Commons Sitting of 18 April 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Central London Railway Bill,
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill,
Upper Medway Conservancy Bill,
Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railway Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Sligo Corporation Bill,
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [Lords],
Chesham and District Gas Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords],
Ely Rural District Water Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Enfield Gas Bill [Lords],
Rhymney Railway Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Belfast Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Simon's Town (Protection of Naval Base).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Under-Secretary for War whether it was proposed to mount any guns for the protection of the Naval Base at Simon's Town?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): Guns are already mounted for the defence of the Naval Base at Simon's Town.

  Territorial Drills (Expenses).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the travelling expenses of Territorials who attend drills more than four miles from their residence are refunded to them?
  Colonel SEELY: This matter is left to the discretion of the County Associations who are permitted, when they consider it necessary, to defray the expenses of travelling to drill from their public funds.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Are these public funds provided by the War Office?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes; they are funds which the County Associations have at their disposal.

  Gun Deafness (Royal Navy).
  Mr. FITZROYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he was aware that gun deafness is prevalent among both officers and men of the Navy; and if he would issue an order from the Admiralty making it compulsory on both officers and men to wear some form of ear protection when gun-firing is taking place on board ship?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Cases of gun deafness undoubtedly occur, but there are no grounds for attributing any considerable number of invalidings for disease of the ear to the effects of gun fire. Protective material is already provided and can be drawn by ships. The use of cotton wool, a supply of which is always to hand, as a protective material is now so general that it would appear to be unnecessary to issue the order suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. FITZROY: Is it not the fact that such an order as I have suggested exists in the Japanese Navy, and that it was found of great benefit both by officers and men during the Russo-Japanese War?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say whether that is so, but cotton wool is used by men when in the stations in which the report of the gun might affect the ear.

  Austrian Naval Construction.
  Mr. YERBURGHasked whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty

  611
  had any information to the effect that a third Austrian "Dreadnought" would be laid down at Trieste in June next, and that the sum of about £200,000 was provided for this new ship in this year's Budget?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Financial provision has been made in this year's Budget for the laying down of both a third and a fourth Austro-Hungarian "Dreadnought," the provision in each case being £208,333. The third is to be built in Austria and the fourth in Hungary. There is no official information as to the date on which either of these vessels is to be commenced.

  Small Holdings (Crown Estates).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he would state how many small holdings were during the year 1910 constituted upon the large estates owned by the Crown and under Government administration; and whether these bear a due proportion to those constituted on property in private ownership? I understand the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will answer this question.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The question has not been forwarded to me by the Board of Agriculture; I will make inquiry.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture asked me a week ago to address this question to the right hon. Gentleman.

  Dublin Mails.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Postmaster-General (1) at what hour the night train conveying the mails from Dublin arrives at Farranfore Junction; why the connecting train from Farranfore to Cahirciveen cannot be despatched at such a time as to allow of its arriving with the mails at Cahirciveen by 8.26 a.m., seeing that the distance is less than forty miles? (2) On what grounds the railway company has been allowed to alter the scheduled time of the arrival of the morning train which conveys the mail to Caherciveen; whether he is aware that for a great number of years no case was made for an alteration of the time table in this respect; whether a railway company is entitled, contrary to the interests of the public, to delay the delivery of mails by pleading that it cannot
  612
  run its service up to time when, through lack of proper supervision or by the reduction of its staff, it fails to keep to the scheduled time during the whole of one month; and whether steps will now be taken to compel the railway company to revert to the former time of arrival at Cahirciveen.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I will answer the hon. Member's two questions together. The, train by which the mails from Dublin are conveyed is due at Farranfore Junction at 4.52 a.m., and the goods train for Cahirciveen is due to leave the Junction only eighteen minutes later. I gave the round of the alteration in the scheduled time in my reply of the 10th instant, and I then also expressed my regret that the railway company sees no possibility of improving the service at present. I do not think it is within my province to express an opinion as to the manner in which the railway company manages its staff, and in existing circumstances I cannot call on the company to accelerate this train.

  Income Tax Collection.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the amount of Income Tax (including Super-tax and Schedules A and D) uncollected on 31st March; also the percentage of Income Tax of every description uncollected on 31st March, 1905. 31st March, 1906, and 31st March, 1911?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The amount of Income Tax uncollected on the 31st ultimo cannot be given even approximately at present. The percentages of tax uncollected on the 31st March, 1905 and 1906, could be given, but would involve some considerable research, and as the corresponding figure for 31st March, 1911, is not available the hon. Baronet will probably not think it worth while to have the figures for the earlier years worked out.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will kindly give me an answer to those questions on which he has information, and to which he can give a reply; and may I also ask how it is that it is unknown what portion of the Income Tax is collected, provided that demand notes have been sent in regarding the payment of the money?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I may explain that Income Tax, both in its assessment and its collection, is exclusively a local tax.

  613
  Thousands of persons are concerned in the assessment, and collection, and it is impossible until somewhere about the end of June next to make even an approximate guess at what is the amount of Income Tax outstanding, and before it can be stated with absolute accuracy more than a year will have to elapse.
  Mr. YOUNGER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in Scotland the whole of the Income Tax is collected by collectors of Inland Revenue?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am speaking of England, part of which the hon. Baronet represents.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: May I ask whether there is not a number of collectors who are appointed direct by the Treasury.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Only in a case where there has been a failure—I speak without having refreshed my memory—on the part of the local district committee to appoint tax collectors. Then, and then only, do the Treasury appoint collectors.
  Sir F. BANBURY: In view of the fact that tax collectors are bound to obey the instructions of the Treasury, may I ask whether it would not be possible for the Treasury to ask the tax collectors what demand notes have they sent in, and then the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer my question.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, I am afraid not. It means not only what demand notes have been sent in but the payments that have been made on demand notes sent in. I think the hon. Baronet goes too far in saying that the tax collectors are under the orders of the Treasury,
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: Is it not a fact that the Super-tax is not collected locally?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I was not speaking of Super-tax.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Members had better put their questions down.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask, Sir, whether you did not state, in answer to a question of the hon. Member for Sheffield the other day, that the tax collectors were obliged to obey the instructions of the Treasury?
  Mr. SPEAKER: What I have said I have said, and it will be found duly reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether costs have now been incurred in Scotland in connection with collection of Income Tax; if so, will he say in how many cases, and how often out of these cases have the decrees of court been put into execution; and will he explain this action of his department, in view of the fact that railway companies in London have been asked by his department not to pay Income Tax in March but to delay it until April?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Warrants by the Sheriff for recovery of arrears of taxes have now, generally, been granted in Scotland and placed in the hands of the Sheriffs' Officers. But to what extent proceedings have so far been executed, and costs exacted thereunder, I am unable to say without application to the various Sheriff Officers throughout the Kingdom. Tax in these cases was due on or before 1st January, whereas, as I explained in my reply on the 3rd instant, the tax payable by railway companies was not due until 20th March.
  Mr. NIELDasked to which railway companies, and on what dates, it was suggested by the Inland Revenue Department that payment of Income Tax due last March might be postponed until the present financial year?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: am informed that a communication in the sense indicated in the hon. Member's question was made to eight railway companies during the early part of March.
  These companies were:—

  London and North-Western Railway.

  Great Western Railway.

  Great Northern Railway.

  Great Eastern Railway.

  London and South-Western Railway.

  London, Brighton and South Coast Railway.

  Midland Railway.

  Great Central Railway.

  Lord BALCARRES: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the question on the Paper—which railway companies and on what dates?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I said in the early part of March; and the railway companies were the London and North-Western, the Great Western, the Great Northern, the Great Eastern, the London and Southwestern, the London, Brighton and South Coast, and the Great Central.
  Lord BALCARRES: Has the right hon. Gentleman got the aggregate amount which has been drawn from the Old Sinking Fund and transferred to the income of the present year?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is not on the Paper, but it is about £680,000.

  Imperial and Local Taxation.
  Mr. BARNSTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he could see his way to enlarge the Committee appointed to inquire into Imperial and local taxation, in view of the fact that the English agriculturist and the English rural ratepayer is not represented?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As I have already stated, the members of the Committee are not intended to be representatives of particular interests, but the Committee contains in Mr. F. E. Rogers, of the Wiltshire County Council, a gentleman fully conversant with the local taxation problems of English rural districts.
  Mr. BYLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a good deal of dissatisfaction is expressed that the large municipalities are not adequately represented on the Committee?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think they have admirable representatives here.

  Board of Education (Inspectors).
  Captain WEIGALLasked the President of the Board of Education how many rural head teachers, if any, have been made inspectors under the Board of Education during the past ten years?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I assume that the phrase "rural head teachers" is not intended to exclude the head teachers of rural schools other than elementary. On this assumption the answer to the hon. Member's question is that among the inspectors appointed during the last ten years eight have been head masters in what may be described as rural schools.

  Secondary Education (England).
  Mr. YERBURGHasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that at the present time, as regards secondary education in English schools, 75 per cent. of the total cost is drawn from local sources, while only 25 per cent. is
  616
  drawn from Imperial sources; and whether he will consider the advisability of providing a larger proportion of the cost of secondary education by the Government?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware of the basis of the hon. Members' comparison, and I must not, therefore, be taken as confirming or disputing its accuracy. The Grants for secondary schools were substantially increased by the 1907 Regulations, and I am unable to hold out any prospect of a further increase at the present moment.

  Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of orders applied for by local authorities under the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act., 1909, in rural areas; the number sanctioned; and the number of cottages that have been, or are being, supplied?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I assume that my hon. Friend's question is intended to refer to applications by rural district councils since the passing of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, for sanction to loans under Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, for the erection of houses for the working class. Since the 1st January, 1910, I have sanctioned additional loans to two rural district councils to complete schemes commenced or under consideration prior to that date for the erection of fifty-eight houses, and at the present time I have under consideration proposals from seven other rural district councils for the erection of forty-two houses.

  Congested Districts Board, Scotland.
  Captain GILMOURasked the Lord Advocate when it is intended to publish the Report of the Congested Districts Board for the year ending 31st March, 1911?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The Report will be published as soon as possible; it is hoped about the end of May.
  Captain GILMOURasked how often during the year meetings of the Congested Districts Board take place; and if he will give the dates on which meetings were held during the last two years?
  Mr. URE: As the hon. Member is doubtless aware the business of the

  617
  Congested Districts Board is conducted, as is the business of many other Boards, mainly by the system of circulation of files. Frequent meetings of the Board are, consequently, unnecessary. The last two meetings of the Board were held on 7th June, 1909, and on 13th April, 1911.
  Captain GILMOURasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that one of the houses at Aignish, erected by the Congested Districts Board, was delivered to the crofter on whose holding the same had been erected in June, 1906, in a state which the Sheriff Substitute of Stornoway has found to be not suitable for human habitation, and remained in that state until about August, 1909, since when, though partially improved by repairs, it is still, owing to structural defects, in a condition which the said Sheriff Substitute has found to be unsuitable for habitation; will he state the amount of the half-yearly instalments payable by the crofter to the Congested Districts Board in respect of the house; and how much of these instalments has been demanded and received by the Congested Districts Board from the crofter since Martinmas, 1907?
  Mr. URE: The topic referred to in the first part of the hon. Member's question is the subject matter of an appeal, at present pending, to the Sheriff of Ross-shire against the decision of the Sheriff Substitute. I am not, therefore, in a position to discuss the matter. In reply to the latter part of the hon. Member's question, I have to say that the half-yearly instalment referred to is £2 4s. 5d. Since Martinmas, 1907, payments have been applied for amounting in all to £15 10s. 11d. Nothing has been received.

  Food, Drink, and Tobacco (Revenue).
  Mr. PIKE-PEASEasked what was the total amount of revenue derived from food, drink, and tobacco for the last financial year, including Excise and Customs?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I must ask the hon. Member to wait until my right hon. Friend makes his general statement on the Revenue of the financial year just closed.

  Reinstated Tenant (Beaufort, County Kerry).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners will take into consideration the claim of Patrick Doyle, Kilgobnet, Beaufort, county Kerry, who has been rein-
  618
  stated in his farm on the Blennerhasset estate, for assistance in repairing his home and restocking his land?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward) (for the Chief Secretary): The Estates Commissioners cannot trace the receipt of an application for reinstatement or for grants towards repairing his house or restocking his land from the Patrick Doyle referred to in the question. An agreement for the purchase of some fifty-one acres of the lands of Kilgobnet, on the estate of Sir R. Blennerhasset, county Kerry, signed by Patrick Doyle, has been lodged with the Commissioners, and any application from Doyle for a grant will be duly considered by them when dealing with this estate in order of priority.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board will negotiate with Mr. Daniel O'Connell, of Darrynane, for the sale of his estate at Cloghvoola; and whether, in view of the fact that the tenants sent a memorial to the Board on 31st January, 1910, on this subject, that no notice has been taken of their request, and that legal proceedings are now pending against the tenants, steps will be taken to complete the sale?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The Congested Districts Board inform me that a memorial has been received from the tenants on the estate referred to. The owner, Mr. Daniel O'Connell, has recently written to the Board stating he is willing to open negotiations for the sale of his estate.

  Judicial Appointments.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the general dissatisfaction with the present method of making appointments to the bench, he will give an early opportunity of having the matter discussed in this House?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Perhaps my hon. Friend will repeat this question on Thursday, when I will reply to it, and to some other questions of the same character which I see are on the Paper for that day.

  Festival of Empire (Bands).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the secretary for the Festival of Empire has stated that he can obtain

  619
  Guards' bands, with nearly double the number of performers that the prize brass bands have, for about halt the amount charged by the latter; and whether, seeing that the Army bands are maintained out of public money, he will take steps to put a stop to this competition by bands connected with the Army?
  Colonel SEELY: There is no information at the War Office respecting the statement made by the secretary to the Festival of Empire. Orders were issued in 1906 that no engagement should be accepted by military bands on terms less than those which would in the same circumstances be offered to other bands. So far as I am aware these orders have been carried out.

  German Naval Law.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he would add to his explanaion of the German Naval Law of 1900 by stating what was the provision made in it for the renewal of battleships after the year 1917; and if he agreed with the explanation of Count von Reventlow that the German Naval Law would call automatically for the laying down of three first-class battleships annually after 1917?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: By the German Fleet Law of 1900, as amended in 1906 and 1908, battleships and large cruisers are due to be replaced in twenty years—this period being reckoned from the date the first instalment for the ship to be replaced was voted, to that on which the first instalment for the replacing ship is voted. Hence in 1918 the first instalments are due for battleships and large cruisers to replace those whose first instalments were voted in 1898, and so on. If correctly reported, Count Reventlow referred to an average annual programme of three large warships, which would include both battleships and armoured cruisers, and this would appear to be correct.

  Sub-Inspectors of Mines (Qualifications).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department whether, in selecting the proposed thirty new sub-inspectors of mines and quarries, he would include among the necessary qualifications for those posts some knowledge of the feeding and care of horses necessary to maintain them in a condition of health, vigour, and freedom from pain?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): The qualifications for the post of sub-inspector have already been settled and published. It would not, in my opinion, be desirable to make it a condition of appointment that a candidate should have expert knowledge of the management of horses; but I have no doubt that the general experience of underground work which is being required will ensure their having sufficient knowledge to enable them to detect ordinary cases of cruelty or neglect. For more difficult matters, it is proposed in the new Bill to empower inspectors to take with them a duly qualified veterinary surgeon, and the recommendation of the Royal Commission which will be carried out by regulations include a proposal for periodical inspection by a veterinary surgeon.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Have those gentlemen, whose business it is to inspect pit ponies and to see to what treatment they are subjected, any qualifications whatever for their work?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The object of the new inspectors is to prevent the loss of human life in mines, and the most important thing is that they should be qualified to deal with the safety of those who work below ground. I do not think it takes very expert veterinary knowledge to see if an animal is being tortured or ill-used. In more difficult cases the superior inspector will be able to call in a veterinary surgeon.

  Coronation (Dressmakers' Hours).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he had now received any representations from workers, or from societies representing the interests of the workers, with regard to the Draft Order allowing makers of wearing apparel to work from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. during the months of May and June; and, if so, what was the effect of those representations?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received several representations from societies and leaders of girls' clubs, to the effect that the Order would increase the period of waiting before commencement of work in the case of those who travel by workmen's trains, or else make it impossible for them to take advantage of the cheap fare; that it would allow overtime to go on to 11 p.m.; that it would involve the girls returning home at an undesirably late

  621
  hour, and that it would interfere with the opportunities of the girls for recreation and self-improvement. As regards the first two points, the representations are based on a misapprehension, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary, in the Debate last Wednesday; the Order would only be wanted in places which already commence work at nine, and overtime can in no case be extended beyond ten. As regards the third point, I may observe that the Order will only operate during the two summer months. I will, however, carefully consider this and the fourth point.

  "BLOCKING" MOTIONS.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether, in view of the encroachments which have been made this Session on the time of private Members, he will take immediate steps to ensure that in future notices of Motion placed on the Order Paper shall not prevent the full and unfettered discussion of any topic of public interest when a Motion is made by the Government for a holiday adjournment?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I recognise, as I said on Wednesday last, the importance and urgency of this matter. What I propose to do is this: to put upon the Paper myself a notice of Motion curtailing the existing practice, which, I think, does not rest on any Standing Order, but has been sanctioned under successive Speakers. The Motion will be to the effect that on Motions for adjournment for holidays what are commonly called blocking Motions shall not exclude any topic from discussion, subject, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite suggested, to a reasonable limitation of the hours of the sitting.

CLAPHAM MURDER CASE (REPRIEVE OF STINIE MORRISON).
Sir H. DALZIEL: I desire to ask the Home Secretary a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he has any objection to stating the considerations which influenced him in advising the reprieve of Stinie Morrison, convicted of the crime of murder?
Mr. CHURCHILL: It would not be in accordance with the usual practice which has long received the approval of this House to enter upon a discussion of reasons
622
for the exercise or refusal of the prerogative of mercy in capital cases. I may state, however, that my decision in the case of the convict Morrison was taken after full consultation with the judge who tried the case and with the Lord Chief Justice; and that it does not imply doubt as to the guilt of the prisoner or question the Tightness of the verdict given by the jury and upheld by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (PAYMENT OF MEMBERS).
Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether there is any foundation for the statements in the Press that the Government has decided not to proceed this Session with its scheme for the payment of Members; if not, can he say when, and in what form, the scheme will be introduced?
The PRIME MINISTER: There is no foundation for the statements to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I am not yet in a position to give the particulars for which he asks in the last part of his question.

BOARD OF EDUCATION ANNUAL REPORT (PUBLICATION IN THE PRESS).
Mr. PEEL: I desire to ask the President of the Board of Education a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that what purported to be a summary of the Annual Report of the Board, laid before this House on 4th April by command, appeared in several newspapers on the 12th instant, although such Report has not yet been circulated to hon. Members; whether he is aware that some newspapers to which copies of this summary were sent declined to publish it, apparently believing that it had been improperly obtained; and whether any steps can be taken to prevent such Reports being published in the Press before they are available to Members of this House?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Report of the Board of Education was laid in dummy on 4th April. I have not had time to refresh my memory since receiving the hon. Member's notice a few minutes ago, but I think on 11th April representations were made to me that it would be a convenience

623
to Members of the House if I laid an advance proof in the Library. On 11th April an advance proof was laid there—I believe the copy is still to be seen—and on the 12th a summary of the Board's Report appeared in the newspapers. Whether there is any connection between the laying of the Report in the Library and the summary appearing in the newspapers, of course I cannot say. The full circulation of the Report, I am told by the Stationery Office, will take place to-day.

MEXICAN REVOLT (LANDING OF BRITISH MARINES).
Captain FABER: I desire to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty a question of which I have given him private notice—namely—whether a party of Marines was landed from His Majesty's Ship "Shearwater," on the 11th instant, at San Quentin, Mexico, and for what object; and whether he has any statement to make?
Dr. MACNAMARA: By the request of British and American subjects the "Shearwater" landed men for something under twenty-four hours, with the object of protecting lives and property at a time when Mexican officials were absent from San Quentin. A full report by letter is being forwarded.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALFOUR: Can the Prime Minister tell us what business he proposes to take during the remainder of the week?
The PRIME MINISTER: We propose somewhat to alter the programme foreshadowed last week.
To-morrow (Wednesday) we shall take the Committee stage of the Army (Annual) Bill, and we trust that the necessary stages will be passed by 8.15, when private Members' Motions will be taken.
Thursday, we shall proceed with the Parliament Bill.
Friday, private Members' Bills.

ALIENS (PREVENTION OF CRIME).
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I desire to ask leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with a view to the more
624
effectual control of criminal aliens and the prevention of crime by aliens.
In asking leave to introduce this Bill I shall not need to trespass beyond the limits of the period assigned to the introduction of Bills under the ten minutes rule, because I do not think the Bill raises any important question of controversy as between parties, or indeed in any quarter of the House. This Bill does not touch the question of alien immigration. It is confined solely to the question of alien crime. It deals with the prevention of crime and with the expulsion of persons convicted of crime. We cannot, I think, set up a cordon at the eighty or ninety ports of the country which are occasionally used as places where aliens land upon our shores. We cannot attempt by such means to prevent the entry or the return of particular individuals to this country. It is not practicable, and if it were practicable it would not be worth the money and the vexation it would entail. Neither, I venture to think, will it be found possible to establish a system of registration for aliens—whether for those who are already in this country or for new-comers. I do not at this moment intend to go into the arguments on that point, except to say that I am confident that as they are examined by the House, or by the Committee, it will be found that a method of registration is not necessary, and would not be either convenient or desirable. But there are certain things which we can do to meet the plain requirements of the day; there are certain things, I think, we ought to do without panic, prejudice, or haste, but at the same time without delay.
It was common ground between the two sides of the House in 1905 that on whatever points we differed we were agreed that when an alien has been convicted of a crime and has committed a breach of hospitality, the court should have the power to add expulsion to any sentence of imprisonment given. The present law is that the courts have power to recommend the expulsion of every alien who is convicted of a crime for which the punishment is imprisonment without the option of a fine. The courts, especially the courts outside the Metropolitan area, have very largely failed to use the powers accorded to them by general consent in 1905. I think the main cause of their neglect is forgetful-ness. I have on several occasions since I held the present office noticed speeches by Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, or by

625
Recorders, in which they complain very strongly of the lax administration of the Aliens Act; yet upon investigation it was found that these same magistrates or recorders had on numerous occasions imposed very inadequate penalties on aliens who had returned after being expelled, and had not infrequently sentenced aliens to imprisonment without recommending them also for expulsion. Out of 2,271 convicted aliens received into prison in 1910 only 405 were recommended for expulsion. I see no reason why that number should not be largely increased. The Bill which I ask leave to introduce proposes to invert the present procedure in this respect. Whenever the court does not recommend that the alien should be expelled the court will be called upon to furnish its reasons for not putting that part of the law into force. I think that it is a much better way of dealing with it than conferring arbitrary and discretionary powers upon a Secretary of State. So many arbitrary and discretionary powers are conferred upon the Home Secretary nowadays that he is certainly the last person to desire any multiplication or extension of the number. I am advised, I may say, that the mere inversion of the procedure will probably have the effect of greatly increasing the number of expulsions of criminals under the Act; and it will do that without in any way removing the matter from the jurisdiction of the courts of law. In the second place, I come to the penalties for aliens returning to this country after expulsion. I think it is a very serious offence for an alien to return to this country after having been told to go away. It is a very contumacious act, And the fact that it is not always detected, and very often not found out at all, and usually, when it is found out, not until a long time afterwards, makes it necessary that there should be punishment imposed that will be an effectual deterrent on this open defiance of the law. The penalties now assigned for the punishment of the alien who returns to this country after an expulsion order has been made against him are that he is liable to three months' imprisonment for the first offence, and a year for the second. We propose under this Bill to increase these penalties to twelve months for the first offence, and two years for the second or subsequent return.
I have so far dealt with provisions of the Act dealing with the expulsion of aliens who have actually committed crime. I now pass to the provisions which deal with
626
the prevention of crime. I ask the House of Commons and Parliament to give us powers to call for sureties in certain cases. With respect to this there are two things which we have to avoid, and which, so far as the Government are concerned, we shall be resolute to avoid. First of all we must avoid any withdrawal of the right of asylum which this country has so long accorded to those who have sought refuge from oppression or persecution abroad. It is an old and valued principle of British policy. In the history of this country, as everyone knows, we have gained greatly by its observance. The second thing which we have to avoid is any unnecessary disturbance of the great bulk of the alien population—mainly Jewish in its character—which is a population in overwhelming degree composed of peaceful, hard-working, and law-abiding people, who certainly have not by their conduct in this country in any way called for measures which would expose them to anxiety or inconvenience. I am familiar with both points, and I have very often urged them in discussions upon the subject. I can assure the House that I bore them fully in mind in framing the legislation which I now ask leave to introduce.
In regard to the power of calling for sureties I propose to confine the scope of that power to what has been well described as "the unassimilated alien." If a man has lived five years in this country and has been clear of crime during that period, although he may not be naturalised he should be exempt from the operation of this Clause—from the liability of being called upon to find sureties. A man may be too poor to pay the naturalisation fees, yet he may be a very good citizen. He may have established here ties of a very intimate character, and he will in that time have had the opportunity of learning our ways, and we, on our part, will have some assurance of his character and conduct. The man whom we have in mind in this provision is the man of whom we know nothing, and who knows nothing of us or of our institutions and peaceful life, who comes from a country where murder and violence are common, where every policeman is regarded as a foe, where every institution is regarded as tyranny, and where, to carry on a career of plunder and rapine like a fierce wild animal, may be deemed to be a romantic and even a respectable profession, I think we are entitled in these days, when

627
communication is so cheap and easy—I go further and say I think we are bound—to arm ourselves with new powers in dealing with this class of person and to place ourselves in the position of being able to exact some guarantee which will enable us to protect our people from outrage and ill-usage. I do not think we are bound to wait until someone is actually murdered. We therefore propose, in certain circumstances, to enable the Courts to require sureties for good behaviour, though no crime has been actually committed. I do not think I could do better than read the actual paragraph of the Bill:—
"2. (1) If a complaint is made to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction that an alien is consorting with criminals or with suspected persons, or is otherwise living in circumstances which will make it likely that his continued stay in this country will lead to the commission of crime, the Court may order the alien to enter into recognisances and find sureties to be of good behaviour for such period, not exceeding five years, as the Court may direct."
I should like to point out that these words are drawn so that the provision will apply only to vulgar crime, and only to persons who have not been five years in this country. The great mass of the alien population therefore need be in no anxiety in consequence of it, and the sureties would be no burden to bonâ fide political refugees or the victims of religious persecution. There never was a time in this country when bonâ fide political refugees would not be able to get two citizens of this country to vouch for their good behaviour and non-participation in vulgar crime; but in default of sureties, and in default of five years' residence, after a primâ facie case has been made out to the satisfaction of the court that a man has been consorting with criminals or otherwise in the terms of the section I have read, and in the absence of any persons to vouch for his good behaviour, then I think we should be in the position which every other nation in the world has always asserted—namely, to ask a person so destitute of any guarantee of good behaviour to go. These are the three principal provisions of the Bill. There is one other as to which I shall say a word—that is in regard to the carrying by aliens of firearms—and let me say by "firearms" I mean pistols. We do not include, for the purposes of the Act, guns or rifles.
Mr. LONSDALE: Or the knife?
Mr. CHURCHILL: A knife is not a firearm. Guns and rifles are used for sport, and obviously can be seen when in persons' hands, but pistols are easily carried concealed, and are used for one purpose only, and that one purpose is the destruction of human life. And every month that passes these weapons become more dangerous and deadly both to the general public and to those who use them.
The Government purpose shortly to introduce a Pistols Bill into the House of Lords which, I hope, may commend itself to the favourable consideration of that Assembly, and in regard to the details of which we are now in communication with the representatives of the gun trade; but in the present Bill we propose to require aliens to obtain a special permission from the police before they can carry or possess pistols, and to empower the police, if they have reason to believe that an alien is carrying a pistol, to ask him for his licence, and in default of his presenting it, to take his name and address, and in default of his giving his name and address, the police will be empowered to take such other steps as are right and necessary. We shall also take power on the warrant of a magistrate to search for arms where there is reasonable ground for believing that an offence under the Act is being committed. These are the provisions of the Bill which I trust may commend themselves to the House as not being dictated or inspired by any insular prejudice or by any desire to deprive persons of the right of asylum within our shores which they have so long enjoyed, but which are intended to be workable and workmanlike provisions to meet certain dangers which are apparent to all of us in all parts of the House, and certainly no less apparent to the eyes of the public out of doors. I notice there is a Bill on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding) which is to come on for consideration, I think, on Friday week. I venture to suggest that the Government Bill should be introduced to-day, and might be set down for Second Reading after the Bill of the hon. Member for Worcester, and then perhaps the House would consider it right to send both Bills to Grand Committee to be considered together, in which case some legislation may be arrived at which will be found to possess a very general measure of House of Commons agreement.

629
Bill to amend the Law with a view to the more effectual control of Criminal Aliens and the Prevention of Crime by Aliens, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Churchill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Pease, and Mr. Masterman. Presented accordingly, and read the First Time; to be read a Second Time upon Friday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
The PRIME MINISTER The PRIME MINISTER moved: "That the Proceedings on the Parliament Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House.)."
The House divided: Ayes, 156; Noes, 102.

Division No. 135.]

AYES.

[3.40 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Hancock, John George

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

Acland, Francis Dyke

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

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

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Pollard, Sir George H.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Baker, Joseph Alien (Finsbury, E.)

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Pringle, William M. R.

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Radford, G. H.

Beauchamp, Edward

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

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

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Johnson, William

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Boland, John Pius

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Bowerman, Charles W.

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

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, N.)

Joyce, Michael

Robinson, Sydney

Brigg, Sir John

Keating, Matthew

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Burke, E. Haviland-

Kellaway, Frederick George

Rowlands, James

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Rowntree, Arnold

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Byles, William Pollard

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

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

Chancellor, Henry George

Levy, Sir Maurice

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Lewis, John Herbert

Scanlan, Thomas

Clough, William

Logan, John William

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

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Sheehy, David

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lundon, Thomas

Sherwell, Arthur James

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Shortt, Edward

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Crooks, William

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Crumley, Patrick

Maclean, Donald

Spicer, Sir Albert

Cullinan, John

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Summers, James Woolley

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

Marks, George Croydon

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Dawes, J. A.

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Tennant, Harold John

Delany, William

Martin, Joseph

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Dillon, John

Masterman, C. F. G.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Doris, William

Meagher, Michael

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Duffy, William J.

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

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Verney, Sir Harry

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Millar, James Duncan

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Elibank, Rt Hon. Master of

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Essex, Richard Walter

Mooney, J. J.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Neilson, Francis

White, Sir Luke (York E. R.)

Falconer, James

Nolan, Joseph

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Fenwick, Charles

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

Ffrench, Peter

Ogden, Fred

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Fitzgibbon, John

O'Grady, James

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Gill, Alfred Henry

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Glanville, Harold James

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

NOES.

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

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Cassel, Felix

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Balcarres, Lord

Castlereagh, Viscount

Finlay, Sir Robert

Baldwin, Stanley

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A

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

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Forster, Henry William

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Clive, Percy Archer

Gardner, Ernest

Barnston, Harry

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Gilmour, Captain John

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Craik, Sir Henry

Goulding, E. A.

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Grant, J. A.

Bird, Alfred

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Greene, Walter Raymond

Bull, Sir William James

Croft, Henry Page

Gretton, John

Gwynne, R. S (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Swift, Rigby

Haddock, George Bahr

Mason, Jams F. (Windsor)

Sykes, Alan John

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Mount, William Archer

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Harris, Henry Percy

Newdegate, F. A.

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Houston, Robert Paterson

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

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Kerry, Earl of

Perkins, Walter Frank

Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Knight, Captain Erie Ayshford

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

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

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Winterton, Earl

Larmor, Sir J.

Rothschild, Lionel D.

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

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

Royds, Edmund

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Worthington-Evans, L.

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Snowden, Philip

Younger, George

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stanier, Beville

Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

Starkey, John Ralph

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Faber and Colonel Chaloner.

