. Gentleman mean a Session when we adjourn for the summer? Then a Bill might go to the other House and an adjournment take place at once. What would happen in that case? I think it is important to know what that means.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI think the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of an "Autumn Session." That is a misnomer. 2263 There is no such thing. A Session consists of the period between the reading of the King's Speech at the opening and the prorogation of Parliament, and nothing-else but that can be called a Session.
§ Sir ALFRED CRIPPSMay I say to the Prime Minister on that point that that is my difficulty. I entirely agree with what he says as to the term "Autumn Session," but if the House adjourns in the middle of August, immediately after a Bill has been sent up to the House of Lords, and the Session does not end, where is the possible period for its discussion in the House of Lords? Therefore I am sure that on consideration the right hon. Gentleman will come to the same conclusion as I have done. That is the reason why we want some definition. Suppose a Bill is sent up from this House to the House of Lords in August, and suppose there is an adjournment to what I call an Autumn Session, there would be no discussion at all and the Bill would become law in September. I do not think the Prime Minister intends that, but that is how the Clause stands at the present time. It is an important point. I am not raising it antagonistically, but I am raising it to point out to the Prime Minister the necessity for the Amendment in view of what he said the other day in reference to the opportunity for discussion in the Second Chamber.
§ The CHAIRMANI cannot see how this line of argument comes in relevantly to the Amendment we are supposed to be considering.
§ Sir ALFRED CRIPPSA great deal must depend on how you define a Session. If you define it as including nothing after the summer adjournment takes place my difficulty would not arise.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI see the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, but it is one which does not arise here.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI think it is important that the word "Session" should be defined in this Bill, and it seems to me that the only place where you can begin to define it or foreshadow what it means is at this particular place. I think it is important for the purpose of this Clause, but it is still more important in the second Clause of the Bill where the word "Session" occurs. I think it will be obvious to the House that great importance attaches hereafter to the words "three successive 2264 Sessions." What I want to avoid is the possibility of a spurious Session. I am aware that a Session means what the Prime Minister said, namely, from the King's Speech at the opening to the Prorogation at the end of the Session. Usually an autumn Session is the part following the adjournment of the regular Session, but there is nothing to prevent the Government giving advice to the Crown to terminate the Session to-day or to-morrow and begin the new Session two days afterwards. That would be a backstairs way of getting round the provisions of this Bill, and it would make the Bill more stringent than it now is. I would point out that there is nothing to prevent the Government acting in that way. I saw it suggested the other day that, if the course of this Bill was not so smooth as the Government anticipated, this Session should abruptly end, that Parliament should be prorogued, and that after one day's interval an entirely new Parliament should be started. That is what we want to avoid, and, therefore, we say that "Session" must be definitely defined. No doubt the words of the Amendment, if inserted now, would be inserted where the word "Session" occurs subsequently. I think, having regard to the great importance of what is meant by Session, we ought to lay down a definition here. I have suggested that a Session should have a duration of six calendar months. That provides that there shall not be more than two Sessions in any one year, and it removes the possibility of having a sham Session such as I have indicated. I hope that the Government will tell us more as to their intentions, and that a Session shall be what we have come to think it is, and not merely an arbitrary time to suit the convenience of the Government of the day.
§ Mr. LANE-FOXI hope the Government will not leave this matter at present by paying no attention to the appeal made by the Noble Lord. It is evident that there is a great deal more in the Amendment than they appear to think. The whole question of the definition of "Session" depends not merely on this particular instance. It is to guide the whole of the provisions of the Bill. I do not believe that any hon. Member opposite wishes to have a smaller Session than that suggested by the Noble Lord. There would be strong temptation if there is no definition of this sort for some Government on a future occasion, finding delay inconvenient, to strain the letter of this Bill and to make 2265 use of some system of spurious Sessions as has been suggested. The suggestion was in the newspapers not long ago, by Sir Henry Lucy, a distinguished journalist, and as showing that that is not an absolutely ridiculous suggestion in the opinion of some people, a great many of the gentlemen who walk about the Lobby in connection with newspapers, were asking the opinions of various hon. Members as to the suggestion. I think we may take it for granted that this was considerably thought about, and that it was considered as a possible means of procedure. That is what the proposed definition will provide against. I think the Government must see that there is a great deal more in the suggestion than some hon. Members are inclined to think. The Prime Minister has said that the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Bucks (Sir Alfred Cripps) does not arise here, and that there is no reason to define what is meant by Session. I am extremely sorry that the Government take that view, and I earnestly hope that, even if they do not do so now they will modify their opinion before they get to the end of the Bill.
§ Mr. BUTCHERIn my opinion, it is not only necessary to have a definition of a Session but to have it at this particular place. Supposing a Money Bill is sent up to the House of Lords from here on 1st August, and let us say that Parliament had adjourned until 31st October. During that time the House of Lords cannot consider that Money Bill at all. Let us suppose that that Autumn Session only lasts for three days, and that on the 3rd or 4th of November Parliament is prorogued and the Session comes to an end without the House of Lords having had time to discuss the Bill. They would have had two or three days at the very outside, and yet, under the terms of this Bill the Finance Bill would pass into law without further discussion.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not see how this point arises. This is merely a matter of defining the length of the Session.
§ Mr. BUTCHERMy point is this, that unless you define a Session in such a way as to give the House of Lords a certain time for the discussion it would be quite possible for the Bill to pass into law without the House of Lords having more than one or two days for discussion. This Clause, as framed, suggests that the House of Lords should have a month for discussion before the Bill is passed over their 2266 heads. Unless you define the "Session" they might not have even a day.
§ The CHAIRMANThis Amendment does not do that.
§ Mr. BUTCHERI understand that the Amendment that is going to be moved subsequently deals with the duration of the Session and is going to define the Session as having a certain duration, in order to ensure that the House of Lords should have a month for discussion. The point I am endeavouring to make is that unless it is defined in that way the House of Lords might not have a day for discussion. I only want to understand what the ruling is. Do I understand that we are not at liberty to define the Session in such a way as to ensure that the House of Lords would have a month for discussion?
§ The CHAIRMANThe Session is defined by the new clause handed in by the Noble Lord. I cannot see what relevancy the hon. Member's observations have to the Session as defined by the Amendment handed in.
§ Mr. BUTCHERI understand that the new Clause supposes the Session to last for six calendar months. If that is so that would give an opportunity to the House of Lords to have a month's discussion. Therefore I want to define the Session in such a way as to ensure that the House of Lords shall have a month's discussion. At any rate I submit the point to the Prime Minister, and ask him to consider it.
§ Sir R. FINLAYA point, has been raised, to which I desire to call the attention of the House, that the length of the Session if it has reached a certain duration owing to what happened before the Bill was sent up to the House of Lords does not affect the time that the Lords would have for discussion. If this Amendment became law there might be a temptation to prolong the Session which for many reasons is undesirable.
§ Mr. CASSELI desire to call attention to a point the Prime Minister raised. I think he said that the proper time to consider the important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire was after the later words, "within one month after it is so sent up." May I point out to the Prime Minister the reason why the proper place to deal with that point is on the earlier word——
§ The CHAIRMANThe question does not arise on this Amendment, wherever it arises.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI do not wish to press this Amendment on the House now. This is the first time that the word "Session" occurs, and I wish to define it, but if I understand that I can discuss that point better when we reach the word Session in the next Clause I shall be prepared to withdraw it now.
§ The CHAIRMANI understand that the Noble Lord withdraws? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 292.
2271| Division No. 116.] | AYES. | [6.40 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Gastrell, Major W. H. | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Gibbs, G. A. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Archer-Shee, Major Martin | Goldsmith, Frank | Nield, Herbert |
| Ashley, W. W. | Gordon, John | Norton-Griffiths, John |
| Astor, Waldorf | Goulding, Edward Alfred | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Grant, J. A. | Orde-Powlet, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Baird, J. L. | Greene, Walter Raymond | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) | Gretton, John | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Balcarres, Lord | Guinness, Hon. W. E. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Haddock, George Bahr | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) |
| Baring, Captain Hon. G. | Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington) | Perkins, Walter F. |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Barnston, H. | Harris, Henry Percy | Pole-Carew, Sir R. (Cornwall, Bodmin) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) | Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.) |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Hill, Sir Clement | Quilter, William Eley C. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Hills, J. W. | Rawson, Colonel R. H. |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Hoare, S. J. G. | Rice, Hon. W. |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Hohler, G. F. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Beresford, Lord C. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Rolleston, Sir John |
| Bigland, Alfred | Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith | Horner, Andrew Long | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hume-Williams, William Ellis | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hunt, Rowland | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Burgoyne, Alan Hughes | Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath) | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Burn, Colonel C R. | Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.) | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Campion, W. R. | Jessel, Captain H. M. | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Carlile, Edward Hildred | Kerr-Smiley, Peter | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Kerry, Earl of | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Cassel, Felix | Kimber, Sir Henry | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Cator, John | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Cautley, H. S. | Kirkwood, J. H. M. | Spear, John Ward |
| Cave, George | Knight, Captain E. A. | Starkey, John R. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Larmor, Sir J. | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Chambers, James | Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Clay, Captain H. Spender | Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End) | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Swift, Rigby |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lewisham, Viscount | Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Courthope, George Loyd | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale) | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Cripps, Sir C. A. | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Mackinder, Halford J. | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Dalziel, D. (Brixton) | Macmaster, Donald | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | M'Mordie, Robert J. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Dixon, C. H. | Magnus, Sir Philip | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude |
| Doughty, Sir George | Malcolm, Ian | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Winterton, Earl |
| Falle, B. G. | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Fell, Arthur | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Fitzroy, Hon. E. A. | Morpeth, Viscount | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Fleming, Valentine | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Yerburgh, Robert |
| Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Mount, William Arthur | Younger, George |
| Forster, Henry William | Neville, Reginald J. N. | |
| Foster, Philip Staveley | Newdegate, F. A. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount Helmsley and Lord Hugh Cecil. |
| Gardner, Ernest | Newman, John R. P. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Esslemont, George Birnle | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Falconer, J. | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Adamson, William | Farrell, James Patrick | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Adkins, W Ryland D. | Fenwick, Charles | Meagher, Michael |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Ferens, T. R. | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Ffrench, Peter | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Field, William | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Alden, Percy | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Molloy, M. |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | France, G. A. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Alien, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Furness, Stephen | Mooney, John J. |
| Anderson, A. | Gelder, Sir W. A. | Morgan, George Hay |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Gill, A. H. | Morrell, Philip |
| Atherley-Jones, Llewelyn A. | Ginnell, Laurence | Muldoon, John |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Munro, R. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Goldstone, Frank | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Greig, Colonel James William | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Barry, Redmond John | Griffith, Ellis J. | Nolan, Joseph |
| Barton, W. | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Norton, Captain Cecil W. |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Hackett, J. | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Bentham, G. J. | Hancock, J. G | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hardie, J. Keir | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Boland, John Pius | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | O'Dowd, John |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Ogden, Fred |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Harwood, George | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Brace, William | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | O'Malley, William |
| Brigg, Sir John | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Hayward, Evan | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Shee, James John |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor | Palmer, Godfrey |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Higham, John Sharp | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hinds, John | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Hodge, John | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) | Holt, Richard Durning | Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Hudson, Walter | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Hughes, S. L. | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Hunter, W. (Govan) | Pointer, Joseph |
| Chapple, Dr. W. A. | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Johnson, W. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Clough, William | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Clynes, J. R | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Primrose, Hon. Neil James |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Radford, G. H. |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney) | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Jowett, F. W. | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Corbett, A. Cameron | Joyce, Michael | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Keating, M. | Reddy, M. |
| Cotton, William Francis | Kellaway, Frederick George | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Kilbride, Denis | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Crooks, William | Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Lansbury, George | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd, Cockerm'th) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Lewis, John Herbert | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Dawes, J. A. | Logan, John William | Robinson, Sidney |
| Delany, William | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) | Roche, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Lundon, T. | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Lyell, Charles Henry | Roche, John (Galway, E.) |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire) | Lynch, A. A. | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Doris, William | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Rowlands, James |
| Duffy, William J. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | MacGhee, Richard | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.) | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B. |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | M'Callum, John M. | Sheehy, David |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Elverston, H. | M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | M'Laren. F. W. S. (Lincs. Spalding) | Smith, H. B. (Northampton) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Smyth, Thomas F. |
| Essex, Richard Walter | Marks, George Croydon | Soares, Ernest Joseph |
| Spicer, Sir Albert | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Strachey, Sir Edward | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Summers, James Wooley | Wardle, George J. | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Sutherland, J. E. | Waring, Walter | Williams, P. (Middlesbrough) |
| Sutton, John E. | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Tennant, Harold John | Watt, Henry A. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | Webb, H. | Winfrey, Richard |
| Thomas, James Henry (Derby) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Thorne, William (West Ham) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Toulmin, George | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Trevelyan, Charles Philips | White, Patrick (Meath, North) | |
| Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | Whitehouse, John Howard | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Verney, Sir Harry | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. | |
| Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
§ Mr. CARLILEI beg to move, in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "not passed" ["at the end of the Session, is not passed"], and to insert instead thereof the word "rejected." The object of this Amendment is to assimilate the language of Clause 1 to that of Clause 2, in which the word "rejected" is used. I think I am not misinterpreting what the Prime Minister said the other day, when I state that it is his view that the Bill should be looked upon as one whole and indivisible measure. If that is the case, I think it will be evident that the language of both Clauses, where they deal with the same circumstances, should be similar. In the Clause now before us the words are "not passed," but if we turn to the language of the second Clause, instead of the words "not passed" we have the word 'rejected," as now moved in this Amendment. If the alteration I propose is adopted, then the same language will be applied in both Clauses, and we would be following out what the Prime Minister held to be the case, that the Bill should be considered as one single measure. Legal authorities, when dealing with a Bill, naturally look to any divergence of expression as suggesting some difference of purpose. It is on the ground that the present wording of the Bill would be likely to lead to confusion of interpretation that I Move the substitution of the word "rejected" for the words "not passed."
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)There is a reason for using the words "not passed" in the first Clause, and "rejected" in the second Clause. In the first Clause they have reference to Finance Bills only, and it is not necessary to contemplate Amendments being made by the House of Lords of Finance Bills. It is common ground, and beyond discussion, that the House of Lords has no right to amend Money Bills. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I am speaking within the recollection of the House when I say that 2272 is the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and I know perfectly well that I have the authority of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh University (Sir R. Finlay), and of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) for my statement, and I do not think anybody will suggest that there is a right in the House of Lords to amend Money Bills. At any rate this House would not recognise that right. What we have to consider in Clause 1 is merely the question of passing, or refusing to pass, or adjourning, or rejecting the Bill, and no difficulty arises on the words of the Clause. With reference to the criticism that a different word is used in Clause 2, the reason of it is that under that Clause Bills may be amended by the House of Lords, and may have to come back to this House for consideration; therefore, in Clause 2, the word "rejected" has been adopted, which makes the Bill simpler and shorter. There is no need whatever to accept the Amendment, but I can assure the hon. Member that if there were, we would accept it without hesitation. We are not wedded to particular words of the Bill. If any advantage can be gained by a change of phraseology we are prepared to make that change. We have come to the conclusion, however, that it is quite unnecessary, and that the words "not passed" carry out the object of the Clause. I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI do not think the Attorney-General is right in assuming that it is common ground between us that the House of Lords cannot amend Money Bills. We have the authority of Mr. Gladstone to the contrary. In 1861, in arguing the question against himself, he admitted that the House of Lords had a right not only to reject but to amend Money Bills. Mr. Gladstone was arguing the point on the action of the House of Lords with regard to the Paper Duty, which he said 2273 was wrong, and that measures ought to be taken to make it as difficult as possible for the other House to renew that action. But Mr. Gladstone on that occasion, nevertheless, gratuitously admitted, in answer to Mr. Newdegate, that it was perfectly within their province to take that action. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will read the subsequent Debates in the House of Lords in the same year he will see that Lord Derby laid down in the most positive way that the House of Lords reserved not only their right of rejection but of amendment. To come to a later authority, though not so illustrious, on questions of constitutional law and precedent in this House, Mr. Bowles always held and maintained that it is within the competence of the House of Lords to divide a Money Bill, which, I presume, from the House of Commons point of view, would be an amendment. There cannot be the smallest question in the world that there are Money Bills which could perfectly well be amended by the House of Lords—at any rate in matters incidental—conformably to precedent and the authorities of both Houses of Parliament. The Old Age Pensions Bill was undoubtedly a Money Bill within the terms of this Clause. When it was sent to the House of Lords it was amended, and some of those amendments were ruled out as matters of privilege, but one or two of them were accepted on matters incidental. Therefore I assume that it is not common ground between us that the House of Lords cannot amend Money Bills. Not only is it untrue to say that it is common ground between us that they cannot amend Money Bills, but the common ground is proved that they have a right to amend such Bills, a right which has always been maintained, and which is now maintained.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThis is a very important, point, and I would ask the Attorney-General why he says that nobody ever denied that the House of Lords have no right to amend Money Bills.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI did not say nobody had ever denied it. What I said was that according to the authorities the House of Lords have not now the right to amend Money Bills.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not know what the hon. and learned Gentleman means by "now." I happen to have Mr. Gladstone's words here. Speaking as Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 16th May, 1861, he said, and 2274 I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman's particular attention to the words:—
That the House of Lords do not claim the power to amend, is commonly stated, but it is not literally true. The House of Lords has never given it up, and I must say I think they are perfectly right in declining to record against themselves this limitation of their privileges, because cases might arise in which, on the illegitimate incorporation of elements not financial into financial measures, it might be wise and just to fall back on au assertion of the whole breadth of their privileges.On 27th May Mr. Gladstone said:—By no proceeding has the House of Lords ever surrendered, as far as I know, the right of altering a Bill, even though it touches matters of finance. I say for my own part, though anxious to vindicate the privileges of this House, where need may arise against the House of Lords, I think the House of Lords is right and wise to avoid any formal surrender of power of amendment in cases where it might think it justifiable even to amend a Bill relating to Finance.I draw the attention of the Committee to that statement of Mr. Gladstone, because the hon. and learned Gentleman has stated that it is common ground that the House of Lords has not the right to amend Money Bills, and that nobody attempted to contradict that statement. I hope, now that I have drawn the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the opinions of his late Leader, one of the greatest financial authorities, though I did not agree with him, that ever sat here, and one who would not give opinions in this sense unless he was sure he was right, since they were against himself when he was giving them. I hope under those circumstances we shall not again hear the statement that has been made.