The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move: "That, until Whitsuntide, Government Business shall have precedence on Wednesday evenings, except upon 19th and 26th April."
I ought perhaps, first of all, to refer to previous statements made by me on behalf of the Government at an earlier part of the Session. On the 7th February last, at the very beginning of the Session, I said:—
"I hope—but cannot pledge myself to the statement—that we may be in a position after Easter to recur to the normal state of things."
Speaking again on the 16th February last, a week later, when I moved that the Government should take the whole time of the House up to Easter, I said:—
"We believe that by the expenditure and distribution of Parliamentary time, which I have indicated, we shall be able, without any undue curtailment of Debate at any of the stages of the Parliament Bill—if the House approves of that Bill—to send it to the House of Lords comparatively early in the month of May, so that the House of Lords may have full opportunities of discussing, it and coming to their decision upon it before the date of the Coronation."
And later on I said:—
It is upon that ground primarily and substantially that I ask private Members up to Easter to curtail their ordinary rights and opportunities, in the hope and belief, and with the intention that "hen the Parliament Bill has passed through this House, and we resume our proceedings after the Easter Recess, private Members may have their normal and natural opportunities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1911, cols. 1255–6.]
I was very careful to safeguard myself in that matter by an anticipatory reference to the possible state of Government business when we resumed after the Easter Recess. How do we stand in this respect? First of all, as regards the Parliament Bill, two days have been occupied upon the First Reading, four days upon the Second Reading, and five days in Committee—that is eleven days in all—and we have not yet concluded the discussion of the First Clause. As regards private Members'
632
time between now and Whitsuntide—Wednesday (April 19th) and Wednesday in the following week (April 26th) have been already ballotted for, and we do not therefore propose to interfere with the vested rights which hon. Gentlemen who have got precedence in the ballot have secured in regard to those two evenings. Further, in regard to Fridays, which, after all, are of more importance than Wednesdays, because they are days which are allotted to private Members for legislative purposes, we do not intend to interfere or to ask the House to interfere with the allocation to private Members of those Fridays from 21st April to 26th May. There is one remaining Friday, 2nd June, which immediately precedes the Whitsuntide Recess, as to which I should not like at the moment to give a pledge one way or the other; but, as regards all the others, from 21st April to 26th May, they will remain in the possession of private Members for the consideration of their legislative proposals. The extent of the encroachment which I am now asking the House to sanction upon the time of private Members between now and Whitsuntide is five Wednesday evenings between the 3rd and 31st May inclusive; and, as the House knows, that means, as the sitting for private Members begins at 8.15 p.m., two and three-quarter hours on each of those days.
The grounds on which I ask the House to submit to that further curtailment of the time of private Members are very simple, and, I think, very obvious. In the first place, in no other way can we secure the carrying out of the intention, which I announced at the beginning of the Session in the two speeches to which I have referrred, of getting the various stages of the Parliament Bill through this House in time to send it up to the House of Lords

633
at a reasonably early date in the month of May. Further, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, I hope, on a very early day—I cannot fix the day precisely at this moment, but a very early day—be in a position to carry out the pledge which the Government has repeatedly made, and the fulfilment of which, I think, is universally anticipated, and introduce his scheme for insurance against invalidity, accompanied with a scheme for insurance against unemployment. I do not think it is a controversial matter in a party sense at all, but it is a matter of the utmost importance, and it is extremely desirable, in the opinion of the Government, that scheme should not only be introduced, but that the Bill which embodies it should, if possible, be read a second time in order that the matter may go, as it is pre-eminently fitted to do, for consideration by a Committee upstairs before the adjournment for the Whitsuntide Recess. Further, and also in accordance with a pledge which I made on behalf of the Government at the close of the last Session, I think in November last, just before the General Election, we wish to present to the House, in order that they may have an opportunity, at any rate, of considering the Second Reading before Whitsuntide, our proposals to deal with the amendment of the law with regard to the employment of the funds of trade unions. If those three objects, the passing of the Parliament Bill through all its stages and the obtaining of the Second Reading of the Insurance Scheme and of the Bill for the Amendment of the Trade Unions Law are to be accomplished between now and the date of the Whitsuntide Recess, practically the end of May or the early days of June. I think it will be the general opinion of the House that the Government would not have sufficient time for the purpose unless they made this, I think, very moderate encroachment upon private Members' time on the evenings of the five Wednesdays to which I have already referred. If the request of the Government is acceded to, we shall then, I hope, be in a position to say when we come to our Whitsuntide adjournment that, so far as the Parliament Bill is concerned, this House has for the time being disposed of it, and, as far as these two other measures which are of great social importance are concerned, they are in a position to be considered in detail by Committees upstairs. I do not think, without in any way derogating from the importance or value of the proposals which private Members may desire to
634
make, we can more usefully employ so much of our Wednesday evenings as I now propose to appropriate than in that manner.
I should like to add, before I submit my Motion to the House, that I fully recognise the importance of the topic raised at Question time to-day by the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir Henry Dalziel). I think there was a most serious and regrettable curtailment on the Motion for Adjournment for the Easter Recess of the privilege private Members ought to enjoy, the privilege of ranging over the whole field of political discussion and controversy, and of administrative action, before the House takes its holidays. Our practice in that matter is not regulated by Standing Order. It is the growth of an un written tradition, sanctioned by the rulings of successive Speakers, and now as firmly embodied in the law of this House as many of the unwritten customs of the Common Law are in our Courts of Law. It has, I think, developed into a degree of rigidity which I venture to say, not speaking in the interests of the Government, but in the interests of the House, is perhaps very injurious to freedom and latitude of discussion, and I cannot help hoping the House may with unanimity, or practically with unanimity, agree to the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Balfour), with which I altogether concur, and that we may throw the Motion for Adjournment completely open, subject to a reasonable limitation of the hours of sitting, to the discussion of all topics of interest to the House without reference to any anticipatory or so-called blocking Motions which may have been placed upon the Order Paper. If that is, as I believe it is, the general opinion of the House, I shall be glad at the earliest possible moment to fulfil the pledge I gave at Question time and to put down myself on the Paper notice of a Motion which I hope will receive general approval. Putting that matter for the moment on one side, I think the general sketch I have given of the state of public business and the intentions and possibilities of the Government business amply justify the Motion which I now make.
4.0 P.M.
Mr. BALFOUR: I do not propose to make any detailed comment upon the programme of business which the Prime Minister has just sketched out. I will only make one observation on what he has asserted and another observation on what he has omitted to assert. He has told us

635
he hopes to press forward certain measures of social reform, which, so far, I know, are uncontroversial, though I do not know exactly what their provisions are, but as to their intentions parties on both sides of the House are likely to concur. But in addition he has, as I understood him, told us it is necessary to get the Parliament Bill through in the early days in May. I hope that does not mean the Government desire to curtail discussion upon that measure. Of course, I recognise, as everybody who understands anything about Parliamentary business recognises, that, however much the Opposition may object to a measure of that kind, there neither is nor can be any idea of defeating it by the lapse of time. No Government possessed of a majority would tolerate that, and, as far as I know, no Government had ever allowed first-class measures to be defeated in that way. But that is a very different thing from asking this House to pass the whole remaining stages of this Bill in throe or four weeks. I do not see, for myself, that that is possible, and there is nothing that I know of in the conditions of public business to justify this lessening of the opportunities of those who desire to criticise the Bill in this House. I should not have referred to that, however, if the Prime Minister had not suggested these rather fantastic expectations with regard to the time in which this Bill can be legitimately got through its remaining stages in this assembly. While I was delighted to hear from what fell from the right hon. Gentleman that there is a prospect that the health of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will soon again permit him to take part in our Debates, I was surprised that among the functions allocated to this House by the Prime Minister before the Coronation, there was no mention of the Budget.
The PRIME MINISTER: I was only speaking of the arrangements up till Whitsuntide.
Mr. BALFOUR: At any rate, there was no mention of the Budget among the arrangements up till Whitsuntide. The Government's dealings with Budgets are getting more and more mysterious; there may be some unknown public reason why the Budget should be put off until after the Whitsuntide holidays, but that reason is not given to us by the Prime Minister, and I am unable to imagine what it is. I think he will be the first to allow that
636
until this present Government came in and, indeed, had been in office some years, it would have been thought necessary to explain and apologise if it had been found necessary to defer the Budget till after the Whitsuntide holidays. But now it has become a very ordinary matter of procedure—so ordinary that the right hon. Gentleman, when looking forward to the progress of business, docs not think it even worth his while to make the most passing reference to it. It is an astonishing procedure, and I should have deemed it a procedure not very convenient to the great financial and commercial interests of this country.
I pass from these preliminary observations upon the programme of the Government to the actual Motion which the Prime Minister has put before us. This is a question which primarily concerns what are called private Members—the unofficial Members of this House—and, if I may, I should like to give them a warning as to the course on which they are entering. A large number of the gentlemen I am addressing were not in this House at the time when the late Government revised our Rules of Procedure. Among the important topics then dealt with were the rights of private Members in regard to Resolutions. Before that change in our procedure private Members had, nominally, a vast body of privileges; they had the whole of Tuesday, the whole of Wednesday, and the whole of Friday in those days. Practically that only left the Government Monday and Thursday, and it was found necessary by every Government to make some incursion into the then existing rights of private Members. Naturally, when they began to eat into those privileges appetite came with the eating, consequent on the pressure for legislation put upon the Government a pressure which has undoubtedly grown greatly in the last generation, and finally private Members were not only deprived of their rights, but they had not the least idea of what were their rights. They might ballot in the expectation of getting a day for the discussion of a subject of very general interest; they might succeed, but down would come the Government and say: "We are very sorry; we recognise the great importance of your Motion, and nothing but public necessity drives us to the regrettable course of depriving you of the opportunity which the Rules of the House nominally gave you. But deprive you of that opportunity we must."

637
What was aimed at when the Rules were reformed was to recognise that the amount of time given to private Members was in excess of what could possibly be given if the task of legislation thrown upon successive Governments was to be fulfilled. What was then attempted was to curtail the nominal rights of private Members to bring forward Resolutions to be discussed, but, after they were curtailed, to leave private Members in undisputed enjoyment of them, so that, at the beginning of the Session, a private Member would know that, if he were successful in the ballot, his Parliamentary fortunes would not be interfered with by the ambitions nor by the necessities of any Minister or of any Government. That policy, if I may venture to say so, was, on the whole, successful; it met with great opposition on the part of private Members at the time, when they saw their nominal rights thus disposed of, but unquestionably for many years in succession, indeed until last year, it had the effect desired by the framers of this change in our rules, and private Members actually enjoyed the privileges which the Standing Orders of this House nominally gave them. I am afraid, after what happened last year, and still more after what happened this year before Easter, and what is happening now, we have begun again to tread the downward path. It is really a serious matter for private Members if the Government, under the new practice, as under the old practice, are to regard it as within their power to come down and say, "We are sorry to take away your privileges, but do so we must." Of course, what is done by one Government may be done by another, and private Members will again be in exactly the position they held before the reform was carried. Their hopes will be subject to constant disappointment. A Member will bring forward before the House some subject of immense importance for discussion on a Tuesday or Wednesday evening, and he will suddenly find the Leader of the House coming down and saying that, much as he deplores the course he is obliged to pursue, public exigencies force it upon him. If this is once begun it will, of course, go on, and the right hon. Gentleman will come down next year or the year after, and his successors will come down also, and will plead the precedent started last year and followed this year. It really was a most serious thing when private Members consented to give up the really genuine, if diminished, privileges which at the time
638
of the great reform of our Standing Orders were secured to them. That is really all I have to say on that question.
The right hon. Gentleman, as a sort of solace, I suppose, towards the end of his speech, referred to something which had no connection whatever with the Resolution before us. But I confess I heard his reference, although it may not have been within the strictest and narrowest limits of Order, with very great pleasure. He was good enough to approve a suggestion which I threw out, and I earnestly hope that, at any rate in this case, if the two Front Benches are for once agreed, that fact will not provoke hostility in any quarter of the House. I am certain that the desirability of getting rid of blocking Motions, root and branch, is a thing we ought to hesitate about. I do not think I am saying anything I ought not to when I quote Lord Selby as having very strongly held that opinion as Speaker of this House. That the present system of blocking Motions can be, and is, grossly abused is clear to anybody who has watched the business of this House, and I really cannot see why we should not unanimously support the Prime Minister in respect of the Resolution which he has foreshadowed, so as to secure, with regard to Motions for the Adjournment for the holidays, reasonable latitude for discussions in this House. I should be glad if we were able to carry that in the course of the present Session. But that does not touch the essence of the Motion now before us. I attach the greatest value to these miscellaneous discussions upon Motions for the holidays. But we all know that, useful as they may be, they are liable to great disadvantages. While there is nothing out of order in these very miscellaneous discussions, while there is no topic which cannot be dwelt upon, no question, however trivial, and no question, however important, which it is not in the competence of any hon. Member to raise if he catches the Speaker's eye, the Debate is necessarily irregular. It is a Debate on which there can be no division—a division on the Motion for the holidays can only be a vexatious one. Everybody wants the holiday, and the fact that the House, by some chance division, refuses to accept it when offered by the Government would do nothing but greatly embarrass everybody; it would do nothing to further the cause which had been pleaded in the preliminary discussion.
Therefore, there are clearly limits to the utility of the freest debate on the Motion for Adjournment. But on Motions

639
on private Members' evenings, although the time is limited to rather less than three hours, there can be a division, and the result is that most important questions are raised and most important speeches are delivered, both on the part of private individuals and on the part of the Government. The latter too often desire to guide the vote of the House when it comes to divide at eleven o'clock. Under these circumstances, I appeal to private Members on both sides of the House, from their own point of view, and I tell them this respectfully with a very long experience behind me, that the course they permitted the Government to take last Session is going, unless they take a decided stand, to put an absolute end to the rights which, I confess, I thought had been eternally secured for them. I do not believe that taking these few Wednesdays would really make any difference to the Government Bill. But they would make the profoundest difference to private Members and, under these circumstances, I venture to suggest to private Members that they should support me in the vote I mean to give against this Resolution.
Earl WINTERTON: I think that this is an occasion when something more than a mere conventional justification by the Prime Minister and a mere conventional protest by the Leader of the Oposition is required, although I think the speech which has just been delivered lifted this Debate into a much higher position than similar Debates before. It cannot be denied by anybody that this is more than the customary protest of the Leader of the Opposition against the action of the Government in encroaching upon private Members' time, and I think, under these circumstances, the appeal which has just boon made by the Leader of the Opposition should be listened to and considered by those private Members who sit on the opposite side of the House. The first point that occurs in connection with the curtailment of our time is that this leakage has been practically continuous for the last five years. I am not in the least denying that those sitting on the Front Opposition Bench have not been absolutely spotless ill regard to this matter. But I think that the whole question of depriving private Members of their time, and of the application of the Closure, is a confession of weakness on the part of those for the moment in power. I think that the Par-
640
liamentary history of the last twenty years in regard to the power of seizing upon the time of private Members and curtailing the opportunities of Debate which has been used by both the great parties in the State has corresponded already with Parliamentary declension and in the decrease of importance of the Debates in this House among the other Parliamentary Assemblies of the world. Whether that be so or not, during the last five years, as has been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman, private Members have lost most in the way of time. That is not denied by anybody, least of all by the Home Secretary, whose experience is great, especially in regard to opportunities for speaking on private Members' nights.
I suppose it is not denied by anybody that the chance of the private Member bringing forward his views, airing his grievances, and addressing the House has become very much less, not only during the last ten years but more especially during the last five. If this habit continues, in ten or fifteen years' time the position of a private Member will have become that of a mere cypher. Some of us who have entered this House early in life look forward to spending a large portion of our lives here, and looking forward ten or fifteen years we hope that then the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will be in possession of their full Parliamentary vigour, but they will be nearing the end of their time. It would, perhaps, be more polite if I were to say twenty years would be the end of their Parliamentary time, but what will be the position of those of us who hope, if we have the advantage of living and retaining the support of the electors of this country—what will be the position of those who have to carry on Parliamentary Government? The Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister are trustees of Parliamentary tradition, as are also we younger Members, and I say if we deliberately allow the time of private Members and the privileges of this House to be filched away as they have been done during the last five years, at the end of fifteen or twenty years there will be no time left for the private Members at all. I was very sorry when, on a Debate which took place some little time ago on this same subject, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, in the course of his speech, protesting against the Motion of the Prime Minister, that the party opposite were themselves preparing a rod which some day might be applied to their

641
own backs. I was sorry to hear that statement made, because I think the Leader of the Opposition would have strengthened the position of himself and his party if he said he would wash his hands altogether of this growing attempt to take time away from private Members. Any party which has for its motto "full and free debate, and not Government by brute force," is a party which will obtain a considerable amount of support in the country, although I am willing, as I said before, to admit that the party which now sits on this side of the House and the Leader of the Opposition have not an absolutely spotless reputation in this matter.
The principle, I admit fully, has been adhered to by both parties of seizing private Members' time, but the point is that the Government have carried the principle beyond all bounds of Parliamentary decency and Parliamentary dignity, and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has really become a sort of David Davies of Parliamentary theft, during the four years in which he has led this House in respect to the application of the guillotine closure and the taking away of private Members' time. I do not believe that any one on the Front Bench opposite believes that it is evidence of the capability of the Leader of this House that he should be constantly applying the guillotine Closure and having to take away private Members' time. I think it is too little recognised by those who hold office and form the Government of the day that every time there is a Motion for the guillotine Closure or the time of private Members is taken away it means that there is a black mark against the record of the Leader of the House; and when we hear both Front Benches, as we did a short time ago, asserting vehemently that this House has never held a position of greater prestige among the deliberative Chambers of the world, all I can say is that their experience in regard to other Legislatures in reference to their brilliance of intellect cannot be first hand. Take a great democracy like France, not only has the private Member the fullest opportunity of questioning the Government by interpellations, but he has the fullest opportunity of stating his views, and there the application of the Closure as it is applied in England is absolutely unknown. Take the case of the Parliament of a great democratic nation within the Empire, that of Canada. There, not only is private Members' time not taken, but there is no guillotine Closure of any kind. Is any hon. Member
642
bold enough to get up and say that Sir Wilfrid Laurier is a less able leader of the Parliament of Canada than either of the two right hon. Gentlemen who represent the two great parties in this House?
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: There are eight Parliaments in Canada.
Earl WINTERTON: I never heard a less pregnant interruption than that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Is anyone prepared to say that Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the fifteen years he has ruled over the destinies of Canada has not stamped his individuality on the Parliamentary history of that country as much as any right hon. Gentleman has done in this House? Of course he has done so. He has led that House for fifteen years without once applying the guillotine or taking away private Members' time, as it is proposed to take it away to-day. These recurring Motions are merely a sign of the failure of successive right hon. Gentlemen to lead the House of Commons, and although I fully think that the difficulties in the case of this House are greater than in the case of some of the other Houses of which I have given an example, I certainly am not prepared to admit what the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has asserted, that because in the Canadian Legislature there are eight provincial legislatures, it makes it possible for Sir Wilfrid Laurier to control the House without the guillotine and without the private time of Members. I know, of course, what the hon. and learned Gentleman is driving at, but I think his argument is extremely unsound. He would suggest that if exclusively Irish affairs were reviewed not by this assembly but by one sitting in Dublin, the time of this House would not be so fully occupied, and that it would be possible to carry through business without extra time or the Closure or the guillotine. Let the hon. and learned Gentleman take his mind back only for the last two months. We have not had one single Irish Debate except that on the Address, and one during the short afternoon after the all-night sitting, which was mainly devoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman to a bitter attack upon the Noble Lord the Member for Maidstone (Viscount Castlereagh). Does the hon. and learned Gentleman say that if Irish affairs had been taken away this Session the Government would not have come down to take away private Members' time. I have never heard a more ineffective interruption in my life.

643
There is one thing, and one thing alone, which would make this Motion unnecessary, and that is that the House should be properly led, and the Prime Minister and the Patronage Secretary of the day should be so able to arrange their business as to get it through in a reasonable time, and under reasonable conditions. The injury to the House that is done by this kind of resolution cannot be exaggerated. When a Motion of this sort was brought forward earlier in the Session, it was suggested by the purely party Press—or perhaps I ought to say, by the baroneted and ennobled Press, that after all private Members had no very great grievance as a great many of them made extremely dull and mediocre speeches. I do not think that point affects the decision at all. It is a matter which is agreed upon on both sides that those who lead the two great parties in the House are entitled to and would in any great assembly be listened to, and would be sure of a hearing, through the brilliance of their intellect and their position. But the point is that neither in this House nor any other English-speaking House is the House mainly composed of speakers who are great and good. The Anglo-Saxon nation is not a nation of orators. If you want to hear oratory go to the French Chamber where you will hear an ordinary working man or a small vine farmer from the South of France make a speech which in brilliance of diction and elegance would compare favourably with any speech by the Home Secretary or the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. F. E. Smith). In this House, as I think it has often been said, the present style of Parliamentary oratory is much less brilliant than it was fifty years ago, but there has never been a House here composed in the main or wholly of great orators. This is a House in which the average man represents in an average way the views of the average man outside, and it is no kind of an excuse for this system to say that the leaders on both sides, who have the greatest opportunities of speaking, are the men to whom it is most worth while to listen, and the men who would in any case command the largest audience. Everyone who sits here should have an equal, or nearly equal, opportunity of making his views known.
It is obvious that these Motions do not affect those who are among the fighters who are always ready to get up and attack
644
the Government. They are ready to get up and speak, whether the House wants to hear them or not, at least I am. The people whom it hurts very considerably are those on both sides of the House, who may not be orators perhaps, or not very frequent speakers either in the House or the country, but men with great business training and experience and knowledge of certain subjects, and who desire to give the benefit of that experience and training to the House. They are prevented by this system. Every now and then, when a Member of Parliament dies, one reads in his obituary notice that he was perhaps the greatest authority on some special subject, and yet in the whole course of his Parliamentary career one may not have heard him speak more than once. It is these people who are prevented by this system from having their views heard and making their influence felt. These are the men we wish to encourage and wish to be Members of a House of Commons which has such vast responsibilities and governs such a vast extent of territory. You are deliberately driving these men out. One who holds the view, as the Prime Minister docs, that the House has not suffered any loss of prestige in the country and is still supreme both in the Empire and among foreign countries as the first Legislative Chamber in the world, should certainly not bring forward this Motion, because to bring it forward is to propose a policy of absolute imbecility.
I will make only one further suggestion. If the Government find it absolutely necessary to bring forward this Motion they should at any rate add words which would carry out this principle. It has been more or less laid down from the Chair with regard to Gentlemen on the Back Benches that it is customary when several speakers get up, to call upon those whom the House most wishes to hear. I suggest that the same rule should be applied to the Front Bench, and that, with the exception of those who are bringing forward an Estimate or proposing a Bill, it should be left to the discretion of the Chair to choose between a Front Bench and a Back Bench speaker. I have never been able to understand why this preference should be given to the Front Bench speakers. I have never been able to see why they should be put in this position of privilege. One has little hope that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite will support the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that they should pause before they vote for this Motion.

645
I have no doubt they will support it, as they have supported all other Motions of the same kind. If they do so they will lose a real opportunity of making an effective protest in the Lobby against the appropriation of private Members' time by successive Governments, and they would set a very good example to those on this side of the House who will some day be in the same position that they are in in supporting them in protesting against any encroachment on private Members' time.
Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER: It must have been with some difficulty that the Noble Lord kept a serious countenance while delivering his speech. I think it can only be owing to the fact that his experience in the House has been somewhat limited. If he had been here as long as some of us he would know only too well that the kind of speech we are hearing on both sides of the House now is the kind of speech we are accustomed to hear, whoever is in power and whoever is in Opposition. The real secret of the whole thing is not the somewhat impertinent solution which the Noble Lord suggested, but the simple and obvious one that this House is overwhelmed with work and has more to do than it can possibly get through, and when the Government ask for the time of the House it is not an evidence of incapacity, but of a desire to get some work done that the House wishes to have done. They need the time and must have it. It is a very serious thing indeed that private Members' time should be entrenched upon as it is, as it has been year after year, and as it will be in more increasing measure as the work of this Parliament increases. The remedy is not to be found in the direction which the Noble Lord suggests—that private Members should be allowed to talk longer. That moans that we should not get as much work done as we do now, and we should be more overwhelmed than ever, and the work of Parliament would be more congested than ever. A reference has been made to Canada. The real reason why they have not resorted to these methods was clearly indicated by the interruption of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond). This House, with all the burden of this great Empire upon it, has more work to do than it can adequately discharge. It is obvious that there is a large amount of detailed special work which might well be done elsewhere and by other bodies, and until we relieve this
646
House of that work we shall have these growing encroachments upon private Members' time. I agree that that is a very serious matter, but it would only make it worse to adopt the Noble Lord's remedy. Whichever Government we have in power, we shall have these demands made. The real thing for private Members to do is to concentrate their attention on the real remedy, which is to provide for dealing with and discussing large masses of matter which take up our time elsewhere and in other assemblies.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The right hon. Gentleman's speech should have come from the Treasury Bench. He appears to be in league with the Government against private Members. He speaks of some of us who have not been so long in the House as he has. I suppose that means that in the years during which he has been a Member of the House he has been swept along, and has now given up all hope that private Members will be allowed any rights whatever. We are becoming somewhat accustomed to these Motions which the Prime Minister makes. He assumes a sort of veneration for the rights of private Members. I do not know how long that will continue, because, from the rapidity with which this Government has advanced from stage to stage in encroaching upon private Members' time I have no doubt that in a very short time from now we shall see a formal Motion placed on the paper by which all private Members will have given up any idea of having any rights whatever. The position of private Members is very serious indeed, and I should really like to make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is perfectly true that they maintain a strict and absolute silence on the subject. I have no doubt during the Debate we shall not have a single speech from any hon. Gentleman opposite. This is not a question which affects the Opposition only. The rights of private Members are not a monopoly of the Opposition. They belong to both sides of the House, and when we realise that a precedent is very easily established and is always quoted with great weight and emphasis, we recognise that these encroachments that the Prime Minister has made since he has led the House are a very serious invasion of the rights and privileges which private Members have always looked upon as their own. I do not know what the end of it will be or what will be the solution of the question. I view with

647
great apprehension the time when the time of the House will be devoted chiefly to the discussion of measures which emanate from the Cabinet. This House is far more than a legislative machine. It is a means of ventilating grievances from all parts of the United Kingdom, and it is in order that we may have an opportunity of the very short time which is available to us now of bringing forward these questions and grievances which naturally appertain to our constituents that we oppose this Motion. The Prime Minister still says he hopes to return to the normal state of things. The normal state of things is coming to be that private Members have no time to themselves whatever.
I should like to make an appeal to those Labour Members who are not attending the Conference of the Independent Labour party. We should, I think, hear a certain amount of protest from them, because the time which the Prime Minister is to take is time which by right belongs to them. There is a Motion on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Crooks) on Wednesday, 26th April, calling attention to the need of a living wage. There are two other Motions equally important, one in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Lansbury), who, I am sure, if he were here, instead of making violent speeches at Birmingham, would be making a deliberate attack on the Government. During the short time that he has been a Member of the House he has not sunk into that quagmire of subservience to which all the other Labour Members have sunk. He has a very important Motion calling attention to the methods of procedure in this House and the consequent curtailment both of the liberty of action and the freedom of speech of private Members. I am sure he would have assisted us on this Motion. Next to that is a Motion in regard to the Education (Provision of Meals) Act. These are two very important Motions, and I suppose they were put down on the Paper by hon. Members because they meant to bring forward the questions. They represent important constituencies, and I do not think they would tell their Constituents that they come here to act as the party hacks of the Government. That is the position they are taking up at the present moment in giving up to the Government the time that belongs to them and in assisting the Prime Minister to make a direct and unjustifiable invasion upon the rights of private Members. I
648
have on previous occasions had the opportunity of making a protest, or rather an appeal in favour of private Members, and I do so again, though I am sorry to say there is not a common understanding, or rather a lead, among private Members in this House for the maintenance of rights, which are naturally, and always have been considered to be, their own. I do think that this is a question which should be watched very closely and carefully by all hon. Members, whether they are supporters of the Government or belong to the Opposition. The rights which private Members had before I had the honour of being a Member of this House were a great deal stronger, and there were more of them than at the present moment. The invasion which the right hon. Gentleman is making into a region which naturally belongs to private Members is one which should cause hon. Members to pause before they give their votes in support of the Prime Minister's Motion. It is for that reason I associate myself with the Leader of the Opposition and the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman has made to private Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I think this is an occasion when we should review the situation in regard to these very frequent Motions. My Noble Friend (Earl Winter-ton) said that the Leader of the Opposition has not an altogether clean sheet in connection with this matter. At all events we have to recollect in defence of the right hon. Gentleman that he did provide advantages for private Members, perhaps not so large as they had before, and as long as he had authority in the House he never withdrew their rights, but, on the contrary, he secured that private Members should get the time which was given to them. We must remember the point which the Leader of the Opposition alluded to in his speech, namely, that these Motions provide the only direct occasions when private Members can get a clear fight with Ministers on matters of importance. We are told that we can raise them on the Address at the beginning of the Session. Everyone knows that a vote cannot be open on an amendment moved to the Address. The supporters of the Government must support the Government whatever the subject may be to the Address, and therefore an Amendment on the Address is never a satisfactory way of raising a point of public importance respecting Government administration. Motions for the adjournment of the House are strictly limited.

649
They have to be limited to definite matters of urgent importance, and there again you cannot find a final answer in the Division Lobby, because it is very unsatisfactory to have a vote on a Motion for the Adjournment at the end of an evening sitting. Therefore we have no other direct opportunity except when a Motion is proposed by a private Member on Tuesday or Wednesday evening. I think anybody who was in the House a few days ago, when the Motion for the Easter adjournment was moved, must have realised to what an extent the Government had carried these Motions.
Many Members on this side came into the House in last Parliament, and they have now sat in two Parliaments, and yet I think it must have struck them—it has certainly struck me, as one who has been in the House for a considerable period—how entirely private Members have forgotten the way in which those Motions are balloted for. There was considerable hesitation when the names were called out as to how hon. Members should act, because, practically, in the two Parliaments in which they have sat the rights of private Members have been taken away, and hon. Members have practically never learned how to act, in what used to be the normal course of procedure in this House. I think they ought to be warned as to how these powers are being encroached on. Although an assurance was given by the Leader of the House that they were to be permanent they may be taken away, and very soon we may lose them altogether. If I were to choose between opportunities for proposals of legislation by private Members on Fridays and Motions on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, I would prefer the opportunities for Motions, for you can then raise a definite matter of public importance, whereas in the matter of legislation, even if a measure should get a Second Reading, it is doubtful whether facilities will be given for the later stages of a Bill promoted by a private Member. I think we should have seen a little incursion into the time of private Members on Fridays as well, but for one particular Bill which is on the paper for a few weeks hence. At all events, the Government have limited their attack to private Members' Motions, and it is with special reference to these Motions that we ought to make a protest, because they are the most valuable asset left to private Members. They afford the only occasions when they can challenge the opinion of the Government in the Division Lobby.
650
Therefore we ought to be careful how we part with our rights to the Government.
In the very bold programme put forward by the Prime Minister, we see that he has thought it very necessary that, besides the Parliament Bill, there should be something else to offer to their followers in order to enable them to place the programme before the country. We cannot but remember that there are a good many by-elections going on at present, and that the Government want to be put before the electors in a favourable light. I think from the programme which the Prime Minister has put before us that the Government are not altogether content with the Parliament Bill. They find it necessary to add some more fascinating things. Any Member can see how insufficient must be the time available before Whitsuntide for the ambitious programme which the Government have put before us, even leaving out other matters which ought to have the attention of the House. It is rather remarkable to have that programme put before us while the Government have not proposed to get the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates. We have not had any opportunity of dealing with these matters during this Session of Parliament. They are matters which should be brought forward when we find these vastly ambitious schemes of the Government, and further I think that when this demand is made upon us, we ought to remember how liberal the Opposition have been in connection with the demands made by the Government in the past few weeks. If we look back, we see that the House granted the Second Reading of the Mines Bill after a most inadequate discussion, which was brought on with only twenty-four hours' notice of the Bill. It is an enormously long and controversial Bill, and yet the House gave it a Second Reading in order to help forward legislation of this sort. When we discussed the Second Reading there was no opportunity for discussing the Bill on its merits. That shows that on this side of the House there is no obstructive policy whatever to reasonable legislation. We have been generous as regards time to the Government in the early part of the Session, and I think that is an additional reason why we should protest against this attempt now to take a portion of the remaining time of private Members.
Sir H. SAMUEL: I desire in a few words to make an earnest protest on behalf of private Members against the proposed deprivation of the time which belongs to them. The encroachments made on private Members' time and on their rights and privileges must have come with something of a shock to those who were Members of this House up to 1906, and who, after an enforced absence returned under the new regime. Formerly we were not only privileged to express the views of our constituents, but we were also enabled to take part in constructive policy, and that is a point I am very anxious indeed to urge upon the Prime Minister. I cannot help believing that in the great position which the right hon. Gentleman occupies he must be very anxious indeed to preserve the personal character of this House. Therefore, I would ask him to pause very seriously before he continues these encroachments on the rights of private Members. We are fortunate enough in this House to draw recruits from all those bodies of men who have great experience in what I may call the various branches of social reform. These men come into the House not only for the honour and privilege of being Members of it, but also for the honour and privilege of being enabled to take part in its debates, and to urge forward those schemes of social reform which they understand so well, and which they say would be of such advantage to the people.
It is given to few of us to obtain honourable positions on the Front Bench, and therefore the opportunities we have for taking part in constructive policy—and that after all is the main work of Members of this House—are very limited indeed. I want to urge upon the Prime Minister that this deprivation of private Members of their time prevents them from pursuing constructive policy and that this will reflect itself upon the character of the men who come here. They are hard-working men in the true sense of the word, and they are anxious to give the best years of their lives in order to do something to elevate the lives and fortunes of others who are not so well placed as themselves. If this deprivation of the time of private Members continues, the personnel of the House will suffer very greatly indeed. To my mind that is the chief reason why we should ask the Prime Minister to pause in his continual encroachments on the time of private Members. I cannot help thinking that this encroachment at the present
652
moment is not the fault of the leadership of either party, but that it is due to the fact that the party which has obtained hold of power is subject to the dictation of various sections, and that it is the painful necessity of the Government to have to force through the House in some way or other various things which are required by the various sections which make up the supporters of the Government. I think we ought to look to the Prime Minister as the custodian, not only of the rights of his own party, but as the custodian of the personnel of the House and of the rights of private Members. I hope, therefore, I may have been able to bring home to the right hon. Gentleman that that is the reason why this deprivation of the time of private Members should not lake place.
5.0 P.M.
Sir. ALBERT SPICER: After the almost pathetic appeals made by hon. Members on the other side on behalf of private Members, it does seems to me that they have completely ignored the justification for the Prime Minister's Motion. After all, we on this side have been sent here to pass the Parliament Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. Our constituents have had every part of the Parliament Bill explained to them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] You may say No. I can only speak for myself, and I can say that every part of the Parliament Bill has been explained most carefully to my Constituents, and I am sent here to support the Government in passing the Parliament Bill. If hon. Gentlemen opposite would only curtail their speeches a little in opposition to the Bill which we have been sent to pass, I do not think there would be any necessity on the part of the Prime Minister to propose such a Motion as he has proposed to-day.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to propose as an Amendment to add to the Motion moved by the right hon. Gentleman, the words: "And on the 3rd and 10th of May."
The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down appears to be under the impression that the whole duty of Members, from the Liberal point of view at present, is to do nothing but push forward what is often called the Veto Bill, which he says has been entirely explained in all its parts to his constituents. I hope that at a later stage in the Debate we shall have an opportunity of hearing precisely what the explanation was which the hon. Member offered to his constituents of the Parlia-

653
ment Bill. I am sure that the House, and I have no doubt the Treasury Bench will note with interest the explanation which the hon. Member has offered. It is a little hard after an Easter holiday of record shortness to come back and be faced with a Motion like this. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition pointed out that the Prime Minister made no reference to the fact that the date of the Budget has not been mentioned, and that apparently the Budget has been postponed. May I ask the Prime Minister further when we are to have an opportunity of going through, that process which is somewhat irreverently known as the process of getting you, Sir, out of the Chair upon the Civil Service Estimates?
The PRIME MINISTER: Very soon.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am very glad to hear that, because it is a process which certainly ought to be gone through at an early date, for, until that is done, discussion of grievances in Supply becomes absolutely impossible. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) has called the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman a rake's progress. It is quite true that the Government have increasingly gone on making Motions of this character. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that under the rearrangement of business undertaken by him private Members lost a great deal of the rights they used to have. He forgot to add that when the business was rearranged by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman private Members lost another quarter of an hour, as the time was changed from nine until twelve, and is now only from 8.15 to 11. It is a small thing, but still it is a loss of some moment to the private Member. Is it worth the right hon. Gentleman's while to insist on this Motion? What is he going to get from the Government point of view? It is going to give the Government very little and it is going to work a great deal of harm to private Members, not only in this Session but as a precedent in the future. The Government are going to take five Wednesday evenings of two and three-quarter hours each, that is thirteen and three-quarter hours, or two Parliamentary days. Is it worth while for the sake of that continuity to create a precedent so bad as the precedent which the right hon. Gentleman is creating? I do not think that the Government have shown any just cause for taking action. I cannot see that private Members are likely to look with any lively anticipation to the future or with any great
654
confidence to the kind of promises made by the Government as to action in the future after their action in the past. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that over and over again a Resolution passed on a Wednesday evening has been ultimately found to be a real basis of some legislative reform. It is the only means which the private Member has of getting this House to affirm or deny a Parliamentary principle, and the Wednesday evening is of a great deal more value to the private Member than the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
The reason I select the dates mentioned in my Amendment is because of the Motions on the Paper for those days. The Motion for the 10th of May, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) is in the following terms: "To call attention to the methods of procedure in this House and the consequent curtailment of liberty of action and freedom of speech of private Members, and to move Resolution." The right hon. Gentleman wound up his speech by an attack on the system of blocking Motions, and by holding out a promise, or at least a lively expectation, that some reform might be accomplished. It seems to me that this two and three-quarter hours upon the 10th of May should afford an opportunity for that discussion which the right hon. Gentleman suggests, and I suggest to him that the 10th of May might, therefore, be exempt. I come now to the 3rd of May. For that date a Motion stands in the name of the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. D. Mason) in these terms: "Unemployment. To call attention to the question of employment, and to move a Resolution." The reason I suggest that this should be exempt has relation to procedure. The other day, on the Motion for Adjournment, I understand that certain Members on the Labour Benches were anxious to discuss the question of unemployment, but were prevented from doing so by the fact that this Motion, which had been balloted for, appeared on the Paper for that day. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to deny that under these circumstances there is a certain vested right which he may well recognise in these conditions. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take these two things into consideration and see his way to accept the Amendment which I suggest. If he does not, I most certainly will divide the House on the point, and I shall hope to have the support

655
of some of the hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway. I observe that in the country at the present moment, in one of the numerous conventicles of the different sections which compose their party, they are being somewhat vigorously reproached as being somewhat tame supporters of His Majesty's Government. I do not know rightly whether it may be justly expected that in the circumstances in which they find themselves, the Labour party will have that complete freedom of action in practice which they have in theory, but on the Amendment which I am now moving I shall certainly expect to receive their support if any value at all is to be attached to their professions. If they do not support the Amendment they can hardly expect any longer to escape the reproach of being merely the conscript appanage of the Treasury Bench.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I shall have much pleasure in seconding my hon. Friend's Amendment, because, though it is not all that I would desire, it goes a certain length in that direction. I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister as a master of parliamentary tactics, and he has never excelled himself in my opinion in a greater degree than he has done to-day. He made a very excellent moderate speech in favour of this Motion, and he told hon. Members below the Gangway that, after ail, he was going to do something for them, that Wednesdays were not of much account, and that he was going to see whether or not he could not do something for them on the Motion for the holiday adjournment. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are only two days on which holiday adjournments are taken—at Easter and at Whitsuntide. He knows perfectly well that most of the House are away on those days. He knows perfectly well also that when a Member gels up to ventilate a grievance, in all probability when he has finished his speech and before the Minister can reply, if by good fortune the Minister is in his place, some other hon. Member will get up and start some other subject, and consequently the whole procedure becomes involved in confusion, nobody wants to object to going away on a holiday, and therefore nothing takes place. Whenever the Prime Minister has brought forward a Motion of this sort, he has always shown the precedents upon which he has founded his Motion, but today he has made use of not one single
656
precedent, because there never has been a case in which these Wednesdays have been taken, and I am surprised that hon. Members who have spoken have not reproached the Prime Minister with this fact. This is the first time since the private Member's rule was made in 1902 that Wednesdays after Easter have been taken. The Leader of the Opposition said truly that last year for the first time the Government took all private Member's time before Easter. 'They are now-taking all the private Member's Wednesdays except two after Easter. Next year they will take all, and we shall be told it is very necessary because there are certain things to pass.
The right hon. Gentleman says he wants to get the Parliament Rill. It is now only the 18th of April, and the Parliament Bill is a Revolution which is going to alter the Constitution of this country as it has existed for over 600 years. Why should there be such a great desire to pass it in such a violent hurry? The right hon. Gentleman says we have had eleven days. Why, if we had fifty-five days, it would not be too much to devote to the consideration of a measure of this sort. The importance of the measure demands consideration. We shall not probably adjourn until the beginning of August. There is any amount of time to pass the Parliament Bill without taking these five Wednesdays, which involve something like 13½ hours. The right hon. Gentleman says that they have got some other Rills which they want to pass—the Invalidity Bill, and the Trades Union Bill. Why should there be such a violent hurry to pass these Bills? They have got plenty of time to pass them all probably, even if the five Wednesdays were not taken, but in any event we cannot pass every Bill which is likely to gain a vote in every Sessions. We must leave something for the three or four remaining years that the right hon. Gentleman is going to be in power. From the look on his face he does not appear to think he is likely to be in power so long, but there is no necessity to pass these Bills in a violent hurry. Hon. Members opposite seem to be under the impression that the object of this House is to pass Bills. The object of this House is nothing of the sort. It is to govern the country and proceed with Supply. That is the principal object which Members of this House ought to bear in mind. We have had two excuses only made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. One of

657
them that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) said that the real reason of this Motion was the congestion of business. The right hon. Gentleman has gone out of the House, or I would like to ask him whether he thinks that the Parliament Bill, the unemployment Bill, and the Trade Unions Bill, which are the three Bills to which reference has been made as the reason for taking the Wednesdays, cannot be dealt with in this House. Does he propose to allow the Parliament in Dublin to discuss the whole Constitution of the country, or some Parliament in Wales to discuss the Trade Unions Bill, or some Parliament in Scotland to deal with the Invalidity Bill? Had he been present I should have been happy to show the right hon. Gentleman how weak are the arguments by which he sought to support the case he put forward. An hon. Gentleman who sits for a Division of London said he supported the Motion because he wanted the Parliament Bill, but there is no necessity to deal with those questions in order to get the Parliament Bill. It will be perfectly easy to pass the Parliament Bill, always providing it is not to be passed until the end of June, without taking the Wednesdays. Why is there this anxiety to get the Parliament Bill in this kind of way, and why is it desired to bring forward the Invalidity Bill and the other Bills? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister docs not hope to pass those Bills this Session, I suppose?
The PRIME MINISTER: Why not?
Sir F. BANBURY: We have not yet had the Budget, which after all is a most important measure, and a measure on which one of these Bills is founded. The Invalidity Bill and the Unemployment Bill are going to take money. We cannot say what may done under this Government, but under ordinary Governments you cannot get money without a Vote of this House, or without the knowledge of this House, and that is one of the reasons why the right hon. Gentleman has postponed the Budget. The Prime Minister has shown no reason whatever for this unprecedented action of taking those five Wednesdays. I do not agree altogether with what has been said about Members being anxious to enter this House in order to have the opportunity of bringing forward their proposals on Wednesdays. I think they would become Members of this House if there were no Wednesdays. The real point is that you ought to give
658
the private Member a chance of bringing forward grievances. Personally, I have not got many grievances, nor do I think that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite have many grievances, except in their own imagination, and I think it is in the interests of hon. Members who are in favour of the two Motions which have been excluded, that this Amendment should be accepted. One Motion has reference to procedure, and the other to unemployment, both matters which, I presume, hon. Members opposite are very anxious to discuss, though I do not find much enthusiasm among them for their own Motions. I suppose they are thinking whether, it they vote in defence of their own Motions, they may by some unfortunate chance defeat the Government, or whether they will remain sincere and vote for their own Motions and defeat the Government. If they throw over their own Motions they show the insincerity with which they were put down, and will do so in order to maintain in office a Government which one of the hon. Members opposite yesterday described as a "Government consisting of wicked Liberals." I do not want to put hon. Members below the Gangway opposite on the horns of a dilemma, although I am afraid they are on those horns, unless the Prime Minister, a master of parliamentary tactics, gets up and accepts the Amendment, and I am not at all sure that that will not be the solution. If it is the solution, it will only show that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept half the time which a short time ago he said was absolutely necessary for his purposes. While seconding the Amendment of my hon. Friend I wish he had put down four Wednesdays instead of two, which would have given us more time, at any rate. But half a loaf is better than no bread, and, therefore, I support the Amendment.
The PRIME MINISTER: I will not be tempted by the invitation of the hon. Baronet to wander outside the comparatively narrow field which is legitimately presented to us by the Amendment for consideration.
Sir F. BANBURY: It had not been proposed.
The PRIME MINISTER: It is proposed now, and I am within the limitations of order. I take note of the statement of the hon. Baronet with very great satisfaction that he has no grievance against the Government himself. I was under the

659
impression that it was thought that people were being taxed out of existence by the various proposals of the Government.
Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that my statement was with reference to the Wednesday evenings.
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not want to enter into controversial matters, but I gather that for once the hon. Baronet and his constituents are in entire agreement with the policy of the Government as far as concerns the circumstances of the City of London. The hon. Baronet thinks that this Motion rather introduces a precedent. There are precedents of all sorts, and precedents for violent proceedings, but this is an extremely moderate proposal. It leaves the two Wednesdays already granted and the whole of the six Fridays; and Friday, I would point out, is a day on which private Members can bring forward constructive proposals, which they consider it so very important should be brought up for consideration. So much for the general question arising on this matter. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment dwelt particularly upon two Motions which, by the chances of the ballot, have been put down for the 10th and the 3rd May. I could not gather from the hon. Gentleman which of the two propositions he adopted—namely, whether the Government, on the one hand, ought to be regarded as the slaves of the Labour party, or, on the other hand, the Labour party are to be regarded as the slaves of the Government. They are both propositions which are constantly put forward by speakers opposite, and very often by the same speaker on the same platform. The hon. Gentleman himself seems to be in some doubt on the matter. Let me reassure him in regard to these two Wednesday evenings—the 3rd and the 10th May. He took the Motion of the 10th May first, which is to call attention to the methods of procedure in this House, and the consequent curtailment both of liberty of action and liberty of speech of private Members. What have we been doing this afternoon? We have been discussing that Motion. It has been the burden of every speech made on the other side of the House. Therefore we have had an anticipatory discussion, and it would be a waste of time to devote another day to what has already been so amply considered. But let us take the earlier notice—that of the 3rd May, which is to call attention to
660
unemployment and to move a Resolution. I have already indicated that one of the main objects of my asking the House to make a curtailment of private Members' time is in order that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may introduce and explain the proposals of the Government in this very matter. So that whether you regard the Motion of the 10th May, or that of the 3rd May, I think I have shown that the apprehension of the hon. Gentleman in reference to their being-passed over altogether without discussion, is without foundation. I cannot on behalf of the Government accept the Amendment. As I have already said, I think our proposal is a moderate one, and I hope the House will very soon come to a decision.
Mr. LANE-FOX: The right hon. Gentlemen said that we on this side constantly speak of the Labour party being the slaves of the Government or of the Government being the slaves of the Labour party. On that subject we have only to compare the speeches by Labour Members in this House with the speeches they make outside this House, and I would like to draw attention to a speech made by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) a prominent Member of the Labour party, who said, at a demonstration held on Sunday, at Wolverhampton:—
"The reform of the House of Commons was of much more importance to the democracy of England than the reform of the House of Lords.
"The Liberals were floundering with social reform plus a more or less Punch and Judy light with the House of Lords. To think that in the House of Commons they were strenuously engaged in a terrible revolution to overcome the tyranny of the House of Lords was all bunkum, pure and simple humbug. He had spent hours in the House of Commons every night and watched this epoch-making revolution being waged with half-a-dozen men sitting on the benches. It was merely a time-killing arrangement. The fact was that the House of Commons and the Liberal party had a lot of men who wanted to go to the House of Lords. He had some little respect for the true-blooded lord whose ancestors had handed down to him an estate, but he had nothing but contempt for the peers who had paid their price to the Liberal party. When the Liberals stopped making peers, then he would believe that they wanted to get rid of the House of Lords."
I invite the Prime Minister, in view of the criticism he has made on some of the speeches which he said we on this side of the House deliver, to compare that sort of utterance with what we hear in this House from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that those hon. Members are always ready to follow him into the Lobby, and that on this occasion their action will prove no exception to that very general rule. We on this side of the House recognise that the Labour party

661
are becoming merely one of the official elements of the Liberal party. The Government, by their proposals, propose to take these Wednesdays, yet if they sat a few hours later on several nights they could soon make up the thirteen hours which they will get by this Motion; or, on the other hand, they could limit the duration of speeches by a modification of the Standing Order. I am perfectly well aware that such a proposal does not commend itself to a great many hon. Members opposite, and very likely does not commend itself to some Members on this side of the House. The Prime Minister said, however, that there was no other way in which he could act, and here I show him two ways.
As regards the value of these evenings, everybody knows that often on private Members' evenings very valuable Motions and very valuable speeches are made. Very often the speeches made on these occasions are infinitely more valuable for the purpose of criticising the Government than the possibilities afforded by private Members' Rills. I should like to ask the Prime Minister which is the most convenient for the Government, to have the possibilities of legislation taken away from private Members or the possibilities of criticism on Wednesday evenings. Everybody knows that it is most convenient for the Government to take away the Wednesday evenings, and nobody more so than hon. Gentlemen opposite who, when the Unionist party was in power' took advantage of them to criticise us on the Fiscal question, and to bring it up constantly in order to embarrass the Government. Such Motions are infinitely more valuable than the possibilities in bringing in Bills which very often go no further, and very often are of very little value.
I would suggest to the Prime Minister that the amount of time he is going to give is not worth the Motion which he is making. The House has only got to sit on a very few evenings a very little longer. The Government are ready enough to sit up late sometimes. They have certain Members of the Front Bench who are artists in carrying on all-night sittings, or sittings which are described as being a "little late." I am sure the vast majority of the House will be ready to sacrifice a certain amount of the time which they ordinarily devote to their beds in order to preserve their privileges, and to preserve those evenings so that we may have opportunity for criticising the actions of the Government of the day in a way in which it is
662
absolutely powerless for us to do so on a Bill. The Motion is not, I am sure, going to give the Government the advantages they expect. It will deprive a great many hon. Gentlemen of valuable opportunities. I only hope that those gentlemen who sent the Labour party here will realise that unless they vote with us in this case they are deliberately depriving—(Laughter). Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite may laugh in a very uneasy manner. They know that the Congress at which those violent speeches have been delivered is not going to sit on the third day, and that if they wait until to-morrow's papers are ready they will not see this. At any rate it is our duty to place on record that if they vote against this Amendment they are deliberately keeping from discussion two or three Motions of the greatest importance, which they have been clamouring for and asking for, and which they will have no other opportunity of moving. They are deliberately preventing the House from the opportunity of discussing those Motions, and are preventing those Motions being thoroughly ventilated. I should be very much surprised if those who sent them here do not deeply resent that.
Mr. BALFOUR: I rise only for a moment to say that I shall certainly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I am sorry I did not hear his speech in advocacy of it, but I heard the Prime Minister's speech against it, and that was quite ample, because, if I understood the Prime Minister aright, he seems to think that the whole question of unemployment can be adequately dealt with, or will be adequately dealt with, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer brings in his Bill. That evidently is not the case. I have no doubt the suggestions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be more important, and must be more important, than any two or three hours' debate private Members could have on the general question, but the idea that a Bill dealing with the uncertainties of unemployment and the uncertainty of health covers the same ground as that of the general Motion on unemployment is, I will not say an absurdity, but an exaggeration of which no one is more conscious than the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who laid it so amiably before us. The other point was that we were already at this moment discussing the question raised in the Motion which is put down for Wednesday, the 10th May. We are

663
doing nothing of the kind. This Amendment does indeed deal with one very important fraction of the question, but only a fraction. It does not touch the broad issues and the widest issues which I apprehend the hon. Member who tabled the Motion intended to raise. The Motion we are now discussing simply deals with the problem, is the House going to abandon now, and what will be, I am afraid, for all time, the compact which was laid down between the then Government of 1901 and the private Members of that day when the Government said, "We are taking away a very large fraction of your nominal privileges, but we are leaving you a fraction, and that fraction we intend to be yours in a substantial sense."
I am not, of course, at all accusing the right hon. Gentleman of bad faith with the House. He was not a Member of that Government, and that kind of private treaty cannot be said to have any moral obligation, I quite admit, through an indefinite number of years. The fact still remains that the whole aspect of this problem was thoroughly thrashed out nine years ago. The arrangement then arrived at worked perfectly until last year. If we take last year and this year together, we are evidently at the beginning of a new state of things in which the rights of private Members will be as uncertain in the future as they were before 1901. Under those circumstances I am bound to vote for any curtailment of the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not believe, were the right hon. Gentleman to show himself amenable to what is the expressed opinion on this side of the House, and what is the tacit opinion on the other side of the House, that he would lose substantially anything of those advantages in respect of Parliamentary opportunity which he hopes to gain by the drastic proposal he has put before us.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I do not propose to deal with the general question before the House, because all I have to say on that subject was said when the right hon. Gentleman made his Motions to take the Wednesdays after Easter. Some observations which have been made on the other side do require a word or two from those sitting below the Gangway on this side. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox) has warned us that he and his friends are going to make certain statements in the country about
664
what is going to happen here this afternoon. I assure the hon. Member I expected that. They have done it before, and we are perfectly prepared for their doing of it again. I would suggest to them, however, that when they make their statements that they will make them fully, and not do as they have done before. The fulness of the statement, for instance, will include this very remarkable fact that the hon. Member who has been good enough to look after our interests this afternoon by moving this Amendment, was so anxious when we desired to raise the question of unemployment on the Adjournment at Easter, that he put down a blocking Motion upon it.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: At the request of Members of his party I withdrew that Motion.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: It is perfectly true that the hon. Gentleman withdrew his Motion, but not in time.
Lord BALCARRES: The Motion was not on the Paper on Wednesday.
HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Certainly. I do not want to do the hon. Gentleman an injustice. The situation was this, that the Motion remained on the Paper until another Motion was put down, and that no information was conveyed to us of its withdrawal until it was too late for us to take any action on this side. I have not the least objection that the statement I originally made should be amended in that direction, and to that extent all I have got to say is this, that as long as we are Members of this House we shall use our common sense in voting for or against Resolutions, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that the very last thing which would influence us in voting on such Resolutions as that before the House at the present moment is such suggestions as that made by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash, that he is going to misrepresent our conduct to the constituencies when the time comes.
Lord HUGH CECIL: The hon. Member made a very interesting speech, but I cannot quite understand, after listening to it, why it is that he does not vote for this Amendment, or why it is that he does not press the Government to withdraw their opposition to the Amendment. The Amendment, no doubt, has pointed out the inconsistency in which hon. Members have placed themselves. The Amendment

665
saves two days from the Prime Minister's Motion, and one of those days would be given up to a general discussion on unemployment. I share the amazement of my right hon. Friend at the statement that what the Government says about unemployment is the only thing that deserves the attention of the House of Commons.
The PRIME MINISTERmade an observation which was inaudible.
Lord HUGH CECIL: That is the only way in which the right hon. Gentleman's observations can be turned into argument. I do not understand why a general discussion on the question of unemployment would be in any sense a waste of time when the Government are going to bring in a very important Bill on the same topic. On the other night there is the Motion in the first instance about procedure, and in the second place a Motion relevant to the provision of meals for school children. That is a Motion to which, we are constantly assured, hon. Members opposite attach very great importance. It is, of course, in the power of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) to withdraw his Motion as to procedure if he thinks the other Motion more important, so that both Motions are fairly under the consideration of the House.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: We are going to ask leave to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule on that particular subject.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not think the hon. Member will maintain that a discussion under the Ten Minutes Rule is—
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: If hon. Members opposite are so very anxious for a discussion of this question, perhaps they will make representations to the right hon. Gentleman and join with us in asking for facilities for the Second Reading of the Bill.
Lord HUGH CECIL: We offer the hon. Member the opportunity of getting terms now, and if he does not avail himself the point really is, are hon. Members below the Gangway ever going to exert any pressure on the Government, whether on this topic or on any other? Let me understand what is in the hon. Member's mind. He attaches importance to the Parliament Bill, and does not want to do anything to jeopardise it. I listened to the Prime Minister's speech with great attention, but
666
I cannot understand why the Parliament Bill is supposed to be dependent upon so trumpery a matter as thirteen hours, or, to far as this Amendment is concerned, five hours. There are a hundred ways of getting round that dificulty. A couple of days at the end of the Session given to some other legislative matter would enable the time to be made up. Are you going to take these two days from private Members in order to have two more days' holiday in August? That is really the issue, because the Session can always be extended. The fate of the Parliament Bill cannot reasonably be said to depend on a Motion of this kind. I think the Labour party will find themselves somewhat worsted in the struggle between the different groups which are anxious for the passing of that Bill. Already the Nationalists and the Liberationists seem to be ahead of them, and after those two groups have exhausted their efforts there will probably be a reaction in the country. My right hon. Friends may then come into office, and there will be a reformed Second Chamber. Whether that reformed Second Chamber will be favourable to the Liberal party or not I cannot say, but it certainly cannot be advantageous for the Labour party. The Liberal party and the Conservative party taken together must be in a great majority, and the Labour party will not have the influence—
Mr. CROOKS: They will not send us up there.
Lord HUGH CECIL: The hon. Member would be an ornament to the Upper House, but he would not be able to turn out the Government by voting against them, because votes in the other House do not involve the fate of the Government. It seems to mc that with a reformed Second Chamber the Labour party will certainly be in a worse position. They seem to be going to make a legislative night of it, but the Nationalist and the Welsh parties will get most of the liquor, while the headache will be shared by all. That, however, is somewhat beyond the present Motion. I do not believe the Labour party can go on giving votes of the character of the one they are going to give to-night and continue to be treated seriously as an independent party. The Nationalist party have obtained a position which we all recognise as independent. But they have done so by voting against both parties. The Labour party, however, are biding their time. They are like the traditional villain of melodrama, who

667
is always muttering, "The time will come." I am inclined to think that that time will not come in this Parliament. The Labour party will be always just getting ready to take strong action, but they will be put oft by some contrivance—and the Prime Minister is a past master in those contrivances. At General Elections hon. Members below the Gangway opposite pose as an independent party, but they always, as a matter of fact, vote for the Government. No doubt they know their own business best. I do not aspire to the post of unofficial adviser to the Labour party. All I say is that they have no right to complain of us if we point out to them and to their supporters that their position is largely a delusive one, and that they are called by a name which they do not deserve. I shall certainly go into the
Lobby in support of my hon. Friend's Amendment.
Captain CRAIG: If these tactics of the Government are pursued it must have an effect on the progress of Bills on the Paper. Hon. Members opposite will appeal in vain for any mercy in regard to any of their Bills for the remainder of the Session. That is the only way in which private Members will have the slightest opportunity of showing how strongly they feel on this matter. As far as I am concerned, I give warning that I shall not allow any single Government measure or private Member's Bill to get through this Session.
Question put, "That the proposed words be there added."
The House divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 174.

Division No. 136.]

AYES.

[5.55 p.m.

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

Finlay, Sir Robert

Mount, William Archer

Aitken, William Max.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Newdegate, F. A.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Forster, Henry William

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Balcarres, Lord

Foster, Philip Staveley

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Baldwin, Stanley

Gardner, Ernest

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

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

Gilmour, Captain John

Perkins, Walter Frank

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Grant, J. A.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Greene, Walter Raymond

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Barnston, Harry

Gretton, John

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Gwynne, R. S (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Haddock, George Bahr

Rothschild, Lionel D.

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Royds, Edmund

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Bigland, Alfred

Harris, Henry Percy

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bird, Alfred

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Sherwell, Arthur James

Bridgeman, William Olive

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Snowden, Philip

Bull, Sir William James

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Stanier, Beville

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Butcher, John George

Houston, Robert Paterson

Starkey, John Ralph

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Cassel, Felix

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Swift, Rigby

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Sykes, Alan John

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kerry, Earl of

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Larmor, Sir J.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Clive, Percy Archer

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

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Courthope, George Loyd

Lewisham, Viscount

Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lockor-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Craik, Sir Henry

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Winterton, Earl

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

Croft, Henry Page

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Werthington, Evans, L.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Younger, George

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mitchell-Thomson and Sir F. Banbury.

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants., W.)

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Alden, Percy

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Barton, William

Beauchamp, Edward

Higham, John Sharp

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Pollard, Sir George H.

Black, Arthur W.

Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Boland, John Plus

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Power, Patrick Joseph

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Pringle, William M. R.

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Johnson, William

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Brace, William

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

Brigg, Sir John

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Joyce, Michael

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

Keating, Matthew

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Byles, William Pollard

Kellaway, Frederick George

Robinson, Sydney

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Chancellor, Henry George

Lambert, George (Devon S. Molten)

Rowlands, James

Churchill; Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Rowntree, Arnold

Clough, William

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

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Levy, Sir Maurice

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

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lewis, John Herbert

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Logan, John William

Scanlan, Thomas

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

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

Crooks, William

Lundon, Thomas

Sheehy, David

Crumley, Patrick

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Shortt, Edward

Cullinan, John

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

Maclean, Donald

Spicer, Sir Albert

Dawes, J. A.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Delany, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Summers, James Woolley

Dillon, John

M'Micking, Major Gilhert

Sutton, John E.

Doris, William

Marks, George Croydon

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Duffy, William J.

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Tennant, Harold John

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Meagher, Michael

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

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

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Menzies, Sir Waiter

Toulmin, George

Essex, Richard Walter

Middlebrook, William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Esslemont, George Birnie

Millar, James Duncan

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Falconer, James

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Verney, Sir Harry

Fenwick, Charles

Mooney, J. J.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Morrell, Philip

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Ffrench, Peter

Nolan, Joseph

Waring, Walter

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Norman, Sir Henry

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

Fitzgibbon, John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Gill, Alfred Henry

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Williamson, Sir A.

Glanville, Harold James

Ogden, Fred

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

O'Grady, James

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

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

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

Hancock, John George

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. U. (Rossendale)

O'Malley, William

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

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

Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

Main question put. The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 128.

Division No. 137.]

AYES.

[6.0 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

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

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Acland, Francis Dyke

Byles, William Pollard

Essex, Richard Walter

Addison, Dr. C.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Alden, Percy

Chancellor, Henry G.

Falconer, J.

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Fenwick, Charles

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Clough, William

Ferens, T. R.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Ffrench, Peter

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Fitzgibbon, John

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Barton, William

Crooks, William

Gill, A. H.

Beauchamp, Edward

Crumley, Patrick

Glanville, H. J.

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

Cullinan, John

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Black, Arthur W.

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Boland, John Plus

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

Hancock, J. G.

Booth, Frederick Handel

Dawes, J. A.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Bowerman, C. W.

Delany, William

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

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

Brace, William

Dillon, John

Haworth, Arthur A.

Brigg, Sir John

Doris, W.

Hayden, John Patrick

Burke, E. Haviland-

Duffy, William J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Higham, John Sharp

670

671

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Mooney, J. J.

Scanlan, Thomas

Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Morrell, Philip

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

Hughes, S. L.

Nolan, Joseph

Sheehy, David

Hunter, W. (Govan)

Norman, Sir Henry

Shortt, Edward

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Johnson, W.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Ogden, Fred

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Grady, James

Summers, James Woolley

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

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

Sutton, John E.

Joyce, Michael

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Keating, M.

O'Malley, William

Tennant, Harold John

Kellaway, Frederick George

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Motion)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M

Toulmin, George

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

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Levy, Sir Maurice

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Lewis, John Herbert

Pollard, Sir George H.

Verney, Sir Harry

Logan, John William

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Lundon, T.

Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

Waring, Walter

Lynch, A. A.

Pringle, William M. R.

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

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Whyte, A. F.

Maclean, Donald

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Williamson, Sir A.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Roberts, G H. (Norwich)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

Marks, G. Croydon

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Robinson, Sidney

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Meagher, Michael

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co)

Rowlands, James

Young, William (Perth, East)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Rowntree, Arnold

Middlebrook, William

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illigworth and Mr. Gulland.

Millar, James Duncan

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

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

NOES.

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

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Aitken, William Max.

Finlay, Sir Robert

Mount, William Arthur

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Newdegate, F. A.

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Baldwin, Stanley

Foster, Philip Staveley

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

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

Gilmour, Capt. John

Perkins, Walter F.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Goulding, E. A.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Grant, J. A.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Greene, W. R.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Gretton, John

Rice, Hon. W. Fitz-Uryan

Barnston, H.

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

Haddock, George B.

Rothschild, Lionel de

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Royds, Edmund

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hardy, Laurence

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Harris, Henry Percy

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bigland, Alfred

Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Bird, A.

Hillier, Dr. A. P.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Snowden, P.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hohler, G. F.

Stanier, Beville

Bull, Sir William James

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Starkey, John Ralph

Butcher, J. G.

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Swift, Rigby

Cassel, Felix

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Sykes, Alan John

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kerry, Earl of

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Knight, Captain E. A.

Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Larmor, Sir J.

Thyme, Lord Alexander

Clay, Captain H. Spender

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Clive, Percy Archer

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

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Lee, Arthur H.

Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lewisham, Viscount

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Worthington-Evans, L.

Cripps, Sir C. A

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Croft, H. P.

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Younger, George

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Magnus, Sir Philip

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Earl

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Winterton and Mr. Ormsby-Gore.