§ 7.0 P.M.
Mr. PEELThe words to which my hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) has called attention are of very great importance and value, and perhaps even of greater importance than some Members seem to think. When those words were quoted some hon. Members opposite who took a very deficient view of history stated that this was a very ancient matter, and was spoken some forty or fifty years ago. Forty or fifty years is a very small incident, it is almost a day in the history of a Constitution, and especially of Constitutions which have lasted so long as ours. It is really a modern statement, because that was the first time when the different Finance Bills were embodied into one. When the House of Lords threw out the Bill on the Paper Duties, in order as it were to strengthen the position of the House of Commons, and in order to make it more difficult for the House of Lords to throw out the measure, the Financial Bills were embodied in what is 2275 roughly known as the Budget, and is sometimes called the Finance Bill. Therefore at the very moment when he was in the middle of that contest with the House of Lords, when the passions of men were most excited on that subject, that very time was chosen by Mr. Gladstone to state that the House of Lords, in his opinion, had the full power and the right, and might also exercise the power, to amend a Money Bill.
I quite admit that statements have been made in this House by eminent authorities which go the other way. My right hon. Friend the learned Member for the University of St. Andrew's (Sir R. Finlay) has, in a moment possibly of forgetfulness, let fall certain expressions. The statement of no Member of the House of Commons, however eminent, can possibly bind the House of Lords. Each House, as is perfectly well known, is the guardian and trustee of its own privileges. The House of Commons asserts its privileges and the House of Lords asserts its privileges. If a very eminent Member of the House of Commons, no doubt anxious to support the tradition and the rights of his own House, chooses to suggest that the other House has given up its rights, that is not binding on the other House. The other House has the right to take its own view of its own powers. I challenge the Government for any expression of opinion from the House of Lords, or any opinion given by the Leader in the House of Lords, from the year 1861, to show that that statement of Mr. Gladstone is not as true now as it was then, or that there has been any incident, or any constitutional change, revolution, or resolution, of the House of Lords which in any way derogates from that position which Mr. Gladstone said was theirs in 1861.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONThis matter is on a point of academic and historical interest, but I suppose it is best, now that it is being discussed, to have it precisely stated. There is a very much higher authority even than Mr. Gladstone for stating that the House of Lords has never abandoned its right of amendment, and that is the great Committee of 1860 on taxing Bills. Mr. Gladstone moved for that Committee, and himself took a prominent part in it. The Committee went over the whole of the history of Bills on Taxes and Bills of Aid and Supply, and they stated in their narrative that the House 2276 of Lords had asserted at every one of the Free Conferences held that the House of Lords had never abandoned their right of amendment. And what happened? The Lords constantly during the eighteenth century amended Bills of Aid, and when they did so this House simply dropped those Bills and accepted the Amendments, because they introduced them into other Bills which were subsequently sent up to the House of Lords. At that time this House accepted the contention that the House of Lords still claimed the right of amendment. Therefore, it is not only Mr. Gladstone's authority, but it is the authority of the very greatest Committee that was ever appointed by this House to examine into this subject, and upon which every man of eminence at that time sat. I do not say that that applies to this House, because this House always took a different view, but, as the hon. Member (Mr. Peel) has just said, each House claims to be the exponent and guardian of its own privileges. As the Prime Minister knows very well that Committee states that the House of Lords always adhered to the power, although we refused here to recognise it. I think it is not seemly that we should lay down the doctrine in our debates that the House of Lords abandoned what they have always claimed as a right, and what they may possibly exercise again. I do not say that they will do so, but there is nothing to debar them from doing so. It is proposed to revive a good many powers which are supposed to have fallen into desuetude, and it ought to be stated it is not a matter of personal authority, but a matter of fact and history which cannot be denied, and which was affirmed in set terms by the most important body that ever inquired into the question.
§ Mr. G. J. SANDYSI rise to support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend. I understand that the Attorney-General objects to the substitution of the word "rejected" for the words "not passed," on the ground that the substitution of that word would imply that the House of Lords possessed some right to deal with Finance Bills. That, I understand is the ground of this objection; but yesterday I think the hon. and learned Gentleman himself stated that he acknowledged that the House of Lords, at any rate, possessed the legal right of dealing with Finance Bills. It seems to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement this afternoon only carries out the 2277 general idea which has prevailed the policy of the Government, and that is to carry out what is, in fact, a vast constitutional change, whilst pretending to the country they are merely carrying on constitutional traditions, at all events, so far as the question of money matters is concerned. The hon. Member who has just spoken referred to the constitutional position in 1860. I may call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the very word to which he objects so strongly now, namely, "rejection," was actually used in the Resolution which the House of Commons passed relating to the financial relations between the House of Commons and the House of Lords in that year. The second Resolution of 1860 stated, "the Lords have exercised the power of rejecting," and from the very fact that they stated they had exercised the power of rejecting a Bill, and that they made no complaint of the power, and that in the third they inserted a Clause to guard against the undue exercise of that power. Therefore, I think we are entitled to draw the conclusion that at that time the House of Commons acknowledged that the House of Lords had the right of rejecting Bills, but wished to guard against the undue exercise of that power. I do not, therefore, see how the Government can refuse to accept this Amendment unless they are prepared to acknowledge that what they are attempting to do is not to carry on constitutional traditions, but that what they are actually attempting to do is to carry out a constitutional revolution.
§ Mr. JAMES MASONThe Prime Minister yesterday or the day before admitted and asserted with some force that although the House of Lords was to have no power over Money Bills, that it was very desirable they should discuss them. He based his argument on the advantage that this House might gain in the discussion which took place in the House of Lords. It seems to me that unless the proposed change be made, there is no way in which that House can indicate its suggestions or criticism——
§ The CHAIRMANThat point can be raised on the next Amendment.
§ Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI must remind the House and the Government that in dealing with this Amendment, and the other Amendments relating to this Clause, we are dealing not only with the House of Lords as it is, but with 2278 any future House of Lords that may be constituted at "the right time," to use the Government's words, according to the Preamble. We have got to consider not merely what ought to be the power of the present House of Lords in rejecting or amending Money Bills, but as well the power of a future democratic Second Chamber. That being so, I cannot understand how the Government can get up and tell us that a future democratic Second Chamber is to have no right whatever to amend Money Bills. When they do they are flying in the face of experience all over the world. I suppose there is no more democratic Government in the whole world than the Government of the United States. Yet the Government know perfectly well that the Senate of the United States have got absolute power, not only to reject, but also to amend, Money Bills. Mr. Bryce, now Minister at Washington, who belonged to the present Government, and is, I suppose, the greatest authority on the United States Constitution of any man living, writes thus: "That in respect of their legislative functions, the Senate and the House of Representatives are interdependent, and possess equal powers. Bills may originate in either Chamber. One exception is, however, made in the Constitution, namely, that all Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose any Amendments on such Bills." We are bound to assume in these Debates that the Government are honest in the matter of the Preamble. Do they really tell us that a new Second Chamber, constituted on democratic lines, is to have no power whatever of amending a Finance Bill? If so, they will be setting up the most extraordinary Second Chamber the world has ever seen. In the Constitution granted quite recently by the Government in power a Second Chamber was set up with full power, not only to reject, but to amend Money Bills. The House of Lords have always contended that they have a perfect right to deal with Money Bills where there is tacking. No provision is made in this Bill against tacking. The nearest approach to such a provision is that in cases where there may be a tack the Speaker of the House of Commons shall decide whether or not a Bill is a Money Bill. As there is no real definition of a tack, or any proper provision to prevent a tack, you ought to allow the House of Lords the opportunity of amending a Money Bill, and so getting rid of a tack. In appearance this is only a drafting Amendment, but in effect it 2279 covers a very important point. I hope, therefore, the Government will see their way to accept it.
EARL of RONALDSHAYMy hon. Friend (Colonel Griffith-Boscawen) has made an assumption for which there appears to be no foundation in the Bill itself. He assumes that this Clause is to apply to any reconstituted Second Chamber in the future. I find in the Preamble the statement that provision will be required hereafter to be made by Parliament to define the powers of the new Second Chamber. Is there any foundation for the assumption of my hon. Friend? On what foundation did he make his statement?
§ Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI founded the statement on a speech of the Home Secretary, who distinctly declared that neither in the present nor in any future Second Chamber was there to be any power over finance.
EARL of RONALDSHAYThat is a most important point. Perhaps the Home Secretary will inform us whether the actual provisions of this Clause are to apply to any re-constituted Second Chamber in the future.
§ Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSONThe way in which the Attorney-General dealt with this Amendment reminded me of a decision of the late Empress of China on the death of her husband. She disapproved of the action of those who had been his Ministers. Those of whose actions she disapproved most she had tortured to death, and the others were permitted to strangle themselves. Here we have exactly the same point. The Attorney-General will not accept the responsibility of torturing the House of Lords to death, but he says he will keep in the words "not pass," so that in that way they may be permitted to strangle themselves. There is a great distinction between the two expressions "not passed" and "rejected." If a Bill is sent up to the House of Lords a month before the end of the Session, so that they may have ample opportunity for discussion, and they reject it, that is one thing. On the other hand, a Bill may be sent up at such a time that it is practically impossible for the House of Lords to have a fair opportunity for discussion. Suppose the Session lasted until just before Christmas and a Bill was then sent up. They would have to sit through Christmas——
§ The CHAIRMANThat point has already been discussed on a previous Amendment.
§ Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSONThe question is whether a Bill has been not passed or whether it has been rejected. I submit that if the House of Lords has not had a fair opportunity of discussing a Bill they cannot be said to have rejected it, and the mere fact of their not having passed it in one month, however inconvenient may be the date on which it is presented to them, is not a sufficient reason for denying them the right and the opportunity for thoroughly discussing the Bill and coming to a well-considered decision upon it.
§ Mr. PETOIt is true that the hon. Member for Dudley qualified by the word "apparently" his statement that this was only a drafting Amendment, but it seems to me that it is of vastly greater importance than that remark would imply. Underlying their opposition to this Amendment, we have the whole principle on which the Government are dealing with the House of Lords in the matter of finance. They are keeping the mechanism of sending up Bills; they insist that the House of Lords shall have some opportunity to go through the form of debating those measures; but they require that at the end of the month, or whatever the period may be, they shall assent to whatever financial proposals may have been submitted to them. It is evident from their opposition to the Amendment that the Government do not contemplate the possibility of the House of Lords being able to amend a Money Bill. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel) dealt with the matter from the point of view of the position taken up in 1860. But in regard to the contention that this House is the sole arbiter on financial matters, I would go further back than 1860. Let us deal with facts as they arc. On what does the claim rest that this House should have sole control over finance? It is undoubtedly on the fact that in the case of a grasping and greedy Crown in days long gone by this House stood between the people and the possible extortions of the Sovereign, and the theory that the House of Lords should have nothing to do with finance rests on the fact that they might be, and perhaps frequently were, acting m collusion with the Crown.
The position to-day is entirely different. If the taxpayers had to choose whom, as between Noble Lords in another place and 2281 hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, they would prefer as the guardians of their interests against possible future extortions they would not hesitate long. I think their interests would be far safer in the hands of Noble Lords in another place than under the sole and unfettered control of hon. Members below the Gangway. When we consider the grounds on which this Amendment is opposed, and remember that we are promised at some future date an entirely different Second Chamber, we can see perfectly clearly the real intention of the Government in this matter. It is not only against the present House of Lords that they mean to deny to anybody except the occupants of the Treasury Bench any control over the finances of the country, but also against any Second Chamber that may be set up in the future. The Government are to be the sole arbiters in the matter, and the Second Chamber is to be called upon to go through the farce of saying that it accepts the financial measures proposed, but it is not to have any power of saying the opposite.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYMay I ask the Government to describe how this Clause is to be carried out in actual practice in the House of Lords? We are laying down what is practically an Amendment of the Standing Orders of the House of Lords. We ought to know, therefore, how the House of Lords are to carry out that which the Government desire them to do. How are the House of Lords to pass or not to pass a Bill without rejecting or not rejecting it? The question has to be put in either House of Parliament before the matter can be decided. The question to be decided in the other House is whether they are "Content" or "Not Content." If the question has been put, and the Bill is objected to, it is quite clear somebody will say "Not Content," and if "Not Content" is carried the Bill is rejected. It is all very well to put in the words "Not passed" in order to avoid the difficulty which the Government are in with some of their supporters who do not admit that it is possible for the House of Lords to reject such a measure. We ought not to be dictated to by such purely personal matters as that. We ought to go a little further, and see how we can possibly make this in accordance with the custom of Parliament in putting the question to this House. We are justified in asking the Government, when they absolutely refuse to alter, as the Lord Advocate stated, the entirely new form of "Not passed," 2282 to explain how they expect this to be carried out in practice.
§ Captain CRAIGI should like to ask the Government how they are prepared to safeguard a Bill going from this House to another place, and then perhaps the country being plunged into some national calamity of mourning, and the Houses of Parliament having to adjourn. If a month elapses, the Bill, having to be sent up to another place, ipso facto becomes law.
§ The CHAIRMANThat point is not in order.
§ Captain CRAIGI bow to your ruling, but it appears to me that there is reason for some information on this point. We are in this position, that some Bills—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has thought of what kind of Bills this Clause relates to—but some Bills that we have been dealing with during the last few years are Bills that, I think, take away some of the power of Amendment of the House of Lords. Under this Parliament Bill many of these Bills would be undoubtedly passed as Money Bills. Certainly there is a great fear in our mind that they would be passed as Money Bills. Where the Government found themselves unable to introduce a Bill which was to carry out some particular scheme of their supporters, unable to bring it forward as an ordinary Bill, subject to review and revision in another place, they would simply frame it in such a way as to obtain the same ends in a financial measure. That is a point that a great number of us are most anxious to have some argument from the Government Benches on. How do they propose to deal with it? We are all aware that a Bill brought forward in this House like the Irish Councils Bill—although that Bill was not a so-called Finance Bill, it dealt very largely with the taxation and distribution of taxation in Ireland, that it might have been, with very few alterations——
§ The CHAIRMANThat would be a proper statement to put forward on Clause 2.
§ Captain CRAIGIf that is so, I shall be very glad to postpone my remarks on that point. If no Amendment is to be allowed to take place and the House of Lords are not to be asked whether they reject or do not reject the Bill, merely if they have not passed the Bill, it seems to me to be a very grave risk to run in the supervision and hold on legislation in this House.
§ Viscount WOLMERI only rise to put this one point. Looking forward to the day when the Second Chamber shall both be elective, and a Chamber where all parties are more equally represented, it seems to me that unless the Government accept this Amendment they will be removing a weapon, a means of procedure, that may be of the very greatest use to them. I believe that quite recently Amendments of a financial character to Bills which would come under the definition of Money Bills have been made in the House of Lords at the instance and request of the Government——
§ The CHAIRMANMay I point out to the Noble Lord that that question will arise on subsequent Amendments.
§ Viscount WOLMEROn Money Bills?
§ The CHAIRMANYes, on Money Bills.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill)I think there is no Member of this House who has spent some time in Parliament but who has not heard Amendments to Money Bills, or which are held to touch or involve a Money Bill, ruled without question from the Chair as breaches of the privileges of this House. Is it not rather late in the day for us to have a very long and serious discussion as to whether the House of Lords should have the right to amend Money Bills? Such a claim—and I offer this suggestion in good faith to hon. Gentlemen opposite—was never, even in the greatest days of Conservatism—made on behalf of that House. Surely, then, this is not the time to take up the position that the House of Lords should have the right to amend Money Bills? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the future?"] We are dealing with the present. Whether what I have said be true or not, I would earnestly hope that, having spent very nearly an hour upon the subject, we might get to the next Amendment, which is more interesting and which deals with a much more substantial point.