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

PARLIAMENT BILL.— [Sixth Day.]
Bill considered in Committee.—[Progress, 11th April.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

PARLIAMENT BILL.— [Sixth Day.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Powers of House of Lords as to Money Bills.)
  [As Amended in Committee up to Tuesday, 11th April].
  [NOTE.—The Additions are printed in Bolder type; the Omissions ore shown in Square Brackels].
  (1) If a Money Bill, having been passed by the House of Commons, and sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, is not passed by the House of Lords without amendment within one month after it is so sent up to that House, the Bill shall, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified, notwithstanding that the House of Lords have not consented to the Bill.
  (2) A Money Bill means a public 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 subordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of them. In this Sub-section the expressions "taxation," "public money," and "loan," respectively, do not include any taxation, money, or loan raised by local authorities or bodies for local purposes.
  (3) Every Money Bill when it is sent up to the House of Lords and when it is presented to His Majesty for Assent [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.]
  The CHAIRMAN: None of the Amendments on the first page of the Order Paper are in order. They deal with points already settled, or consequential on Amendments not accepted. The same observation applies to the first four Amendments on the next page. The Amendments standing in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for the Newton Division (Viscount Wolmer), is in order, and I call upon the Noble Lord.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The Noble Lord is not present, and as I have an Amendment further down on the paper similar in character, perhaps I may be allowed to take his place. I beg to move to add the following Sub-section:—
  "(4) No Bill containing any provision for paying salaries to Members of the House of Commons, or increasing such salaries, or otherwise securing to Members of the House of Commons any personal pecuniary gain shall be deemed to be a Money Bill within the meaning of this Act."
  This is an Amendment which I think the Government ought to accept. It contains a principle whose obvious application would not seem to need much explanation—the principle that it is not desirable that Members should not pass an absolute judgment on matters in which, it may be, their personal interests are concerned. I think the Amendment is both reasonable in itself, and congruous with the ordinary procedure of this House. It is well known that where a matter directly affecting the personal interests of any individual Member arises, he is not permitted by a rule of the House to vote. It is rather a technical rule; but the theory is that he is not permitted to vote because personal interests might sway against public interests. If he votes his vote may be disallowed. I think if it be true that an individual Member must not vote on a matter directly affecting his private interests, when under the existing procedure there is another House to be considered, it is much plainer that it is reasonable that this house should not have an absolute discretion and decision of its own pecuniary interests, and of its own Members at public expense. The effect of this Amendment will be that it would treat a Bill for the payment of Members, or a Bill for any other direct pecuniary gain to Members, as an ordinary Bill and not as a Money Bill. People often talk about the mandate they have

  675
  received from their constituents. I am quite sure that there is no miscellaneous audience of electors in this country who, if this Amendment were submitted to them, would not think it very reasonable, and who would not consider that it would be very improper that the House of Commons should decide, without let or hindrance, whether the salaries of its Members should be £100, £200, £300, or £1,000 per year. American salaries are as large as £1,000 a year. I might go further.
  Having once paid salaries, the House could go on increasing them at their pleasure. I might remind hon. Members that so far from being visionary the danger of the Legislature misusing a power of this kind that it actually happened in a very conspicuous degree last year in South Africa. The Legislative Assembly did in a most improper manner use public funds for the benefit of its own members. The experience, therefore, of other Legislatures suggests the need of the protection afforded by some Amendment of this kind. I suggest to the House that we should exclude Bills of the character I have indicated, and which actually affect our own pecuniary interests, and should leave them under the control of the power of postponement of the other House, which will be left in Clause 2. I beg to move.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government cannot accept this Amendment, and for very obvious reasons. In the first place the Amendment would, if accepted, strike at the very principle of the Clause itself. The principle of the Clause is to affirm the existing constitutional rights of the House of Commons. A Bill which fell within the definition of the Money Bill—which we have already arrived at in the second Sub-section of this Clause—in which, say, provision was made for the payment of salaries to Members, is one the House of Lords would have no right to reject or amend. Therefore the Noble Lord's Amendment, if carried, would leave the Clause that it would no longer affirm the existing constitutional rights of this House. It would be an abrogation, or serious mutilation of the Section which has been accepted. Quite apart from that, what are the grounds for this Amendment? The Noble Lord has referred to a Rule—a nebulous Rule, of very uncertain sanction, and very uneven application—which is supposed to prevent Members of this House from taking part in
  676
  Divisions where their own pecuniary interests are concerned. Everybody who is acquainted with our practice in that matter knows that this Rule is found extremely difficult to apply. It has been in the past capriciously applied, and with the greatest possible inconvenience. If it were to be applied with that strictness that the Noble Lord suggests, this House could never have a Bill for the payment of Members at all, because there is not a single man here who could take part in the discussion, or at any rate in the Division, without violating this supposed constitutional Rule. This, I think, is sufficient to show that the Rule the Noble Lord refers to has no application. Let me point out the "serious" consequences that might result if the House voted salaries to its Members or if year by year and Parliament after Parliament the scale of these salaries was enhanced. What is the answer to all that? That the remedy is in the hands of the constituencies. We have heard talk about Home Rule and matters of that sort being unreversible, but nothing is so easily reversible as the pecuniary vote of the House of Commons. And if the House of Commons, in defiance of the mandate of the constituencies, voted these salaries or enhanced existing salaries of which the constituencies did not approve, the next House of Commons coming back charged with the duty of representing the views of the constituencies, would have no difficulty in brushing it aside. That, I think, is a sufficient answer on the point of policy. But there is a third objection, and it is that you do not want a Bill at all for this purpose. If this Amendment were incorporated in this Bill there is nothing to prevent the House of Commons adding a new Clause to the Appropriation Bill; it has only to insirt the Clause at the end of that Bill carrying out this object.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I did contemplate that very Clause, but that, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, would be a very great innovation upon the existing Parliamentary practice, and it is precisely to avoid that that I was anxious to insert this Amendment. If this Clause was inserted an Appropriation Bill would cease to be an Appropriation Bill, and the House of Lords would be justified in rejecting it.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Noble Lord really means that if the Appropriation Bill contains such a Clause the House of Lords could throw out the whole of the appropriation for the year.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: They could strike out this provision.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Noble Lord means they could say it was not a Money Bill, and the whole of the Supply of the year could toe frustrated if the Amendment was carried.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Because it would have been an improper proceeding.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Because the Noble Lord thinks it would be an improper proceeding. Undoubtedly as the law at present exists, it would be entirely for the House of Commons to determine the course. I do not for one moment forecast what course of proceedings will be ultimately adopted, but constitutionally it is clearly within the power of the House to appropriate part of the Ways and Means granted for the year by the Appropriation Act without any special Bill for the payment of Members. Therefore, the Noble Lord's Amendment would not have the effect which he thinks and for the reasons which I have already given it would be a most serious encroachment upon the constitutional privileges of the House to adopt it.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Let us consider the arguments on which the right hon. Gentleman based his opposition to this Amendment. Let us take things in their order. In the first place, says the right hon. Gentleman, "I cannot accept this Amendment because it would mean a modification of the principal Clause." No doubt this Amendment is a modification of the Clause, and my Noble Friend moved it in order that it might modify the Clause. When the right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that it would modify the Clause in the manner of which he told us, I really ask myself whether he is right in his view now or whether he was right on a previous occasion, because his present view is quite inconsistent with his previous view. His previous view was that, though a Bill might be a Money Bill, in the sense that it had to be brought in in Committee of Ways and Means, if it was directed to a great public object other than a financial object it was not a Money Bill, and was not intended to be a Money Bill under this Clause. I certainly thought that was the intention of the Government and I am not quite sure that that principle is not embodied in the Clause as it stands.
  "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
  678
  following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration or regulation of taxation, charges on the Consolidated Fund, or the provision of money by Parliament."
  It does come under that in one sense. Does it come under it in the sense in which the right hon. Gentleman has been advocating this Clause in the House and in the country? The right hon. Gentleman says the House of Lords went nominally beyond their legal rights and constitutional functions when they threw out the Budget. I will not again go over that ground. Let us put that upon one side. A Budget is no doubt a Money Bill. It deals with finance, and a true Budget deals with finance alone. A measure—Payment of Members—deals with finance. But under what definition of Finance Bill does payment of Members come? Are we really to be told by the right hon. Gentleman that payment of Members is a financial Bill within the intentions of the Government. I remember, when discussing before the Easter holidays what was intended by the Government to come in under the meaning of a Money Bill, one good case quoted, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir William Anson), was the provision of free education. The provision of free education was a great measure passed by the Unionist Government in 1891, but it required little or nothing of money, but though it required nothing of money, so to speak, to carry it out it was a great act of public policy, right or wrong. We thought it right, and the country, I think, generally thought it right. But that is immaterial for the present argument. Will anyone say that under Clause 1, what the Government intend to treat as Money Bills, Bills like the Free Education Bill would come in. This throws an extraordinary light upon the whole policy of the Government.
  I certainly should have thought if ever there was a question of public policy it was the question of the payment of Members. It may be right or it may be wrong. But surely nobody will deny that the essence of that is not a money essence but a broad, political, and constitutional essence. Money is incidental to it. It is a Money Bill in the sense that it will have to be brought in, I suppose, in Committee of Ways and Means, but I should like to ask Mr. Speaker on that point; but to turn the question of payment of Members into a money question is really for the Government to show conclusively that some of the provisos we advocate in this Clause

  679
  are absolutely necessary if this Clause is not really to introduce tacking in the grossest form. What is tacking? The Government said over and over again tacking is introducing great questions of policy under the guise of Money Bills. The payment of Members is a question of policy, and for the Government to tell us that they mean to introduce it under the guise of a Money Bill is to say that they have, in spite of all their professions to the contrary, become the disciples of what is really tacking and nothing but tacking.
  The right hon. Gentleman said if all other arguments in reply to my Noble Friend failed there is this conclusive practical argument, that the House need not pass the Bill at all. Every year they could put on the Vote for their own salaries, and having voted public money to themselves, and have put the whole subject in the Appropriation Bill. The Appropriation Bill, as we all admit, is a matter which very properly comes under the cognisance of Clause 1. And for that very reason it would be a gross constitutional abuse to deal with the payment of Members in that way. Payment of Members does involve a question of policy and a new policy, and because it involves a question of policy and new policy I think it would be most improper for any Government to say it should not be embodied in a statute, but is to be at the caprice of Ministers of the Crown, scattering largesse from year to year among Members of this House. I am rather depressed at the line the right hon. Gentleman has taken up upon this subject. Our desire is to limit the far too wide wording in which this Clause is drawn. I confess I did think that the right hon. Gentleman, in theory at all events, held our view—namely, that under Clause 1, as distinguished from Clause 2, questions of money only should be included and questions of policy should be excluded. Now the right hon. Gentleman comes forward in answer to my Noble Friend with a series of arguments which mean nothing if they do not mean that he has gone back on his former views, and that he joins with those Members in this House who we know are prepared to use every constitutional device in order to circumvent the principle and the spirit of the Constitution. I strongly support the Amendment, but I confess that is not the dominating feeling under which I spoke. I am much more concerned by the general attitude taken up by the Prime Minister,
  680
  and I cannot help regretting the recantation of the danger which I thought was recognised by both sides of the House.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I support this Amendment which raises a very wide and important question. The Prime Minister told us, not for the first time, that Clause 1 affirms what was hitherto the recognised limits of the Constitution. Let us see how far that takes us. It must not be forgotten that once you are endeavouring to write our Constitution you are to that extent making an inroad upon tradition hitherto governing the Constitution; and once you are writing upon Paper the Constitution you are to that extent removing the possibility of checks given by tradition. We therefore scrutinise with very great care to see whether or not Clause 1 is the best way to write the Constitution as hitherto understood, and are there not some cases for which it does not yet provide. This particular Amendment brings to the notice of the Committee a matter which has not been sufficiently scrutinised by those responsible for the Bill as it stands. We have now, under Clause 1, the definition of a Money Bill with some accuracy and care. In the subsequent Clause you have the procedure which is to govern a Bill other than a Money Bill, and you have already in the Bill the safeguards introduced by Clause 5, namely, that the duration of Parliament shall be now five years instead of seven. And to what extent you have safeguarded the powers of the constituencies over Parliament. The Prime Minister, in answer to my Noble Friend, suggested that the constituencies will have their power over Members of this House, which will prevent them voting salaries to themselves if the constituencies disapprove. If it is a matter relating to a Money Bill there is no such safeguard. At the present time we have under our Constitution a provision that if any Member of this House accepts an office of profit under the Crown he is immediately to be re-elected. That principle may go too far and the statute may need some alteration, but at the same time it must not be forgotten that one of the safeguards of our Constitution at the present moment is provided for by statute, and under the provision safeguarding the procedure and practice of this House it is declared that no person shall serve in this House and take a salary without once more submitting himself to his Constituency before his enjoyment of that privilege and that salary. It is claimed now that hon.

  681
  Members of this House can vote themselves salaries. That is well within their power, and the only safeguard over them is the power of the constituencies. That is not the constitutional practice at the present time. Now we have not only our traditions, but also the statute which, in regard to the acceptance of an office of profit under the Crown, requires the person accepting such office to submit himself to his Constituency.
  Are we now to be left in the position that the passing through this House of a Bill for the payment of Members can be done without submitting it to another authority outside Members of this House? It is not a question of whether or not this House may waive its privilege; it is not a question as between Money Bills and other Bills. The question is whether or not there should be any power at all for any other authority whatever to intervene and call a pause before legislation is introduced which would have a wide-reaching effect. Once you attempt to put your Constitution upon paper you are losing your safeguards, and you are taking away all jurisdiction from another place to intervene to cause hesitation or introduce control over the action of this House. What is this particular Bill? In the case of payment of Members is it suggested to carry in that way a Bill which would have such a wide-reaching effect as that measure? Can we be told whether payment of Members is a measure which falls within Clause 1 or Clause 2? If it falls within Clause 2 then it is subject to a certain course of procedure; if it falls within Clause 1 then there is no power of any sort to control the anxiety of hon. Members to be paid. If payment of Members is once introduced it is a principle which Would have an effect not only on this House but upon all those institutions where voluntary services are now freely granted, such as county councils and parish councils. It is a new principle, and the mere matter of the payment of money is subservient to the principle and of far less importance to the principle itself, which means the abolition of voluntary effort and the making of public services the subject of reward. What reason is there for making an alteration of this kind. It is very difficult to decide whether a measure falls within Clause 1 or Clause 2. I think there ought to be some such provision as that which has been proposed by my Noble Friend. Hitherto there has been only one case in which the House of Commons has arrogated to itself
  682
  the power to alter the Constitution, and that was in 1714 when the Septennial Act was introduced, and it was decided to alter the duration of Parliament from three to seven years.
  The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): It was passed by the House of Lords.
  Mr. POLLOCK: That has always been considered to be an unhappy precedent, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to base his case upon the precedence of the Septennial Act of 1714, I think he has chosen a very unhappy case to rely upon. That is the only case in which this House has arrogated to itself such a tremendous constitutional power. At the present time, upon a Bill in regard to which a good deal might be said as to whether it is a Money Bill or is of another category, we desire that this case also should be dealt with and provided for, and wish to have the Constitution written as to that and other matters which have been incorporated in Clause 1.
  Earl WINTERTON: The point we have been discussing this afternoon concerns the future action of the Government. This afternoon a question was asked by one of my hon. Friends as to when the Government proposed to introduce their Bill for the Payment of Members. The Prime Minister, in his reply, adopted a somewhat mysterious attitude, and did not give a direct answer. Since then the Prime Minister in his speech to the Committee has told us how the Government propose to deal with payment of Members. It now appears that they propose to pass the Parliament Bill in order to render it impossible for the House of Lords to have any discussion in regard to Money Bills, and then they propose to put payment of Members into the Appropriation Bill. Will the Home Secretary inform the Committee whether that is the intention of the Government? [An HON. MEMBER: "Wait and see."] The right hon. Gentleman adopted a very mysterious attitude when he was asked what course the Government were going to take with regard to the payment of Members, but none of us realised at the time why he was so mysterious. We know now, because the Prime Minister has let the cat out of the bag. The Prime Minister is a sort of cautious and comfortable constitutionalist sometimes—
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite see what all this has got to do with the Amendment.
  Earl WINTERTON: I think it has everything to do with the Amendment, for this reason. The Amendment proposes to exclude from the scope of this Bill payment of Members. As a Bill dealing with payment of Members has been foreshadowed, I submit that we are at least entitled to ask the Government, before we go to a Division, in what form they propose to introduce that measure?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is dealing with the question of the proposal for the payment of Members, which we are told is likely to be made this Session. This Amendment says that no Bill containing any such proposal shall be deemed to be a Money Bill, and the Noble Lord is not speaking to the Amendment, because he is asking the Government to state what course they intend to adopt in regard to the payment of Members.
  Sir R. FINLAY: If a Bill involves a great question of policy, would it be in order and according to constitutional practice to have the matter dealt with in the Appropriation Bill? The question whether that would be a proper course is, I respectfully submit, intimately associated with the question whether such a proposal could be carried into effect by purporting to be a Money Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a question to put to Mr. Speaker when the time comes. The Noble Lord has been asking questions as to how the Government intend to carry out their proposal to provide salaries for Members of Parliament. He will be quite in order in saying that the Government appear to be adopting such a course, and that is why he thinks the Amendment is necessary. The Noble Lord, however, has not been arguing in that way. If he does he will be in order.
  Earl WINTERTON: I regret that I have not put my point in such a way as to bring myself in order. I hope before the conclusion of this Debate we shall have some light upon the question I have put to the Government. As regards the whole question, I think it is an extremely serious attitude for the Prime Minister to take up when he asserts that a question of this kind shall not be allowed to come within the purview of the Second Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman is asking us to believe that he is a sort of cautious and comfortable constitutionalist at one time and then at another time he seems to make a proposal almost of a revolutionary nature.
  684
  I rather think he would do better to adopt the rôle of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. John Ward), who always, to my mind, appears to take up the attitude of a stage villain, although I believe he is a person of the most benignant disposition. I think the veil should be drawn from the attitude of the position taken up by the Prime Minister. I would like to ask the Home Secretary if it is not a fact that in the case of every other great democracy the Second Chamber has the right to review proposals to increase the salaries of the Members of the Lower House. I think that in a case of this kind it is better that the Government should say exactly what they mean by their proposal and in what way they are going to bring it about. Just as I prefer to call a man Solomon rather than de Vere Ponsonby, so I prefer that these measures should be called by their right name and not by some other name.
  I think the Prime Minister made a most remarkable statement when he said that it would not really matter whether the Second Chamber had an opportunity of reviewing such a proposal as we are discussing, because the constituencies would have the remedy in their own hands. What would be the effect of that suggestion and what is its practical value? I will assume that there is already in force a proposal to pay Members of Parliament £250 or £300 a year. That Parliament in its first Session may bring in a Bill by means of the Appropriation Act to increase their own salaries from £250 to £600 a year. That is what actually happened in the case of the French Chamber, where the annual salary was £250 per annum, and that was increased by a certain Parliament to £600 or £700 per annum. Since the Prime Minister made his statement I have worked out what his proposals will cost. If a Government came into power with the existing law that the salaries of Members of Parliament should be £250 per annum, they could if they chose in the first year of their office pass a measure to pay to Members £600 a year, and, assuming, as I believe would be the case, the electors at the earliest possible opportunity threw that Government out of office, that opportunity would not occur till the end of five years, and it would cost the country something like £1,000,000 to pay what they showed at the earliest possible moment they were unwilling to pay. [An HON. MEMBER: "The price of half a 'Dreadnought.' "] That interruption is very typical of the attitude and frame of mind of the hon. Member and those who sit with

  685
  him on the benches below the Gangway opposite. He considers a proposal which would cost the country £1,000,000, and which the country does not want to pay, of very little effect, and says contemptuously it is only the price of half a "Dreadnought." The question whether it is the price of one or two "Dreadnoughts" does not affect the matter. Unless the Amendment is adopted you may have a condition of affairs in which a million of public money may be wasted against the expressed wishes of the constituents. What sort of safeguard have we got against that sort of thing being carried out? I do not suggest the present Government will do such a thing, but there may be Governments come after them who may be less scrupulous in squandering public money upon their friends. I invite the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister, in his reply, to point, if he can, to any country in the world whose Constitution does not contain a provision that the Second Chamber shall have the right of reviewing money paid in the form of salaries either to Ministers or to Members of Parliament. I do not believe such a Second Chamber exists. I am not in the least surprised this proposal is supported by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, because their own object in coming into this House, judging from the attitude they take up on public platforms, is to see that as much money as possible shall be taken from the pockets of the taxpayers, and put into the pockets of themselves and their friends.
  The CHAIRMAN: The charge of the Noble Lord is not a proper charge to make.
  Earl WINTERTON: What charge?
  The CHAIRMAN: The charge of the Noble Lord that hon. Members below the Gangway get the utmost amount of public money for themselves. It is not in order to make such a charge.
  Earl WINTERTON: May I be allowed to say what I said, I think, was that the object of the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, to judge from their speeches upon the platform, is to take away the largest amount of public money possible and to put it into the pockets of themselves and their friends. I venture to suggest, by the support they give to the payment of Members, that is, in effect, what they are carrying out, but if it is out of order for me to state what seems to me to be a plain
  686
  statement of the case, I, of course, unreservedly withdraw.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: May I ask, Sir, whether you propose to accept the withdrawal of the Noble Lord, which he qualified by stating that, as a matter of fact, it is a plain statement of the case?
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord's withdrawal was a very grudging one. What I object to is the Noble Lord's statement that hon. Gentlemen opposite are putting public money into their own pockets. His statement as regards the pockets of their friends is another matter and much more general. I invite the Noble Lord to withdraw specifically the charge as applied to Members of this House.
  Earl WINTERTON: I am quite willing to withdraw, and when I rose on a point of Order I was only endeavouring to put a case and ask whether that was or was not the fact. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I intend to withdraw in my own time. If that is an imputation upon the good faith of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, I unreservedly withdraw it with a regret that I stated what seemed to me, as I said, to be a plain statement of fact.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Do you propose, Mr. Emmott, to accept the withdrawal qualified as it has been? If so, I propose to ask the Noble Lord whether he includes me personally in the charge.
  Earl WINTERTON: The withdrawal is not qualified in any respect. I unreservedly withdraw, as I have stated several times. It docs not seem clear to the intelligence of the hon. Member for Leicester, but I unreservedly withdraw, and I merely gave my reasons for making the statement.
  Mr. CROOKS: May I ask whether the statement of the Noble Lord includes myself as well as others, and whether he will assure the House that under no circumstances would he accept an office under any Government?
  The CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with it. The Noble Lord now answers me that he unreservedly withdraws.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I understand the Prime Minister gave, as one of his reasons for not accepting this Amendment, that no Bill would be necessary in order to pay salaries to Members of this House. That,

  687
  from a constitutional point of view, is entirely untrue and unsound. It does not matter whether it is a Bill specifically introduced to deal with a matter of this kind or whether the provision is introduced in the Appropriation Bill, but in one way or the other not a single penny is voted or expended without the money has been authorised by an Act of Parliament. The speech of the Prime Minister, as I understood it, is clearly a declaration, in practice, of not allowing the House of Lords to interfere with the Appropriation Bill, and, in making that statement, he gives the goby to the whole argument in favour of an Amendment of this kind, because the whole argument in favour of this Amendment is that the question of the payment of Members, is really a matter of public policy, and the payment only incidental and subordinate. Does the Prime Minister adhere to what he said the other night, that where the real matter involved is a question of public policy, and where the money matters involved are merely secondary, the Bill would not, in his view, come within the definition of a Money Bill as included in Clause 1? That is a most important point. If the Prime Minister is altering in any way the statement he made the other night, that a Bill was not a Money Bill because it granted money, if, under the guise of a Money Bill, you were really introducing a matter of public importance, then I think it is most important it should he understood.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I can answer the hon. Gentleman at' once. It is quite obvious any application of public money to a new purpose involves a question of policy.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman says "the employment of money to a new purpose." Of course, an ordinary Money Bill is the provision of money, perhaps in new ways, to old and well-recognised purposes. Does the Prime Minister say that such a purpose as the payment of salaries to Members of this House for the first time is not a matter of new public policy, of vital and first-rate importance? And if it is a matter of new policy of first-rate importance, does it not come within the definition he himself gave? Let me put to him the definition again: "It is not a Money Bill, although it involves the payment of money, if the leading idea of the Bill is some alteration of first-rate importance and a matter of public policy."
  The PRIME MINISTER: I never said that. Perhaps the hon. Member will quote my words.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I would not misquote the Prime Minister's words. I have not his exact words; but I think that is the substance of what he said. The Prime Minister, as I understand, now says, although the payment of salaries to Members might be introducing a great public change of first-rate importance, yet he would regard that as a Money Bill. The Prime Minister said, more than once, that what he is dealing with is not an alteration of the law, but a declaration of the law as it stands. Let us deal with that statement as regards this Amendment, Does he say it is a mere declaration of the law as it stands that the House of Lords could not interfere with a Bill proposing such a novel political expedient as the payment of salaries to Members of this House? I say that at the present time the Second Chamber has the power of rejecting any Money Bill of any sort or kind. I do not want to go back into that argument, but surely he cannot suggest that the House of Lords has not always asserted, and has asserted in a way from which this House has not differed, that they have the power to amend and reject so-called Money Bills if they involve a question of new public policy. The Prime Minister says, if this payment is once made, it can be rescinded in a succeeding Parliament. It appears to me the Prime Minister's argument goes to the whole basis of what I call the constitutional impropriety of Clause 1. The real truth is that before you introduce a new principle of this kind of first-rate public importance you ought to ascertain, and ascertain definitely, what is the opinion of the constituencies. That is the law at the present time, and that is the object really of a Second Chamber. When you are introducing a new principle of first-rate importance of a public character of this kind, you ought, before passing the provision, to ascertain whether the constituencies are in favour of it or not. I do not think you can really urge any worse constitutional doctrine than that of passing a provision of this kind first, and then ascertaining whether the constituencies wish it to be repealed or not. We ought not to embark on such a scheme as the payment of Members, and we ought not to regulate the amount which Members are to be paid, until the constituencies have been consulted and their opinion has been

  689
  definitely ascertained, and, when a provision of this kind has once been made, we ought not to interfere with it, or alter it from Parliament to Parliament. We ought to look upon it as a definite settlement, because it has the voice of the people in its favour and because the constituencies have been definitely consulted upon it.
  The only other matter to which I wish to refer is the question of the rule or principle. I agree, of course, that the technical rules do not apply to such a provision as that for the payment of Members. Underneath the rule, the real principle of duty applies more to a provision of this kind than to any other provision that could be brought before the House of Commons. We ought to be more careful in voting public money for our own pockets, than on any other matter which could be brought to the notice of the House of Commons. I say that not only as a matter of principle, but also as a matter of experience. It is notorious that assemblies who have voted themselves perhaps small salaries in the first instance have gone on increasing the amount, and have only been deterred as regards the amount by the unpopularity of the point beyond which they found they could not press a matter of this sort. I look upon this Amendment as a test Amendment on two grounds. Are we really to have questions of principle put in the form of a Money Bill, so as to prevent any interference or any over-seeing by a Second Chamber? Secondly, this Chamber, above all, ought to be careful in asserting, and as I think increasing, its authority under this Constitutional Bill, not to put itself under the temptation of being able to vote salaries and to increase salaries to its Members without any chance either of the constituencies being consulted or of what we do being overruled by the more prudent deliberations of a Second Chamber.
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I only rise to point out that this Amendment goes very much further than hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite realise. If adopted, it would prevent every Appropriation Bill in the future being a Money Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Let us see whether that is correct or not. The Amendment applies not only to the suggested provision for the payment of salaries to Members of Parliament, but it equally applies to any Member of this House who gets any pecu-
  690
  niary gain. The only possible reason for this Amendment is that it will apply to every Minister of the Crown. It will apply to half-pay colonels and full-pay admirals in different parts of the House, so that in future the Appropriation Bill would have to be a Money Bill. It would not be if this Amendment were accepted-This seems to be a proposal which we should not accept.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Appropriation Bills are, under the Clause as it now stands, in a category of their own. Unless this House subjects itself to very great inconvenience, there cannot be the time limit of a month, and in their case it would take from the House of Lords the power of dealing with the Bill. The Prime Minister, in the discussion of Amendments to this Bill, seems to lay down general formulas which in practice would not work. He says that each category of Bills must have a general rule, and that there must be no exception to that rule. But the whole course of the history of drawing up Constitutions and fixing them on paper has been one of making exceptions to general rules, and, therefore, it is just those exceptions that we are bound to consider. Surely there must be some profit in the study of party politics. The hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps) has said that every assembly that has voted itself salaries has always gone on increasing the amount. It is a matter of history that appetite grows with eating. The more they take, the more they want. I should like to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to turn to the history of the States of the American Union, because, if they do so, they will see that continually this question of the increase of salaries is before them, and that constitutional Amendments in those States have been principally in order to prevent their Legislatures sitting on and drawing pay—the money is paid day by day—in excess of what the people want.
  The practice in many Legislatures has been to prolong the Session in order to draw more money, and consequently the States have adopted constitutional Amendments forbidding Legislatures to meet more than once in two years, and limiting the number of days on which they shall sit. I would refer to a book written by a former Member of this House, Mr. Bryce, and to more recent history, which shows that every year there are constitutional Amendments to limit the opportunities of

  691
  American members to draw more money by way of public salary. Now that is what is happening among people who are just as constitutionally fitted to govern themselves as we are. It is because constitutional Amendments have been mostly directed against this practice, that I ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they wish to be exposed to the maximum of temptation and whether we ought to deprive ourselves of every sort of safeguard. The House of Lords will be paid, too. They are bound to be paid under the system, if you give them more work to do, just as the London County Council and other bodies will have to be paid in their turn. Therefore we are not only dealing with our own salaries we are dealing with the salaries that they will draw in another place. This may be a matter for laughter on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I would venture to suggest that a great deal more genuine work is done by some bodies outside than is very often done in this House. We are leaving old paths and taking to new paths. Are we to deprive ourselves of time for consideration, are we to allow any chance majority to increase the salary, as has been done in other cases in the course of history. I am not imputing corruption. It is the natural desire of men to prove that the labourer is worthy of his hire, and that he is worth a larger sum by way of hire than he receives. Is that a case the Prime Minister thinks should fall under the general rule? Ought we to go out with our honour defenceless, and without giving ourselves that time for consideration in the most important matter that can concern our own honour as representatives of the people.
  Mr. GRETTON: It occurs to most of us on this side of the House that this Amendment ought to be adopted. This House has hitherto been very careful of its own honour in matters of pecuniary gain. Wherever there has been any suspicion against any Member, the House has always been eager for that Member to clear himself from any shadow of suspicion. It is a very wholesome doctrine. Are we going to abandon it, and to give this House unlimited power to vote its own salaries and emoluments? May it not lead to open charges of corruption in dealing with public funds? It appears to many of us on this side, and probably many hon. Members opposite will agree, that this is one
  692
  of the subjects which the House of Commons would be wise to put outside any general category and to accept some restraint and some supervision over powers of this nature. In this matter the House of Commons, according to the Government scheme, is to be supreme in the country, but I venture to think it will rapidly be degraded in the opinion, not only of this country, but of the whole civilised world, if it takes to itself unrestrained power to provide for the payment of its own Members. There are many other ways in which Members of Parliament may obtain profit. I believe some hon. Members opposite hold that their railway fares ought to be paid, and there are many other means, such as payment of election expenses, which are matters of pecuniary gain which this House might easily secure for the advantage of its Members. If the Government is really serious in proceeding with this Bill, if they intend it to be a workable measure, if they want to maintain the traditions of this House, if they want to maintain its authority in the country, they will accept this self-denying ordinance, and will put it out of the power of the Government or of a Committee of Members of the House to vote themselves salaries without check of any kind.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I should like to ascertain whether it is possible to reconcile the expressions of opinion from the Front Bench opposite to-day and last week. The Prime Minister then stated that while they retained all their old privileges under Section 4 they applied a special procedure under Section 1 to Bills which dealt with the revenue of the year and its appropriation, but not to Bills which were not exclusively financial and which, as under the present practice, it was not intended to treat as Money Bills, and instanced the Free Education Bill. I venture to think that that Bill is on all fours with a measure for the payment of Members of Parliament. The Act of 1891 for the provision of free education began, of course, with a money grant in Committee, and it went on by describing the conditions under which free education was to be granted. The Bill went up to the House of Lords, where it was amended with some freedom. It came back to this House, and most of the Lords' Amendments were accepted, with the exception of one, which was said to involve the possible increase of a money grant, and

  693
  was therefore excluded from their consideration as contrary to the privileges of this House. I gather that the Attorney-General agrees with me that that is a sort of Bill which would not come under the provisions of this Clause.
  But the case of the Payment of Members Bill is different. There must be certain conditions under which the payment is to be made. Surely it cannot be made to any Member whether he attends this House or whether he is absent. Certain conditions must be laid down under which this grant of money is to be made. How can the right hon. Gentleman suggest that it would not be a Money Bill within the meaning of this Clause? There is another course open to the Government. They may at once proceed with an Appropriation Bill, and that would take away from the purview of the House of Lords a proposal of this nature. Suppose they determine to establish compulsory military service by putting a grant of money into the Appropriation Bill. You would bring that outside the consideration of the House of Lords, although I think that body might reasonably be considered capable of discussing with intelligence such a Bill. I want to know whether we are to take the definition of a Money Bill as given us by the Prime Minister to-day, or the definition of a Money Bill which he gave us last week, and which would certainly exclude a Bill for the payment of Members. Is it possible to draw a distinction between the two cases between a grant, to be followed by a Bill for the payment of Members of Parliament, and a grant of money to be followed by a Bill to provide for children receiving free education. The two things seem to me to be on all fours, and I protest that I can hardly recognise the distinction. I can hardly believe that a matter of this importance would be smuggled through in an Appropriation Bill, and therefore I should like to ask whether we can lay hold of the Prime Minister's definition of a Money Bill as given last week, or whether he has enlarged on consideration the phraseology by his speech to-night.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think we really might expect some answer from the Government to the question put by the hon. Baronet, because after all we are dealing here with what is the crux of the whole situation. What we have felt on this side all along is that under the guise of a Money Bill some great constitu-
  694
  tional change might be proposed, and thereby rushed into Law without going to the Second Chamber at all. It is now clear that that is the Government's intention, because when you come to the payment of Members, whether it is done by the Appropriation Bill or by a Special Bill, it certainly introduces a great constitutional change, and what we submit is that having that character it ought not to be called a Money Bill, but ought to come under Clause 2, and be subject to the revising power of the Second Chamber. What is the position of the Government? Do they regard this as a Money Bill or not. Are they prepared to say that the payment of Members is not a great Constitutional change. It is altering the whole theory that underlies the Public Life of this country from the very beginning.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Nothing of the sort.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It may not alter the theory of public life underlying the idea of the hon. Member for Stoke or other hon. Members in that quarter of the House, but what I mean is that people in this country do not do public work in the House of Commons or on County Councils or other public bodies except for the sake of doing public work, and they do not do it for gain. That has been one of the greatest assets of British public life, and it ought not to be lightly changed without going before a Second Chamber. Are the Government prepared to introduce a Provision for the payment of Members by a Special Bill or by a Clause in the Appropriation Act, and by so doing to introduce a great constitutional change and absolutely alter the conditions of public life in this country? It they are not prepared to do that all they have to do is to accept the Amendment of the Noble Lord. If they are prepared to do that, all I can say is that their pretension as to what a Money Bill is has been a false pretence from the very beginning. As the hon. Baronet says, in the shape of a Money Bill you can carry all sorts of measures and all sorts of constitutional changes beside the payment of Members. There is the question of the disendowment of the Church. I am not speaking of the disestablishment, because that would not be decided on this Clause, but disendowment might be put in an Appropriation Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not deal with that subject; it is not before the Committee.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Of course, Sir, I will bow to your ruling implicitly. I was illustrating this fact. Not only the payment of Members, but other great constitutional changes might be carried under the definition of a Money Bill which the Government has given this afternoon, and for that reason the Government ought to accept the Amendment. May I point out another matter in connection with it. If you pay Members of this House you must, to be consistent, also pay gentlemen who give a great deal of time in serving on various local councils.
  The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment is that a Bill for the payment of Members shall not be a Money Bill, and the hon. Member is not speaking to it.
  Colonel GRIFFITHS-BOSCAWEN: I shall, of course, follow your ruling, but what I want to point out is this. It is not only a question of the payment of Members, but the payment of county councils might be in a Money Bill that stood on the same footing as that with which this Amendment deals.
  The CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with this Amendment. The hon. Member must apply himself to this Amendment.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Certainly, Sir; I will apply myself to this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I mean to go on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  The CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members below the Gangway not to interrupt the hon. Member.
  An HON. MEMBER: We were not interrupting. We were cheering.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I will deal with the answer which the Prime Minister gave to the Noble Lord when he brought forward his Amendment. His answer, very briefly, was this, and it was a purely technical answer. He said that if you include these words you limit the definition of a Money Bill, but surely what we have to look to are the merits of the question, not merely a technical point about limiting the definition of a Money Bill. Even if it was limiting the definition of a Money Bill, may I point out that you are dealing with Money Bills in a new manner. You are going to direct that Money Bills are not to be revised by a
  696
  Second Chamber. There is nothing inconsistent in our suggestion that you should limit the definition of Bills to be dealt with in that way. Then the right hon. Gentleman said it was not necessary. I have already pointed out that it is necessary, because even though the Government and the Prime Minister may carry payment of Members by an Appropriation Bill, the Amendment of the Noble Lord would limit the Clauses to be inserted in that Bill, and prevent one from being inserted for that purpose. Then he told us that the constituencies would have a remedy.
  I appeal to the Government to say whether they really think that if once they introduced so big a constitutional change, and did it in this way without consulting the Second Chamber—if once it is done do they really think that the decision of such a matter as that would ever be reversed by the constituencies? Surely when once hon. Members have had payment, and a great change of that sort has been carried out it is most unlikely that the constituencies would appeal to the House of Commons to go back to the state of things which existed before the Amendment. When are the constituencies going to get a chance to deal with this matter? It is going straight to the Crown without the intervention of the House of Lords, and, as has been pointed out if the Act is passed now and no specific date is put in it will be possible for the Government to introduce the payment of Members into an Appropriation Act this year, and that will go straight to the Crown without discussion. I have no doubt hon. Members below the Gangway want that, but what we say is that so big a change, even although it may be desired by Members of this House, ought to be revised by a Second Chamber, or, as the Prime Minister said, the constituencies should have a chance of giving a voice upon it. But they will have no chance whatever if the policy of the Government is carried out, and for these reasons I am much disappointed that the Government have not accepted this Amendment. I think their attitude throws a flood of light upon what they mean by a Money Bill.
  The PRIME MINISTERrose 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, 185; Noes, 127.