Mr. STANLEY WILSONA dispute has arisen upon our benches. I never like disputes in the Tory party. A dispute has arisen between the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Colonel Griffith-Boscawen) and the Noble Lord the Member for Hornsey (Lord Ronaldshay). I should like, before we go to a Division, for the Government to settle this small point. I am feeling at the present 2284 moment very unsettled in regard to it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Dudley thinks that the reason the Government should accept this Amendment is because the powers that are contained in this Clause are going to apply to any reformed House of Lords that the Government may in the dim and distant future bring about. He quotes as his authority for that statement the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The Noble Lord got up immediately afterwards and said: "There must be some mistake about this, because the Preamble shows that the powers contained in this Clause are not at all to be applied to any future reformed Chamber." Therefore, I think this is the moment, in view of the importance of this Amendment, that the Home Secretary might say as to whether he is right or whether the Preamble of his Bill is right. It is a somewhat important point, and may influence myself and other Members as to the way we vote on this occasion. The Amendment being an important one, is one which the Government ought to reconsider their decision about and accept.
§ Mr. CARLILEI am very glad indeed that we have had the opportunity of obtaining from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General the admission which he has now made in this House. The Amendment is a simple one, but it has brought from him a very important statement. What was his statement? It was that in future the House of Lords, however constituted, has neither to have the power of rejection nor the power of Amendment, nor even the power of submitting agreed Amendments with reference to Money Bills. Those words do not, I think, misrepresent the hon and learned Gentleman. Yet we have in the latest edition of May's "Parliamentary Practice," the following words:—
The right of the Lords to reject a Money Bill has been held to include a right to amend provisions creating charges upon the people when such provision forms a separate subject in the Bill which the Lords are otherwise entitled to amend. The claim of privilege cannot therefore be raised by the Commons regarding Amendments to such Bills whereby the whole Clause or series of Clauses have been omitted by the Lords which, though relating to a charge and not admitting of Amendments, yet concern the subject separable from the general objects of the Bill.2285 That is the very latest statement of the very highest authority upon Parliamentary practice. Mr. Gladstone, too, used in this House the following words on 5th April, 1860:—It is actually the fact that the eases of amending Money Bills in the House of Lords are more frequent than those in which such Bills have been rejected by that House.It is no small wonder that the learned Attorney-General, trying to cover up the important admission which he had himself just made a moment before, should say, in his airy fashion that, "After all, it is a small question of drafting." I hope the country and the Committee will take
§ notice of this admission, and will recognise the fact that it is the determination of this Government not merely to gag so far as Money Bills are concerned, not merely to destroy the power of the House of Lords with reference to Money Bills as in the past, but to efficiently gag and destroy any powers which subsequently may be granted to a reformed Second Chamber, however constituted.
§ Question put, "That the words 'not passed' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 286; Noes, 193.
2289| Division No. 117.] | AYES. | [7.45 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Johnson, William |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Devlin, Joseph | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Adamson, William | Dewar, Sir J. A. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Dickinson, W. H. | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Doris, W. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Alden, Percy | Duffy, William J. | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) |
| Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Jowett, Frederick William |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Joyce, Michael |
| Anderson, Andrew Macbeth | Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.) | Keating, Matthew |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Kellaway, Frederick George |
| Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Kemp, Sir George |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Barnes, George N. | Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Kilbride, Denis |
| Barran, Sir J. (Hawick) | Elverston, Harold | King, J. (Somerset, N.) |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) |
| Barton, William | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Essex, Richard Walter | Lansbury, George |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Esslemont, George Birnie | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe |
| Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George) | Falconer, James | Law, Hugh A, (Donegal, West) |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Farrell, James Patrick | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Fenwick, Charles | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Boland, John Pius | Ferens, T. R. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Ffrench, Peter | Logan, John William |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Field, William | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Lundon, Thomas |
| Brace, William | France, Gerald Ashburner | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Brigg, Sir John | Gelder, Sir William Alfred | Lynch, Arthur Alfred |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Gill, Alfred Henry | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Goldstone, Frank | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Greig, Colonel J. W. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | M'Callum, John M. |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | M'Curdy, C A. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Hackett, J. | M'Kean, John |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Hancock, John George | M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.) |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lines, Spalding) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Hardie, J. Kei, (Merthyr Tydvil) | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Marks, George Croydon |
| Clough, William | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Clynes, John R. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Harwood, George | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Meagher, Michael |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Hayden, John Patrick | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hayward, Evan | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Molloy, Michael |
| Cotton, William Francis | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Cowan, W. H. | Higham, John Sharp | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Craig, Herbert James William | Hinds, John | Mooney, John J. |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Morgan, George Hay |
| Crooks, William | Hodge, John | Morrell, Philip |
| Crumley, Patrick | Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | Muldoon, John |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Munro, Robert |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hudson, Walter | Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. |
| Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hunter, W. (Govan) | Neilson, Francis |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | Nolan, Joseph |
| Delany, William | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Norton, Captain Cecil William | Reddy, Michael | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Verney, Sir Harry |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Rendall, Athelstan | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| O'Doherty, Philip | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| O'Donnell, Thomas | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wardle, George J. |
| O'Dowd, John | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) | Waring, Walter |
| Ogden, Fred | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Robinson, Sydney | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| O'Malley, William | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Webb, H. |
| O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J | Roche, John (Galway, E.) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| O'Shee, James John | Rose, Sir Charles Day | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| O'Sullivan, Timothy | Rowlands, James | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Scanlan, Thomas | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. | Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Sheehy, David | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Pine, Duncan V. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, N.) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Pointer, Joseph | Soares, Ernest Joseph | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Spicer, Sir Albert | Wilson, W. T. (West Houghton) |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Sutherland, J. E. | Winfrey, Richard |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Sutton, John E. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Radford, George Heynes | Tennant, Harold John | |
| Raffan, Peter Wilson | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | |
| Rainy, Adam Rolland | Thomas, James Henry (Derby) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Thorne, William (West Ham) | |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Toulmin, George | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Courthope, George Loyd | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Horner, Andrew Long |
| Astor, Waldorf | Craik, Sir Henry | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J. | Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan | Hume-Williams, William Ellis |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred | Hunter, Sir Charles Roderick (Bath) |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Dalrymple, Viscount | Jessel, Captain Herbert M. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Joynson-Hicks, William |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Dixon, Charles Harvey | Kerry, Earl of |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.) | Doughty, Sir George | Kimber, Sir Henry |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Du Cros, Arthur Philip | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Barnston, Harry | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Kirkwood, John H. M. |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Falle, Bertram Godfray | Knight, Capt. E. A. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.) | Fell, Arthur | Lane-Fox, G. R. |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Larmor, Sir J. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Finlay, Sir Robert | Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.) |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End) |
| Bonn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Fleming, Valentine | Lewisham, Viscount |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Forster, Henry William | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Foster, Philip Staveley | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Bigland, Alfred | Gardner, Ernest | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.) |
| Boscawen, Sackville, T. Griffith- | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor., Droitwich) |
| Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) | Gibbs, George Abraham | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh |
| Boyton, James | Goldsmith, Frank | Mackinder, Halford J |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Gordon, J. | Macmaster, Donald |
| Bull, Sir William James | Goulding, Edward Alfred | M'Mordie, Robert James |
| Burgoyne, Alan Hughes | Grant, J. A. | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Greene, Walter Raymond | Malcolm, Ian |
| Butcher, John George (York) | Gretton, John | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Campion, W. R. | Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward | Middlemore, J. T |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir E. H. | Haddock, George Bahr | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Cassel, Felix | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Cater, John | Hamersley, Alfrd St. George | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hardy, Laurence | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) |
| Cave, George | Harris, Henry Percy | Mount, William Arthur |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Helmsley, Viscount | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.) | Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon) | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Chambers, James | Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hillier, Dr Alfred Peter | Nield, Herbert |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Hills, John Waller | Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury) |
| Clyde, James Avon | Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) |
| Orde-Powlet, Hon. W. G. A. | Royds, Edmund | Valentia, Viscount |
| Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) | Walker, Col William Hall |
| Paget, Almeric Hugh | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Parkes, Ebenezer | Salter, Arthur Clavell | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge) | Sanders, Robert A. | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton) | Sanderson, Lancelot | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Perkins, Walter Frank | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Peto, Basil Edward | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Pole-Carew, Sir R. | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) | Winterton, Earl |
| Pollock, Ernest Murray | Smith, Harold (Warrington) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Pretyman, Ernest George | Spear, John Ward | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon) |
| Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs.) | Starkey, John Ralph | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Quilter, William Eley C. | Steel-Maitland, A. D. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Ratcliff, Major R. F. | Stewart, Gershom | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) | Younger, George |
| Rawson, Col. Richard H. | Swift, Rigby | |
| Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) | |
| Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Carlile and Mr. Meysey-Thompson. |
| Ronaldshay, Earl of | Thynne, Lord Alexander | |
| Rothschild, Lionel D. | Tobin, Alfred Aspinall |
§ Dr. HILLIERmoved in Sub-section (1) after the word "without" ["Is not passed by the House of Lords without amendment"] to insert the word "any."
I am sure the Government will admit this is a moderate Amendment, and comes within the scope of Amendments which we understand it was possible even this Government would consider in relation to this Bill. In order to make my Amendment clear to the Committee I shall read the first few lines of the Clause as it stands, and I shall then read it with the Amendment. The Clause now reads:—
"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," etc.
With my Amendment it would read:—
"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 any Amendment which is not accepted by the House of Commons, the Bill shall," etc.
8.0 P.M.
I would ask the Prime Minister in regard to that Amendment to consider what the position of affairs would be if this Clause is caried as it stands. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what it will be the business of the Lords to do when a Money Bill is sent to them. Why, forsooth, should we send it to them at all. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out they would have the privilege, and from the national point of view, the advantage of discussing these things, but that is a privilege which 2290 would be shared by every club in the country. Discussion of this Bill is open to every newspaper and to every village club, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman how he thinks effect is to be given to the views expressed by the House of Lords. I cannot help recalling that when in previous Debates it was suggested that a Finance Bill should not be sent to the House of Lords at all the Prime Minister expressed surprise at such a revolutionary suggestion, and he pointed out the great advantage to the country of having a Debate in a Second Chamber. He referred to the manner in which that House was constituted, and the eminent persons who took part in its deliberations, and he went on to say what a pity it would be if the country was deprived of the advantage of such discussion. The question I wish to put is how is the result of the deliberations on Money Bills and the discussions in the House of Lords to be conveyed constitutionally to the House of Commons? If the Upper House cannot make any Amendment whatever then they cannot convey the result of their views by the ordinary procedure. It has already been ruled from the Chair that to quote Debates from the speeches in the Second Chamber was not in order. How, then, under the circumstances, are the views of the House of Lords constitutionally to be brought before this Assembly unless they at least retained the privilege of proposing Amendments over which this House would still retain complete overriding power. I may or may not regret that the preceding Amendment was not carried, but that is not the point. I am now suggesting that you should provide some means whereby the House of Lords can convey their views on Money Bills, and the only way I can 2291 see is that they should have power to make Amendments over which this House would retain supreme control under my proposal. If this House disagrees with Amendments made by another place we could override them and the Bill would pass into law.
My proposal would provide the House of Lords with a constitutional method of laying their views before this Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman has laid emphasis on the value to the country and to this House of discussions in the House of Lords, but if they are to have no more privilege than any village debating club, how can you expect the House of Lords will condescend seriously to discuss any Bill you may send up? You must devise some means whereby the House of Lords will be able to convey the result of their deliberations to this House. Unless you make some provision of that sort, and if you carry this Clause precisely as it stands, you will be inflicting a wanton and absolutely unjustifiable insult upon the House of Lords. It is nothing less than an insult to any responsible body of gentlemen—and we have the Prime Minister's testimony to the fact that there are many eminent personages of great distinction in that Assembly and assuredly he ought to know, because a great number of his political friends are continually going there—to carry this Clause precisely as it stands. The right hon. Gentleman can accept the Amendment I have proposed without departing from the principle of this Clause, and at the same time he will be providing some sort, of means whereby the Lords can at any rate, in a constitutional manner, bring their views before this House. I hope I have succeeded in making my point clear, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give this matter his careful consideration.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill)The hon. Member is asking the Committee to give the House of Lords a new power, which has not been claimed for them even in their palmiest days. I willingly admit that the power which he seeks to give them is not such a violent departure from all the recognised traditions of the British Parliamentary system as was the last Amendment. If I understood the hon. Member rightly he is proposing to leave the House of Commons the supreme power to decide whether it will or will not accept any Amendment, but he is giving the power of suggesting Amendments to the 2292 House of Lords. I am willing to admit that, although this is a new proposal to invest the Second Chamber with new powers, and although it is a proposal which, speaking on behalf of the Government, we do not think can be accepted, it does deserve and has received the careful consideration of those who are in charge of this Bill. After all, this power of suggestion does figure in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. There the Second Chamber has the power of making suggestions which it is open to the Lower House to accept if it likes, but which it is perfectly competent to reject finally if it chooses. In Australia the Second Chamber is constituted on a popular basis, and it may be that, at some future time, when we are considering putting the finishing touches upon the edifices of a reconstructed and reconstituted Second Chamber in this country, this proposal of the hon. Member opposite might very well be considered again by the House as a not wholly inappropriate suggestion. In the meanwhile we have to consider circumstances as they are, and we are not in any mood to confer upon the House of Lords new powers at the present time. As a matter of fact, we are endeavouring to secure to the House of Commons its old powers and to give it some new ones, but we are not engaged in the business of conferring on the House of Lords any new powers at all. There would be a real inconvenience attaching to the proposal which the hon. Member has made. A power of suggestion to be effective by the House of Lords is a power of amendment, and that is what the hon. Member's proposal confers, except that the Commons may reject the amendment finally. That means the Commons would have to discuss the Amendment, and therefore we might get at the very end of the Session after the whole of the time had been consumed in discussing, we will say, the Budget of 1909, and then we might get back from the House of Lords a very fertile Budget of suggestions. We might find the Order Paper of the House of Commons covered with pages of Amendments raising again in the form of suggestions all the points we had decided through weary weeks of discussion in the House of Commons. Either those suggestions would have to be disposed of by a somewhat abrupt form of Parliamentary Closure, which would, of course, be held to be wholly satisfactory, or else we might have to go through the process of discussing our Budget again from the 2293 beginning. On that ground, among others, we do not feel able to adopt the proposal which has been made by the hon. Member.
§ Dr. HILLIERBefore the right hon. Gentleman concludes his reply perhaps he will be good enough to tell us in case this Amendment is not adopted by what means the Government propose that the House of Lords shall convey the results of their valuable discussions, to which the Prime Minister has given his testimony, to this House for our consideration.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLAt the present time when the House of Lords passes a Bill without Amendment there is no machinery by which with any constitutional formality we may discuss what takes place at the other end of the passage. There are, however, ways and means by which the Government can profit by the valuable discussions in another place. I was just pointing out that by availing themselves of the ordinary means it would be quite open to the Government or the House of Commons to adopt the fruits of any valuable suggestions which had been thrown out in the Debate by introducing an amending Bill which could be carried through Parliament very swiftly, and would undoubtedly affect any reforms which discussion in the House of Lords had shewn to be necessary in financial legislation. This is certainly not the time for us to encourage the House of Lords to embark upon the path of financial discussion. They have nothing whatever to do with the financial business of the country which is in the sole and uncontrolled charge of the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] That is the position we have taken up.
§ Dr. HILLIERThen why send Money Bills up to them at all?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThat point was discussed upon an earlier Amendment, and we do not think it necessary to deprive the House of Lords of the usage they have had of discussing Finance Bills. We are also anxious that they should not deprive us of the usage we have had of being in sole and uncontrolled charge of Finance Bills. We could not accept this suggestion at a time and on the very afternoon when we have seen the Conservative party going into the Lobby voting in favour of giving to the House of Lords the power not merely to reject but actually something which was never claimed in the greatest days of their power, that 2294 is, the power to amend Money Bills. I am sorry we cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, because I think there is much more substance and reason in his proposal than a great many of those we have listened to in these discussions. It will be time enough to consider such a proposal and to adopt the methods, which have been adopted in Australia when we reach another stage in this constitutional problem.
Mr. BALFOURThe right hon. Gentleman stated that this Amendment had been the subject of careful and anxious study by those who are in charge of this Bill, but, unlike the other Amendments, they were inclined to look upon it in a more favourable light, although after reflection they have decided to reject it. In no sense is there any indication of that reflection in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. With all respect to the Home Secretary, I really do not consider that he has discussed this matter at all. In the first place let me remind him that he began his speech by admitting that when the Preamble, when the obligation of honour was carried out, that might be a proper moment to introduce the modification suggested by my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman forgets he has said this Clause is going to obtain, whether the House is reformed or whether it remains as it is. That is the principle of the Government. This is not a temporary measure. The Government boasted, and the right hon. Gentleman was the first to boast——
§ Mr. CHURCHILLNothing that I said just now was inconsistent with anything I said on an earlier occasion.