  Division No. 138.]

  AYES.

  [7.25 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Addison, Dr. C.

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Alden, Percy

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pringle, William M. R

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Radford, G. H.

  Anderson, A. M.

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Hobhouse, Rt Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Hughes, S. L

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Barton, W.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Robinson, Sydney

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Johnson, W.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Rowlands, James

  Black, Arthur W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Boland, John Pius

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Keating, M.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Brace, William

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Melton)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Brigg, Sir John

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Brunner, J. F. L.

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

  Sheehy, David

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shortt, Edward

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Logan, John William

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Lundon, T.

  Snowden, P.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Chancellor, Henry G.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs. N. W.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Maclean, Donald

  Sutton, John E.

  Clough, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Tennant, Harold John

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Crooks, William

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Meagher, Michael

  Toulmin, George

  Cullinan, J.

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  Middlebrook, William

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Dawes, J. A.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Delany, William

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Denman, Hon R. D.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Dillon, John

  Mooney, J. J.

  Webb, H.

  Doris, W.

  Morrell, Philip

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Duffy, William J

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Whyte, A. F.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Ogden, Fred

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  O'Grady, James

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

  Falconer, J.

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Ferens, T. R.

  O'Malley, William

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

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

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Glanville, H. J.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  NOES.

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

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Aitken, William Max.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Chaloner, Colonel R. W. G.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Bird, A.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

  Bull, Sir William James

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Butcher, J. G.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Baring, Captain Hon. G.

  Campion, W R.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Croft, H. P.

  Barnston, H.

  Cassel, Felix

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Dixon, C. H.

  698

  699

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Finlay, Sir Robert

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

  Stanier, Beville

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Starkey, John R.

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Locker-Lampion, G. (Salisbury)

  Swift, Rigby

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sykes, Alan John

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Grant, J. A

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Greene, W. R.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Gretton, John

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hardy, Laurence

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Hohler, G. F.

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

  Winterton, Earl

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Perkins, Walter F.

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Younger, George

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Rice, Hon. W. Fitz-Uryan

  Kerry, Earl of

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Royds, Edmund

  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 186.

  Division No. 139.]

  AYES.

  [7.33 p.m.

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

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Aitken, William Max.

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Ashley, W. W.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A.

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Perkins, Walter F.

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Grant, J. A.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Greene, W. R.

  Rawlinson, J. F. P.

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. V.

  Gretton, John

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rice, Hon. W. F.

  Barnston, Harry

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield Ecclesall)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Royds, Edmund

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bird, A.

  Hohler, G. Fitzroy

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanier, Beville

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Starkey, John R.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Butcher, John George

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Swift, Rigby

  Campion, W. R.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sykes, Alan John

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cassel, Felix

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Winterton, Earl

  Croft, H. P.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Mason, James F (Windsor)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Middlemore, J. T.

  Younger, George

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Mount, William Arthur

  Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Hancock, J. G.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Adamson, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Addison, Dr. C.

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Alden, Percy

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Radford, G. H.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

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

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterlord)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Barton, W.

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Robinson, Sydney

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Johnson, W.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rowlands, James

  Black, Arthur W.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Boland, John Pius

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Booth, Frederick Handel

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

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Keating, M.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Brace, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Brigg, Sir John

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

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

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Sheehy, David

  Burke, E. Haviland-

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Shortt, Edward

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

  Logan, John William

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Snowden, P.

  Carr-Gomm, H W.

  Lundon, T.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Sutton, John E.

  Clough, William

  Maclean, Donald

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Thorne, G. R (Wolverhampton)

  Crooks, William

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Toulmin, George

  Cullinan, J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Verney, Sir Henry

  Dawes, J. A.

  Middlebrook, William

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Delany, William

  Millar, James Duncan

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Dillon, John

  Montagu, Hon. E. S

  Webb, H.

  Doris, W.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Duffy, William J.

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Ogden, Fred

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  O'Grady, James

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

  Falconer, J.

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Ferens, T. R.

  O'Malley, William

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Glanville, H. J.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add,
  "(4) A Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill if it is in whole or in part political in its character or objects, and in determining that question the Speaker shall have regard to any provision of the Bill which is of such a nature as to bring about social or political changes, or to discriminate unjustly between different classes of persons or property."
  702
  Whatever the opinion of the Committee may be as to the desirability or not of the Amendment, there can be no doubt whatever that it raises a question of the greatest importance, because it brings before the Committee in a concrete form some of the questions which have been indicated in the discussions which we have just heard, namely, what is to be included in the definition of a Money Bill—what is to be within the purview of the House of Commons in dealing with Bills

  703
  bearing such a title. The necessity for the Amendment has its foundation in the fact that it is quite possible, within the strict legal definition of a Money Bill, to introduce the greatest political changes. It has often been pointed out that under the definition of a Money Bill as it stands at present, even as altered by the House, under wide words, "control or regulation of public funds or matters incidental to those subjects or any of them," you could include almost every Bill which the human imagination can devise. It is difficult to think of any Bill which does not in some way come before the House, except, perhaps, the Daylight Saving Bill, which would not contain something incidental to the control of public funds. If you regulate education you involve a payment to those who are going to control it. If you desire you can introduce a fresh scheme of licensing taxation which, although in form legal, under the guise of a Money Bill, in fact may extirpate the publican altogether. You may put such taxation upon incumbents that it makes it impossible for them to exist, and you practically disendow the established Church. You may introduce, under the strictly appropriate form of a Money Bill, Bills which involve the gravest constitutional issues, which, according to the terms of this Bill, are to be determined by this House alone, and are to be determined with a promptitude which does not appertain to other Bills which are to be introduced. We know that Bills coming before the House in future are to be divided into two sharp lines. There are to be Money Bills which are to enjoy prompt passage to the House of Lords, and which soon and effectively are to become law, and there are other Bills which are not incidental, according to this Bill, to finance which are to go through a process of incubation of two years in order that the House of Lords may be confined to what the Prime Minister calls their legitimate function in future of consultation, revision, and delay—consultation in which their advice will not be taken, revision without power of Amendment, delay leading to nothing but delay—the most irritating process you can impose on those who desire to see something done in the way of legislation. Therefore you will see the temptation there is in future for the Government of the day, from whatever school of thought it may happen to be drawn, to include under
  704
  the guise of a Money Bill a Bill which they in fact design to effect political objects, and which is drafted for political purposes, and political purposes only. The object of the Amendment which I now bring before the Committee is to secure that finance shall really be finance, and that you shall not, under the cloak of it, and strictly within the four walls of the definition you are now inserting in the Bill, for the first time raise great political issues which everybody in this House surely agrees require to be determined by your two branches of the Legislature as they exist now, and as it is hoped they will continue to exist in future.
  I venture to suggest that if the desire of the Government is—and one must presume it is—to limit this promptitude to finance, there can be no possible objection to giving some body of men the determination of what is finance and what is not. You put the onus by this Bill in the hands of the Speaker, but we think it is an undue burden to put upon his shoulders. The Speaker in future is to have the power of defining what Money Bills are, and all we are asking by this Amendment is that you should enlarge his discretion, and that yon should give him the power of determining whether a Bill which is to go forward under the circumstances provided for in this Bill is a Money Bill only, or whether it cloaks purposes other than those properly appertaining to finance. I venture to suggest to the Government that some words such as those of the Amendment could well be accepted. I am bound to say that the attitude hitherto taken up by the Government does not encourage me to hope that they will accept (his or any of the other Amendments that we suggest with the gratitude which they deserve. Speaking as a new Member, it does seem to me that as a business proposition if the Government were to say, "We will not accept any Amendment at all," it would be a good deal simpler, and it would save a great deal of time. Their attitude has not been encouraging, while their supporters behind them appear to receive in gloomy silence the Propositions which we put before the Committee.
  The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member speaking to the Amendment?
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I was attempting to point out that the Amendment is one which the Government might well entertain, and I was expressing the hope that they might see their way to accept it or to

  705
  incorporate something in the Bill which would give effect to the proposal in the Amendment. Whatever feeling there may be in this House as to the circumstances under which this Bill has been introduced, one thing I think is certain, and that is that it is effecting the greatest constitutional change. It is one of the most important Bills introduced certainly since I have been a Member of the House of Commons. It is to be an alteration for all time, and if it is surely now is the time to carry out some scheme to make it an effective and useful change by putting some different form of words in the Clause by which you can secure that public and full discussion will be given in this House and the other House of the vast political and social changes which otherwise might go through in the guise of a purely Finance Bill.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: On a point of Order, may I ask whether if this Amendment is put in a form in which it stands on the Paper it will have the effect of cutting out the Amendment of which the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh has given notice in the following terms:—
  "(4) No Bill containing proposals to devolve upon a subordinate Parliament and responsible executive in Ireland powers of imposing taxes or appropriating, controlling, or regulating the expenditure of public money shall be deemed to be a Money Bill within the meaning of this Act."
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh is in order at all, but I will deal with it when we come to it.
  The PRIME MINISTER: This is undoubtedly an Amendment of very serious moment. It has been submitted to the Committee by the hon. Member (Mr. Hume-Williams) in, if I may say so, a speech of admirable brevity and also great force. I do not in the least degree desire to minimise the gravity of the consideration which it raises. It is only, I can assure the Committee, after giving very full and deliberate consideration to the matter in all its aspects that the Government have come to the conclusion that there is no form of words suggested on the Paper, or any form of words that they can themselves devise, which would leave matters in a more satisfactory condition than if the Clause were passed in the form in which it now stands. I would point out
  706
  to the hon. Gentleman how impossible it will be to work the Amendment in the form in which he has put it on the Paper. Let us analyse it.
  "A Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill if it is in whole or in part political …"
  I stop there for the moment, because these are the governing words. I venture to say that, with a few exceptions, and these exceptions mostly cases when you are dealing with existing forms of taxation, there has hardly ever been presented to this House a Money Bill which has not been obnoxious to this form of words—a Bill which has not been either "in whole or in part political." Why do we raise money? I am not now speaking of the old forms of taxation for the maintenance of the public services. These are outside of the region that can be called political. But whenever a new tax is to be imposed, or a new principle or system of taxation introduced, one at least of the objects—and it may not always be the governing object—is political. Let me give an appropriate illustration. Let us take first of all a matter very familiar to us, because it has been the subject of acute political and Parliamentary controversy during the past few years. Supposing we should substitute for the existing fiscal system the system which goes by the name of Tariff Reform. I am not going into the merits of the question now. No one who has followed the controversy can deny that it is advocated on the one side and opposed on the other by people whose objects are to a large extent political. No one can deny that if the House of Commons were in future to assent to substitute for what we roughly describe as the Free Trade system, the alternative system based upon Protection, that would be a change which everybody in the country would regard as, if not in whole at least in part, a political change. That happens to be a very familiar illustration in the very forefront of our domestic politics. Take any of our existing taxes. Take some of the taxes for which Liberal Chancellors of the Exchequer have been responsible in the past. Take the Death Duties as they were originally proposed by Mr. Gladstone in 1853, and as they were augmented by Sir William Harcourt in 1894. I will not go into the later phases which they have assumed in recent years. If any one turns to the Debates which took place in 1853 and in 1894 he will find that both the advocates and the opponents of this new

  707
  form of taxation went; to a large extent on political grounds. Mr. Gladstone wanted revenue, and Sir William Harcourt wanted revenue, and the Death Duties were undoubtedly a very fruitful source of revenue. As a revenue-producing instrument they might be justified on that ground, if on no other. But from the language which was used by Mr. Gladstone, and still more from the language used by his opponents—who foresaw in the operation of these duties the dissolution of some of the most characteristic features of English society, and every sort of ulterior political and social tendency—it will be seen by anyone who takes the trouble to study these Debates, and the reasoning pursued, that if the words of this Amendment had then been part of the statute law of the land, these Bills in 1853 and 1894, in so far as they were concerned with the Death Duties, must have been held to be in whole or in part political in their character.
  8.0 P.M.
  I will go further and lake another in-stance. Take the duties upon alcohol and upon the licences upon public-houses for retail sales. These are again duties which might well be described as; a fruitful source of revenue to the Exchequer. But no one who is familiar with political controversy, both on the part of those who advocate increased duties or new scales, and on the part of those who have maintained that they are already excessively high, or that the principle on which they are imposed is not equitable, can deny that social and political considerations have largely entered into the argument and largely affected the opinions which are held regarding them. Let me take one more illustration before I pass from this subject. Let mo take the case of the Super-tax which was imposed by the Budget of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer two years ago. There, again, there was a useful fiscal instrument which I am glad to say is bringing in a substantial and increasing revenue for the purposes of carrying on the Government of the country. Those who have read or who have heard the Debates on that Bill will have still fresh in their memories the denunciations made by hon. Members, and made with great energy, of those proposals as having ulterior political objects and as being fiscal only in form, and merely an attempt to alter the distribution of existing burdens.
  708
  If the governing words of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment stood alone, that is "A Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill if in the opinion of the Joint Committee it is in whole or in part political in its character or objects," I submit to the Committee they would really rule out of the category of Money Bill something like three-fourths, if not nine-tenths, of the proposals which from time to time are made by Chancellors of the Exchequer for what is called broadening the basis of taxation and increasing the sources of revenue of the country. Let us see how it goes on. "And in determining that question," that is the governing question, "the Speaker shall have regard to any provision of the Bill which is of such a nature as to bring about social or political changes or to discriminate unjustly between different classes of persons or property." What classes? We were told the other day that in suggesting that the Speaker was the best authority to determine whether a Bill fell within what I hope may be called the simple and lucid terms of our definition, we were casting on his shoulders a burden which no single person ought to be called upon to bear, and that the effect of readjusting any such difference would be to throw him from the position of impartiality and authority which he has for so long occupied into the region of party strife. But consider now the effect of these words: "The Speaker shall have regard to any provision of the Bill which is of such a nature to bring about social or political changes." As I have said, for reasons which I have given, and which I need not repeat, the Speaker would be bound in nine cases out of ten, to say that social or political changes would be the result of the proposals of the Bill. I think he would be almost bound to answer that question in the affirmative, certainly as regards the great majority of cases. As the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, the question he has got to determine is not the intention but the effect of the proposals. That is the duty you are casting upon him. He is to have regard to the effect of any provision of the Bill, which is of such a nature as to bring about social or political changes. So if he comes to the conclusion that the Bill will have the effect of bringing about social or political changes, that is at any rate to be a material consideration, in determining his view as to its object and character.
  But what is still more serious is, he is to examine whether the Bill discriminates

  709
  unjustly between different classes of persons or property. Whence is this criterion "unjustly" to be derived? Who is to judge what is just or unjust? What is the standard of justice or injustice in matters of this kind? The standard, as everybody knows, varies according to the intelligence, the knowledge, the historic sense, the personal predlilections and the political prepossessions of the person who is called upon to judge. We cannot expect the Speaker, or anybody else, to apply, and there is no tribunal that I am aware of which would have to determine a question of this kind, a question of the abstract justice or injustice of financial Clauses which could apply anything in the nature of a settled rule, in determining a matter of this kind in accordance with the judgment and conscience of the great masses of the people. It is an impossible duty which no human tribunal has yet been created capable of discharging. So much for the word "unjustly." Even if that word were omitted and "discriminate" simply were left, the question is whether this legislation discriminates between different classes of persons or property. Every Money Bill discriminates between different classes of persons. Whenever you are imposing a new tax you tax, of necessity, some special subject, and if that taxation is taken by itself pro tanto it discriminates against the particular subject matter in regard to which it is imposed. But here you must contrive such a mathematical regard for equilibrium as between different classes of persons or property, that if you took the various taxes imposed together and added and substracted them with one another, there would be no inclination of the balance upwards or downwards in favour of one or against another class. The justification of our system of taxation—I believe it is a great justification on the whole, though I am far from claiming anything in the nature of ideal perfection for it—is this, that if you take it as a whole, the old taxes and the new, and all the various considerations which enter into their incidence and distribution, on the whole it is not an unfair attempt to establish something in the nature of equality of sacrifice in contributions of various classes of the community to the national expenditure.
  More than that we cannot claim. So much we could not have claimed for it with any approach to probability a very few years ago. It was gradually, I believe—I am not trying now to distribute praise or blame, or apportion credit or discredit
  710
  —it was gradually attained by the efforts of the House of Commons, protracted through two generations, towards something like a rough approximation regarded as a whole to a fairly equal demand or equality of contribution having regard to circumstances and so forth. But there is not a single Budget—not a Budget that at any rate is worth naming, a Budget which really introduced large fiscal changes into our system, which has been passed during those sixty years which, if taken isolated by itself, would satisfy the requirements here suggested, or which, in other words, could not be demonstrated to impose an inequality of taxation on one class of persons or property as compared with another. I might go on giving concrete illustrations in addition to the taxes I have already quoted. The Income Tax itself clearly discriminates, and discriminates in the most marked way, between different classes of persons. It excludes everybody who has an income of £160 a year or less—that is, the vast mass of the community of this country—altogether from its operations. Until recently, until we attempted something in the nature of scientific graduation, it operated most unequally even as between different classes of Income Tax payers. It was not until supplemented by the Super-tax, together with a further development of the principle of graduated taxation, that even as between the class of persons subject to the tax it could be said to approach to anything like equality of sacrifice.
  The same thing is true when you come to the taxation upon commodities. I believe it would be true even if you had the most scientific tariff that could be devised in the world. It has been pointed out over and over again that a man in this country who abstains from tobacco and also from tea practically pays no food tax on commodities at all. You may say that that is a defect in our system if you like. You may say that the basis of our taxation of commodities ought to be much more broad, and the House of Commons, if convinced of the truth of that, would make the necessary changes. But here you have complete control over the Money Bill, which simply imposes taxation on one class of commodities, and refrains from imposing an equivalent taxation on another. The same thing is true with regard to many transactions of life which we find it convenient from the fiscal point of view to make subjects of taxation. Take for instance transfers of property.

  711
  You may have a transfer of real property, a transfer of a commodity or goods, or a transfer of stocks and shares. You find that the taxations imposed on those different transactions are totally different. The same thing is going on. There is a transfer from buyer to seller in all the three cases, but the rate of duty which the State exacts for giving what we might call legal validity to the transaction, and making it recognisable in courts of law, and affectuating it as a transfer of property in accordance with the intentions of the parties concerned varies, for very good reasons, for the convenience of the community. If you are going to apply hard and fast rules like that suggested here, there will be no differentiation between the different classes of persons. That structure also falls to the ground.
  As regards the first part of this proposal, the task imposed would be comparatively easy to perform, because there is hardly any Money Bill which is not political in its character or its object, and it would sweep out of the operation of this first Clause a number of Bills which by universal assent were hitherto always regarded as exclusively within the competence and control of the House of Commons. If you are going to impose on the Speaker the duty of answering the questions which are set out in the second part, you are imposing on him an obligation which no human intelligence is capable of discharging, and you are at the same time requiring, or certainly inviting him, to exclude as outside the operation of this Clause almost all the great fiscal changes which have been made by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer during the last sixty years. Those are arguments which I think are applicable, in substance at any rate, to all the various Clauses on the paper in which the same idea has been presented by other hon. Members. I am therefore obliged on behalf of the Government to say that we cannot accept the Amendment on the paper in any of these shapes. Here again we believe that the real security against abuse is to be found first of all in the action of the House of Commons itself, which a elected by the people, and responsible to the people, and knows their wishes in matters of taxation. Your next and ultimate security is to be found in the power which the electorate do not hesitate to use of visiting their displeasure upon a House of Commons which has abused their confidence. On those
  712
  grounds, on behalf of the Government, I must oppose this Amendment.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has shown a very keen perception of the undoubted difficulties which lie in the way of any attempt to define what is, or is not, properly a Money Bill. I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech in some particulars greatly exaggerated them. The result of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, so far as it is conclusive at all, was conclusive not against my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, but conclusive against the whole of the legislation which he is trying to establish. The right hon. Gentleman argued with great force against the extraordinary difficulty of laying down in a written constitution the relation which ought to exist between the First and Second Chambers in matters of finance. Let me say one word about what is fresh legislation. He told us that in his opinion Tariff Reform, naturally and properly enough, is not a political measure. Tariff Reform, the placing of duties on imports, has never been regarded as outside the domain of finance and inside the domain of politics. Certainly, in regard to the Death Duties, I do not think that either Mr. Gladstone or Sir William Harcourt gave any such definition. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister asked us to look back to the Debates on the Death Duties, and said we would find political arguments, urged by objectors, that they would make a great alteration in the social system of the country. That is quite possible, and I am not sure, also, that it was not true that the effect might be in the long run to modify for good or ill the social fabric of the country. That is possible, but unquestionably that was certainly not the desire of Mr. Gladstone, and it certainly was not the desire of Sir William Harcourt. The Death Duties were for raising revenue, and they never for one moment pretended to aim at distributing property. If they had desired that, and if they had been not merely directed towards getting more money out of the rich and not out of the poor man, but practically directed to making a distribution of property in this country, whether right or wrong, I do not think this House, under the guise of finance, ought to set to work to modify the social fabric of the country, either in a good or bad direction. That is outside finance, and if that is the object of Budgets, either future or past, in so far as

  713
  that is their object they ought to be removed from the special privileges which have surrounded the taxing powers of this House. Anybody who has studied this matter knows perfectly well that the House of Lords would never have given up its privileges, or thought of giving up its privileges in matters of finance if, in the House of Commons, under the guise of finance, you are going to deal with great questions which are strictly and solely social in their essence and in their character. I think the Death Duties are in many respects a bad form of taxation, because they diminish capital and disorganise employment.
  The Super-tax was put on by the Budget of 1909. I personally never attacked the Super-tax on the ground that it was an unfair discrimination—by unfair discrimination I mean discrimination between people of equal property. I do not think that ought to be done deliberately and intentionally on any important scale by the action of this House without some power of supervising the action of this House. But even in the case of the Super-tax the right hon. Gentleman will admit, as everybody will admit, that if, instead of putting a Super-tax of 6d. in the £, you impose a Super-tax of 10s. in the £, that clearly would be a gross and most unfair discrimination, which undoubtedly would be of a most important and far-reaching character. I do not think such taxation ought to be, and it never has been, carried out by this House as a Single Chamber. I am prepared to maintain that proposition on any platform in the kingdom. If you think the House of Lords, because it contains a large number of wealthy individuals—though all the Members of that House are not necessarily wealthy—is not the proper body to revise taxation of that kind, that is a very good reason for reforming the House of Lords; but if you are to give to a Single Chamber not merely the power to raise revenue for the purposes of the country, but to use the instrument of taxation as a great lever for most important social revolutions, that is neither the old doctrine, nor the constitutional doctrine, nor the right doctrine, nor a rational doctrine, nor a doctrine in the least conforming to the constitutional arrangements of any other country. If that is the object of Clause 1, then I think Clause 1 ought to be fundamentally altered. It must be clear to every dispassionate person who has considered the subject that there are gradations between what everybody will admit to be substantially finan-
  714
  cial, and therefore by all means within the competence of this House, and other matters which might have a large financial element but not a substantial financial element, and which dealt with politics or sociology, or whatever you choose to call them, in such a large dose that it is absolutely wrong from every point of view that they should be handed over to a Single Chamber Government, with an unlimited use of this great engine of change. The right hon. Gentleman was on safe ground and on easy ground when he criticised the wording of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment—I do not think it is perfect, and possibly it might be improved—but the right hon. Gentleman, as I have said, had an easy task, which he accomplished with his characteristic skill and dexterity But all we want to know is, how the Government are going to carry out, or propose to carry out, their own view, that "moral tacking," if I may use the phrase, should not be allowed under Clause 1. We have not got alternatives, and I do not believe you will ever get a complete and absolutely satisfactory solution of these difficulties until a certain number of decisions have been come to by Mr. Speaker or by any other tribunal which you set to work. Common sense, I believe, would bring you in that direction, and common sense would really frame a policy on lines which would do away with the danger we are running if we pass these words. That danger would not be that there would be any great inclination on the part of the Speaker or any other tribunal to give the House of Lords or any other Second Chamber great power which it has not hitherto possessed. What they would have set to work to do would be to prevent this House arrogating to itself great powers which this House has hitherto never exercised. That properly ought to be the way.
  I am disposed to think that there were provisions in the Budget of 1909 which were political rather than financial, but that Sir William Harcourt's Death Duties were of that character or that the Death Duties of 1909 were of that character, or that the Super-tax was of that character I absolutely deny. Nor do I believe that any tribunal, whether Mr. Speaker or any other, would say that they were. While I do not assert that the words of my hon. Friend are beyond criticism, I do say that the attitude which the Government have taken up, a convenient attitude for the moment no doubt, is an attitude that cannot stand. If this House is really to erect

  715
  itself into a Single Chamber for dealing with a more or less indefinite number of great social and political proposals by its own unassailed authority over-riding the Second Chamber, however that Second Chamber be constituted, if that is to be done, then I say the revolution which the Government are proposing is even greater and more drastic than I feared. I am the more disappointed in the attitude of the Prime Minister, as I thought I had seen, both in his utterances in this House and in those of some of his colleagues in this House, a clear perception of the danger to which I have adverted, and an earnest desire to so frame words that that danger might be averted. I am afraid the Prime Minister has, at all events for the moment, chosen the easier path by pointing out difficulties and suggesting no way of meeting them. I do not believe it possible that a Clause framed as the Prime Minister says shall permanently stand nor do I believe that the country would ever be disposed to tolerate what no other country tolerates—absolute and unchecked rule of a Single Chamber, not merely over the domain of taxation, but in every adjoining and every adjacent and coterminus province of legislation in which any element of taxation can be found to enter. I shall support the proposal of my hon. Friend. I am perfectly certain, whether his effort is perfect or not, he is working on the right lines, and it is the business of this House to try and frame the Bill so as to avoid those manifest and patent dangers to which even the Government themselves are more or less alive.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The Prime Minister in his reply to me used a very convenient forensic device. He assumed agreement between the two sides of the House, and, having assumed that agreement, he ha" made it the basis of his further argument. He has said we have passed a Sub-section defining a Money Bill, and that this proposal runs entirely contrary to it, and that if this be accepted it will vitiate the effect of all that has gone before it. "Therefore," he says, "we cannot accept this Amendment, because we should be stultifying our former action" Of course we do not admit this agreement. We dispute his promises. We say that in so far as his argument follows that it does not reflect on what has already been passed. Let me give an example. He says, "What a burden you put on the Speaker of the House of Commons." Who put that burden, and
  716
  who suggested the Speaker? It was the Government. They put it in their Bill. We tried last week to the best of our power to take away from Mr. Speaker this burden that the Government sought to throw upon him. We were unsuccessful, and now the right hon. Gentleman says look at what an insupportable burden you are putting on him. We are only doing that which would make the Bill run in consonance with what has been already passed. If the right hon. Gentleman will say that he will set up some other tribunal in place of Mr. Speaker we will cut him out of it. It is an impossible burden we all agree, for a duty is put upon him such as no man will be able to bear, and such as no man ought to be asked to bear, and such as no man will be able to bear without lowering his own position and that of the Assembly over which he presides. This particular work that the Amendment throws on Mr. Speaker undoubtedly is more than one can bear, but so is the burden imposed by the Government.
  What has been the argument of the Government and of the right hon. Gentleman throughout this long controversy for the sole control of this House over Money Bills. It has been in substance, and this is really the pith and pivot of the whole controversy, that unless you give this House full control over the Supplies and over the Ways and Means of the year the Government of the day will be dependent on two Houses instead of one to carry on the executive and all the great International burdens, treaties and obligations to foreign countries, and that the position of the Army and Navy will be subject to the caprice not of one House but of two. That is a good argument for showing that ordinary taxation and ordinary Supplies should be kept to this one House, but when you are dealing with new changes, and considering new projects, that argument falls to the ground. By all means, if you want merely to include taxes and Appropriation and Supply, depend on this House, but when you are putting forward a new plan which, whether under your intention or not, brings forth vast social and political changes then I say it may be good or bad, but it ought to be revised, and this House ought not to have the supreme voice. I care not what the intention of the Government may be, whether it be merely to bring about vast political changes or to raise revenue, if the effect will be to bring about political changes there ought to be some power to check them, and all the constitutional

  717
  talk about Aid and Supply and Ways and Means of the year falls to the ground. It is not in the same category. It is true that Ways and Means of the year in the ordinary course ought to be in the dispensation of this House, but if a revolution is to be brought about let the people approve of the revolution before it is carried over their heads. That is our point. Whether the financial proposals are good or bad is not the case we take in this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Budget of 1853 and that of 1894 brought about great political changes as well as financial. If there are political changes then the whole machinery of the two Houses, which you still wish to maintain, ought to have full play in order that, what, after all, is the end and object of all legislation should be attained, namely, that that should be passed which is really wanted by the people and not only what this House thinks is wanted by the people. That is our whole case, not only in support of this Amendment, but against Clause 1 as a whole.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulty of any tribunal, let alone Mr. Speaker, judging upon such difficult questions as are suggested by this Amendment. I admit that it is very difficult for one man—it is difficult enough for any tribunal—but the American people had exactly the same difficulty to face, and they have solved it. When you begin to write your Constitution you will be driven sooner or later by force of circumstances to set up some tribunal that will solve the very questions indicated in this Amendment. I think it is the Eighth Article of the American Constitution which says that taxation shall be uniform. That provision raises in substance all the questions under this Amendment. It was established in the first instance no doubt to guard the liberties of individual separate States of the Union against a majority of States combining and crushing out a weaker. But in its interpretation and extension, and in the way it has become part of the spirit as well as of the letter of the American Constitution, it operates to ensure substantial justice not only as between State and State but as between individual and individual. It is not only part of the Federal Constitution, but in one form or another it has become part of almost all the Constitutions of the Union. There have been some interesting decisions under that Article. For instance, discriminatory taxation against
  718
  negroes was attempted in one State. That was held to be unconstitutional and illegal. It was proposed in another State to put on a prohibitory duty, not against licence-holders as such, but against anybody occupying licensed premises—a kind of super-tax on licence-holders. That was voted to be unconstitutional. All sorts of fancy franchises have been decided to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Courts of different States, and in some instances by the Supreme Court of the United States itself. There is one test case in which the language used is so relevant to this discussion that it is worth quoting. It is in the case of Knowlton versus the Supervisors of Rock County, decided by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. The argument of those who wished to impose the tax (according to the judges) was this:—
  "You shall not discriminate between single individuals or corporations, but you may divide the citizens up into different classes, as the followers of different trades, professions, or kinds of business, or as the owners of different species or descriptions of property, and legislate for one class, and against another, as much as you please, provided yon serve all of the favoured or unfavoured classes alike."
  But the judges said that this would afford
  "a direct and solemn constitutional sanction to a system of taxation so manifestly and grossly unjust that it will not find an apologist anywhere, at least outside of those who are the recipients of its favour."
  Therefore they set it aside. That is exactly the kind of case we have in mind in proposing this Amendment—an unjust tax proposed under the form of ordinary taxation, but intended to operate, or at any rate operating for one class as against another. We say that that ought not to be done under the guise of a Money Bill, and that some tribunal ought to determine whether the incidence of any tax is such as to operate unjustly in this way. You say that the tribunal to determine such questions must foe the Speaker; therefore in this Amendment we adopt the Speaker. We admit that it is a most unsatisfactory tribunal, and we think there ought to be another and a better one. We cannot argue now what that tribunal ought to be. For my own part I think it ought to be the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There can be such a tribunal; such a tribunal has worked in America; and such a tribunal ought to exist here.
  There is a certain difficulty about the Amendment because it raises two different questions. One is whether a Money Bill would be in part political in its character and objects, and the other is whether it

  719
  would discriminate unjustly between different classes of persons or property. These objects may overlap, but they are not necessarily the same. Therefore I suggest it would be better that they should be treated separately, and that the Amendment should be so amended that the Clause would read, "a Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill if in the opinion of the Speaker it is of such a nature as to discriminate unjustly (or un-equally') between different classes of persons or property." It would perhaps be most convenient if, without complicating the technical issue about the subsequent words, I moved to leave out the words "in whole or in part, political in its character or objects, and in determining that question."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The Amendment has already been discussed as a whole for some time, and I shall not be in a position to permit a second general discussion. But if the hon. Member desires it, I will put the Amendment to the Amendment.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I understand that the effect of moving to amend the Amendment would be to limit the discussion in the first instance, and that it might not be possible to renew it in its broader aspects. If that is so, I will not press the Amendment. I wanted to point out, however, that the argument of the Prime Minister as to the difficulty of deciding whether a Bill was social or political in its object did not apply to the last part as to unjust discrimination, that being a problem which has been successfully faced in other countries.
  Sir R. FINLAY: I cannot agree with a great deal of the criticism passed upon this Amendment by the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend appears to have suggested a good working definition, under which the Speaker would have no difficulty in giving a series of decisions which would help (o clear the air and to define how far the uncontrolled authority of this House was intended to go. But I do not for a moment say that the terms of the suggested definition are not capable of improvement.
  I think it very possible indeed that Amendments might be suggested. But the speech of the Prime Minister, while it abounded in criticisms, made not a single suggestion with a view
  720
  to improving the definition which was attacked. On the contrary, the whole tone of the Prime Minister's speech was that any definition of this kind was impossible. That was what the Prime Minister's speech meant. If the Prime Minister was successful in establishing that, he condemns Clause 1 altogether. How is it that things have worked so well between the two Houses in the past in matters of finance? It is, as long ago pointed out by Mr. Gladstone, because the privileges of the Lords had been useful for that purpose of preventing "tacking"; and it was for the purpose of preventing tacking that the Lords insisted from time to time upon the full breadth of their privileges. But merely to prevent what is from the point of view of a lawyer tacking, legal tacking, is not enough. That has been defined as introducing into your Money Bill something which is alien to its scope. That may be defined and may be dealt with. But the privileges of the Lords have been valuable in preventing that which, though it was not legal tacking, was in spirit and in essence tacking—taxation, provisions of a financial nature, introduced not for financial objects, but for other objects altogether. As long as the privileges of the Lords continued to exist, you have security against abuses of that kind. Now you propose to abolish these privileges, and you say it is impossible to put; anything in their place: it is impossible to provide any security against what is moral tacking, though legally it may not be so.
  If that be impossible, if the Prime Minister was successful in the task he set himself to establish, then it is sufficient condemnation of Clause 1 which in this matter proposes to do away with the privileges of the House of Lords. I really do not intend to enter into the argument as to whether Clause 1 alters the law. Nothing will prevent the Prime Minister from repealing that it does not alter the law. But I lake it, it is as clear as any proposition in constitutional law can be that there is no shred of excuse for asserting that the law at present is as Clause 1 would make it. The only thing that the advocates for that view found themselves upon is that for a good many years, ever since the financial measures of the year were embodied in one Bill, the Lords have not found any occasion grave enough to justify them in exerting a power which it was admitted legally they had and which I say constitutionally they had. Until the Budget of 1909 they took that view.

  721
  It is a fact that by combining measures into one Bill you made it difficult for the Lords to exercise their rights, and the fact that the Lords, until an adequate occasion arose, did not exert the right they had is no justification whatever for the statements which have been scattered over the country and repeated over and over again in this House that the privileges of the House of Lords in this matter do not exist. I desire to point out the state into which the Committee is getting in regard to this matter. We have been told that a Bill for the payment of Members would be a Money Bill, which the Lords could not touch, and which might be passed over their heads. We were told that by the Prime Minister. We have been told by the Attorney-General that a Bill providing for free education would not be a Money Bill, and that the Lords would be entitled to amend it. It is not very easy to reconcile these two statements. Possibly the Attorney-General will exert his great powers in showing that he and the Prime Minister are both right in this matter. To the ordinary man it appears that both cannot possibly be right. One may be right, but not both! But there is no end to the ramifications which these questions of policy, as applied to Money Bills, may raise.
  Let us go back to the question which is familiar to students of our constitutional history, the question of introducing a standing Army into this country, and the provision of money for the purpose of paying that standing Army. According to this new made constitutional law, if such a Bill had been introduced and passed through the House of Commons, the House of Lords could not have touched it, because it was a measure of a financial character. You have a great question of policy. The measure is in its scope political, yet because it is clothed in a financial shape we are told that the Second Chamber cannot touch it. All I can say is that if the Prime Minister has established that any safeguards against such abuses are impossible he has condemned this Clause. I need only refer to one thing said by the Prime Minister in a speech which he made in London on 11th December, 1908, with regard to the scope of financial measures. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "Finance is an instrument of great potency and also of great flexibility: and it may be found to be, in some directions at any rate, a partial solvent of what, under our existing constitutional conditions, would otherwise be insoluble problems."
  If those words do not mean that measures might be put in the guise of financial
  722
  measures, and might thereby be rendered more difficult for the House of Lords to deal with, than would have been the case if they had been put in their proper shape, the words have no meaning at all! "Finance, an instrument of great potency, also of great flexibility, the convenient solvent of insoluble problems!" [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members below the Gangway cheer that sentence. It is to no purpose that the Prime Minister appeals to what has been the practice in the past when the country had afforded the protection of the Second Chamber. What has been the practice in the past is no guide to what will be the practice in the future. No man and no body of men is fit to be entrusted with absolute power. This Bill proposes to entrust this House with absolute and uncontrolled power, not only in regard to financial measures proper, but with regard to other measures involving great questions of policy which can be made to assume a financial shape. What will be the practice of this House when hon. Members below the Gangway, who cheer that sentence which I quoted from the Prime Minister, have their way? What will happen when we have financial measures introduced in accordance with the views which those hon. Gentlemen hold, and we see, and see too late, that we have parted with the security which we enjoyed against such great questions of policy being summarily decided without the country being consulted upon the matter?
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: The refusal of the Government to accept the extremely moderate Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend seems to me to be very significant. The Amendment simply asks the Government to give an explicit undertaking that they would not load the dice. They have frankly and specifically refused. Is the request of the Amendment unreasonable? What guarantee have we really that the system of incorporating political matters in the finance of the year will not form a part of the deliberate policy of the Government in the future? After all, there is nothing in this Clause to prevent it. Having once tasted of the advantages of "tacking," the Government are not likely to renounce the habit. Does anyone really suppose at the present day that the Budget of 1909 was purely finance. The junior Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), for instance, does not think so. He assured us in 1909 that he supported the Budget not

  723
  merely because it was a just measure of taxation, but because it was—
  "The first step towards the beginning of the end."
  Does the Government really think the Budget of 1909 was pure finance? One of its most important Members has confessed to the contrary. It is not the first time the Home Secretary has given his colleagues away. The Home Secretary in this House said:—
  "The Land Taxes have other objects besides the mere provision of revenue."
  The first step has been taken, the second step is foreshadowed in this Clause. After all, I do not think the Government used the word "incidental" that he who runs may read; they let the cat out of the bag lay deliberately refusing every check. The word "incidental," like charity, covers a multitude of sins. We shall have a perfect orgy of quasi-financial measures set out in some crude scheme, smuggled through a Single Chamber by being made incidental to the finances of the year. There is no measure that could not be constructed so as to be dragged into finance by the head and shoulders. No provision of that sort, therefore, should be withdrawn by any measure of legislature from the House of Lords. I am surprised the Government make a sham of retaining the Second Chamber, except that, of course, it forms a convenient backwater for the support of some section of their party.
  In the past some little regard was paid to our constitutional provisions, but what do the present Government care about constitutional practice; they regard it merely as a hindrance, as a millstone about their necks. They want to be able to carry through at a run what they know perfectly well would never stand a chance after full and fair public discussion in both Houses. We have already got a foretaste of what we may expect in the Budget of 1909. I should like to know how many political forms were embedded in that conglomerate financial legislation. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not a few; according to his followers it was a social revolution, the beginning of a new era, the introduction of a new financial policy. The Lord Advocate said, in his celebrated Berwick speech in 1909, widely quoted throughout the country:—
  "The Budget was remarkable for the reason that it marked in a sense a great era of legislation. It was remarkable because now for the first time m the history of the country, the Government deliberately determined to carry forward a great series of social reform."
  724
  The Lord Advocate spoke the unvarnished truth on that occasion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in this House:—
  "We have stated for the first time it is the business of the officials of a great Empire, not merely to seek out taxes, but to seek out those who stand in need of help from the Empire. That is the first principle embodied in this Budget, and it is embodied for the first time in any Bill produced in the Imperial Parliament."
  9.0 P.M.
  It appears this policy is now going to be carried further afield. What really is there to prevent the Government from nullifying the Act of Union, from confiscating the Temporalities of the Church by bringing up all these changes in a Money Bill? The present Chancellor of the Exchequer is nothing if he is not ingenious. His fertility of ideas, his stock of Celtic imagination will see finance in everything. The question of Home Rule for Ireland and the Temporalities of the Church involve financial consideration, and bristle with pecuniary difficulties. If ever there were two issues which so far as the major parts of them might be made incidental to finance, and which could at any rate be put into the four corners of a Money Bill, these are they. I recommend the Government's policy to the Irish party, but I expect they have already noted this advantage, For some time I have marvelled that they have remained so docile under the stipulation of three Sessions or two years of controversy which a Home Rule Bill would produce. Why should they wait for two years of destructive criticism? Of course they need not. Let the Government compress the main scheme of their Irish proposals into some omnibus Money Bill, and the Irish party will get what they want in two months. The Irish Financial Committee has already been appointed, and the result of its secret labour will doubtless be a Money Bill for Ireland.
  This seems to me to be the most dangerous and dishonest Clause of the Bill. The Government regard it as uncontroversial; with the exception of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) hon. Members opposite have hardly opened their mouths. It is as it they were muzzled for fear of giving anything away, but the trick has been exposed in spite of their silence, and I hope everything will be done to continue to expose it. The Amendment of my hon. Friend is a step in the right direction, and I shall certainly support it.
  Mr. BUTCHER: The argument deliberately used earlier in the evening by the Prime Minister constitutes the most damning condemnation of this whole Clause,

  725
  because it shows that if his contention is correct, that under the guise of a Money Bill you may introduce Bills of the most far-reaching character, including measures which are not partly financial but far from purely financial, and they will be carried into law over the heads of the Second Chamber. He tried to prove that you may have a Bill wholly political in character, but provided it is a Money Bill it is to come under this Clause, and he endeavoured to prove that if you have a Bill that will bring about great social and political changes, and discriminate unjustly between different classes of property, it is a Money Bill and ought to be passed into law without the consent of the Second Chamber. I wish to contrast that attitude of the Prime Minister to-day with the far more reasonable and justifiable attitude he took up the other day in the debate. On 11th April last, speaking about Bills which are to be Money Bills under the Clause, he said this:—
  "We are dealing here with Bills which are financial Bills in the strict literal and full sense of the term, and the test that a Bill is a financial Bill or not is whether this is its main governing purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1911, col. 258.]
  That is the test he applies, yet now he tells us that a Bill which is wholly political is a Money Bill. How is that to be reconciled? The right hon. Gentleman will not accept our Amendments because he says, though a Bill may be really political it may be a Money Bill. These words of the Prime Minister suggest an amendment of this Clause which would certainly not be open to the verbal criticism directed against the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. Let me read to the Attorney-General words which I venture to think would not be open to the objection of the Prime Minister:—
  "A Bill shall not be dealt with as a Money Bill under this Section if in the opinion of the Speaker its main governing purpose is political or social, and its financial provisions are subordinate to that purpose."
  Can anyone suggest that a Bill of that kind ought to be deemed to be a Money Bill. I do not think even the Attorney-General will suggest that the Bill whose main governing purpose is political or social can be called a Money Bill.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): Would Tariff Reform be political or financial?
  Mr. BUTCHER: In the case of payment of Members its main governing pur-
  726
  pose is political or social. Its real purpose is not to put a few sovereigns in the pockets of hon. Members, but to enable men to get into this House easier than at the present time. Payment of Members is intended to enable different classes of men to be represented in this House. Whether that is right or wrong I am not arguing now, because it is a political or a social purpose. Whether Tariff Reform has for its main governing purpose a political or social object I do not think it is necessary for me to discuss at this moment, although I am prepared to do so if it is in order. I think the main purpose of Tariff Reform is financial and not political. I am asking the Attorney-General to accept the view that if the main governing purpose of a Bill is political or social, and its financial provisions are subordinate to that purpose, it should not be considered a Money Bill under this Clause. If the Attorney-General says he desires a Bill, the main purpose of which is political to be considered as a Money Bill, then I can understand him, but I do not think he will go so far as that. If he does not go so far, then I cannot conceive why he does not accept the words which have been suggested. I think we are entitled to have some better reason why the Government cannot accept cither this Amendment or the words which I have suggested.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: This Amendment has been moved in order to elicit an opinion from the Government in regard to the tribunal to decide whether the governing principle of the Bill is financial or political. The right hon. Gentleman opposite entirely objects to placing in the hands of Mr. Speaker the question of deciding whether the governing or preponderating principle in a Bill is financial or political. The Attorney-General has asked whether a Tariff Reform Bill is financial or political, but I think that is beside the point. We are proposing an Amendment under which these Bills will be placed before the Speaker, who will decide whether they are financial or political. It is not for my hon. Friend or for myself to give an opinion whether a Bill is political or financial. We may have a difference of opinion upon that point, but the attitude which the Government have taken up in respect to this Amendment, shows to my mind the entire hollowness of the position. In years to come there will be no political Bills whatsoever. When there is a difference of opinion as to whether a Bill comes under the category of

  727
  those to be passed in a month or in two years, I cannot believe that any Government will be so foolish as not to wrap up every Bill they bring in as a Money Bill in order that it may be passed in a month. Under the proposal of the Government it is possible to bring in a measure to disestablish the Church and call it a Finance Bill measure. Then there would be no need to go to the other House with that measure for more than a month.
  As a case in point, we only need to go back to the Budget of 1909. I do not know whether the Attorney-General agrees with me that all the provisions contained in the 1909 Budget were not entirely financial. May I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to some words used by a colleague of his with regard to the licensing proposals under the Budget of 1909, in which it was stated that the licensed trade would do well to remember that if they did not accept the Licensing Bill they would probably fall out of the frying pan into the fire. Hon. Members below the Gangway would rather have no Second Chamber at all, but the Government did not take up that attitude. We have been told in the Preamble to this Bill that the Government are desirous of reforming the Second Chamber. One of the objects of this Bill is that measures which can be called financial should be removed from the jurisdiction of the House of Lords. Under this Bill it will be possible to bring in any sort of measure and call it financial, and then it will be removed from the power of the House of Lords. The Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend sets up the definite tribunal to settle when a measure is brought into this House whether its main purpose is a political or a financial one. The Prime Minister went so far as to say that most Bills have some political significance. The Government acknowledge that when a Bill has a political significance a period of two years should be allowed to elapse, and that the House of Lords should have the power to reject it on two occasions, because it has a political significance. Nearly every Bill has a political significance. The Prime Minister also admits that a Second Chamber is a good thing. Under these circumstances I think the Speaker of the House of Commons should have the right to say whether a Bill is financial or whether it has a political significance. I think the Amendment requires a little more consideration than has been given to it by the Prime Minister.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: The contention has been put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the House of Lords has had power to revise Finance Bills in the past. That argument can be disputed by one striking incident which took place in 1861, when a severe struggle took place between the House of Lords and this House on the question of the Paper Duties. If the House of Lords had the power to revise and prevent measures passing through that House dealing with the transference of indirect taxation to direct taxation, I venture to say the incident which I am about to recite would not have taken place. The point raised in this Amendment with regard to taxation upon different classes of property was raised in 1860–61, and in 1861 Lord Palmerston wrote a very important letter to the Queen, which you will find in the recent volume of the Queen's Letters, and he stated that Lord Malmesbury had called upon him and said he was charged by Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli with a message similar to the one conveyed last year—namely, that if Mr. Gladstone were to prepare a democratic Budget, making a great transfer of burdens from indirect to direct taxation, and if the Cabinet refused its concurrence and Mr. Gladstone were to retire, the Conservative party would give the Government substantial support. Lord Palmerston thanked Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli for their handsome communication. If the House of Lords had the power to re vise a Money Bill or a Finance Bill, why should Lord Derby, who was the Leader of that House on that occasion, promise Lord Palmerston that if Mr. Gladstone retired they would give substantial support to the Government? Where was that substantial support to be given? It was to be given in this House, and the votes of the Conservative party were to be transferred to Lord Palmerston's Government if Lord Palmerston defied and conquered Mr. Gladstone in the dispute which took place between him and Mr. Gladstone at that period. If the House of Lords had had the power to revise these Finance Bills, that communication would never have been made to Lord Palmerston. Lord Derby would have revised the Bill itself in the House of Lords. When the House of Lords threw out the Paper Duties Bill Mr. Gladstone read a statement to the Cabinet, in which he said:—
  "The fiscal consideration is nothing compared to the vital importance of maintaining the exclusive rights of the House of Commons in matters of Supply. It may be said they are wise and would not interfere in the future. Assuming they will be wise, yet I for one am

  729
  not willing the House of Commons should hold on sufferance in the 19th Century what it won in the 17th, and confirmed and enlarged in the 18th."
  That is a conclusive statement that Mr. Gladstone did not believe the House of Lords had the power to reject a Finance Bill sent up by the House of Commons, and it is upon record that Mr. Gladstone, in the year 1860, when he had that contention with Lord Palmerston over the action of the House of Lords and when Lord Palmerston was rather apologetic, tendered his resignation, which Lord Palmerston refused to accept, rather than he would acquiesce in the action of the Government. These facts are very well known to anybody who has studied Lord Morley's Life of Mr. Gladstone. Let mo point out an important fact with regard to Mr. Speaker. It is well known to those who have read the Diary of Speaker Dennison that when the House of Lords rejected the Paper Duties Bill of 1860, Mr. Gladstone consulted Speaker Dennison, and Speaker Dennison was the person and no other who was the cause of Mr. Gladstone bringing ill his Budget of 1861, when he introduced the whole of his Resolutions into one Bill. You will find in the Diary of Speaker Dennison that he pointed out it had grown to be the custom up to that period, when remission of taxation was proposed, for the Bill to be brought in and to be sent up to the House of Lords without being based upon a Resolution of the Committee in Ways and Means, and Speaker Dennison was the adviser to Mr. Gladstone when this important change took place. He cited four precedents—one in 1766, another in 1777—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): This would arise more directly on the Clause than on this Amendment. The hon. Member is going beyond the scope of the Amendment.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I think the point was raised by one or two of the previous Speakers, and I wanted to show that the Speaker in 1861 was really the author of the change with regard to including all Resolutions in one Bill. I wanted to place on record that it is unfair to state Mr. Gladstone was in favour of the House of Lords having the power or that he ever stated the House of Lords had the power to revise or reject Finance Bills. Mr. Gladstone at that period fought a fight in the interests of the right of this House to have control over the Finance Bill, and it is upon record in his "Life" and in the Debates of this House.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know whether it is unfair to state that Mr. Gladstone, in 1860 or 1861, said the House of Lords had the power to amend or revise, but whether it is unfair or not, it is a fact. Mr. Gladstone did state, at the actual time when he was having a quarrel with the House of Lords, that that House had the power, not only to reject, but to revise. A quotation to that effect was read out by my hon. and learned Friend who moved this Amendment only three or four nights ago. I have it here. I had not intended to read it again, but as the hon. Member opposite dissents from this view, I will repeat it. The hon. Member has taken such great interest in this Debate—in that he is singular—that he ought to be encouraged, and I do not think he should be allowed to go home with a wrong impression. Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons, on 16th May, 1881, said:—
  "It is said on all hands that the House of Lords do not claim the power of Amendment. That is commonly stated but it is not literally true. The House of Lords has never given this 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, 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."
  Here we have Mr. Gladstone, as long ago as 1861, foreseeing that the hon. Member would claim that a particular party should have the power to take certain measures away from revision by the Second Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman told us then that the House never gave up the power, cither to amend or reject, and that he did not think they ought to do so. I fancy I have disposed of the hon. Member's statement on this point. It may be unfair to say that Mr. Gladstone did not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the question is, what Mr. Gladstone actually said, and one cannot do better than give his own words. With regard to the other part of the hon. Gentleman's speech I congratulate him on having had the courage to do as he did. He seems to have been angry with Lord Derby for having opposed Lord Palmerston.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I was not angry. I simply stated an historical fact.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know why the hon. Member brought it forward, unless he intended to dispute the action of Lord Derby. May I say it only showed that in those days, as now, the Conservative party were prepared to put country above power, and to co-operate with hon.

  731
  Gentlemen opposite if they thought they were right. We are prepared to do it now. We think more of the country than of party advantage. I want to answer a question which was addressed by the Attorney-General to the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher). The Attorney-General thought he had scored a point when he exclaimed, "What about Tariff Reform? Is it financial or social? "My reply is that Tariff Reform is both. It will add to the finances of the country, and it will benefit the social part of the country by giving more employment. Occupying as I do a very humble position on this side of the House, I venture to say that anyone is mistaken who thinks we would object to Tariff Reform being referred to any other Chamber, whether it is the Upper Chamber as now constituted, or as it will be if the Preamble of this Bill is carried, which I think is rather doubtful. I should like to say a few words on the question of the Amendment. The Home Secretary, I notice, greets that statement with a derisive cheer—a cheer which, at any rate, is not meant to be encouraging. But may I point out to the right hon. Gentleman it has always been the custom in this House to answer arguments advanced on the other side. I have been endeavouring to do that. I admit that the arguments were feeble, but at the same time I consider that they were worth answering because arguments are so seldom advanced by hon. Members opposite. The only argument we have to face from the other side is the vote in the Lobby, and when arguments, however feeble, are put forward, it is only right that we should reply to them. This Amendment is really one of the most important Amendments which has been advanced. I regret that the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Sir Albert Spicer) is not in his place at this moment. He told us he had been at great pains to explain the Parliament Bill to his constituents, and that they, thoroughly understanding it, had returned him to pass it as it was. I should like to ask him whether he explained to them that a Money Bill did not really, in his view and in the view of the Government, constitute a Bill dealing with taxation, when it dealt with a political or social question, and that by no ingenuity in such circumstances could it be termed a Money Bill. I happen to have an extract from a letter written by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a paper called "The Nation."
  732
  I do not often read that paper myself; I daresay it is a very good paper. In that letter the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "A proposal, or rather a series of proposals, which embodies much of the Liberal plan for dealing with the social problems which confront statesmanship throughout the world. The new State valuation must be the basis of all plans of communal purchase. On this basis, municipalities ought to buy the land which is essential to the development of their towns. And the State would also buy up the land necessary to the policy of recreating rural life in England."
  I can quite understand hon. Members opposite getting up and saying that their idea is to abolish the Second Chamber altogether, but if they are going to bring in a Bill which, by jerrymandering, will enable them, by tacking upon financial proposals other proposals which deal with property and social rights throughout the country, to do that, I am prepared to argue that that is wrong. At the same time, I respect a Member who gets up and says straight that that is his idea. But when an hon. Member says his desire is solely to maintain the old idea that the House of Lords must not interfere with a Money Bill, I reply that it is nothing of the sort. If the Government were sincere in the statement that that is all they want to do, they would accept the Amendment of my hon Friend, because all that Amendment proposes is to prevent tacking. Are we or are we not in favour of tacking? I myself think that if anyone desires to abolish the Second Chamber he should have the courage to say so. If, on the other hand, we desire to keep a Second Chamber, we ought to see that the provisions of Clause 2, which will be dealt with hereafter, are not changed, and that clause nullified by so enlarging the provisions of Clause 1 as to give the Government power to pass any measure they like and call it a Money Bill or include it under the head of financial proposals. It must be remembered that these social proposals of which we hear so much are bound to be financial proposals, because without money you cannot do much. This Amendment does not in any way vitiate the principle that this House shall be supreme in money matters, all it says is, that if a proposal involves political or social considerations it shall not come under this Clause. I hope the country will note what is taking place at the present moment. Nothing could be clearer than that the intention of the Government is that they shall so manipulate this particular Bill when it has become law—if it ever does become law—that anything they desire to do they shall be able to do without any revision by a Second Chamber. That

  733
  is a simple statement of fact, and I do not think there is anybody who has the courage to get up and contradict it. If that is so the sooner the Government get up and say they do not desire a Second Chamber and that all the wisdom rests in this House, which ought to be the arbiter of the destinies of the country, the better. I do not agree with them, although I shall respect their honesty; but at the present moment—I do not say it offensively—I believe they are endeavouring to bring about a state of affairs which shall give to this House absolute supremacy in everything, while they are leading the country to be
  lieve that what they desire is to give supremacy to this House on money questions as we have always considered them till within a year or two ago. I shall have very much pleasure in voting for the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (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, 181; Noes, 116.

  Division No. 140.]

  AYES.

  [9.40 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Hancock, J. G.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Adamson, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Alden, Percy

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Radford, G. H.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Henry, Sir Charles Solomon

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Barton, W.

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Hughes, S. L.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Johnson, W.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Boland, John Pius

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Bowerman, C. W.

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

  Rowlands, James

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Joyce, Michael

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Brace, William

  Keating, M.

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

  Brigs, Sir John

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Sheehy, David

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Shortt, Edward

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Byles, William Pollard

  Logan, John William

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Snowden, P.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lundon, T.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Clough, William

  Lynch, A. A.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Summers, James Wooley

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Maclean, Donald

  Sutton, John E.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Crooks, William

  Marks, George Croydon

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Cullinan, John

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Toulmin, George

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Meagher, Michael

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Dawes, J. A.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Delany, William

  Middlebrook, William

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Millar, James Duncan

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Dillon, John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Doris, William

  Mooney, J. J.

  Webb, H.

  Duffy, William J.

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Essex, Richard Walter

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Falconer, J.

  Ogden, Fred

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Grady, James

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Ferens, T. R.

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

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  O'Malley, William

  Fitzgibbon, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  NOES.

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mount, William Arthur

  Aitken, William Max.

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  Ashley, W. W.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Perkins, Waiter F.

  Baring, Captain Hon. G.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barnston, H.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Karris, Henry Percy

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Rice, Hon. W.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Hills, J. W.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hohler, G. F.

  Royds, Edmund

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Butcher, J. G. (York)

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Campion, W. R.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter

  Starkey, John B.

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Kerry, Earl of

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Cassel, Felix

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Swift, Rigby

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Thynns, Lord Alexander

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

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

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lewisham, viscount

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Crichton-Start, Lord Ninian

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Croft, Henry Page

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

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

  Dixon, C. H.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 121; Noes, 183.

  Division No. 141.]

  AYES.

  [9.50 p.m.

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

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Aitken, William Max.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Astor, Waldorf

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fisher, W. Hayes

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Baring, Capt. Hon. Guy Victor

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Barnston, Harry

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Grant, James Augustus

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Burn, Colonel C R.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

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

  Campion, W. R.

  Hills, John Waller

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Carlile, Edward Mildred

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Cassel, Felix

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hope James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Kerry, Earl of

  Royds, Edmund

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Salter-, Arthur Clavell

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Croft, Henry Page

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

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

  Stanier, Beville

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Wood, John Stalybridge

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Worthinglon-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Swift, Rigby

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

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Winterton, Earl

  Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A (Rotherham)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Adamson, William

  Hancock, John George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Alden, Percy

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Barnes, George N.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rea, Russell (South Shields)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Barton, William

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Roberts, George (Norwich)

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

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Johnson, William

  Robinson, Sidney

  Boland, John Plus

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Bowerman, Charles W.

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

  Rowlands, James

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Joyce, Michael

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Brace, William

  Keating, Matthew

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

  Brigg, Sir John

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sheehy, David

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shortt, Edward

  Byles, William Pollard

  Logan, John William

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Snowden, Philip

  Clough, William

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Clynes, John R.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Maclean, Donald

  Summers, James Woolley

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sutton, John E.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Tennant, Harold John

  Crooks, William

  Marks, George Croydon

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Cullinan, John

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Meagher, Michael

  Toulmin, George

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

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Delany, William

  Middlebrook, William

  Verncy, Sir H.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Millar, James Duncan

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs Ince)

  Dillon, John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Doris, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Duffy, William J.

  Morrell, Philip

  Webb, H.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. master of

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Falconer, James

  Ogden, Fred

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Grady, James

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasonw)

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  O'Malley, William

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Lord HUGH CECIL: I have handed in an Amendment in manuscript and I submit that it ought to be discussed now, the more so as I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield asked whether an Amendment to the Amendment could be moved when the Closure was moved. Therefore, I submit that as part
  738
  of the rights of the minority, of which the Chair is guardian, I am entitled to move this Amendment at the present stage.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): I do not think that the Noble Lord's Amendment is in order. I am informed that the Deputy-Chairman ruled that it could not

  739
  be moved as a separate proposition. The Noble Lord's Amendment seems to me to be entirely covered by the discussion we have just had.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I submit that the speech made by the Prime Minister precisely did not affect my Amendment, though it did affect the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister's speech evidently regulated the whole discussion. It was really the only important speech made against the Amendment, and therefore an Amendment which is not obnoxious to his criticism and which raises a new point ought to be submitted to the judgment of the Committee.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment which we have just negatived says:—
  "A Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill if it is in whole or in part political in its character or objects. …"
  The Amendment to the Amendment is to insert the words "unless in the opinion of the Speaker its main purpose is political or social." I certainly could not allow that to be moved. The next Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Wigan.
  Mr. NEVILLE: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to add:—
  "(4) A Bill shall not be deemed a Money Bill unless each of the objects for which a charge is proposed to be imposed on the people is specifically stated in such Bill, and unless each of such objects has, before the introduction of such Bill, been already sanctioned by an Act of Parliament."
  10.0 P.M.
  I hope I shall be able, as shortly as possible, to put before the Committee the views which are embodied in this Amendment. As a new Member, I speak with the greatest possible diffidence in matters of finance, but I recognise that as representatives of the people, Conservatives, Liberals, and people of all shades, our object in this House should be to obtain, as far as possible, a workable Bill which will do the work of the country for a long series of years until there has been such a change in the political atmosphere as will justify further change. It is solely with the view of adopting what I may call the moderate view of the situation, and looking at the future, not from the party point of view, but from the point of view
  740
  of the people, from whom the Constitution exists, that I move the Amendment. I take it that it is agreed on all hands, and particularly by the Government, that it is desired that this House should not encroach upon the privileges of the other House.
  I think it has been admitted by every speaker on the Government side that tacking is intended to be avoided. If that is the honest opinion and desire of the House, as I have no doubt it is, then what we have to do as representing the people of this country, and not any particular party, is to see if we can by any form of words arrange that there should be as little source of friction as we can humanly arrange for. What we have to do is to see if we can introduce any words which will lighten the burden of the appointed arbitrator under this Bill. Everybody must admit that, however capable and impartial our Speakers are, and they are both capable and impartial, it is a great burden for any man to have placed upon his shoulders the duty which this Bill imposes, and particularly is it a burden when, as happens in this House of Commons, the largest party numerically in the House is the party which has no power in the shaping of the legislation of the country. What I desire to do is, if possible, to relieve the Speaker from those difficulties which are inseparable from his position and to prevent him being persuaded, under what one of the most noted Speakers of this House, 200 years ago, stated was a maxim, namely, that it was the function of a good judge to amplify his jurisdiction. That, of course, also applies to an arbitrator. That is to say, from time to time, pressure must be put upon the Speaker by various parties in the House to amplify his jurisdiction, and to induce him to state that Bills are Money Bills which are perhaps on the border line, or very doubtful.
  Anything which can lift that burden from the Speaker must be something which must be good for the country at large. If the idea which underlies the Amendment is carried into effect I am not wedded to any particular form of words, the suggestion seems to me to be consonant with the traditions of this House. The objection taken by the Second Chamber has always been against tacking. The difficulty is, What is tacking? There is no doubt whatever that if the Amendment which I suggest is accepted by the Committee nothing can be passed as a Money Bill unless the objects for which

  741
  the money is to be applied have been already sanctioned by the legislature of this country in both houses. I know that hon. Members below the Gangway do not agree as to the necessity of a Second Chamber, but I think that the majority of this House, and certainly the Prime Minister and the Treasury Bench have shown that at present their desire is to have a Second Chamber. If the Amendment is adopted there can be no question of what is and what is not tacking, because the objects for which the money is to be raised will have been defined by previous Acts of Parliament, and have been discussed here and amended if necessary by the other House. Then it will only be necessary for the Government of the day to take to the Speaker the Act of Parliament which says that those particular objects have been sanctioned, and for him to certify that the particular Bill for which the taxation is going to be imposed is indeed a Money Bill. I am suggesting nothing by the Amendment which is beyond the scope of our Constitution and the intention of the Government and of hon. Members opposite who desire to see an effective Second Chamber, and a Second Chamber which shall have an opportunity of dealing with the destinies of the country in the way in which it has been constitutional for them to be dealt with. I will therefore ask the Government to extend to the Amendment their best consideration.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly no one can quarrel with the moderation of tone and the general form in which the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Neville) has cast his remarks. But when we pass from tone and form to substance the Committee will certainly recognise that some very important proposals have been put before us, proposals which, if adopted, would make remarkable and far-reaching changes in the system under which we have hitherto conducted our financial business. The hon. Gentleman asks us to introduce two limitations in the scope of Clause 1. I will take the second of them first. A Bill is not to be deemed a Money Bill, that is to say it is to be a Bill which the House of Lords is entitled to amend or reject, unless each of the objects for which a charge is to be imposed has been already sanctioned by Act of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the Navy.
  Mr. NEVILLE: It is already sanctioned.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No. The Array is sanctioned by the Array (Annual) Act, but
  742
  the Navy has not received express statutory provision. It rests upon the votes of this House. Then there are the officers of both Houses of Parliament. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thinks that the officers of this House require no special protection. But I should have thought that this was scarcely the time when he would have wished to put impediments in the way of the House of Commons providing effectively for payment of the Officers of the House of Lords. His first limitation also makes a serious proposal because he asks the Committee to agree with him that any future system of British taxation shall be based upon a precise and narrow ear-marking of each specific tax for some particular portion of our common expenditure. This prevailed in former times, and it was found utterly impracticable to reconcile it with the needs of good administration. What the hon. Gentleman asked us in fact to do by his Amendment is to say on the face of our Budget Bill to what the proceeds of each new charge shall be directed, and I presume in the greatest detail. We are to make it clear that Education shall be paid for by whisky, that tea is to be devoted as far as it goes to Old Age Pensions, that tobacco is to supply the funds for the Salaries of the Judges, that the Income Tax is to be allocated for the Navy, that the Death Duties are to keep the Army going, and the Land Taxes are to be specifically assigned to the Payment of Members, and so on throughout the whole vast fabric of our public business. Recognising as we do on this side of the House the moderation in which the hon. Member has expressed himself, we cannot feel that that moderation of speech and of tone can possibly commend to the Committee at the present period in our advancing civilisation proposals which are so reactionary in their character, and would be found so utterly inconvenient in their practice.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I listened with great pleasure to the speech of the Home Secretary. I do not think he has quite faced the difficulties in which the Committee is placed. He points out great difficulties in applying this particular Amendment, but the problem for the Committee is how are we to secure that greater abuses will not arise under the Clause as it now stands. Earlier we proposed one method. It was rejected. Now my hon. Friend suggests that the security should be taken that the objects should have been