Mr. BALFOURI at once withdraw. The last thing I desire is to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIt is quite true I have been quoted several times. I think I said last night that the House of Commons would always have effective solo control of financial business. I have never thought more than that, but I do not think the suggestion of the hon. Member necessarily reflects upon that. It leaves full, supreme, and unquestioned control in the hands of the House of Commons.
Mr. BALFOURThat is a very admirable argument for the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman admits the Amendment is absolutely consistent with the whole scope of this Clause of the Bill, which, as has been repeatedly explained, 2295 gives absolute control of financial business to the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman says the Amendment does not diminish or destroy that.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLNo.
Mr. BALFOURThe corollary of that is that the Amendment is absolutely consistent with the whole spirit and scope of the Clause and with the Government policy. Let us consider it from that point of view. I think I may dismiss one argument which seemed to me not quite worthy of the framers of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said, "we surely cannot be asked to accept this Amendment on the same afternoon on which Gentlemen opposite have voted for some Amendment "—I am not sure I gathered which it was—"which would give new privileges to the House of Lords." We discuss each of these Amendments on its merits. There is not this reflected credit or discredit on a subsequent Amendment because the Government disapproves of the previous Amendment. Let the previous Amendment have all the sins the right hon. Gentleman attributed to it. Why should that modify by a hair's-breadth the policy this Committee ought to pursue when we come to an Amendment which the Government admits is absolutely consistent with the scope and policy of the Bill? Let us, without bringing in prejudice on previous Amendments or discussions, consider this Amendment on its merits as one absolutely consistent with the Government policy. I say, looking it from that point of view, and if it be admitted, as it is admitted, this does not touch the supremacy of the House of Commons in matters of finance, it does provide a most convenient modification of the relations between the two Houses in financial matters. The right hon. Gentleman says that is perfectly true. The House of Lords may very well have made some suggestion excellent and admirable in itself, but we could not embody it in the Bill owing to the Clause we are now passing. That is a difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman says could easily be got over. We can get over it by bringing in a new Bill embodying the proposal made by the other House and carrying it through in the last weeks of the Session.—Did anybody with the right hon. Gentleman's great experience of Parliamentary business ever speak so lightly of bringing in at the very fag end of the Session—let us say about 13th August—another Bill in 2296 order to carry out an admirable suggestion made by the other House which they have deprived themselves of the opportunity of putting in the Bill itself. If that is the way the right hon. Gentleman is going to deal with these matters, it not only does not add to the control of this House over finance, but it adds a new burden to the already overburdened Members who have to carry out that legislative business.
There is another objection which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has not considered. He, who has just proposed that another Bill is a proper way to deal with the matter, says: "Will not the suggestion add an extraordinary complication to the end of the Session? Will not the ingenuity of the House of Lords overload these Financial Bills and send down for us for consideration, when we have a great many other things to do, an enormous number of proposals, one or two of which may perhaps be good, but most of which the House of Commons would be reluctant to accept?" That is not the way the Amendment would work. There is no obligation on this House to consider the amendments at all if they do not wish to do it. I may be wrong in my reading of the Clause as amended, but I believe I am right in saying that, even if you adopt the Amendment, it would not be obligatory on this House to consider the Lords' Amendment at all. Supposing this House said "We have not time," or supposing the Government of the day came down and said "We have considered the House of Lords' Amendments, but, though well-intentioned, they do not seem to us to improve the Bill at all," this House would not be required to discuss them. Not a moment of our time would be taken, and not an ounce of our strength would be squandered in considering these Amendments. We have only to politely shelve the House of Lords' suggestions and the Bills automatically, as I understand it, becomes law within one month of being sent up from this House. Let me sum up the conclusions I draw from the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The first conclusion I draw from his speech is that this Amendment is wholly consistent with the spirit of the Bill. I draw from it the conclusion that it does not in the least interfere with the supremacy of this House in matters of finance.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLNot "wholly consistent with the spirit of the Bill," but "not wholly inconsistent with the spirit of the Bill."
Mr. BALFOURI think the right hon. Gentleman is one of those accustomed in moments of expansion of accusing me of over-subtlety of argument. I do not know what the House will think of the hairsplitting dexterity of the right hon. Gentleman himself. I will substitute his phrase for my own. I draw from his speech the conclusion that the Government admit it is not wholly inconsistent with the spirit of the Bill. They admit it is an Amendment which might very well be put in if you have a representative House of Lords. They admit it does not interfere with the supremacy of this House in dealing with finance. They admit that if the House of Lords makes a suggestion, and the Bill passes at it is now, there is no way of enabling this House, and the country which this House is bound to serve, to carry out that object except by bringing in another Bill at the fag end of the Session and passing it, in the hurry incident to that moment, through all its stages. We are asking the House of Lords to take the trouble to examine Bills and send down suggestions which you need not even consider, and which you can throw on one side as contemptuously as you like. I do not think that is adding to the privileges of the House of Lords, but I think it is adding to their utility. More and more, under the pressure of legislative difficulties, we send up Bills to the other House which have been gagged, or closured, or hurried through, and which, naturally, have grave defects of detail. To absolutely say, although we do not object in principle to these things being remedied by the House of Lords, although we admit the great convenience of it, nevertheless, because some Amendment was proposed earlier in the afternoon to which we object, we put aside without further consideration the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend, although it neither benefits the House to which you object, nor does it add to its privileges, you do nothing whatever to aid the Government of the day to make their own Bills go to the country with all the advantages it might get from well-considered instead of ill-considered legislation.
§ Mr. EDGAR JONESI have not had time to verify the point, but I have a lingering impression in my mind that the House of Lords already possesses a power to suggest Amendments on financial matters by some system of underlining them in red ink.
Mr. BALFOURI cannot speak with confidence, but I think that is not done as a rule in connection with Bills that are purely financial. I think the House of Lords uses the privilege only with regard to Bills which, while not being financial, contain financial clauses.
§ Mr. GORDONI have been in this House a considerable time, and I have noticed that when matters dealing with finance are brought down from the House of Lords Mr. Speaker calls attention to them so far as they affect the privileges of this House. The Government of the day has on more than one occasion, when a Bill has been sent up dealing with finance, itself introduced in the House of Lords Amendments on financial points, and when the Bill has come back here a Motion has been made to the effect that "this House doth not insist upon its privileges," and the Amendments have accordingly been agreed to. That was done in the Session of 1909, in connection with the Asylum Officers Superannuation Bill, which was a Bill dealing purely with money questions. It was brought in by a private Member, but adopted by the Government, and when it went to the House of Lords it was found that some provisions dealing with superannuation were not what I wished them to be, and the Government had the necessary alterations made. When the Bill came back to this House Mr. Speaker called attention to the interference with the privileges of this House, and Sir William Harcourt himself got up and moved that the House do not insist upon its privileges.
§ Mr. JOSEPH PEASEI think the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. These Bills are Bills containing Money Clauses, but they are quite different from Money Bills with which we are now dealing. It is only in connection with Money clauses that these Amendments have been introduced in the other House.
§ Mr. GORDONI hope that is so. But where is the difference after all? The point I want to make is this. Suppose that by some slip in drafting in some way which is not intended the Government send up a Bill to the House of Lords in a condition in which it ought not to be passed into law. If we do not put in some such provision as is now suggested the Government would be absolutely powerless to do anything. They would have to begin again at the beginning. I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentle- 2299 man to the wording of this Clause as it stands:—
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.If it has not been passed without that Amendment you will have to take it as it stands, with its verbal errors and verbal mistakes, and you are not providing any power in the Act of Parliament for dealing with these defects. You are absolutely tying the hands of the Government in such a way that you will have to have a new Bill altogether, and send that up to the House of Lords. I think, in the interest of this Government, or of any other Government, it would be a wise and prudent course on their part to adopt the Amendment which has been proposed by my hon. Friend, which would give the requisite power. What we propose will, I think, meet a real difficulty, and I am quite sure that this House, notwithstanding its desire to pass this Veto Bill, would be glad to take advantage of a suggestion of this nature.
Major MORRISON-BELLI hardly know what Amendment we are discussing, but I certainly think that which stands in the name of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is the better one. It has been admitted by the Home Secretary that this Amendment is not inconsistent with the provisions of their Bill, and I therefore appeal to right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the measure to say whether he cannot see his way to accept it. It is in a kind of way a safeguard against some possible errors that may have slipped into any Bill sent up to the other House. It seems to me it would be a safeguard in this way. If it is accepted it would save a considerable amount of labour later on—labour at a period of the Session when, should some error have slipped in, it might be necessary to go through the whole process of bringing in a new Bill. Thus this Amendment which has really received, I might almost say, the blessing of the Home Secretary, so far as he is capable of giving 2300 any Amendment any blessing at all, has that encouragement, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to at any rate accept one of the Amendments which deal with this point. I hope simply on the ground that this Amendment would save this Government and succeeding Governments an exceeding amount of trouble the hon. Gentleman will accede to the very reasonable request that has been made.
§ Mr. JAMES MASONThe Chancellor of the Exchequer, interrupting my hon. Friend behind me, seemed to speak as if he thought the definition of a Money Bill was in the future to be an extremely plain and clear thing to understand, but a Money Bill, as defined in Sub-section (2), which ends up, "or matters incidental to those subjects or any of them," must, he will admit, include Bills of an exceedingly complicated character. I think he will find that in future a Money Bill will be a still wider term than that which it has been regarded in the past. The Home Secretary, in the course of his speech, must, I am sure, have conjured up great terrors to the hearts of many Members of this House when he depicted the evils of lordly obstruction which we were open to if this Amendment were accepted. He seemed to think that the Lords would draw up endless Amendments to be sent hack here to be rejected one by one after sleepless nights. But what evidently was filling the right hon. Gentleman's mind was a great terror of giving the House of Lords some new power which they did not already retain, however little or illusory that power might be. I think he preceded that by saying that it was proposed by this Amendment to give to the House of Lords some new power, whereas we have this afternoon listened to a very long Debate on this subject, in the course of which Mr. Gladstone was quoted as stating that the House of Lords already had the right of Amendment, and, therefore, I think the statement he made with regard to this Amendment was by no means justified. Is it not really a useful piece of machinery which my hon. Friend proposes to insert in the Bill? Has it not an advantage in regard to the working of the Bill if it is to work at all? Is it not worth while for the Government to consider whether this piece of machinery which is proposed is useful? We have had no reply as to what official communication exists between this and the other House, and we have no authoritative means of knowing in what way suggestions made in the other House are to 2301 be conveyed to this House except in the form of Amendments of some kind.
After all, what is important to the Government, from the point of view from which they regard this Bill, is not that the House of Lords should not propose Amendments, but that this House should retain the power of deciding upon and refusing those Amendments if they will. There can be no doubt that within recent times—aye, in the last year or two—we have seen cases in which Amendments—of a minor measure, it is true, and drafting Amendments—have, at the instigation of the Government, been inserted in Bills in the House of Lords, and, I think, that under the definition of Money Bills as it exists in this Bill, there is a great probability that in the future the Government of the day will find it advisable and necessary to rectify small errors which have taken place here by Amendments in the House of Lords later. By refusing the Amendment of my hon. Friend they are going to cut away from themselves that very useful piece of machinery—the power of being able to make Amendments in the other House if they desire to do so. What do you propose in place of that? The Home Secretary relies, when such an occasion as that may arise and suggestions may be made in the House of Lords which the Government of the day may desire to adopt—he relies on a suggestion that we have always got the extremely easy method of introducing and passing an amending Bill. Of all the clumsy proposals that I have ever heard put forward that is the worst, and it is to put in the place of simple Amendments being introduced in the House of Lords into the Bill itself—to substitute for that the introduction of an amending Bill and the passing of that Bill through both Houses. It fairly exceds in absurdity anything we have heard in these somewhat deplorable Debates. I really feel that after what has been put forward and the excellent reasons given for this Amendment that the Attorney-General must give some sympathetic reception to it or, at any rate, must give some sympathetic explanation of how the machine is to work if this Amendment is rejected.
§ Sir R. FINLAYI hope those who represent the Government at present in regard to this Bill will secure that this matter is dealt with. The position in which the speech of the Home Secretary places the Government is preposterous and ludicrous. It is this, that when a Bill comes up under this Act to the House of 2302 Lords a discussion takes place upon it and errors are pointed out—it may be errors of the utmost gravity relating to matters of the greatest possible public interest may be pointed out—but owing to the wide definition of Money Bills contained in this Clause the Government have no power to accept Amendments. The propriety of Amendments being suggested by the House of Lords is recognised by everyone, but owing to the way in which the Parliament Bill is framed the Government are to be precluded from having any power to accept those Amendments. The Bill, according to the terms of this Act, when it becomes law, is to be passed into the body of our legislation, with all its admitted imperfections upon its head, and these cannot be redressed because the power of redress has been taken away. I do appeal to the Chancellor of the Duchy and to the Attorney-General, whom I see fronting me, to secure reconsideration of this point. There is no doubt whatever as to the power to accept the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend. No one can get up on that bench, I am certain, and deny that this House may waive its privileges. An Amendment may be made in the House of Lords which trenches upon the privileges of the House of Commons, and I have never heard a doubt suggested that it is open to the House of Commons to waive its privileges, and I am perfectly certain that the Attorney-General will not suggest that it is not.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSHave you ever heard of that in regard to a Money Bill?
§ Sir R. FINLAYI say there is absolutely no doubt as to the power of the House of Commons to waive its privileges. That interruption suggests that the House of Commons has not the power to do so, if it chose, but I shall be perfectly astonished if the Attorney-General assents to such a proposition. What does what the Home Secretary says come to? Why, that we can always pass an Act specially dealing with the matter so as to embody an Amendment which we could not accept. We have heard a great deal about the Preamble, and I would suggest to the Attorney-General a Preamble for any Bill for carrying out that brilliant suggestion of the Home Secretary. It would be this: "Whereas on a certain Bill an Amendment was made by the House of Lords, the necessity of which is universally recognised, and whereas this House was precluded by the terms of the 2303 Parliament Bill from agreeing to that Amendment, and whereas for the purpose of redressing this matter special legislation is necessary, therefore be it enacted." That is translating into the language of a Preamble the speech of the Home Secretary, and no Minister ever put a Government which at the moment he represented in a more ludicrous position. Surely everyone, when such a Bill was introduced, would say, "What is the use of wasting time every Session with special measures of this kind?" Introduce a Bill once for all to put into the Parliament Bill the Amendment which you were so ill-advised as to reject when it was brought forward by my hon. Friend on this occasion, then you have the matter set right, and such Amendments, if the House of Commons think fit to waive its privilege, may be incorporated in the Bill before it becomes law.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI am sure my right hon. and learned Friend, who has made some observations about the nature of the Bill which will have to be introduced according to the Home Secretary's suggestion, has not any intention of putting before the House that such a Preamble would be necessary. I am quite sure no one, certainly not he, if he had to draft a Bill of that kind—which certainly has happened before in the history of this House—would do so, and I am also fairly certain, if he had to search for precedents, during the time my right hon. and learned Friend occupied the position of one of the Law Officers of the Crown, it would be found that such amending Bills had been necessary. They are frequently introduced. We had one introduced which became necessary in order to amend a Bill which was passed in the last Session.
§ Sir R. FINLAYI quite agree, but why make it necessary by depriving the House of the power of agreeing with the Amendment?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSBecause we do not at this moment intend to give further power to the House of Lords. If we were to accept the Amendment we should le going a great deal further than any Member of the House of Commons on the opposite side has dreamed of. Just consider what it is that is suggested. The House of Lords at the present moment has no right to amend a Money Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, yes."] I have some 2304 ground for making that statement with authority—not my own, but the authority of my right hon. and learned Friend who was in the House when I made the statement before on an earlier Amendment as to what he himself had to say with reference to this matter. I took very careful note of his utterance because on such a matter I could listen to anything that fell from him with the utmost respect, and I was very glad to find that when we were discussing this very question of the right of the House of Lords at an earlier period it was he who stated most clearly that his opinion was that:—
the sound doctrine is that by acquiescence the right of amending has gone into desuetude.There is an earlier passage which is worth quoting, in which he says:—There are three entirely distinct things which have to be considered in this connection; first, the right of initiating a Money Bill; secondly, the right of amending a Money Bill; and thirdly, the right of rejecting a Money Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1910, col. 1481.]In the Debates to which I am now referring in the early part of last year the question before the House, which was being discussed in elaborate detail, was not the right of amending, because every one of authority who spoke in this House agreed that in this House we did not recognise the right of the House of Lords to amend a Money Bill, but my right hon. and learned Friend dealt in some detail and certainly with considerable force with the third point, the right of rejecting a Money Bill.