  743
  approved by Parliament previously. It is perfectly possible, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, that there is a certain number of objects which would fall outside that proposal, and which, therefore, ought to be separately provided for. Surely the general principle is worthy of consideration. The real and true reason why finance has always been treated as it has been between the two Houses is that its ambit has been all along a settled thing. The taxes have gone in certain well recognised grooves, the expenditure has been on certain lines which have been over and over again approved of by Parliament, and, therefore, the process of deliberation by a Single Chamber and merely formal acceptance by the other House in experience has been found good enough. The Government have never argued the matter on the merits; they have argued the whole case on the previous practice of Parliament, I believe it is so. But one reason why the previous practice of Parliament has been found tolerable is that the lines of expenditure and taxation have been settled by Parliament, and, therefore, when an Appropriation Bill comes in it is not a new matter, but one which rests, not precisely on the same lines, but on lines strictly analagous to those already ascertained and laid down. For that reason Parliament has found it after so many years to be tolerable. But I believe that long ago immense difficulty would have been found, the difficulty which is now before the Committee, of distinguishing between financial and political matters, had it not been for this fact or custom, that expenditure and taxation alike are in the old grooves that Parliament traced for them. I really think the Amendment is a contribution to the settlement of this question, though I agree that in the form in which it is framed it can hardly be accepted.
  Sir R. FINLAY: The Home Secretary gave two reasons why this Amendment is unacceptable to the Government—that it is contrary to the practice to specify the purposes for which money is raised and that it would not be possible to provide I hat a Bill should not be deemed a Money Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 4 he will see that "Nothing in this Act shall diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons." What is intended by the Amendment is that a Bill should not be
  744
  deemed a Money Bill for the purpose of this Act unless certain provisions are put in. The Home Secretary further said that the expenditure of the Government was never sanctioned by Act of Parliament. That is not so. It has been sanctioned by Act of Parliament year after year. When we have passed charges for the Navy they have always been authorised by an Appropriation Act. I would suggest a modification of the Amendment by the adoption of the words—" a Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill if the objects for which the charge is imposed have not been already sanctioned by an Act of Parliament."
  Mr. NEVILLE: I accept those words.
  The CHAIRMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to put that Amendment 1 It would be very much simpler to withdraw the Amendment, and if the hon. Member would move the other as an Amendment.
  Mr. NEVILLE: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. NEVILLEmoved at the end of the Clause to add the words, "A Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill if the objects for which a charge is proposed to be imposed have not been already sanctioned by an Act of Parliament."
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This Amendment in its new form is identical with the latter half of the Amendment previously moved, and has been answered by the speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill), so far as it carried out that part of the previous Amendment. He pointed out very clearly that there are many objects of public expenditure which are annually sanctioned by this House, and which have not previously been sanctioned by an Act of Parliament. He instanced the Navy, which is only sanctioned by the Appropriation Bill of the year. Thus an Appropriation Bill would not be a Money Bill within the meaning of this Amendment.
  Sir R. FINLAY: The Navy has been sanctioned by Bills repeatedly.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Only for that year.
  Sir R. FINLAY: Sanction of the object.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No; it was the sanction of a similar object in a

  745
  previous year. It is quite clear that this Amendment, for that reason alone, would take it out of the category of Money Bills. Secondly, there are the salaries of Ministers, for example, which hon. Members in this House discuss with so much interest year by year when they come up for sanction of the House. Those are not statutory. The offices of Secretaries of State are not created by Statute.
  Sir R. FINLAY: They have been sanctioned often.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the Amendment means that any Bill which contains any authorisation of expenditure of money, and at the same time contains in that Bill a statement that if the money is to be devoted to a certain object, is to be a Money Bill, why it means nothing. It makes no change, because every such Bill would be a Money Bill within that sense. If it means we must not introduce any measures sanctioning expenditure which has not previously been specifically authorised by Parliament under a statute dealing with that purpose; as, for example, public education sanctioned by the Act of 1870, then it is an entirely impossible Amendment, which could not conceivably work in with our existing financial system. Other illustrations could be given, but I have given enough to show that the Amendment would not only take out of this Clause what are distinctly Money Bills, but if it were acted on by the House would upset from top to bottom our existing financial system.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman has fallen into this error. He has treated the Amendment as if the Bill itself were in question. What is stated in the Amendment is the object of the Bill. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will not contend for a moment that the object of maintaining the Navy varies from year to year. The object of maintaining the Navy remains the same. I need not point out what that object is, but it has boon, according to the terms of the Amendment, specifically provided for previously in an Act of Parliament.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman entirely misapprehends the meaning of the Amendment. It will not have any of the effects which he suggests. Its object is to rule out of the category of Money Bills any Bill which introduces a new statutory object to which money is to be applied for the first time. In every
  746
  case where there has been an Appropriation Act in any preceding year, the purposes included in that Appropriation Act would not come within these words at all. The salaries of His Majesty's Ministers, the salaries of Officers of this House, or the Navy—these have all been already sanctioned in previous years by preceding Appropriation Acts. In fact, you cannot apply any money except under the terms of an Act of Parliament, that Act of Parliament being the Appropriation Act. Therefore if in any previous Appropriation Act money has been applied to a specified object, that would not come within the meaning of this Amendment at all. It is as well the Committee should understand what the Amendment really means. It is that you should not introduce new statutory provisions dealing with new objects under the guise of Money Bills. That is the whole object of this Amendment.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Supposing an Appropriation Bill contains provisions for building four new "Dreadnoughts"; would that have been previously sanctioned by Act of Parliament?
  Sir A. CRIPPS: Certainly, by an Appropriation Act. The money has been sanctioned and applied to this purpose—the purpose of building ships for the Navy.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: New ships?
  Sir A. CRIPPS: But the object is the same. The application of money to education is a matter which has been sanctioned by Act of Parliament. The application of money for the building of ships for the Navy has been sanctioned by Act of Parliament. If it has not been sanctioned by Act of Parliament, the money has been wrongly applied. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is quarrelling with the words, or with the real purport of the Amendment. If he is merely quarrelling with the words, they can be adjusted; but the object of the Amendment, clearly carried out in the words proposed, is that you should not, under the guise of a Money Bill, introduce some new object of public expenditure in reference to which there has been no previous statutory sanction at all. If that is the real meaning, what has been said by the Home Secretary and the Postmaster-General has no reference whatever to it. It is all very well to get up and say

  747
  that an Amendment means something which it does not mean at all. What we want to know is, the answer of the Government to this Amendment as properly understood.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman mean in the case of a Money Bill to introduce new statutory provisions dealing with matters in regard to which the payment of money has not been hitherto sanctioned by this House at all? That is a simple and plain question. I understand from what the Prime Minister said the other night that in such a case a Bill of that character did not come within the category of a Money Bill at all. Now we propose to put what the Prime Minister said into the words of the Amendment, and it appears to me, and I submit it to the Committee, that the words of this Amendment have nothing whatever to do with what the right hon. Gentleman said. They are intended to provide for the case where some new object is introduced and charged upon public money for the first time. If that is the point, it we are to maintain the distinction between money and other Bills, then you ought to have the sanction of the Second Chamber in the same way as at the present time. I think the view of the Postmaster-General is the same as that of the Prime Minister. That is, that this is to be a declaratory Clause; in other words, it does not introduce any new principle, but is merely declaratory of the existing practice. It is no declaration of the existing practice if, under the form of a Money Bill, you allow money to be applied for the first time to some new object to which it has hitherto not been applied under statutory sanction at all. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman if that is the object of the Amendment whether he cannot give some further answer to that already given which is not directed to this Amendment at all, but to some fictitious Amendment which in every respect is different.
  Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. and learned Friend has shown with the utmost clearness that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General has failed to understand the purpose of the Amendment, which merely proposes to enact that for the future a Money Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill if the object for which the money is to be spent has not already been sanctioned by Act of Parliament. My hon. and learned Friend has said that if the words of the Amendment do not clearly carry out that object
  748
  he is prepared to accept an alteration of the words provided that they do carry out that object. May I point out to the Solicitor-General that the Navy has already been sanctioned. The purpose does not include "Dreadnoughts" merely, but the Navy generally. If the word "object" is objected to, we will put in the word "purpose"—so that the purpose of the Navy, or whatever the Bill may be—"has already been sanctioned by the Appropriation Bill." The Appropriation Bill being an Act of Parliament is all that my hon. and learned Friend desires when he says: "Which has already been sanctioned by Act of Parliament." There is the Appropriation Bill which has sanctioned everything—even the present Government. What further enormities can the Government desire to commit that they will not be content with the enormities they have already committed? I fail to see how the Government can possibly fail to accept part of this Amendment. I am always willing to listen to argument, and I think the Home Secretary has convinced the House that the first part of the Amendment is unworkable, but why should not the Government accept the first part that is workable? I have always noticed when two learned Gentlemen on one side of the House make statements they are answered by a learned Gentleman on the other side. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, with all his qualifications, is not a learned Gentleman in the ordinary Parliamentary sense of the term, and therefore we ought to have the Solicitor-General to show us where we are wrong. If he proves we are wrong, I will support him.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I think my Friend who moved this Amendment is entitled to some further reply from the Front Bench opposite, because we have had no official statement, if I except the speech made by the Postmaster-General, since the speech made by the Home Secretary. I could not help feeling that the Home Secretary misapprehended not only the purpose of the Amendment but the intention which prompted my hon. Friend in moving it. My hon. Friend had no intention at all of assigning particular revenues to particular objects and it was upon a misconception of that sort that portion of the Home Secretary's speech was founded. I cannot think the Home Secretary was very happy in the instance he chose when he selected educa-

  749
  tion as depending upon the Whisky Money, because, after all, under the auspices of a Government which prides itself on being the greatest temperance Government of modern times it is not very edifying that secondary education should depend upon sums derived from Whisky Money to such an extent that the children of this country cannot enjoy adequate secondary education unless their parents indulge an orgie of intemperance. Although I have not taken part in these Debates during the Committee stage I have been watching with great interest the discussions that have taken place with regard to tacking, and I feel we are no nearer receiving a definition of what tacking is than at the beginning of these Debates, although on both sides of the House, and particularly from the Front Bench opposite we have received lip service that the doctrine of tacking is highly objectionable. This Amendment, if accepted, would go a long way to meet the objecting to tacking, because, after all, all great social reforms brought forward for the consideration of this House may be divided into two parts. In the first place they all involve some great general principle, and in the second place, in nine cases out of ten they involve a heavy charge upon the National Exchequer. I admit it would be contrary to the ancient practice of this House that the second portion, involving a charge on the National Exchequer, should be liable to amendment on the part of a Second Chamber, but surely it is a very striking and novel departure in the Parliamentary practice of this country to withdraw from the cognisance of the Second Chamber the general principles involved in some of these great reforms. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have not yet put forward any proposal by which the general principle involved in great social and other reforms will receive adequate consideration by the Second Chamber. May I, in conclusion, call the attention of the Committee to the salient fact that if the Amendment is accepted it does not mean more than that questions involving great general principles will be included under Clause 2 instead of under Clause 1, and will come under the two-years' limit.
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: There is an Amendment standing in my name which I think deals rather more fully and effectively with this subject than the Amendment under discussion. It suggests that political changes shall not be carried out to which Parliament has not previously signified its
  750
  assent, or of carrying out a new policy. The replies of the Government to this Amendment have all been conceived in rather a frivolous spirit, and there has been no attempt made by the leading Members of the Government to deal with the broad principle which underlies the words of this Amendment. The instance of the Navy which was brought forward is a very frivolous case, because there is an easy way out of that under a Naval Defence Act. That is something which I should approve of in principle, because I think it would be much better if the policy of building ships for the Navy was laid down in a more comprehensive way under a Naval Defence Act. After all, the Speaker has got very great powers given to him under the previous portion of this Clause. The Speaker deals with the grosser and more palpable forms of tacking. He has to deal with the kind of tacking which we saw in the Finance Bill of 1909, and if he had under the terms of this proposal the licensing proposals of 1909 submitted to him he would be bound to say that there was much in them which was other than a Money Bill, and that the Finance Bill had to be referred to the provisions of Clause 2. There are other forms of tacking. There are what I would call the more subtle and more spiritual forms of tacking, which could not be dealt with by the Speaker under the provisions of that Section, and it is with these other forms of tacking that we on this side of the House have again and again asked the Government to deal. The Government have given no answer whatever to our demand. It has again and again been shown that under the form of a Money Bill you could introduce every sort of social and political change. I think the Government have admitted it; but they have opposed an absolute refusal to every kind of Amendment coming from this side of the House attempting to remedy that grievance, and you have it absolutely un-remedied and undealt with. We are therefore left with the possibility, after all the assertions of the Government as to what they mean and do not mean, that you actually can, under the guise of a Money Bill, effect very large political and social changes. The Speaker will have no power of so interpreting the powers entrusted to him as to deal with the point or mischief attempted to be met by this and other Amendments. That shows at least there is nothing in the contention of the Government that they do not wish to confer upon this House larger powers than this House has already possessed as

  751
  regards Money Bills. When they were trying to introduce a definition of a Money Bill, instead of the old words, "Aid and Supply," the Government tried to argue that the term "Money Bill" was synonymous to the term "Aid and Supply." We pointed out the fallacy of that contention, and now we find this Clause is going far beyond anything we imagined when we were arguing that particular Amendment, and, by the confession of the Government it will be possible for them to pass any kind of measure under Clause 1 without it being possible for the
  Second Chamber to deal with it in any way, or for the Speaker, under the powers assigned to him, to take any objection to it. If that is the case, I really hardly see any object in going on with Clause 2. If practically every Bill can be dealt with under Clause 1, it is really a work of supererogation to try and discuss the kind of measure we can deal with under Clause 2.
  Question put, "That those words he there added."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 182.

  Division No. 142.]

  AYES.

  [10.50 p.m.

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

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Aitken, William Max.

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfieid)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Ashley, W. W

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Astor, Waldorf

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gilmour, Captain John

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

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Grant, James Augustus

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Barnston, Harry

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bird, Alfred

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanier, Beville

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Campion, W. R

  Hunt, Rowland

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Swift, Rigby

  Cassel, Felix

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sykes, Alan John

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kerry, Earl of

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lewisham, Viscount

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

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Winterton, Earl

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

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

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Younger, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton, M.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Burke, E. Havland

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Barton, William

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Adamson, William

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

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

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Alden, Percy

  Black, Arthur W.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Boland, John Plus

  Clough, William

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Clynes, John R

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Baker, Joseph Allan (Finsbury, E.)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Brace, William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Barnes, George N.

  Brigg, Sir John

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Crocks, William

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Redmond, John E, (Waterford)

  Cullinan, John

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roberts, George (Norwich)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robinson, Sidney

  Delany, William

  Logan, John William

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Dillon, John

  Lundon, Thomas

  Rowlands, James

  Doris, William

  Lynch, A. A.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Duffy, William J.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Maclean, Donald

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

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Marks, George Croydon

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Sheehy, David

  Falconer, James

  Meagher, Michael

  Shortt, Edward

  Fenwick, Charles

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

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Middlebrook, William

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Millar, James Duncan

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Summers, James Woolley

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mooney, John J.

  Sutton, John E.

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Morrell, Philip

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Nolan, Joseph

  Tennant, Harold John

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hancock, J. G.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Ogden, Fred

  Toulmin, George

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

  O'Grady, James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Verney, Sir H.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Webb, H.

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

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

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Hunter, Wm. (Lanark, Govan)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Johnson, William

  Pollard, Sir George H.

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

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

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

  Radford, George Heynes

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Joyce, Michael

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Keating, Matthew

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move at the end of the Clause, to add, as a new Sub-section:—
  (4) The certificate that a Bill is a Money Bill shall be in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act. I desire in the fewest possible words to submit this new Sub-section, and the Committee will see later on in the White Paper the form of the proposed schedule. It is as follows:—
  (1) Certificate of Speaker of the House of Commons that Bill is a Money Bill.
  I hereby certify that I have examined every provision of the annexed Bill entitled Bill which was passed by the House of Commons on the and that in my opinion it contains only the following provisions, that is to say [here insert those of the provisions enumerated in Clause 1 (2) applicable to the Bill in question].
  (Signed)
  Speaker of the House of Commons, Date.
  The object of this Amendment is perfectly clear upon the face of it—that the certificate of the Speaker shall be clear, precise and unambiguous. I submit to the Committee that that is only fair to the Speaker who must have an extremely difficult and delicate task imposed upon him under these provisions, it is only fair to this House, and it is only just to the Second Chamber, that the form of this certificate should be set out and should be absolutely precise and unambiguous in its terms. The Speaker of the House of Commons is being asked to undertake what is in fact a judicial function, and it is particularly desirable, bearing in mind that the Speaker will be placed in a very invidious position from time to time when he will have to give his decision against the opinion of a large section of this House and generally in bills relating to finance probably against the opinion of the majority of the other House, that he should be able to give his opinion in absolutely precise terms which can

  755
  admit of no misunderstanding whatever. That is the whole scope and purpose of the Amendment. If the Amendment proposed the other day substituting a judicial tribunal for the Speaker had been accepted, such an Amendment as this might not be necessary, because after all those who are in the habit of giving judicial decisions or decrees, give explanations which make perfectly evident what their opinion is and why they have given it. But the Speaker is not necessarily a lawyer, and is not used to giving judicial decisions, and it is only fair to him and to the two Houses that his decision should be framed in such a way that it shall be perfectly understood by everyone who reads it and open to no doubt as to what it means. It is particularly necessary that there should be such a form as I suggest, in view of the terms of Clause 3, which says:—
  "Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons given under this Act shall be conclusive for all purposes, and shall not be questioned in any Court of law."
  So it follows that upon the form of the Speaker's certificate will depend whether or not an Act of Parliament is ultra vires the constitution, and therefore unenforceable. Surely that is the strongest possible reason for scheduling a specified form of consent on the part of the Speaker which shall be used on all occasions. The form suggested not merely indicates the Speaker's assent or dissent to a Bill as being or not being a Money Bill, but also indicates, as it ought to indicate, why in his opinion it is not a Money Bill, that is, under which of the heads specified in Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 this Bill actually falls. I submit that this is an Amendment worthy of acceptance, and one which will immensely simplify and render easier the difficult position in which the Speaker will from time to time find himself.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman proposes that the certificate of the Speaker shall be given in a form which will make the Speaker's attention on certain points is a Money Bill but also under what head of Subsection (2) each provision of the Bill comes. We have heard a great deal of the burden which is to be cast upon the Chair. I really cannot think this provision, whatever other consequence it might entail, will; have the effect of lightening the
  756
  burden cast upon the Chair. If it is an invidious burden the proposal will make it more invidious. If the task of the Speaker is difficult it will make it almost insuperable. There is really no reason why the Speaker should be compelled to give his decision on whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill in reference to each particular proposal in the Bill and with reference to each particular heading in Clause 1, Sub-section (2) as passed and approved by the House. The certificate of the Speaker is to be conclusive and the Speaker ought not to be compelled to give any reasons for his decision or put his decision into a detailed form. To do that is only really in practice to supply those who disagree with the Speaker's decision with opportunities for cross-examination, and with materials on which to base cavil at the action of the Chair. The Government could not accept an amendment which would enormously complicate the duties which, as is agreed in all parts of the House, will be a very serious addition to the already important labours and responsibilities cast upon the occupant of the Speaker's chair.
  Sir R. FINLAY: I really cannot follow the reasons given by the Home Secretary in opposing the Amendment. A Money Bill is defined as a Bill which contains only provisions dealing with certain subjects enumerated in the Clause, and, in order to satisfy himself whether it is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Clause, the Speaker must see whether it contains provisions relating to any or all of the enumerated subjects. All that the Amendment asks is that the opinion of the Speaker should be expressed in the certificate itself. I cannot see how that would increase the burden on the Speaker, and for the sake of certainty I think the Amendment would be very convenient.
  Captain CLIVE: I really cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument against the Amendment. The whole point of the Amendment is to try to concentrate the Speaker's attention on certain points as to which there cannot be any reasonable doubt. I think the Speaker's certificate is required on each of the points in Sub-section (2) of Clause 1. There would then be far less liability to disagreement with his decision than if he was permitted merely to give a general agreement or disagreement on the question whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not. The Bill says that the Speaker's decision shall be conclusive

  757
  for all purposes, and shall not be questioned in any court of law. The Speaker's certificate, therefore, takes the place of the decision of one of the Houses of Parliament. The decisions of the House of Lords can be questioned occasionally in a court of law, but the certificate of the Speaker is under no circumstances whatever to be questioned. We all know that the decisions of the other House are very often questioned, and that very often bitter criticisms are passed upon them.
  Our object is, as far as possible, to relieve the Speaker from the danger which we all apprehend on this side of the House in giving him these powers, namely, the danger of having his opinion liable to criticism and liable to party feeling. The decision which the Speaker might give about a Bill in perfectly good faith might incur bitter resentment on the part of one of the parties in the House, and it might be carried to such an extent that the party might be tempted to vote against him on the occasion of the election of the Speaker. Therefore we endeavour to prescribe by this Amendment that in giving his certifi-
  ficate he will not only give careful attention to the Bill, but that he shall have the legal assistance he can call upon to help him in coming to a decision, that he shall state in greatest detail possible the grounds on which he bases his! opinion, so that if it is possible so to do; his opinion as laid down in the certificate shall be above and beyond criticism altogether. This is only the first of four certificates which he is required at different times to give under this Bill. Therefore I hope that the Government will give a little further consideration to this proposal which is desirable from the point of view of accuracy and uniformity of action as between one speaker and another in all these cases.
  Mr. CHURCHILLrose 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, 167; Noes, 119.

  Division No. 143.]

  AYES.

  [11.13 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Logan, John William

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Rhondda)

  Edwards, A. C. (Glam., E.)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Acland, Francis D. (Camborne)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Adamson, William

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Maclean, Donald

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Falconer, James

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Marks, George Croydon

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Barnes, George N.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Meagher, Michael

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Fiennes, Hon Eustace Edward

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

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Middlebrook, William

  Barton, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Millar, Duncan

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

  Glanville, Harold James

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mooney, John J.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morrell, Philip

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hancock, John George

  Nolan, Joseph

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Brace, William

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Brigg, Sir John

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool, Scotl'd)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Ogden, Fred

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Grady, James

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John (Battersea)

  Henry, Sir Charles

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Malley, William

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

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pearce, Robert (Leek)

  Clough, William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

  Clynes, John R.

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Johnson, William

  Pointer, Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, Leif (Rushcliffe)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Crooks, William

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Cullinan, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

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

  Keating, Matthew

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (S. Shields)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Delany, William

  Lambert, George (South Molton)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dillon, John

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cockerm'th)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Doris, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robertson, Sir. G. Scott (Bradford)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Smith, Albert (Clitheroe)

  Webb, H.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

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

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Summers, James Woolley

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Rowlands, James

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Toulmin, George

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Col.

  Verney, Sir H.

  Sheehy, David

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

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

  Shortt, Edward

  Ward, John (stoke-upon-Trent)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  NOES.

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

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Aitken, William M.

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Newdegate, F. A. N.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  FitzRoy, Hon. Edward A.

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fletcher, John S. (Hampstead)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Astor, Waldorf

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gibbs, George Abraham

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Peel, Capt R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Grant, James Augustus

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barlow, Montagu (Salford, S.)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Barnston, Harry

  Gretton, John

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Benn, Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Harris, H. P.

  Rutherford, John (Darwen)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Bird, Alfred

  Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Boscawen, Col. A. S. T. Griffith-

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanier, Beville

  Bull, Sir William James

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Butcher, J. G.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sykes, Alan John

  Campion, W R.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Knight, Capt. Eric Ashford

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cassel, Felix

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle)

  Walker, Col. W. H.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Lawson, Hon. Harry (Mile End)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

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

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Olive, Captain Percy Archer

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

  Winterton, Earl

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Courthope, George Loyd

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Younger, George

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Maitland, A. D. Steel-

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Du Cros, Arthur P.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Question put accordingly, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 169.

  Division No. 144.]

  AYES.

  [11.20 p.m.

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

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Aitken, William M.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

  Du Cros, Arthur P.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Butcher, J. G.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Campion, W R.

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Astor, Waldorf

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cassel, Felix

  FitzRoy, Hon. Edward A.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Fletcher, John S. (Hampstead)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Barlow, Monatgu (Salford, S.)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Barnston, Harry

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Benn, Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Grant, James Augustus

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Bigland, Alfred

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Gretton, John

  Bird, Alfred

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Boscawen, Col. A. S. T. Griffith-

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Maitland, A. D. Steel-

  Stanier, Beville

  Harris H. P.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Sykes, Alan John

  Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Newdegate, F. A. N.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfieid)

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Walker, Col. W. H.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Peel, Capt R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Knigiht, Capt. Eric Ashford

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. W. (Taunton)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Lane-Fox, G. R

  Perkins, Walter Frank

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

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Winterton, Earl

  Lawson, Hon. Harry (Mile End)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

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

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Rice, Hon. Walter FitzUryan

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rutherford, John (Darwen)

  Younger, George

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. C. Bathurst and Capt. Clive.

  MacCaw, Wm, J. MacGeagh

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Rhondda)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Pearce, Robert (Leek)

  Acland, Francis D. (Camborne)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Adamson, William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Hancock, John George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barnes, George N.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (S. Shields)

  Barton, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  Horn, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Robertson, Sir. G. Scott (Bradford)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Robinson, Sidney

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Johnson, William

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Brace, William

  Jones, Leif (Rushcliffe)

  Rowlands, James

  Brigg, Sir John

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Jones, Wm. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John (Battersea)

  Keating, Matthew

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

  Lambert, George (South Molton)

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Col.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cockerm'th)

  Sheehy, David

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Shortt, Edward

  Clough, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Clynes, John R.

  Logan, John William

  Smith, Albert (Clitheroe)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Summers, James Woolley

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Sutton, John E.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Crooks, William

  Maclean, Donald

  Tennant, Harold John

  Crumley, Patrick

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Cullinan, John

  Marks, George Croydon

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Toulmin, George

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dawes, James Arthur

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Delany, William

  Middlebrook, William

  Verney, Sir H.

  Dillon, John

  Millar, Duncan

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

  Doris, William

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Duffy, William J.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Mooney, John J.

  Webb, H.

  Edwards, A. C. (Glam., E.)

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Edwards, Enoch, (Hanley)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Essex, Richard Walter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Esslemont, George Birnis

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Falconer, James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool, Scotl'd)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Ogden, Fred

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  O'Grady, James

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  O'Malley, William

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

  Fitzgibbon, John

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, at the end of Clause 1, to add the words,
  " (4) For the purposes of this section no Bill shall be deemed to be a Money Bill which affects the Civil List of the Sovereign or which empowers any authority to fix assessments without appeal or to raise any tax not specifically granted in Committee of Ways and Means."
  The Civil List of the Sovereign is a matter in regard to which both Houses should have a say. It is an exceedingly important act, taking place at the beginning of a reign, and the whole of His Majesty's subjects should in the most formal and deliberate manner, and with the utmost possible unanimity agree to the grant then made. Formerly, the question of the Civil List aroused great difficulty and was the subject of angry controversy. Happily that time has passed, and on the last two occasions the Civil List has been granted with very slight dissent and extremely good feeling. In the event of any question arising on the Civil List it would be most unfortunate if the Bill were passed as a Money Bill by the arbitrary process of Clause 1. It would arouse great passion and place the Crown in a very difficult position if such a Bill became a party question, as Money Bills will be only too likely to become under this proposal. That applies to ordinary cases. But the argument becomes very much stronger if you consider any proposal that might be made to reduce the Civil List. That would clearly be a Money Bill under the clause as it at present stands, and would go through without the House of Lords having a chance to refer it back.
  You might here have an extremely difficult and dangerous situation. Suppose the influence of the Crown was to be exercised in a way that was strongly resented by a considerable body of opinion in this House. The Commons might act on mediæval precedent. Again, it might be argued that the Civil List was in itself disproportionate, that some of the appointments made, or the charges to be borne by the List, were of an undesirable kind. Be that as it may one way or the other, the proposal to reduce the Civil List would undoubtedly involve an act in direct opposition to the Crown. In what position would you in that case put the Crown? There is no other authority between this House and the Crown.
  Is the Sovereign in the case of an attack made upon him to have to consider
  764
  whether or not he might directly or indirectly invoke his prerogative? After all there are more ways than one of using the Royal prerogative. It can be done by the dismissal of Ministers, as in 1834, or the Dissolution of Parliament, or, as was suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, the actual power of veto could be revived in an extreme case. At any rate, it would be within the power of the Sovereign, either directly or indirectly, to prevent a Bill for reducing the Civil List from becoming law. But I submit that that is not a position which the Sovereign ought to be put in, unless there has been the fullest possible discussion by both branches of the Legislature. After all, such a proposal would only technically be a Money Bill. I am sure it does not come within the class of Money Bills which was contemplated by the Prime Minister in the speech in which, last week, he conciliated the great body of opinion on this side of the House. There are real and urgent dangers that might become acute if such a Civil List Bill came into the category of Money Bills.
  The second part of my Amendment is: "or which empowers any authority to fix assessments without appeal or to raise any tax not specifically granted in Committee of Ways and Means." With regard to licensing assessments I confess I have in my mind certain provisions with which I will not trouble the House again. I have referred to certain proposals in the United States which have been ruled to be unconstitutional, and I will not go over the ground again. It is enough to say that any attempt to fix arbitrary assessments by any subordinate authority has been ruled over and over again to be unconstitutional in America. Is there no danger of the same kind of attempt here? If hon. Members will throw their minds back to the Finance Bill of 1909 they will see that, as first introduced, there was a real danger of something of the kind being attempted. In Clauses 16 and 17, as first introduced, there was to be a valuation of land. It is true that under Clauses 22 and 23 a form of appeal was provided, but the effect of it was merely to refer the matter to a Government official. In that case you had in that valuation an onerous duty—which really had the effect of a tax—with no appeal to an independent authority. The net result would have been, if the Bill had been passed, commissioners, with an appeal to another commissioner, would have had the power to levy this onerous burden upon a taxpayer

  765
  and make the assessment, and according to the assessment the tax would have been levied. Therefore they would have had the power, practically, to fix the assessment, subject only to the direct authority of Parliament and without any appeal. This was very hotly contested at the time, and the Government saw the injustice of it, and it was withdrawn.
  If these things were attempted to be done in the green wood, what may be done in the dry? Similar proposals may be made, and, if a section of this House has its way, will be brought forward. Money Bills which cover such proposals as that giving arbitrary powers to the Commissioners to put a charge upon the subject at their will are not conformable to those ancient constitutional practices and precedents on which the Prime Minister relies. Once that were allowed it would be a very small step to giving power to the Commissioners to actually raise new taxes. An arbitrary power of this kind may be directly assigned to them, and not as in the indirect way of 1909. Already we have instances of what may be called dispensing power, if not legally vested, at any rate allowed in practice to the Inland Revenue, that the collection of taxes may be delayed, and altogether there has been a tendency in recent years to vest in officials that which in the old days the watchful authorities of this House never would allow to pass from those who were responsible to the House. I submit there is real danger in the future in this respect as there is in the other, and neither in regard to the Civil List, nor in regard to this arbitrary power in fixing assessments, should we allow power to this House to fix taxes to the detriment of the Sovereign, in the one instance, and in the other to the detriment of the subject.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Amendment of the hon. Member, carefully thought out like most of his contributions to our debates, raises three specific points to which the assent of the Committee is invited. First he invites us to say that no Bills should be deemed to be Money Bills which empower any authority to raise taxes not specifically granted in Committee of Ways and Means. As regards raising taxes by Committee of Ways and Means, that is purely a matter of the procedure of the House of Commons. It is out of order to impose a tax except upon Committee of Ways and Means, and the House of Commons takes care of its own
  766
  procedure. As regards the second part, which says: "No Bill shall be deemed to be a Money Bill which allows any authority to fix assessments," etc., it is quite clear that assessments are in some eases essential and incidental to the ordinary machinery of taxes, but as the machinery of taxation is declared by the Clause which we are now discussing to be from beginning to end in the sole and undivided authority of the House of Commons, it is clear that such machinery as is absolutely necessary for carrying the taxation into effect must also be included in the scope and provisions with regard to Money Bills. If the provisions for assessment go beyond what is subordinate and incidental to the imposition of the taxation, it would be for the Speaker, under the Clause, to rule that the Bill would not be a Money Bill, and that is the tribunal the House has decided to give the decision upon it. The third point which the hon. Member makes is also important. He asks us to agree that in future the House of Commons shall not be the body to decide the Civil List of the Sovereign, and that the House of Lords shall have power to hold up the Civil List of the Sovereign for two years.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: If the right hon. Gentleman lays emphasis on that point, I shall be willing to confine my Amendment to a reduction of the Civil List.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That is not what the hon. Member has moved. The effect of his proposal is that this House is not to be trusted to make provision for the upkeep and the dignity of the Crown. It is quite clear, according to our ancient practice, which has never been challenged until to-night, that the British Monarchy has always been content to entrust its maintenance and dignity to the provision which it is in the power of the House of Commons to make. Let me read on this point the words of the Civil List Act, 1901, dealing with King Edward under a Conservative Government:
  " Most Gracious Sovereign,
  Whereas your Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify to your faithful Commons in Parliament assembled that your Majesty placed unreservedly at their disposal those hereditary revenues which were so placed by your predecessor."
  "Now therefore we, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the

  767
  Commons of the United Kingdom in Parliament assembled, have freely and voluntarily resolved to make such provision as hereinafter appears for the purposes aforesaid, and we do most humbly beseech your Majesty that it may be enacted, etc."
  There is the whole procedure laid down. Why should it be suggested that a House of Commons elected on a franchise of 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 subjects is not prepared properly to keep up the necessary-dignity of the head of the State? The last Parliament was called upon to make a new provision for the Monarch. The last Parliament, as the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends opposite have said—I do not think they meant all they have said—was a Parliament held in the grip of the Labour party, dominated by the Dollar Dictator, maintained in the pay of Patrick Ford—at any rate, it is not possible to express their opinion in language which would be too bad to describe the last Parliament which, no doubt, had reached according to their view the lowest depths a British Parliament could reach. It was this Parliament, in the darkest days of our history, in the deepest abyss of our degradation which was entrusted to make provision for the maintenance of the Crown; and it was this very Parliament which made the most ample and generous provision which history records for the upkeep of the dignity of the Crown. At this time of day I think a little more respect ought to be shown to the strong foundations of the British Constitution, which secure the guardianship of the British people over every institution of the realm which really ministers to the needs of the whole nation and serves the State that is shown by troubling the Committee with proposals to strip the House of Commons of a duty which it has always exercised, and which it has never failed to exercise.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: If I accept, as I must, the concluding portion of the Home Secretary's speech, in which he thought it necessary to review some of the controversies of the last general election, I am prepared fully to admit he has made a very effective reply at first blush to this Amendment. His reply consisted in taking the propositions of my hon. Friend in their inverse order. He dealt first with the third proposal, and secondly with the second proposal, but by far the most
  768
  important part of this Amendment is, I think, the first proposal of my hon. Friend, and to that the Home Secretary devoted the bulk of his speech. It is that the Civil List should, on the demise of the Crown, be dealt with in accordance with constitutional practice and usage and not in accordance with whatever the results may be of a new constitutional change. I think that is a fair way of putting it. It is not the way the Home Secretary put it. He put it very effectively. He made an appeal to the sentiment of this House, an appeal to which at first blush any Member of this House would respond. His appeal was that the Crown of its own will and motion comes when there is a new monarch and places all the dynastic patrimonies of the Royal House at the disposal of the House of Commons and believes the faithful Commons will make a generous and loyal response to that act of remission made by the monarch who has only been a monarch for a day. That appeal is not only sentimental, but it also ignores that fundamental basis of the Constitution, which makes that interaction between the Crown and the Commons a possibility and a pride to this country.
  The Home Secretary ignored the important and enormous difference between the Constitution, which has grown through centuries, and a written constitution, and by that ignoration his argument must be judged. We are beginning to make a written constitution. We have no precedents for that in our own history, and few models which we can follow if we leave out of account, as I think we must, the French Revolution. Most written constitutions have been written constitutions of the United States of America, or of what we now call the Sister States of this Empire, and the danger of those who are beginning a written constitution is that the effect of their written constitution can be judged. The danger we have to guard against, though similar, is different. We have to judge of the reaction of a written constitution upon an ancient usage. There is no experience, so far as I know, in political history which can guide us in that matter, and therefore we ought, when drafting a written constitution, to think somewhat seriously of the possible reactions of a written constitution upon the ancient usage and practice. This matter of the Civil List is not really so simple or sentimental as would appear from the Home Secretary's speech.