§ Sir R. FINLAYI adhere to every word I said on that occasion, but it has absolutely no bearing upon the question whether, if the House of Commons chooses to waive the privileges which it has asserted, an Amendment made by the Lords may not be incorporated in the Bill. These passages for this purpose are absolutely irrelevant. What I was dealing with was the right of the House of Lords to insist on an Amendment to which the Commons would not consent.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI am glad, at any rate, that we are so far in agreement that my right hon. and learned Friend agrees to everything he said then. The only reason I am referring to that is for the purpose of pointing out that there is not at the present moment a constitutional right in the House of Lords to amend a Money Bill against the will of the House of Commons. If a Bill is sent up by this House to the House of Lords, the House of 2305 Lords cannot and does not amend it. It has not claimed to do it. The Bills which have been referred to by some hon. Gentlemen on the other side are not Money Bills at all and do not come within this definition. It is perfectly right to say that sometimes a Bill may go up from this House which contains financial provisions which are peculiarly under the control of the House of Commons and under the control of the House of Commons alone, which are then dealt with by the House of Lords and in a particular fashion come back to us. The Speaker rules that it is a breach of privilege for the House of Lords to have interfered with a financial provision, and it is open to any Member to Move that the House of Commons waive that privilege and sometimes it is done. What I am pointing out is that the House of Commons never does and never has waived privileges if the House of Lords has tried to amend a Money Bill. There is no precedent for that, and I challenged my right hon. and learned Friend to give us one. His answer was that the House of Commons could do that. The House of Commons could do whatever it resolved to do in this respect, but it is contrary to our constitutional practice to allow any interference by the House of Lords with what is a Money Bill, either by waiving the privilege or otherwise, and I know of no precedent for it, and I do not think the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir W. Anson), who is such an authority on these matters, will suggest that it is not. The precise proposal before us is rather more important, I think, than has quite been appreciated by the Committee. I will explain why that is so. No doubt it is known to Members of this Committee that no private Member can get up in this House and introduce a resolution which would impose a monetary charge on the subject. It is known that that can only be done by a Minister of the Crown in this House. That is a most valuable and important safeguard against charges being imposed in the House by anyone except those who are responsible for the Government of the country. But that is not so in the House of Lords. In the House of Lords any Member, whether a Minister of the Crown or not, can get up and propose that there should be a monetary charge upon the public, and consequently if the House of Lords did make such a proposal it would then come down from the House of Lords to the House of Commons, and the House of Commons would find itself discussing a proposal or suggestion contrary to its own 2306 Constitution, which we never recognise in the case of anyone in the House of Commons, but which we should have to recognise because it came from the House of Lords. If we were to accept such a proposal as that, we should be going very much further than the hon. and learned Gentleman thought when he suggested that we should accept the Amendment, and we should be giving to every individual Member of the House of Lords the right to do that which the House of Commons does not allow to its own private Members, and only allows to a Minister of the Crown. Therefore, we ought not to pass the Amendment.
§ Mr. HILLSI think the Attorney-General has overlooked one very important fact in this case. This Amendment is merely a matter of machinery. It gives a way by which the Government can correct an admitted mistake. What was the argument of the Attorney-General? He said that the House of Commons has never admitted the right of the House of Lords to amend a Money Bill. I quite agree. I think they have not, but still if this Amendment were accepted the consent of the House of Commons would be required before an Amendment made by the House of Lords on a Money Bill could be accepted. Why do you deprive yourselves of a perfectly clear and simple way of putting right a mistake? After all, the final decision is here. You can accept or or reject an Amendment. I think the Attorney-General must surely see the distinction between practice and statute. Here you by statute refuse to allow the House of Lords to insert in a Bill an Amendment which you yourselves wish to see inserted. All that power is taken away. I do not think the Amendment is very far-reaching, and I would ask why do the Government deprive themselves of a right which would be very useful? It is safeguarded in every way. It is with the consent of the House of Commons that you accept the Amendment, or it falls to the ground. Really, to say that we have to bring in a separate Bill to put right a mistake, which might be rectified in this very simple manner is going rather far afield.
9.0 P.M.
I will take the second example which the Attorney-General gave. He said that no private Member of this House could propose a Taxing Act, and that if we allow any right in the House of Lords to amend, we imply thereby that a private Member of the House of Lords can propose a Taxing Act. There, again, surely 2307 the Attorney-General has forgotten the condition of this Amendment. An Amendment made in a Bill by the House of Lords is to be one to which the Government can assent. I believe if the Attorney-General rejects this Amendment, he will stereotype upon our system a condition which is bound to cause inconvenience as soon as this Bill passes. When this Bill passes unless this Amendment is accepted, no power on earth can change a Finance Bill after it has passed the House of Commons. I know of no machinery by which that can be done. As soon as a Finance Bill passes here it goes to the House of Lords and comes back here, and there is no power in our procedure to change a single comma. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred in very wide terms to the definition of a Finance Bill. According to Sub-section (2) Finance Bills include Bills for the regulation of public money. Take the Bill we passed two years ago—the Development Bill. It is a Bill for the regulation of public money. If the Clause now before the Committee had been in operation then, as soon as that Bill passed this House for good or ill, with all the mistakes upon it, it must have become law. Do we really mean that? I have not been very long in the House, but I have seen case after case where the Government themselves have said: "We admit that a mistake has slipped through in the hurry of Debate, but we will put it right in the House of Lords." Do they mean to take away that power in connection with the very large number of Bills which will come within the definition in Sub-section (2)? This Amendment does not infringe the principle of the Bill now before the Committee. It simply makes it more workable, and I do hope that even now the Government will accept it.
§ Mr. PICKERSGILLI respectfully submit to the Attorney-General that this matter requires further consideration, it was admitted by the Home Secretary that the Amendment would not impair or encroach upon the absolute supremacy in finance of this House. It is intended, professedly, and I have no doubt honestly, to meet the case where there is something wrong in a Bill—something which the House of Lords has found out and which this House would desire to amend. The Attorney-General said, as I understood, that there is no precedent, no instance of the House of Lords amending a Money Bill. He says they have introduced or 2308 altered Money Clauses in Bills which are not Money Bills. He said, and I think the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster also said, that there is no precedent for the House of Lords amending what is called a Money Bill. In the first place, let me take the point stated by the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Hills), who referred to the definition of Money Bills. Money Bills include Bills for "the appropriation, control, or regulation of public moneys," and I presume public money would include money raised by rates as well as money raised by taxes. I have here the Commons JOURNAL for 1882. The Bill in question was the Metropolitan Board of Works Money Bill, and the following order is recorded on the journals of the House: "That the amendments made by the Lords to the Metropolitan Board of Works Money Bill be now taken into consideration. The House accordingly proceeded to take the said amendments into consideration, and the same were twice read." May I call particular attention to the words following, which seem to suggest that the House of Lords had no absolute right to interfere with this Bill, because it was a Money Bill, but for the reasons which I now proceed to give the amendments made by the Lords were accepted. "And it appearing that the said amendments were for the purpose of making the schedule to the Bill consistent with the provisions of the Bill, the said amendments were agreed to." I do not claim to speak too dogmatically or confidently on the subject, but it does seem to me that that is a precedent which the learned Attorney-General might very properly give atention to.
§ Sir WILLIAM ANSONI think that the learned Attorney-General has somewhat confused and prejudiced the issue by reviving the question of the privileges of this House. There is no doubt that the claim of the House of Lords for amending a Money Bill is a claim which this House has never admitted. On the other hand, the claim of the House of Lords to amend a Money Bill is a claim which they have never definitely foregone, which Mr. Gladstone said they were right and wise to retain, and which Sir Robert Peel, no mean authority on these matters, is very doubtful whether this House could successfully contest. But that question of privilege is really not the question here. It is a question whether we should deprive ourselves of the opportunity of considering suggestions coming down from the other House by way of Amendments, whether 2309 you call it amendment or not. The Attorney-General put it that if this Amendment was accepted a Member of the House of Lords, a private Member, not a Member of the Government, might propose some addition to a Grant of Supply, in a grant of public money, not as a Minister of the Crown, but as a private individual; that there would be no one in the House of Lords to call attention to the invariable constitutional rule that a grant of public money was only to be proposed by someone representing the Crown, that the House of Lords would commit the extraordinary folly of adopting such a proposal, that it would then come down to us, and that we should be required to consider it. But can you conceive such a folly passing through so many stages and coming down to us by way of Amendment to a Money Bill? I do not suppose it is a matter with which I need trouble the House for many minutes. I may pass over such a possibility as practically unworthy of consideration. What we really have to consider is the importance of this Amendment in view of the definition of Money Bills in the next Sub-section. That definition is all important for the purpose of this discussion. It is extremely wide. There never hitherto has been any definition of Money Bill.
I daresay the learned Attorney-General can recollect that when the Lords' Amendments to the Education Bill of the Chief Secretary came down here, it was seriously argued that the whole of the Education Bill was based upon the distribution of money either coming from the Treasury as a result of taxes or coming from the rates, that in either case the Bill related almost entirely to the distribution and allocation of a grant of public money, and consequently that the House of Lords ought never to have meddled with it at all. The Speaker ruled, if I recollect rightly, that if he were to take that view of the limitations of the Lords in respect of matters relating to money there would be very few matters left to the Lords to discuss, and he held that the matter was one which the Lords might properly deal, on which they might submit Amendments which this House would be bound to consider, and he accepted the Amendments of the House of Lords as proper for the consideration of this House. But if the Speaker were confronted with the definition of a Money Bill such as we find here, I fancy that if his ruling had not been different he might have been influenced and he might have found the matter much harder to consider; and I do not feel at all 2310 sure, although I am not sure whether the learned Attorney-General will agree with me, that the whole subject of an elementary education, which really depends on the distribution of public money of one sort or another, would not be removed from the consideration of the Lords. But under those circumstances surely it is desirable that we should be able to receive suggestions for the betterment of our measures coming from a body whose deliberations on most matters of public interest are well worthy of attention, and who may send us down amendments which it would be folly on the part of this House to decline to consider.
If so, what are we giving away? If we think that the House of Lords is touching upon our privileges in the matter of a Money Bill, we decline to discuss it. If we think the suggestion embodied in the Amendment is of some value we will do so. We do not relinquish any privilege any more than we have done. Time after time when the Speaker has ruled that a matter is a breach of privilege, when the House has deliberately determined to forget its privileges and has discussed amendments coming down from the House of Lords relating to money Clauses, though not in a Finance Bill. It appears to me that we are forgetting that the definition of a Money Bill goes far beyond the Finance Bill of the year, the money grants for the service of the Crown out of which this whole question of privilege has arisen, about which I am bound to say that if any one looks into the precedent he will find that the seventeenth century precedents on which we rely are wholly out of date, irrelevant, and incapable of being compared with the financial situation of the present time. But admitting that it is undesirable that the Lords should meddle with a Bill which deals with the adjustment of revenue and expenditure for the year it is not undesirable that we should receive suggestions by way of Amendment from the other House in matters in which money is concerned but which are not primarily concerned with the adjustment of revenue and expenditure of the year. Money Bills in Sub-section (2) is a very far-reaching measure, and it deals with a great many other matters as well as the balance of the year and the taxation necessary to meet the expenditure of the year and the nature of that expenditure, and I venture to think we are deliberately foolish for a mere matter of pride which will turn to our own disadvantage if we decline to accept this Amendment, and that 2311 we are deliberately cutting ourselves off from a valuable opportunity for amending our measures, and that in the opinion probably of the great majority of this House the Amendment, if not necessary, is extremely desirable.
§ Sir EDWIN CORNWALLI understand the point under discussion is whether, if the House of Lords makes a suggestion with regard to any improvement in a Money Bill which this House might wish to consider, under the Bill it would have the opportunity and the power to do so. I would like to ask the Attorney-General for my own information whether the words in the Clause, "A Bill shall, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary," do not give this House the right to agree with the Lords Amendment if it desires to do so. Of course, I am not able to put my own interpretation upon the Clause, or to give any opinion worth very much, but it seems to me that the words "Unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary "should enable this House to say that it agrees with the Lords Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Then I do not see so much value in the words, "Unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary," if they do not give the House the opportunity of agreeing with the Lords Amendment.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI would put to the Government that if it is really intended to make this Bill workable, they ought to accept this reasonable Amendment, which is simply that the Lords may make a suggestion by way of Amendment, and, if this House accept it, then it is right? The ultimate power rests with this House, and it is not a question of privilege or of giving up rights in any way. May I give a concrete example illustrative of what this Amendment proposes to do. Last week we passed the Revenue Bill. There was in that Bill a Section which introduced a most revolutionary change in the Game Laws Amending Act of 1831. It may have been a good revolution or a bad one, I do not stay to argue that; but in the form in which the Clause was drafted it was certainly a wide revolution in those laws. The matter was pointed out to me before the Bill had got through Committee. I drew up a new Clause in regard to it, but it was not reached. I submitted it to the Government privately, and, if I may say so with great respect, they acted with the greatest courtesy and good sense. They 2312 immediately saw that their Clause went too far, and, although not meeting me absolutely, they acted very reasonably in the matter, and submitted an Amendment to that Clause, which I thought on the whole was reasonable and right. It was passed by this House without discussion on a Division, and I will guarantee that there were not six Members of the House who had the slightest idea that the Amendment was passed or what the original Clause was. That Amendment carried out what the intention of the Government really was, and what people understood the original Clause to mean. But supposing for some reason or another a slip had been made in the drafting of that Amendment. What possible harm could have been done to this House by the House of Lords pointing out the mistake, and proposing an Amendment in that Money Bill of last week to the Government, who, I am sure, would have acted absolutely reasonably, as they did in meeting me on the point? That is all that the present Amendment really requires, when a Money Bill has gone up to the House of Lords under the present system of Closure—I do not say the system is unnecessary—in the Committee stage. The Report stage comes on the next day, so that we have not time to get an Amendment into the papers in the country, and therefore could not obtain an independent opinion upon the point. I am only taking the instance I have given as an example. Supposing, I say, a mistake had crept in under those circum stances, surely it would only have been right that the House of Lords should point it out by way of suggestion, and it would be in the power of the Government, with the authority of the House of Commons, to accept the Amendment, and so carry out the sense of this House, or, at any rate, the sense of those who were engaged in the discussion.
What is the real answer to this? The Attorney-General put his case with his usual clearness, and brought forward reasons why the Amendment should be rejected. But were they really good reasons? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] An hon. Member said "Yes." What did the Attorney-General say? He states, and stated rightly, that the House of Lords might discuss the point, but that it would be contrary to the practice of this House that an independent Member of the House of Lords should suggest an additional charge on the people. I challenge the hon. and 2313 learned Gentleman to give any instance during the many centuries which the House of Lords has existed of any such charge ever having been proposed in the way suggested of additional taxation upon the people. I should have thought, if anything, that Members of the House of Lords would be very strongly against the imposition of additional taxation, because many of them have to pay far more than the majority of Members of this House. That is the bugbear which the Attorney - General raises now, but I defy him to give a single instance where an additional charge upon the people has been proposed by an independent Member of the House of Lords.
§ Mr. HODGEIn the Education Bill of 1904.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI have no recollection of any additional charge in that Act, and I have no recollection that there was an Education Bill in that year.
§ Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONIt was in 1902, on the wear and tear Clauses.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONA charge was imposed, but the Attorney-General drew a careful distinction between charges which fall upon the rates and charges which fall upon the taxes. I repeat that I remember no occasion in which a Member of the House of Lords has attempted to impose a single farthing of additional charge on Imperial funds. But even assuming there were instances, what possible harm could this Amendment do? Supposing the other House did pass an Amendment, it has to come down to this House and to be accepted by this House, and to be accepted by this House of Commons means accepted by the Government. The fears of the Attorney-General are purely illusory. This Amendment is meant to deal, and would be exceedingly useful in dealing with mistakes in legislation caused by hasty drafting or else by being put through the House without any discussion at all. The Government for the time being, if it finds it has made a mistake, can afterwards request their friends in the House of Lords to put forward an Amendment, so that it can come back to this House and be accepted at once. I submit that to make this Bill workable the Amendment is necessary. It is a power which we know exists at the present time, but it is very rarely exercised, and very likely will be very rarely exercised in the future; 2314 still, it might be exercised with great benefit to legislation and benefit to the House of Commons itself, and, therefore, we ought to be ready to act reasonably and be prepared to accept this Amendment, which would make it possible for suggestions to be made or mistakes to be rectified in legislation which has been passed through this House under Closure and under restriction which were certainly unknown a few years ago.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI really think that, unless there is some mystery in this which I do not understand, that it is an extraordinary thing that the Government should be in any doubt about accepting this Amendment. The only explanation I can see is that apparently they have some hope they will carry this Bill through Committee without alteration, and therefore avoid the necessity of Report stage. I can see no other reason, unless there is something which has not been explained, and which makes it more mysterious. What is the position. The Attorney-General, in an interesting speech, endeavoured to give reasons against adopting this Amendment, but the very illustrations which he gave were the strongest arguments in favour of accepting it He had in his mind two perfectly distinct things. He talked about a Money Bill evidently with the idea that he was speaking about the financial arrangements of the year. That is one thing. For a Money Bill in that sense this Amendment is not necessary, as it has never been exercised. I suggest the Bill, as it now stands, includes precisely the kind of measure in regard to which it was perfectly usual for the House of Lords to make alterations. They had to come down to this House, and the Speaker pointed out that it was a breach of privilege, but, as a matter of fact, the House of Commons waived the breach of privilege and carried them to the advantage of the measure and of the Government itself. It seems to me that should guide us clearly for the future.
I should like to point out two considerations which the Committee should keep in view. The first is a general consideration as to the effect of this legislation. In the earlier stages of these Debates an Amendment was put down to take away altogether the sending of Money Bills to the House of Lords. That Amendment was moved on the ground that it was useless to pretend to give them power when they had no power. What was the answer of the Prime Minister? He told us that that was 2315 a very revolutionary proposal, and that he considered the right of the House of Lords to discuss these Finance Bills is a valuable right which should be retained. Will any one say that that right of discussion is of the smallest value when the result of the discussion cannot be even communicated to this House in order to enable this House to judge of what has taken place. There is one of two things the Government are bound to say. They are bound to say they are willing to consider suggestions from another place, or they are bound to say: "We do not wish the House of Lords to discuss Finance Bills at all, and we will not send them to them." That is the general consideration, but there is another from the point of view of our own convenience. These Money Bills, as they are called, include all kinds of Bills, and will be discussed in the House of Lords. Presumably their discussions may have some practical effect. Even in this House a Bill is never introduced in the same form twice, there is always some change. Presumably it is at least possible that discussion in the House of Lords may suggest Amendments which the Government themselves would like to adopt. The Government recognise that in their Bill, as they put in part of this Clause, where it is necessary to go to the Sovereign unless the House of Commons otherwise determines. As I understand, that means the House of Commons has the right, if not to discuss, to reconsider the measure in the House of Commons. Is that so?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELTo withdraw the measure.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWTo withdraw the measure. That makes it a great deal worse. As I understood the proposal of the Government they did reserve the right to take advantage of any suggested Amendments of which they approved and to alter the Bill when it came here. The right hon. Gentleman says that what he does mean is that the House of Lords is to discuss, and if they make suggestions which seem to the Government to be valuable, that they have tied themselves in such an absurd way by this provision that they have got to throw the Bill away. I am glad the Home Secretary has come in. I think in this case there really ought not to be any party feeling. We are not interfering with the principle of the Bill, at least, in this Amendment. All that we say is that if the discussion in the House 2316 of Lords is not merely a farce, and is not intended to be a farce, then the Government must reserve to itself the right of taking advantage of suggestions made in the House of Lords. Obviously, the easiest way is to follow past practice in this matter, and if a Bill comes down with suggestions of which the Government approve, they go forward, and if it does not they drop. The House of Commons has lost by that but very probably the measure has gained. Suppose the Government, contrary to the view of the Postmaster-General, did desire to take advantage of their suggestions, and not to have the measure lost what possible steps would they take? They would actually, as I understand, have to pass Resolutions again, they would have to recommit the Bill, and you would have practically a new Bill. All that could be done by the simple process of allowing those suggestions from the other place to come down, and if the Government did not like them, half an hour, by means of the guillotine, would end them. If they did like them they could adopt them.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down as well as of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Anson) appeared to be on the assumption that there is included in the scope of this Clause Money Bills that are not really Money Bills. The hon. Member said that for Money Bills this provision would never be wanted.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI said the financial arrangements of the year meant by the Budget. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that that is all they intend?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELNo, not only meaning the Budget, certainly not. The hon. Member, as I understood, said that it is not necessary to apply this provision to a particular Bill, a Money Bill, define it as strictly as you may, which is the financial Bill of the year. But the hon. Member said it was necessary for the House of Lords to have the opportunity of having their suggestions considered even upon Money Bills so strictly defined. The hon. Member who seldom falls into inconsistencies apparently preached two opposite doctrines in the same speech.
§ Mr. BONAR LAW indicated dissent.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI do not wish to follow that as I should like to get to the substance of the argument. The hon. 2317 Member and the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University, alleged that this Clause does not deal solely with Money Bills, and that you ought to be able to accept Amendments as you have done hitherto to Bills which indirectly touch questions of finance though not within the proper definition of Money Bills. That is a question we cannot discuss now. When we come to Sub-section 2, we shall then consider whether our Clause is too wide or not. We declare this Clause deals with Money Bills as they have always been understood, and we are proposing no further limitation of the House of Lords than has in fact always been understood. When we come to Sub-section (2) hon. Members may endeavour to make out that we are including within the scope Bills which have not hitherto been regarded as Money Bills. It would be out of order, and has been repeatedly ruled from the Chair in the earlier part, if we were now to enter on a discussion of what is and what is not a Money Bill properly so defined. We must treat this Sub-section on the assumption that it is what it purports to be, namely, a Sub-section dealing with restrictions upon the powers of the House of Lords in relation to Money Bills as they have hitherto been understood. I desire to trouble the House with three quotations, the cumulative effect of which, I think, will dispose of the contention which has been advanced. Mr. Gladstone has been freely quoted with reference to the right of the House of Lords to amend Money Bills. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) read a passage from a speech of Mr. Gladstone in 1861, but he stopped short of some words that were of great interest in this connection. The passage he read was as follows:—
The House of Lords has never given this up—that is the power of amendment—and I must say I think they are perfectly right in declining to record against themselves this limitation of their privileges, because cases might arise in which from the illegitimate incorporation of elements not financial into financial measures, it might be wise and just to fall back on an assertion of the whole breadth of their privileges. I believe I am strictly correct in saying that the House of Lords have never abandoned, by any corporate act of their own, that which could bring them the right of making Amendments in a financial measure.That is as far as the hon. Baronet read. I will read a little further:—But though the House of Lords have not abandoned it, Speakers in the House of Lords, the authorities in the House of Lords, and the representatives of it, have; and they admit that the power of amending the financial measures of the House of Commons is a power which they do not hold.2318 If hon. Members take the trouble to read that speech, delivered on 16th May, 1861, they will find it a glowing and convincing argument that the House of Lords have no power whatever to regulate the finances of this country.
§ Sir F. BANBURYHow does the right hon. Gentleman get over this passage:—
I must say I think they are perfectly right in declining to record against themselves this limitation.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELWhat Mr. Gladstone had in mind was clearly cases of deliberate tacking. He meant that cases might arise in which the House of Commons put in a Finance Bill provisions for disestablishing the Church, or something of that kind. We admit that it is necessary in a measure of this kind clearly to prevent any Bill of that character coming within the "cope of the Clause. Our Clause is so framed that it shall apply only to Money Bills, and there is a provision for referring to Mr. Speaker the question whether or not a Bill is purely a financial measure. My second quotation is from the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University (Sir W. Anson). The hon. Baronet has written a book on the law and customs of our Constitution, which is acknowledged as an authority by all students of political science. In the first volume he speaks of Money Bills, and uses these words:—
Legislation which has for its object the granting of public money or the imposition of burdens on the taxpayer, possesses some special features which require to he specially noted. In the first place, such legislation is under the entire control of the House of Commons. A Bill relating to Supply must begin in the House of Commons: it is formulated there, though it needs the concurrence of the Lords, but it cannot be amended by them on its way to receive the Royal assent.That has been denied again and again to-day.
§ Sir W. ANSONI have said that the House of Commons always made that claim, and that the House of Lords had never infringed it, but that they had never given up their right. I also stated that the whole matter was wholly irrelevant to the discussion of this particular Amendment.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe fact that the House of Lords did not formally give up this right does not alter the fact that the hon. Baronet, in instructing the youth in the principles of constitutional history, has taught them—I might say "us"—that the House of Lords had no right to amend Bills of this character. My 2319 third quotation is from an even higher authority—a recent Resolution passed by the Lords themselves, formally communicated to this House, and entered upon the Journals of the House of Commons. The House of Lords, it is true, asserts that it has a right to amend Money Bills, but at the same time it declares its willingness to abandon that right. In the Resolution passed on 24th November, 1910, the House of Lords said:—
As to Money Bills, the Lords are prepared to forego their constitutional right to reject or to amend Money Rills which are purely financial in their character, provided that effectual provision is made against tacking and so forth.Three questions arise. First, whether these Bills are Money Bills. That arises on Sub-section (2). Secondly, whether there is effective provision against tacking. That also arises on the latter part of the Clause. We say there is. If it be conceded that these are Money Bills and that there is effective provision made against tacking, then the Lords themselves have declared to this House that they no longer desire to have any right whatever of amending Money Bills. Hon. Members opposite in their speeches to-day are more Royalist than the King, and have asked for the House of Lords powers which the House of Lords themselves do not claim. Hon. Members ask what harm can this Amendment do if it is accepted. It would do this harm. At present when a Bill which is clearly a Money Bill goes to the House of Lords the Committee stage is regarded as a formal stage. No one discusses the Bill in Committee. Not for years and years has a purely Money Bill gone through any effective Committee or Report stage in the House of Lords. It is formally moved and formally passed in a few minutes. If you insert this Amendment it will be an invitation to the House of Lords to amend the practice which has prevailed almost for centuries—certainly for generations—and they will be invited by the deliberate action of the House of Commons itself in the year of grace 1911 to consider all our Finance Bills in detail, and to propose Amendments in order to see whether the House of Commons will accept them or not Under these circumstances I think the Committee will have no hesitation in rejecting this Amendment as they rejected the previous one.
§ Mr. CHAPLINI do not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman into the somewhat unprofitable discussion so far as this Amendment is concerned of whether the 2320 House of Lords has, or has not, maintained the power to move Amendments to Finance Bills—although personally I entirely agree with the view that it has. The right hon. Gentleman must forgive me for saying that he has neither answered nor attempted to answer the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law). He says that the question raised by my hon. Friend is a matter to be-discussed on Sub-section (2), and that the Sub-section we are now discussing is one for imposing restrictions on the House of Lords. That is so. No one denies or questions it for a moment; and this is an. Amendment to lessen those restrictions by enabling the House of Commons, if it be necessary or desirable, to do the very thing which the Prime Minister contemplated their doing when he refused to accept an Amendment that Finance Bills under these circumstances should not be sent to the House of Lords at all. The Committee heard the statement of my right hon. Friend. I venture to say he made a complete and conclusive case in support of the acceptance either of this Amendment, or some Amendment analogous to it, which would give the better effect to his purpose. The object of the Amendment is this: that in the event of this House having considered the Debates the discussions in the House of Lords, and finding something in them that they think really important and worthy of their consideration, which induces this House itself to think that some amendment may be desirable, that an opportunity should be afforded for that purpose. Is there anything unreasonable in that? Unfortunately, under the Bill as it stands now no steps or course of that kind can be taken. Under our present procedure in relation to the other House if no Amendment is made at all in the Bill there is no opportunity for the House of Commons to take any further action, nor would there be in the Bill as it now stands in regard to any suggestions of the House of Lords that the House of Commons might think it necessary, desirable, right, and wise to adopt.
To this plea the right hon. Gentleman gives absolutely no answer whatever. He passed it over altogether, simply on the ground that this was a Sub-section to impose restrictions upon the House of Lords. Whether the Amendment of my hon. Friend would or would not affect its purpose in the best manner, contemplated by the Prime Minister himself, I am not prepared to say now. But I may venture to say that so far as I have had the experience of the drafting of Bills in this House I believe 2321 it would answer fully the purpose. If any right hon. Gentlemen opposite think otherwise then I say they ought to make some statement to this House in reply to the speech of my right hon. Friend and tell us clearly and distinctly whether they do contemplate still that cases may arise in the discussions in the House of Lords which would have this effect upon the Government. That there was something in the suggestions of the Lords which ought to be taken into consideration. We ought to be told whether right hon. Gentlemen still hold that opinion, and if they do the course they propose to take in order to be able to give some effect to it. There is no machinery at the present moment, unless I am totally misinformed, in regard to the procedure between the two Houses of Parliament which would enable any suggestions of that kind to be taken into consideration either under this Bill or under our present procedure. The right hon. Gentleman went further, and said: "Why, if you do this it will be a direct invitation to the House of Lords to do what they have never done before, to discuss and consider Finance Bills in Committee." What is the harm in that? If by such discussions—[Interruption].—Who was it that refused the Amendment moved on this side of the House that no Finance Bills, if this Bill is carried, should be presented to the House of Lords at all; who, I say, was it that refused that Amendment except the Prime Minister himself on the ground that great advantage very probably might arise on the reconsideration of arguments? It is perfectly clear that unless there is some other reason which has not been avowed in the minds of the Government that they are bound to accept this Amendment.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI will continue the quotation from Mr. Gladstone where the right hon. Gentleman left off. It says:—
What I have to say is this: in my opinion the House of Commons would be very much safer if the House of Lords did claim and exercise powers of amendment than it would be if, without recognising that power of amendment, it continued to send up its finances piecemeal——That is what we did last year and this year.The House of Lords makes an amendment in this Bill for imposing duties. It comes back to us. We have the power of taking our own course, but if on the contrary we strip the Bill into shreds and patches——This is what the Government did last Session—and send it up to them in so many pieces, how do we stand? Not only do the House of Lords refuse this, but they do it by this power of amendment.2322 That is what Mr. Gladstone said, and I venture to say that these few words which I have read disposes of the words of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEThe last authority quoted by the Postmaster-General entirely destroys his case. His case, and that of other Members of the Government Benches who have spoken before him was that the House of Lords had given up the right to amend the Money Bill. Now the Postmaster General quotes the Resolution of the House of Lords of November last, in which the Lords reiterate their right not only to reject but to amend Money Bills. It is true they said they were willing to forego it. That is part of the statement. The right hon. Gentleman has no more right to quote that part only than to take an article in a draft treaty and say that the Power or person concerned with the treaty was willing to forego it, without putting all the rest of the articles forward that they might be considered in conjunction with it. I desire to ask one question. I am sorry there is no legal adviser of the Government present, but whatever Minister on the Front Bench thinks himself best qualified to answer will do so.
§ The question is this: Take a pure, acknowledged Money Bill, not a constructive Money Bill under the Second Subsection, and suppose the House of Lords do exercise their power to amend it. What would happen? What would be the course of procedure? That Amendment would be printed on the Paper, and it would come down to this House as a Lords' Amendment to such and such a Bill. It would appear on our Agenda, and I submit it would be put from the Chair. Will any Member of the Government Bench say that it would not be competent for the Chair to-put such an Amendment or Amendments, or say that if those Amendments were put they could not be discussed? That the House of Commons could not waive its privilege and consent to a discussion, and to accept these Amendments? Would not that be the case? If that would be the case how could the Home Secretary or any other Member of the Government say that the whole purpose of this Clause, and of these words, it to leave things exactly as they are? The Attorney-General says the Government do not wish to add to the powers of the House of Lords. The Government will be diminishing the power of the House of Lords unless they accept this Amendment, which, I submit, will absolutely leave the present position 2323 exactly as it is. That position is that the House of Lords may propose Amendments either to a Finance Bill or to the financial clauses of another Bill. The House of Commons may insist upon their privileges or they may not, but that is the position at present. It is perfectly idle for the Government to argue as if the definition in the Second Sub-section were not a factor in this case. Beading that definition with the provision we are now discussing if they insist upon it they will be taking from the House of Lords an undoubted right which it now possesses, and which the House of Lords exercises almost every year, and which has been acknowledged by the House of Commons in the waiving of its privileges over and over again. I challenge any Member of the Government to deny that that is not so. I put another question which was put by an hon. Member upon the other side. You put in the words "unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary." I ask whether
2324§ the only effect of that will not be that if the Government feel they have made a mistake and that the Bill they are putting through is an unworkable Bill, the only course open to them will be to withdraw it and to go through every single stage from beginning to end again—resolution on Ways and Means, report, production of the Bill, second reading, Committee possible re-commitment, third reading—and this will happen at the end of a Session. These words will amount to giving the power of withdrawal of a Bill but no power of amending it in any shape or form. I put these questions to the Government, and I leave it to whichever Minister is best qualified to answer.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL 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, 279; noes, 187.
2327| Division No. 118.] | AYES. | [10.0 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Greig, Colonel J. W. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) |
| Adamson, William | Corbett, A. Cameron | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) |
| Adkins, W Ryland D. | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hackett, J. |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Cotton, William Francis | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Cowan, W. H. | Hancock, J. G. |
| Alden, Percy | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Hardie, J. Keir |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Crooks, William | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Anderson, A. | Crumley, Patrick | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) |
| Atherley-Jones, Llewelyn A. | Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Harwood, George |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry |
| Barnes, G. N. | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Barran, Sir J. (Hawick) | Dawes, J. A. | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Barry, Redmond John | Delany, William | Hayward, Evan |
| Barton, W. | Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Devlin, Joseph | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Dewar, Sir J. A. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor |
| Benn, W. (T. H'mts., St. George) | Dickinson, W. H. | Higham, John Sharp |
| Bentham, G J. | Doris, W. | Hinds, John |
| Black, Arthur W. | Duffy, William J. | Hodge, John |
| Boland, John Pius | Duncan, C. (Parrow-in-Furness) | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Edwards, Allen Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Hudson, Walter |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Hughes, S. L |
| Brace, William | Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Hunter, W. (Govan) |
| Brigg, Sir John | Elverston, H. | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Esmonde, Dr John (Tipperary, N.) | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Johnson, W. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Essex, Richard Walter | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Esslemont, George Birnie | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Falconer, J. | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Farrell, James Patrick | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Fenwick, Charles | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) | Ferens, T. R. | Jowett, F. W. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Ffrench, Peter | Joyce, Michael |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Field, William | Keating, M. |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Kellaway, Frederick George |
| Chancellor, H. G. | France, G. A. | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Chapple, Dr. W. A. | Furness, Stephen | Kilbride, Denis |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Gelder, Sir W. A. | King, J. (Somerset, N.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Gill, A. H. | Lambert, George (Devon, Molton) |
| Clough, William | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Goldstone, Frank | Lansbury, George |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd, Cockerm'th) | O'Malley, William | Smith, H. B. (Northampton) |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Smyth, Thomas F. |
| Lewis, John Herbert | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Logan, John William | O'Shee, James John | Splcer, Sir Albert |
| Low, Sir F. (Norwich) | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Lundon, T. | Palmer, Godfrey | Sutton, John E. |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Parker, James (Halifax) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Lynch, A. A. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. | Thomas, James Henry (Derby) |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Switt | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| M'Callum, John M. | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Toulmin, George |
| M'Curdy, C. A. | Pirie, Duncan V. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| M'Kean, John | Pointer, Joseph | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Marks, G. Croydon | Power, Patrick Joseph | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Marshall, Arthur Harold | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Meagher, Michael | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Wardle, George J. |
| Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Radford, G. H. | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Median, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Menzies, Sir Walter | Rainy, A. Rolland | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Molloy, M. | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Webb, H. |
| Mooney, J. J. | Reddy, M. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Morgan, George Hay | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Morrell, Philip | Redmond, William (Clare) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Muldoon, John | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Munro, R. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Needham, Christopher T. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Neilson, Francis | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Nolan, Joseph | Robinson, Sidney | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Williams, P. (Middlesbrough) |
| Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Rowlands, James | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| O'Doherty, Philip | Scanlan, Thomas | Winfrey, Richard |
| O'Donnell, Thomas | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| O'Dowd, John | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Young, W. (Perth, East) |
| Ogden, Fred | Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| O'Grady, James | Sheehy, David | |
| O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gutland. |
| O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Cautley, H. S. | Goldsmith, Frank |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Cave, George | Gordon, J. |
| Ashley, W. W. | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Astor, Waldorf | Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Grant, J. A. |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Chambers, J. | Gretton, John |
| Baird, J. L. | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Guinness, Hon. W. E. |
| Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) | Clay, Captain H. Spender | Haddock, George Bahr |
| Balcarres, Lord | Clive, Percy Archer | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Clyde, J. Avon | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Hamersley, A. St. George |
| Barlow, Montagu (Salford, S.) | Courthope, G. Loyd | Hardy, Laurence |
| Barnston, H. | Craik, Sir Henry | Harris, Henry Percy |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan | Helmsley, Viscount |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.) | Cripps, Sir C. A. | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Dalrymple, Viscount | Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Hill, Sir Clement |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Dixon, C. H. | Hillier, Dr. A. P. |
| Benn, I. H. (Greenwich) | Doughty, Sir George | Hills, J. W. |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hill-Wood, Samuel |
| Beresford, Lord C. | Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | Hoare, S. J. G. |
| Bigland, Alfred | Falle, B. G. | Hohler, G. F. |
| Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid) | Fell, Arthur | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Boyton, J. | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Finlay, Sir Robert | Horner, Andrew Long |
| Bull, Sir William James | Fisher, W. Hayes | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Burgoyne, A. H. | Fitzroy, Hon. E. A. | Hume-Williams, W. E. |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Fleming, Valentine | Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath) |
| Butcher, J. G. (York) | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Ingleby, Holcombe |
| Campion, W. R. | Forster, Henry William | Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Foster, Philip Staveley | Joynson-Hicks, William |
| Cassel, Felix | Frewen, Moreton | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Gastrell, Major W. H. | Kerry, Earl of |
| Cator, John | Gibbs, G. A. | Kimber, Sir Henry |
| Knight, Captain E. A. | Parkes, Ebenezer | Starkey, John R. |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Larmor, Sir J. | Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge) | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Lewisham, Viscount | Perkins, Walter F. | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Peto, Basil Edward | Swift, Rigby |
| Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Pole-Carew, Sir R. (Cornwall, Bodmin) | Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Lonsdale, John Brownies | Pollock, Ernest Murray | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Pretyman, E. G. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.) | Thynne, Lord Alexander |
| Mackinder, H. J. | Ratcliff, R. F. | Tobin, Alfred Aspinall |
| M'Mordie, Robert | Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel | Touche, George Alexander |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Rawson, Colonel R. H. | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Rice, Hon. W. | Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford) |
| Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Rolleston, Sir John | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Ronaldshay, Earl of | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Rothschild, Lionel de | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Morpeth, Viscount | Royds, Edmund | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude |
| Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) | Winterton, Earl |
| Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Mount, William Arthur | Salter, Arthur Clavell | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Neville, Reginald J. N. | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Newdegate, F. A. | Sanders, Robert A. | Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton) |
| Newton, Harry Kottingham | Sanderson, Lancelot | Yerburgh, Robert |
| Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) | Younger, George |
| Nield, Herbert | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) | |
| O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.) | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) | |
| Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | Smith, Harold (Warrington) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Spear, John Ward | |
| Paget, Almeric Hugh | Stanier, Beville |
§ Question put, "That the word 'any' be there inserted."
2328§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 287.
2331| Division No. 119.] | AYES. | [10.10 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Courthope, George Loyd | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Horne, William E. (Surrey, Guildford) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Craik, Sir Henry | Horner, Arthur Long |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Astor, Waldorf | Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred | Hume-Williams, William Ellis |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Dairymple, Viscount | Hunt, Rowland |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Dixon, Charles Harvey | Ingleby, Holcombe |
| Balcarres, Lord | Doughty, Sir George | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Joynson-Hicks, William |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Falle, Bertram Godfray | Kerry, Earl of |
| Barnston, H. | Fell, Arthur | Kimber, Sir Henry |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.) | Finlay, Sir Robert | Lane-Fox, G. R. |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton) | Fisher, William Hayes | Larmor, Sir J. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.) |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Fleming, Valentine | Lewisham, Viscount |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Forster, Henry William | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Foster, Philip Staveley | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Bigland, Alfred | Frewen, Moreton | Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale) |
| Bird, Alfred | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) |
| Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) | Gibbs, George Abraham | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh |
| Boyton, James | Goldsmith, Frank | Mackinder, Halford J. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Gordon, John | M'Mordie, Robert |
| Bull, Sir William James | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Burgoyne, Alan Hughes | Grant, J. A. | Malcolm, Ian |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Greene, Walter Raymond | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Butcher, John George | Gretton, John | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. |
| Campion, W. R. | Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward | Middlemore, John Throgmorton |
| Carlile, Edward Hildred | Haddock, George Bahr | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Cassel, Felix | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Cator, John | Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) |
| Cave, George | Hardy, Laurence | Mount, William Arthur |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Harris, Henry Percy | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.) | Helmsley, Viscount | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Chambers, James | Hickman, Col. Thomas E. | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Nield, Herbert |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Hills, John Waller | Norton-Griffiths, J. |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Hill-Wood, Samuel | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) |
| Clyde, James Avon | Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Paget, Almeric Hugh | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) | Tobin, Alfred Aspinall |
| Parkes, Ebenezer | Salter, Arthur Clavell | Touche, George Alexander |
| Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge) | Sanders, Robert Arthur | Valentia, Viscount |
| Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) | Sanderson, Lancelot | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Perkins, Walter Frank | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Peto, Basil Edward | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Pole-Carew, Sir R. | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Pollock, Ernest Murray | Smith, Harold (Warrington) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Pretyman, Ernest George | Spear, John Ward | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude |
| Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. | Stanler, Beville | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Quilter, W. E. C. | Starkey, John Ralph | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Ratcliff, R. F. | Staveley-Hill, Henry | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Steel-Maitland, A. D. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Rawson, Colonel Richard H. | Stewart, Gershom | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) | Yerburgh, Robert |
| Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Swift, Rigby | Younger, George |
| Rolleston, Sir John | Sykes, Alan John | |
| Ronaldshay, Earl of | Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.) | |
| Rothschild, Lionel de | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Dr. Hillier and Earl Winterton. |
| Royds, Edmund | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) | |
| Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) | Thynne, Lord Alexander | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Adamson, William | Davies, Sir W Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hudson, Walter |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Dawes, J. A. | Hughes, Spencer Leigh |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Delany, William | Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Devlin, Joseph | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) |
| Alden, Percy | Dewar, Sir J. A. | Johnson, W. |
| Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) | Dickinson, W. H. | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Doris, William | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Anderson, Andrew Macbeth | Duffy, William J. | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.) | Jowett, Frederick William |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Edwards, Enoch Hanley | Joyce, Michael |
| Barnes, George N. | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Keating, Matthew |
| Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick) | Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Kellaway, Frederick George |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Elverston, Harold | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Barton, William | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Kilbride, Denis |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | King, Joseph (Somerset, North) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Essex, Richard Walter | Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Esslemont, George Birnie | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) |
| Bentham, G. J. | Falconer, James. | Lansbury, George |
| Black, Arthur W. | Farrell, James Patrick | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe |
| Boland, John Pius | Fenwick, Charles | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Ferens, Thomas Robinson | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Ffrench, Peter | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Field, William | Logan, John William |
| Brace, William | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) |
| Brigg, Sir John | France, G. A. | Lundon, Thomas |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Furness, Stephen | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Gelder, Sir W. A. | Lynch, Arthur Alfred |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Gill, A. H. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Goldstone, Frank | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Greig, Colonel James William | M Callum, John M. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | M'Curdy, Charles Albert |
| Byles, William Pollard | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | M'Kean, John |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Hackett, John | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | Marks, George Croydon |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Hancock, J. G. | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Meagher, Michael |
| Clough, William | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Clynes, John R. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Harwood, George | Molloy, Michael |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Mooney, John J. |
| Corbett, A. Cameron | Haworth, Arthur A. | Morgan, George Hay |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hayden, John Patrick | Morrell, Philip |
| Cotton, William Francis | Hayward, Evan | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Cowan, W. H. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Muldoon, John |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Munro, Robert |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor | Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. |
| Crooks, William | Higham, John Sharp | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Crumley, Patrick | Hinds, John | Neilson, Francis |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Hodge, John | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster |
| Nolan, Joseph | Rainy, Adam Rolland | Toulmin, George |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil W. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Reddy, Michael | Verney, Sir Harry |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| O'Doherty, Philip | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) | Wardle, George J. |
| O'Donnell, Thomas | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| O'Dowd, John | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Ogden, Fred | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| O'Grady, James | Robinson, Sidney | Watt, Henry A |
| O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Webb, H. |
| O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| O'Malley, William | Roche, John (Galway, E.) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| O'Neill, Dr. Claries (Armagh, S.) | Rose, Sir Charles Day | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Rowlands, James | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| O'Shee, James John | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| O'Sullivan, Timothy | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas. |
| Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Scanlan, Thomas | Whyte, A. F. |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Seely, Colonel, Rt. Hon. J. E. B. | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. | Sheehy, David | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) | Wilson, Henry J. (Yorks, W. R.) |
| Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Pine, Duncan Vernon | Soares, Ernest | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Pointer, Joseph | Spicer, Sir Albert | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Sutherland, John E. | Winfrey, Richard |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Sutton, John E. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | |
| Primrose, Hon. Neil James | Thomas, J. H. (Derby) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Radford, George Heynes | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | |
| Raffan, Peter Wilson | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
§ The CHAIRMANThe Amendment to leave out "one month" ["passed by the House of Lords without Amendment within one month "], and to insert "two months" is consequential on an Amendment rejected. The next Amendment in order is one handed in by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason).
§ Sir A. CRIPPSOn a point of Order. These Amendments are to insert "two I months "for" one month" after the time at which the Bill has gone up to the House of Lords. That is a matter which has not been discussed. When the question came on and I raised the point you pointed out that it could not be raised at that stage. There has been no discussion of that point at all.
§ The CHAIRMANTo insert a longer period than the one month in the Bill would, if I understand the question rightly, make the Bill nonsense, because it would read, "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 two months."
§ Lord HUGH CECILI do not think it is nonsense; it is quite possible for the matter to be debated for more than one month, and there is no necessary correspondence 2332 between one month in the first part of the Clause and one month in the second part.
§ Sir A. CRIPPSIt is at least "one month." It might be sent up, however, three or four months before. I do not think there is any relation between one month before the end of the Session and what appears afterwards.
§ The CHAIRMANThis Sub-section which we are discussing would be rendered of no effect at all if a Money Bill were sent up to the House of Lords one month and one day before the end of a Session, and not returned until two months after it had been sent up.
§ Mr. JAMES MASONI beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words, "one month" and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty Parliamentary days."
There has been considerable doubt expressed as to the meaning of the words "one month," as used in this Sub-section. It has been stated, on more than one occasion, that if this month is to include the period during which this House is in Session the House of Lords might not have an opportunity of discussing the Bill. The Amendment I propose is a very simple one, and after the indication we have received from the Prime Minister, I think 2333 it is one the House will be very likely to accept. I propose to substitute for "one month" the words "twenty Parliamentary days," which means four weeks of actual Parliamentary time. I hope the Government will see that this is a reasonable Amendment worthy of consideration at their hands.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe Government cannot accept this Amendment. We know what one month is, it is a period of time familiar to us all. But if we are to take a period of twenty Parliamentary days, how are they to be reckoned? Are they to be reckoned as regards this House or the other House. If they are to be reckoned as twenty Parliamentary days in this House, I should like to ask what are Parliamentary days, and what relation do they bear to the arrangements for Parliamentary business in the other House? Both Houses have full control over their own business; they can make whatever arrangements they choose. We cannot agree at all with this proposal. It is really not necessary. Either House can remain in Session as long as it pleases, and there is, therefore, no real advantage to be gained from this Amendment. On the other hand, there would be grave and insuperable disadvantages in counting twenty Parliamentary days, and it would be open to the House of Lords either to force this House to sit for twenty Parliamentary days on which it had no business to do or it would vitiate and destroy the whole proposal of the measure we are now endeavouring to carry with so much labour.
§ Sir A. CRIPPSThe Home Secretary could not have been present when the Prime Minister referred to this matter earlier in the evening. What was pointed out on that occasion was this, that if you put in one month, the one month might be at a time of the year when neither House was sitting. Take the ordinary course of a Finance Bill sent up to the House of Lords on some day early in August, and you have what is called an Autumn Session, and both Houses adjourn from that date till some day later in November or December. That, in fact, was done with the Finance Bill of 1909. It was sent up too late to be considered until what is called the Autumn Session. As the Bill stands at the present time, if one month is left it is quite clear that the Finance Bill might be sent up under conditions in which there would be no opportunity for discussion in the Second Chamber 2334 in any effective way at all. When I pointed out earlier in the evening that that was the real difficulty to the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged the difficulty, and surely if it is admitted by him, and if the Home Secretary wants to have a free and fair right of discussion which will be effective the Government must have some alteration of the Bill as it stands at the present time. I am not dealing with the particular Amendment, and I have myself one which comes on later, but if one month stands as is proposed in the present Bill the result will be an absolute farce, and sham in point of the possibility of a free and fair discussion in the Second Chamber at all. It is perfectly well known to every Member of this House that if a Finance Bill is sent up in the middle of August it is utterly impossible it should be fairly discussed and debated in the House of Lords, and yet a month after that, sometime in September, the Bill will become effective over the heads of the House of Lords without a chance of a fair discussion at all. I would ask the Home Secretary whether he means that this month which is to be a month during which you have a full and free discussion, is to be at a time of the year when anything like fair and effective discussion is impossible. When I pointed that out to the Prime Minister he acknowledged that difficulty, and said he would be prepared to deal with it, though these may not be the exact terms. The Home Secretary has not dealt in any way with the real difficulty which has reference to the Autumn Session, and unless some change is made you will Bend up the Bill under conditions in which there is to be no opportunity of discussion in the Second Chamber. That, I am sure, is not the intention of the Government nor of the Prime Minister when he spoke earlier in the evening. He then said this was a difficulty which ought to be met, and he-promised when the time came he would see what Amendment could be introduced in order to amend what is really an unfair proposal, which you are holding out to the House of Lords, intending them to believe-that they will have a fair time for the discussion of a Money Bill. I hope the Home Secretary will reconsider his position and put himself into court by conceding what was conceded by the Prime Minister earlier in the evening.
§ Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSONI think the Government ought to accept the Amend- 2335 ment, the intention of which is only to avoid such a difficulty as might arise, for instance, supposing the House was in Session up till a few days before Christmas, as has happened, and may happen again. But I suggest that if they are not willing to accept our proposal they might accept it in this form, that it shall be one month during which both Houses of Parliament are in Session. That is a perfectly reasonable request.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLWhy should it be reasonable for the House of Commons to remain in Session if there is no business for it to do in that period?
§ Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSONThat is the very difficulty we want to avoid, that this House is to adjourn, and you are to ask the House of Lords to sit through Christmas and the New Year. My proposition is a perfectly good one, as the whole point is to prevent Bills being sent in unreasonable numbers at unreasonable times, so if the Government will not accept this twenty Parliamentary days, at all events let them accept my Amendment, and say, "one month during which both Houses are in Session."
§ Mr. CASSELIf the Home Secretary feels he cannot accept this particular form of words, and wants to get it narrowed down to something more definite, would he consider a form of words which would exclude from the month any part of the following periods—namely, August or September, or from 20th December to 10th January, or from three days before until three days after Easter Sunday, or from three days before till three days after Whit Sunday.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe hon. and learned Gentleman has forgotten Derby Day.
§ Lord HUGH CECILIt is exceedingly unfortunate that the Prime Minister should not be in his place. It is an illustration of the idleness of the Prime Minister in performing his Parliamentary duties. Before dinner he certainly encouraged the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir A. Cripps) to hope that the Amendment put in at this place would be very attentively considered by the Government. When the question is raised the right hon. Gentleman is not here, and the Home Secretary, I suppose, did not hear, or possibly was not attending, naturally enough, and we are deprived of the guidance of the Prime Minister to which we are entitled, and we 2336 do not know what the purpose and intention of the Government really was in resisting the Amendment at the earlier stage.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe Prime Minister spent more than half an hour in considering it, and the result is embodied in the statement I have made.
§ Lord HUGH CECILWe have had re cent experience of the Home Secretary as interpreter of the Prime Minister. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Prime Minister accepted the interpretation."] At any rate, we have now to consider the difficulty that this one month might occur at a period of the Session in which no real discussion would be possible. It might be the month of August or September. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to interrupt me I would rather he interrupted me formally than informally. As far as I understand the Clause—it is not easy to follow—this matter might come up late in the ordinary summer Session. It might be an altogether inappropriate opportunity—an opportunity which practically could not be used for that discussion which the Government at some moments seem to regard as of the utmost importance, and which they profess to regard as a valuable power still retained to the House of Lords. That is a point which is recognised by the Prime Minister as being important, and now the Home Secretary seems to think it a matter to be waived aside in a few sentences. He does not argue the matter, and we are forced to put up with the vicarious insolence of the deputy.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe arguments of the Home Secretary, as I understood them, were two-fold. The first was that he did not know what was a Parliamentary day. I admit that there is something to be said for his contention, for when the right hon. Gentleman is in charge of the House nobody quite knows what a Parliamentary day is. I think, on the whole, it would be easily interpreted. [An HON. MEMBER: "Eight hours."] No; I do not think it is eight hours. I think it is much nearer twenty-four hours. I doubt whether any kind of Shop Hours Bill could be introduced to deal with the Parliamentary day. At any rate, there is a definition of the Parliamentary day. It is from a quarter to three in the afternoon until a quarter to three in the afternoon of the following day. There is no doubt about that. Therefore, with all respect to the Home Secretary, I think what he said of his inability 2337 to define the Parliamentary day falls to the ground. I presume that the Parliamentary day relates to the Parliamentary day of both Houses. There can be no question what is the Parliamentary day in the House of Lords. The second objection stated by the Home Secretary, as I understood, was that the House of Commons might be debating a Money Bill and the House of Commons might be in the position of having nothing to do while the House of Lords was so engaged. That is exactly what we desire. We believe that that is the intention of the Government—that they are going to put off until some remote day in August or September the sending up of a Money Bill to the House of Lords, and then say "We are not going to trouble about the debates in the House of Lords," notwithstanding that the Prime Minister told us that the debates in the House of Lords were of very great advantage. There can be no other meaning of the argument. If that be so, it is absolutely inconsistent with the attitude of the Government in refusing an Amendment which would provide that when a Money Bill has passed this House it should go straight to the Crown. The arguments of the Home Secretary, if they have any force at all, show that instead of rejecting this Amendment they ought to have accepted it the other night. It is a striking commentary on what is going to take place when this Bill is passed. We know perfectly well that another place is going to be disregarded altogether. That appears to meet with the approval of hon. Members below the Gangway. I do not object to that. But let them have the honesty of their opinions and get up and say so. I think that the country ought to see clearly what is going to happen. It means, if it means anything, that, at any rate on a Finance Bill this House is to be supreme, and that all arguments about the value of Debates in another place are absolutely futile, and are only brought forward to delude an electorate which probably in five or six years' time will regret having returned the hon. Members who support the present Government.
Mr. J. W. WILSONThe anxiety shown on the opposite side with regard to the other Chamber sitting in August or September when it is not convenient to them comes somewhat ill from a party who, under their Leader not many years ago, sent up all the main Government Bills of the Session to the House of Lords after the 1st of August.
§ Sir R. FINLAYI think what the House is suffering from is not so much the absence of the Prime Minister as the presence of the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary dealing with an Amendment which touches a point which everyone who has applied his mind to the question knows to be important, does not seem to have taken the trouble to understand the rudiments of the question. There is absolutely no answer to the point put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire. Supposing the Money Bill is sent up to the Lords at the end of July, and then there is an adjournment over to October, the whole of the month for which you have provided will expire during that adjournment. It is proposed by the Government that the House of Commons should adjourn, and what a lurid light is thrown upon the Budget by what the Home Secretary has said. He asked, Why should the House of Commons go on sitting when it has got nothing to do? What does that mean? It means that the Bill is to go up to the House of Lords at the very end of the time devoted to business. The House of Commons has done all its work and it then adjourns, and when the Session is coming to an end there is a formal meeting of the House of Commons in order that Parliament may be still sitting at the end of the month, and the Bill would be sent up for the consent of the Crown. I do say that a proposal of that kind from the Home Secretary in a moment of effusion, if I may use the expression, throws a lurid light on the dark places of this Bill, and lets us see what tricks are to be played with the Constitution.
§ Mr. JOSEPH PEASEConsideration has been given to the point which was submitted to the Prime Minister, and the main reason urged why we cannot accept this Amendment is that it would place in the hands of the House of Lords the opportunity of adjourning their discussion and of defeating proposals which are intended to secure to this House control over finance. If the House of Lords has twenty parliamentary days, and they are limited to parliamentary days towards the end of the Session, all they have to do, taking entire control of their own time, is to adjourn sine die, and they absolutely frustrate the opportunity of the Finance Bill becoming law, under the proposal contained in the Amendment. It seems to me that there is one great object which hon. Members opposite have in view, and that 2339 is absolutely to secure August and September for grouse and partridge shooting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] But why should not members of the House of Commons be just as keen to enjoy holidays as Noble Lords in another place? I would point out that these Money Bills are not confined to a particular period of the year, as hon. Members have pictured to themselves, and the very fact that we ourselves want to rise early in August, if not before, is an inducement to the Government to do their utmost to secure the passage of a controversial Money Bill at least a month before it is anticipated that we shall rise. In answer to the hon. Member who pictured a period late in the Session, on 23rd November, we will say, when we expected to rise, we should naturally try and secure the passage of any controversial Money Bill before that date, and the House of Lords, up to 23rd December, would then have a month before the close of the Session in which to discuss the Bill. Our reply is that one month is sufficient, and we shall not give the additional power for which the Amendment asks.
§ Sir ALFRED CRIPPSI am much obliged to the Chancellor of the Duchy for his statement of the difficulty which the Government feel as to this Amendment. Of course, we on this side do not desire any Amendment which would allow the House of Lords, or any Second Chamber, to adjourn its own proceedings in order to defeat a Bill. That, I think, is quite clear. It is quite clear from my point of view. I drew an Amendment with the very object of making that impossible, and the House of Lords could not postpone a Financial Bill by adjourning that House in any way. That is quite right. I do not know if I may refer to the Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANI think the hon. Member may refer to it, as I do not think we can discuss it.
§ Sir A. CRIPPSIt was suggested that the month should be while both Houses were sitting. Of course, in that form it is quite clear that the House of Lords by adjourning could have defeated the object of the Clause, and prevent a Financial Bill coming into operation within the time. I quite agree that might have been done. Therefore an Amendment in that form would have gone too far. On the other hand, why should you not define the month as a month during which this House 2340 is sitting, which would have a double effect. It would send the Financial Bill up for discussion to the House of Lords in proper time. I think we should all desire that. As long as we have a position of this kind we do not want to make it a mere farce. It is not a question of the House of Lords desiring to shirk its work, but every one knows that during the holidays and August and September in this country no public business is done. I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy will he consider some such Amendment in the modified form in which I have proposed, because it has been drafted with the very object of getting rid of the difficulty he referred to and which I believe is the only difficulty in the way of accepting the Amendment. I agree do not put it in the power of the House of Lords to obstruct. I think that would be wrong, but provide against any power of that sort. Would the Chancellor of the Duchy say what reason there is against the acceptance of an Amendment such as I proposed. The responsibility for the words is of course with the Government draftsman. When I indicated the meaning of this Amendment, I think the Prime Minister acknowledged it fully, and was willing to see whether it would be acceded to. It does not alter the framework of the Bill. It does not go to a matter of principle in the Bill, but does provide for fair opportunity of discussion which under the Bill as it stands the Second Chamber will not have.
§ Mr. JAMES MASONThe Home Secretary seemed to draw this picture. He suggested this House has sent up a Money Bill, and adjourns because it has nothing to do, and leaves the House of Lords going on for another month to complete the work. If that is so, what is the meaning of the words "one month before the end of the Session"? It is quite obvious if the House of Lords does not intend to sit, and if the House of Lords has control over its own time, then the words "one month before the end of the Session" has no sense whatever. If you are afraid that the House of Lords may defeat your object by refusing to sit during that month, why not accept an Amendment which would run "Twenty days on which the House of Commons is sitting"? That would ensure that the Bill would actually get to the House of Lords a month before the end of the real Session.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI was much impressed by the arguments of the hon. Mem- 2341 ber for Windsor (Mr. Mason), and not at all by the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy. The right hon. Gentleman indulged in that clap-trap of invective and sneers against those who indulge in grouse-shooting, as if he were trying to make out that his own amusement was to spend his August holiday basking on Margate sands. Some of us have sufficient knowledge of the Chancellor of the Duchy to realise that that is not his amusement, therefore we are less able to understand the speech with which he has favoured the Committee. No argument whatever has been advanced by the Government to show why this Amendment should mot be adopted. It has been clearly shown that with the Clause as it stands some such Amendment is necessary, otherwise the House of Lords, under certain circumstances, might have no opportunity whatever for discussing a measure. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Windsor coincided with an idea that had occurred to me, and, in order to make the proposal clearer, I propose to amend the Amendment by adding the words "during which the House of Commons is sitting."
§ The CHAIRMANThat cannot be moved until the other words have been left out.
§ Lord HUGH CECILAs it is now two minutes to eleven o'clock, no time would be lost by adjourning the discussion until the next sitting when the Prime Minister will be in his place, and able to give his opinion. I therefore move to report Progress.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the question be now put."
§ Viscount HELMSLEY (seated and wearing his hat)On a point of Order, Sir, may I ask you in what respect the words I suggested as an Amendment to the Amendment were out of order?
§ The CHAIRMANAn addition could not be made until the words proposed to be left out had been left out.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 203.
2345| Division No. 120.] | AYES. | [10.58 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Clynes, John R | France, Gerald Ashburner |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Furness, Stephen |
| Adamson, William | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Gelder, Sir W. A. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Gill, A. H. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Alden, Percy | Corbett, A. Cameron | Goldstone, Frank |
| Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Cotton, William Francis | Greig, Colonel James William |
| Anderson, Andrew Macbeth | Cowan, W. H. | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Crooks, William | Hackett, John |
| Barnes, George N. | Crumley, Patrick | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) |
| Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick) | Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Hancock, J. G. |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Barton, William | Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Dawes, J. A. | Harvey, T. E (Leeds, W.) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Delany, William | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) |
| Bentham, G. J. | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Harwood, George |
| Black, Arthur W. | Devlin, Joseph | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Boland, John Pius | Dickinson, W. H. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Doris, William | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Duffy, William J. | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness) | Hayward, Evan |
| Brace, William | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Brigg, Sir John | Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Hinds, John |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Hodge, John |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Elverston, Harold | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Hudson, Walter |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Hughes, Spencer Leigh |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Essex, Richard Walter | Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Esslemont, George Birnie | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Falconer, James | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Farrell, James Patrick | Johnson, W. |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Fenwick, Charles | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Ferens, Thomas Robinson | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Ffrench, Peter | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Field, William | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Clough, William | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) |
| Jowett, Frederick William | O'Doherty, Philip | Sheehy, David |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Donnell, Thomas | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Keating, Matthew | O'Dowd, John | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | Ogden, Fred | Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | O'Grady, James | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Kilbride, Denis | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Soares, Ernest |
| King, Joseph (Somerset, North) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Lamb, Ernest Henry | O'Malley, William | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Sutherland, John E. |
| Lansbury, George | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Sutton, John E. |
| Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | O'Shee, James John | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Taylor, Theodore C (Radcliffe) |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Tennant, Harold John |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Parker, James (Halifax) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Logan, John William | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Thomas, J. H. (Derby) |
| Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Lundon, Thomas | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Toulmin, George |
| Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Pirie, Duncan Vernon | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Pointer, Joseph | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Pollard, Sir George H. | Walters, John Tudor |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| M'Callum, John M. | Power, Patrick Joseph | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| M'Curdy, Charles Albert | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Wardie, George J. |
| McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Price, Sir Robert J. | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Primrose, Hon. Neil James | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Marks, George Croydon | Radford, George Heynes | Watt, Henry A |
| Marshall, Arthur Harold | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Webb, H. |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Rainy, Adam Rolland | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Meagher, Michael | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Reddy, Michael | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Menzies, Sir Walter | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Molloy, Michael | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) | Whyte, A. F. |
| Mooney, John J. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Morgan, George Hay | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Morrell, Philip | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Robinson, Sidney | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Muldoon, John | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Wilson, Henry J. (York W. R.) |
| Munro, Robert | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Needham, Christopher J. | Roe, Sir Thomas | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Neilson, Francis | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Winfrey, Richard |
| Nolan, Joseph | Rowlands, James | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Norton, Capt, Cecil W. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Scanlan, Thomas | |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Seely, Colonel, Rt. Hon. J. E. B. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Butcher, John George | Falle, Bertram Godfray |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Campion, W. R. | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Carlile, Edward Hildred | Finlay, Sir Robert |
| Astor, Waldorf | Cassel, Felix | Fisher, William Hayes |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Castlereagh, Viscount | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Cator, John | Fleming, Valentine |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Cautley, Henry Strother | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cave, George | Foster, Philip Staveley |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Frewen, Moreton |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.) | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Gibbs, George Abraham |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Chambers, James | Goldsmith, Frank |
| Barnston, H. | Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Gordon, John |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Clive, Percy Archer | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton) | Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Grant, J. A. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Courthope, George Loyd | Greene, Walter Raymond |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Gretton, John |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Craik, Sir Henry | Haddock, George Bahr |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) |
| Bird, Alfred | Croft, Henry Page | Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) |
| Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) | Dalrymple, Viscount | Hamersley, Alfred St. George |
| Boyton, James | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Hardy, Laurence |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Dixon, Charles Harvey | Harris, Henry Percy |
| Bull, Sir William James | Doughty, Sir George | Helmsley, Viscount |
| Burgoyne, Alan Hughes | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Hickman, Col. Thomas E. |
| Hill, Sir Clement L. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Hills, John Waller | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Hill-Wood, Samuel | Morpeth, Viscount | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Mount, William Arthur | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Spear, John Ward |
| Horner, Andrew Long | Newdegate, F. A. | Stanler, Beville |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Hunt, Rowland | Nield, Herbert | Steel-Maitland, A D. |
| Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk, (Bath) | Norton-Griffiths, J. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Ingleby, Holcombe | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | Swift, Rigby |
| Joynson-Hicks, William | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Sykes, Alan John |
| Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Paget, Almeric Hugh | Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Kerry, Earl of | Parkes, Ebenezer | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) |
| Lane-Fox, G R. | Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge) | Thynne, Lord Alexander |
| Larmor, Sir J. | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) | Tobin, Alfred Aspinall |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.) | Perkins, Walter Frank | Touche, George Alexander |
| Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End) | Peto, Basil Edward | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Pole-Carew, Sir R. | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Lewisham, Viscount | Pollock, Ernest Murray | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Pretyman, Ernest George | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., South port) |
| Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Quilter, W. E. C. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Ratcliff, R. F. | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude |
| Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Winterton, Earl |
| Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale) | Rawson, Colonel Richard H. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.) | Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Rolleston, Sir John | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Mackinder, Halford J. | Ronaldshay, Earl of | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| M'Mordie, Robert | Rothschild, Lionel de | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Royds, Edmund | Yerburgh, Robert |
| Malcolm, Ian | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) | Younger, George |
| Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) | |
| Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Salter, Arthur Clavell | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster. |
| Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words 'one month' stand part of the Clause."
2346§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 287; Noes, 196.
2349§ And, it being after Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (10th April).