  769
  It is not a Sovereign saying, "I am now king of this country and emperor of this empire and I trust to you my dignity." What happens is that the Crown by usage which has grown up makes a voluntary gift of the dynastic patrimony to the country. The gift has always been made voluntarily. What happens next? As a matter of fact the Government of the day approaches the Opposition. The usage is for the Government of the day not to act in this matter on its party majority: it approaches the Opposition of the day. Are we to judge in a few minutes what is the degree of the dependence of this usage upon the ancient constitution. I say, "No." It is safer, surely, to depend upon constitutional usage which has grown up than to try and bring in an arrangement which is novel and untried. Are we asking the Government a good deal in that? The reply of the Home Secretary is that we are asking that the House of Lords should intervene at this moment. I say we simply ask you to leave usage and practice as it is.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I ask the Home Secretary if the House of Commons could always be trusted to make adequate provision for the Sovereign. If so, why is it necessary to have a Civil List Bill at all? Why should not a grant be made from the Estimates every year? The reason obviously is because you want to ensure continuity for that provision for the Sovereign. If you want that you must not put the future maintenance of that provision under Clause 1, because under that it would be just as easy to reduce it as it is to reduce an estimate. The object is to secure during the whole lifetime of the Sovereign that that proper provision shall remain inviolate. I say you are going against constitutional practice, not only in the spirit but in the letter, if you allow the Civil List to remain under the precarious conditions of this Clause.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 112; Noes, 162.

  Division No. 145.]

  AYES.

  [11.55 p.m.

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

  FitzRoy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Aitken, William M.

  Fletcher, John S. (Hampstead)

  Newdegate, F. A. N.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Grant, James Augustus

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Gretton, John

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, S.)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Barnston, Harry

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Roberts, S. (Ecclesall)

  Bann, Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Harris, H. P.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanier, Beville

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Campion, W. R.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sykes, Alan John

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Kerry, Earl of

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cassel, Felix

  Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lawson, Hon. Harry (Mile End)

  Walker, Col. W. H.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, East)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Griffith-Boscawen and Mr. Younger.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Barnes, George N.

  Acland, Francis D. (Camborne)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Adamson, William

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Barton, William

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Pointer, Joseph

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pollard, Sir George H.

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

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Black, Arthur W.

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Brace, William

  Johnson, William

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Jones, Leif (Rushcliffe)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jones, Wm. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Joyce, Michael

  Robinson, Sidney

  Clough, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Clynes, John R.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rowlands, James

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Lambert, George (South Molton)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cockermouth)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Crooks, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Logan, John William

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Cullinan, John

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Sheehy, David

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

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Shortt, Edward

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Delany, William

  Maclean, Donald

  Smith, Albert (Clitheroe)

  Dillon, John

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Doris, William

  Marks, George Croydon

  Summers, James Woolley

  Duffy, William J.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Sutton, John E.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Meagher, Michael

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Edwards, A. C. (Glam., E.)

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Middlebrook, William

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Millar, Duncan

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Toulmin, George

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Falconer, James

  Mooney, John J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morrell, Philip

  Verney, Sir H.

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Nolan, Joseph

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Webb, H.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool, Scotland)

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

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Ogden, Fred

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hancock, John George

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

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pearce, Robert (Leek)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

  Hayward, Evan

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Hamilton Benn) as it stands, is out of order, but he has handed in an amended form, which I consider in order. The Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Lonsdale) is also out of order. It is outside the scope of the Clause. The Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Peel) has been settled by previous discussion.
  Mr. LONSDALE: I submit that my Amendment should be in order from the fact that Home Rule must deal with the imposition or regulation of taxation.
  The CHAIRMAN: But the hon. Member's proposal is that no Bill containing proposals to devolve upon a subordinate Parliament certain powers with regard to money shall be a Money Bill. I do not think any such Bill can be a Money Bill. Therefore I consider it is outside the scope of this Clause. The latter part of the hon.
  772
  Member's (Mr. Peel's) Amendment was discussed by himself, among others, on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wigan.
  Mr. PEEL: I did not discuss the latter part, but only the earlier part. I do not think the latter part, as to defining tacking in a totally different way from any that has been proposed up till now, has been discussed.
  The CHAIRMAN: The subject matter of the latter part of the Amendment is covered by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wigan.
  Mr. HAMILTON BENN: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add:—
  "(4) A Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill if it imposes taxation on a part only of the United Kingdom."
  This Amendment is so reasonable that I hardly think the Government will refuse

  773
  it. I am sure it will appeal to the good sense of Members in all parts of the House. The Government have intimated their intention of bringing in, in the course of next year, a Bill to establish a separate Parliament in Ireland. If they carry out their intention, and succeed in carrying the Bill, that must necessarily involve some delegation of the power of taxation to the Parliament sitting in Dublin. That would involve a change in the taxation under ordinary Money Bills coming before this House, and therefore it would seem to me that Clause 1 should not apply to any Bill which imposes taxation on a part only of the United Kingdom. The intention of the Government in regard to this vital matter has not yet been made known, nor have we been informed whether Ireland should have representation at Westminster, but whether that is their intention or not it appears to me that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) might be very glad indeed to have such a proviso as is contained in this Amendment. It seems to me to be quite important that taxation should not be imposed on Ireland by the votes—
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I rise to order. I think the hon. Member is basing his argument on the very specific grounds which you have already ruled would not be in order.
  The CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Member is arguing that in the event of Home Rule being passed this Clause would be repealed. If that is his argument, the Amendment is not in order.
  Mr. HAMILTON BENN: Surely it would only apply to taxation for part of the United Kingdom. It may well be that it is the Government's intention that taxation shall not be delegated to Ireland, and in that case, of course, this would not apply. But if it is the intention of the Government that there should be a delegation of taxation to Ireland, it would seem to be very important that there should be an appeal to another place on any Bill passed in this House.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is precisely the point that cannot now be discussed. This would apply only to Bills of the United Kingdom passed by this Parliament. The hon. Member is trying to deal with Bills which might be passed by a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. That is not the question now before the Committee.
  Lord A. THYNNE: I beg to move to add at the end of the Clause—
  "(4) A Bill which, except as ancillary to the general objects of the Bill, contains provisions for the creation of new offices of profit under the Crown shall not be a Money Bill within the meaning of this section."
  I think that every Member of the Committee is fully alive to the danger that exists owing to the too rapid multiplication of offices of profit under the Crown. I need not draw attention to the evils arising from the enormous multiplication of officials employed under the Government in France and Italy. I do not think that any Member of the Committee would wish to see this country under the yoke of a bureaucracy. At the same time we cannot claim to be entirely free from that danger. During the existence of what I may call the first Radical administration between 1906 and 1909, new offices of profit were created to the number of 1,100.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: May I submit that this Amendment raises the same point as is included in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Yerburgh), which Amendment was not moved, for one reason, because I understand it was ruled out of order by Mr. Whitley.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) did not move the second Amendment in the name of the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) and explained his reasons why. That being the case, I took it for granted as regards the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Yerburgh), which was in order, that no one would desire to move that either. Therefore, it was not taken. The question has not been dealt with yet.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: May I say that I beg the Noble Lord's pardon for the interruption?
  Lord A. THYNNE: I had almost finished what I desired to say. In view of the portentious number of increases of offices of profit under the Crown during the period of the first Radical administration I do not think that we can claim in this country to be wholly free from the dangers connected with the too rapid growth of a bureaucracy, and I therefore feel that the right hon. Gentleman would be wise if he accepted the amendment which I now have the privilege of moving. I do not think he can claim that in either spirit or letter

  775
  this amendment runs counter to the general intention of the Bill of which he is in charge.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The new offices of profit which the Noble Lord contemplates may be created in the future will either be ancillary to the purposes of a Money Bill or they will not. If they are ancillary to the purposes of a Money Bill then his amendment will not touch them. If they are not ancillary to the purposes of a Money Bill, then they are already safeguarded by the definition in Clause 1, which says that "a Money Bill means a public Bill which… contains only provisions" which pertain to financial matters, or "subordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of them."
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I think I am right in saying that it is in the power of the Government to create any number of offices when the Government thinks proper, without consulting Parliament at all. Of course it would be possible to put the salaries of the officers on the ordinary Votes of Supply and cover them in the annual Appropriation Bill. Therefore it is in the power of the Government now to use the machinery of Supply to increase the number of officials, at any rate for many purposes, under the employment of the Crown to an unlimited degree. The Government do not wish to restrict any existing powers which belong to the House of Commons, but the answer to that argument is that if you are going to make a written Constitution you cannot provide for cases which hitherto have not arisen, but which might arise under the powers of the Constitution, if it is to be a written Constitution. As long as it is an unwritten Constitution you have an opportunity of making amendments which regulate more or less the different parts of the Constitution.
  When you have a written Constitution it is possible always to say, "There is nothing in the fundamental Constitution to prevent this; we are able to do it." The multiplying of offices is a very common thing in modern States, and it appears to be spreading in this country itself. It is desirable, therefore, that some safeguard should be introduced to prevent this House from using its power over money, in conjunction with Ministers of the Crown, to multiply officers to any great extent. The discussions really turn on the one point of the immense difficulty of carrying out the powers of the Act of
  776
  Parliament. Fundamentally, it is really a most difficult thing that the Government are engaged in doing. I feel that this Bill cannot go on for more than three or four years, and I find it difficult to argue as if it would go on for years. But supposing that this Act lasted for one hundred years, then, I think, the Amendment is a very reasonable and prudent one. This growth of bureaucracy is precisely one of the dangers which ought to be guarded against over a long period of time, and it is desirable that a safeguard should be made against it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Amendment of the Noble Lord is an extremely reasonable one, and in my opinion does not go quite far enough. We will presume that in the forthcoming Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer made some new provision as to the taxation of land, and in order to carry that out proposed to appoint inspectors. That would be ancillary to the Bill which would be treated as a Money Bill under this Amendment. Therefore, I think the Amendment is too moderate, as it would allow the Government to appoint new officials under those circumstances. Suppose that the Government were in Committee of Supply to create new offices, then the Amendment would come in and the result would be that the Appropriation Bill, because it included new offices, would not be considered a Money Bill. I think that is a real danger which, though it may not possibly be seirous at present, would, if this Bill became law and existed for any length of time. Since 1906 the Civil Administration has increased from £29,000,000 to £46,000,000, so that £17,000,000 is being spent yearly on the Civil Service in excess of the amount spent five years ago. One of the great reasons for that increase has been the enormous increase in posts.
  I do not think there can be any doubt that one of the dangers of democracy is the creation of posts for their supporters. That is a danger not confined to this country. It is very prevalent in France, in all the States of South. America, and in all countries which have been governed by a democracy. We are going to make a great alteration in the Constitution of this country. We are proposing a revolution, and therefore it is only right that in carrying out this revolution we should take time by the forelock and introduce some safeguards against those dangers which everybody who has read history knows must occur.

  777
  I think the Amendment which is extremely moderate should be accepted by the Government. The arguments of the Government are no arguments. It is the old idea, that we can trust the House of Commons, and that, therefore, it is not necessary to bring forward any safeguards. I do not mind admitting, supposing this Bill became law, that I should not trust the House of Commons. An hon. Gentleman below the Gangway opposite laughs, but may I point out if he looks back he will find that the only period when the House of Commons was a Single Chamber nobody did trust it after three or lour years. Its authors found, to their surprise and regret, that it was a Chamber which ought to be done away with, and in which the confidence of the nation ought not to be placed. Bearing in mind that human nature does not change, and that we are actuated by the same motives as our ancestors. I would not trust the House of Commons if it were to be a Single Chamber. When we are making a written Constitution we ought to see that safeguards are introduced. If the right hon. Gentleman does not think the proposal is ever likely to be put into force he might very well accept it. Let us have a little give and take. I hope, in view of the fact that we have been extremely expeditious, the right hon. Gentleman will accept this extremely moderate proposal.
  Mr. CHURCHILLrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. PEEL: I wish to support the view that the Noble Lord has not gone far enough. A very large number of posts
  ancillary to a Finance Bill must be created. If the Noble Lord had been in Parliament when the Finance Act, 1909, was under discussion he would have realised what a large number of highly paid posts had to be created to carry out the provisions of that Measure. There is not only the creation of posts, but the manner by which they are obtained. I have asked several questions lately about the methods of appointment, and I find that a large number of appointments are made now by the method of patronage rather than by examination. That is a matter in regard to which the Second Chamber ought clearly to have a voice, because this House cannot be trusted to deal with it. By whom are these appointments made? By Ministers of the Crown, and very often for their own supporters—persons who have been very active in politics in the country. There is no indignation on the part of hon. Members opposite. Why? Because they are entirely in the hands of their own Government, and they dare not, least of all the Labour Party, say a word in criticism. It is true that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), who has been assisting me in my campaign against this system of patronage—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment.
  Mr. PEEL: I was giving an illustration. It is extremely necessary that in this matter the Second Chamber should control this Chamber which, in this respect, cannot be trusted.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 153.

  Division No. 146.]

  AYES.

  [12.30 a.m.

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

  Cassel, Felix

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Aitken, William M.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Grant, James Augustus

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Gretton, John

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Courthope George Loyd

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, East)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, S.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Harris, H. P.

  Barnston, Harry

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Benn, Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Boscawen, Col. A. S. T. Griffith-

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kerry, Earl of

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

  FitzRoy, Hon. Edward A.

  Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

  Butcher, J. G.

  Forster, Henry William

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Campion, W. R.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle)

  Lawson, Hon. Harry (Mile End)

  Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William

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

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Walker, Col. W. H.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Rawson, Col Richard H.

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

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Rothschild, Lionel de

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

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stanier, Beville

  Younger, George

  Newdegate, F. A. N.

  Starkey, John Ralph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Alexander Thynne and Mr. Peel.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

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

  Pearce, Robert (Leek)

  Acland, Francis D. (Camborne)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Adamson, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Hayward, Evan

  Pointer, Joseph

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Barton, William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Johnson, William

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Jones, Leif (Rushcliffe)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Jones, Wm. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Rowlands, James

  Brace, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Keating, Matthew

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

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Lambert, George (South Molton)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cockermouth)

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

  Clough, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sheehy, David

  Clynes, John R.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shortt, Edward

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Logan, John William

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Smith, Albert (Clitheroe)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Summers, James Woolley

  Cullinan, John

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Sutton, John E.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Maclean, Donald

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Marks, George Croydon

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Delany, William

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Toulmin, George

  Doris, William

  Meagher, Michael

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Middlebrook, William

  Verney, Sir H.

  Edwards, A. C. (Glam., E.)

  Millar, Duncan

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Mooney, John J.

  Webb, H.

  Falconer, James

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nolan, Joseph

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Fitzgibbon, John

  O'Connor, T. P, (Liverpool, Scotland)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Ogden, Fred

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Malley, William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

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

  Hancock, John George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Captain CRAIG: I beg to move, to add, at the end of the Clause, as a new Subsection:—
  "(4) A Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill which imposes taxation on a part only of the United Kingdom."
  There is a great deal in this Sub-section which appeals to me and to my Ulster colleagues, for this reason—It is not very
  780
  long ago since the Radical Government brought in a Licensing Bill. That Bill was rejected by the House of Lords, and many threats were made against the Trade by various Members of the Government, which they were able eventually to attack entirely through a Money Bill. The latest proposal of the Government is to bring forward a Home Rule Bill for Ireland, which it is the intention of Ulster not to

  781
  accept. It is quite possible that a Radical Government in the future might say, "Well, as Ulster will not have Home Rule in the form we have proposed, we will tax Ulster specially and make her suffer for not having accepted Home Rule." I can quite conceive much ruin and disaster being occasioned to the united Kingdom, and particularly to the province in Ireland in which I am specially interested, if such a step were resorted to by the Government. The whole wealth and prosperity of any country is bound up in its finances, and if the people of Ireland are picked out, threatened, and overburdened by taxation imposed by a vicious Government for the purpose of revenge in order to pay off scores, the evils foreshadowed so ably by the Noble Lord the Member for Greenwich will be sure to arise. I can conceive, and the Members of the Government will conceive later on, that although the proposals in the direction of Home Rule—for which they have already appointed a Financial Committee—
  The CHAIRMAN: Home Rule has nothing to do with the Amendment.
  Captain CRAIG: I was giving Ulster as an illustration because it is at the present moment very forcibly before the Committee, and Home Rule is foremost in the programme of the Government. I look upon the treatment of Ulster not in the scornful manner of hon. Members opposite, nor in the light and airy way in which it is often treated by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, but as a most serious affair affecting the wellbeing of ourselves at home, and if the Government—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member must either speak to his Amendment or sit down.
  Captain CRAIG: I am coming to the Amendment. We are face to face with that particular item in the programme of the Government, which will fail in regard to Ulster, and then they will take the step foreshadowed by this Amendment. It is to prevent the Government from penalising any part of the United Kingdom for refusing to accept something which has been thrust upon the people by an overpowering majority that this Amendment is proposed. Take, for example, the case of Wales. Supposing something was passed which the people of Wales decided to resist, although I cannot conceive the present Welsh Members having the pluck to do anything of the sort.
  782
  It is to prevent this House of Commons saying, "Because they would not accept our Bill and our wishes, we will impose special taxation and tax them out of all proportion to the rest of the United Kingdom," thereby placing the people in the position of having to accept some drastic measure they hate and detest because it is better to take that than to be taxed out of existence. On these grounds, which I think are most sensible grounds, I beg to move the Amendment.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member evidently found some difficulty in endeavouring to make a case against Home Rule while keeping within the bounds of order on Clause 1. I venture to suggest to him it will be necessary, in all probability, on this Bill to have a Debate on the general question of its application to Home Rule, and that Debate can come most conveniently on Clause 2, on which it will naturally arise.
  Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman or any Member on that Bench give us an assurance that such a Debate will take place at a reasonable hour of the day?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There are a large number of Amendments on the Paper, some of which are clearly in order, and, whether the Government desire such a Debate or not, they will have no power, as they have no desire, to exclude it. With respect to this Amendment, I would suggest that really at this time of night it is hardly necessary to go into detail on a very subordinate issue of the same topic. It is obviously an exceedingly far-fetched assumption that, on the rejection of a Home Rule Bill, this House of Commons would seek to impose penal taxation as a means of revenue upon parts of the province of Ulster, and that it is therefore necessary special powers should be reserved to the House of Lords in order to enable them to veto a measure of that character when it is proposed. The Amendment can hardly be considered as a serious contribution to the Debate. It is clear, should the House of Commons desire to include in a Money Bill some tax which especially relates to a particular part of the country—the tax upon whiskey distilleries imposed in the last Budget affected those parts of the country where the whiskey distilleries happened to be, and, similarly, other taxes which have their influence upon certain industries affect those parts of the country where

  783
  those industries happen to be located—there is no ground on that account why-such measures should be regarded as no longer in the category of Money Bills.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I quite appreciate the arguments of my hon. Friend. No one knows better the state of feeling in Ireland and no one is better qualified to stand up for his country as he does with a courage which does him infinite credit. I desire, however, to support the Amendment on a totally different ground. It is quite possible some special taxation might be put upon this country, which is the richest part of the kingdom. There are at the present moment unfortunately three distinct sections in the House of Commons which have nothing to do with England—the Welsh party, the Irish party and the Labour party. I suppose that they might combine together to put taxation on the rich of the country for some of their petty projects; and then they would go to the Government and say: "Unless you agree with us on this we will vote against you." That will be a serious objection, unless a Bill of the nature I have indicated is to be reviewed in another place. I hope my hon. Friend will press his motion to a division.
  Mr. PEEL: I do not think the Committee appreciate the full significance of this Amendment. It is a very important matter indeed that this House of Commons should not be allowed to differentiate between different portions of the country and different nationalities. In our legislation in the last two or three years there have been dangerous examples of that sort of differentiation. Only the other day we had a Clause introduced into a Revenue Bill which was to give special exemption to a particular class of people in the Constituency of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education. If that little job had not been discovered advantage would have been given to a particular class in the Constituency of a Cabinet Minister, and obviously, if that could be done it would be equally possible to penalise any particular Constituency represented by an opponent of the Government. Take, for example, the Budget of 1909 and the Land
  Taxes themselves. There was a special I burden placed upon leaseholds in England, and more especially in London. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] If the hon. Member I does not take care I shall give him figures proving that statement.
  The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment says that a Bill shall not be deemed a Money Bill which imposes taxation on a part only of the United Kingdom, and although the question of leaseholds may affect one part more than another that question does not arise.
  Mr. PEEL: Does it not arise in this way? Yon might have special taxation in England affecting leaseholders whereas taxation in Scotland does not affect them at all. Surely that would be a differential treatment between the two parts of the country! I have heard the Lord Advocate saying that the leasehold system could not affect Scotland, and if you have therefore a clear case under the same measure of a differential system of taxation being applied, although not in so many words, the result of it would be differential.
  The CHAIRMAN: The terms of the Amendment must apply in so many words, and that is the hon. Gentleman is not in order.
  Mr. PEEL: My answer is that as we have already had, not in so many words but in fact, a different tax applied to different parts of the country it is easy to go from one step to another and have a differential system of taxation applied in so many words to different parts of the country. I might take an instance as a reductio ad absurdum of a Unionist Government putting a tax on Wales because Wales had returned Liberal Members of Parliament. You can conceive such a case, and it is one of those matters in which the Second Chamber should have a voice.
  Mr. CHURCHILLrose 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, 152; Noes, 98.

  Division No. 147.]

  AYES.

  [1.0 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Addison, Dr. Chrisopher

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B.)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Rhondda)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Barton, William

  Adamson, William

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Beauchamp, Edward

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

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hughes, S. L.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Brace, William

  Johnson, William

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Clough, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Robinson, Sydney

  Clynes, John R.

  Keating, Matthew

  Rowlands, James

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Cullinan, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Sheehy, David

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

  Lundon, Thomas

  Shortt, Edward

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Delany, William

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clithero)

  Dillon, John

  Maclean, Donald

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Doris, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Summers, James Woolley

  Duffy, Wiliam J.

  Marks, George Croydon

  Sutton, John E.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Tennant, Harold John

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Middlebrook, William

  Toulmin, George

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Millar, James Duncan

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Falconer, James

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Fenwick, Charles

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Mooney, John J.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morrell, Phillip

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Webb, H.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Whyte, A. F.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Ogden, Fred

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hancock, John George

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

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Parker, James (Halfax)

  Hayward, Evan

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

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

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  NOES.

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Aitken, William Max

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Gilmour, Captain J.

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

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Grant, J. A.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Banner, John S Harmood-

  Gretton, John

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rice, Hon Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Barnston, Harry

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hohler, G. F.

  Stanier, Beville

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sykes, Alan John

  Campion, W. R.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Kerry, Earl of

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

  Cassel, Felix

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Larmor, Sir J

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

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

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lewisham, Viscount

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lyttleton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Younger, George

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

  Finlay, Sir R.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Question put accordingly, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 97; Noes, 152.

  Division No. 148.]

  AYES.

  [1.6 a.m.

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

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Aitken, William Max.

  Gilmour, Captain J.

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Grant, J. A.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Ashley, W. W

  Greene, W. R.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gretton, John

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rice, Hon. W. F.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Barnston, Harry

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hills, John Waller

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hohler, G. Fitzroy

  Stanier, Beville

  Bridgeman, W. Olive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sykes, Alan John

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Campion, W. R.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cassel, Felix

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Walker, Col William Hall

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

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

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

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

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Younger, George

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Fisher, William Heyes

  Mount, William Arthur

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Craig and Mr. Hamilton Benn.

  Foster, Philip Slaveley

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Falconer, J.

  Marks, George Croydon

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Ferens, T. R.

  Meagher, Michael

  Adamson, William

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Middlebrook, William

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Millar, James Duncan

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Gill, A. H.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawich B.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mooney, J. J.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morrell, Philip

  Barton, W.

  Hancock, John George

  Nolan, Joseph

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Harvey, T. E (Leeds, W.)

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hayward, Evan

  Ogden, Fred

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, N.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Malley, William

  Brace, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Clough, William

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Clynes, John R.

  Johnson, W.

  Pointer Joseph

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Cullinan, J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Keating, Matthew

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Delany, William

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Dillon, John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Doris, W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Duffy, William J.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lundon, T.

  Rowlands, James

  Edwards, Alien C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Maclean, Donald

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Sheehy, David

  Toulmin, George

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Shortt, Edward

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Verney, Sir Henry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Sutton, John E

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Webb, H.

  Tennant, Harold John

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

  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Question proposed, "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Sir R. FINLAY: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again." If hon. Members will listen to me they will find I have good reasons for this Motion. On Monday last week, the Home Secretary in the course of the discussion on the arrangements for the progress of business said:—
  "The Government are very desirous of concluding Clause 1 with the exception of the general question, that the Clause stand part, which I quite agree should be the subject of ordered debate by itself, before we go away for the holidays.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1911, Col. 200]
  He afterwards again referred to the debate taking place after the holidays. The important point is that the Home Secretary recognised that the question that the clause stand part should form the subject of ordered debate by itself. Everything that has taken place since these words were uttered has shown the importance of the question that the clause stand part. A great many subjects of the utmost gravity have come up and have been considered separately with reference to the particular amendments. It is all important that the question whether the clause stand part should be considered as a whole, by the light of the discussion on the various Amendments, so that these questions may be properly focussed, and that we may consider their bearing upon the effect of the clause, taken as a whole, and also by the light of the amendments the Government have accepted and of those amendments which have been refused. In these circumstances I think the Home Secretary will recognise that any debate which takes place at this hour of the morning, a quarter past one, on a question of so much gravity as he has recognised, could certainly be called ordered debate. Probably it would be a very different debate from that, and the question would not receive that discussion which its importance demands. I hope the Government will recognise that it is reasonable to ask that we should now report progress.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: When we had some conversation across the floor of the House on Tuesday morning last, it is quite true I used the expression or phrase which has been referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If he will consult the debates and will apply his general resources to the real meaning of the language used, to the character of the discussion and the scope of the discussion, he will see quite clearly that the proposal I made did not in any way bar the Government from taking, as we must do, the question that Clause 1 stand part to-night. I was speaking of a suggestion that we should dispose of the whole of Clause 1 with the exception of the question that the Clause stand part before we went away for the holidays. That was the proposal I then made across the floor of the House, and what I contemplated if that proposal had been accepted, was that we should have disposed of the whole of Clause 1, and that the only matter of the Clause that would remain for discussion after the holidays would be the question that the Clause stand part.
  I think it would have been very reasonable and very convenient if that had been the position we had reached, because then the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have been able to commence the discussion of the question that the Clause stand part at an hour in the evening when he would have had the fullest advantages of an ordered Debate upon this point—whether the House of Commons is or is not to have control of financial matters. That Debate would have been very valuable. But the discussion we had on last Tuesday went a good deal further. It did not stop at the point to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. The Leader of the Opposition was present, and he raised the question of the provisoes, and, in order to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman and to come to some arrangement which would assist the general progress of Government business, we agreed that not only should the question that the Clause stand part should stand over and be put off till after the holidays, but also that

  791
  the question of the provisos should be put off and that they should be moved not as provisos but as Sub-sections. With regard to that, I believed, in all sincerity—I may be contradicted—that to-day, the afternoon and the early part of the evening would have been taken up by the discussion of the provisos, which, after all, could not have been expected to take up much time, and that we should have reached, say about ten o'clock this evening, the discussion on the question that the Clause stand part. That would have enabled us to have had two hours' discussion on a subject which is more than I think it really deserves after the extensive discussion we have had and further on a matter, the principle of which is not challenged here, and not seriously challenged in the other House or out of it. During these two hours there could have been a discussion which would have been fully reported in the newspapers in the country up to twelve o'clock, and having disposed of the business very satisfactorily in that way we could have gone home rejoicing. But unfortunately it is not for me to criticise at all the tactics pursued on that side of the House. Hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen must be presumed to know their own business best. They have chosen to consume the whole of the time to-day, up to twenty minutes past one, in the discussion of a number of proposals which we are asked to believe—and I wish to pay the greatest possible respect to any request of that character—are substantial proposals. We have spent all this time in this discussion, and now we are left with a less convenient time than would otherwise have been at the disposal of hon. Gentlemen opposite for the discussion of a question which I admit is a good subject for debate, that Clause 1 as amended stand part. I think we have seen during the course of to-day a very good instance of the disadvantages of the present method of conducting this discussion; we have seen valuable time of the House, which might have been devoted to important questions of controversy, frittered away on matters of controversy. Of that, I venture to say, we have no reason to complain. We are here to defend the Parliament Bill, and this kind of discussion causes us no embarrassment so far. We consider that we have fully considered the priority of Government business in allocating the whole of to-day for what was left outstanding of Clause 1 after we sepa-
  792
  rated for the holiadys—the earlier parts of to-day to the provisos and the latter part to the discussion of the question that Clause 1 stand part.
  An HON. MEMBER: What about the Prime Minister's Motion?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I fully agree there has been discussion on the Motion to take Wednesdays, but apart from that I think the time allotted would have been ample for the discussion. I am very sorry to ask the House to sit longer and later to-night, but it is essential and indispensible that we should conclude the Committee stage of Clause 1 to-night, and I earnestly hope we may do so without any rise of feeling above the level which has been maintained to-day. But whether there be a rise of feeling or not we must get the Clause to-night.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I will deal in a moment with the concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman. As to his earlier remarks, I would venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman himself will admit that he attaches more importance to the time-table of this Measure than to the importance of the matters embraced in it to be discussed. I think his speech is an admission of that fact. When we are dealing with a Bill of this character, that is a very serious and, I think, a very damaging admission to be made by the Minister in charge of the Bill. It is true in the earlier and more conciliatory portion of the Home Secretary's speech he refrained from any criticism of the manner in which my right hon. and hon. Friends have felt it their duty to criticise the proposals of the Government; but he did not maintain that attitude, and in that respect he was passing a criticism on the attitude of the Chairman. It must be remembered that under our new procedure the Chairman even selects the Amendments to which the Chairman attaches importance.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Not as regards new sub-sections.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: Surely there is an absolute lack on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to appreciate the relative importance of the matters in question. He must recognise the importance of this clause. What has he to gain now by going back on the admission he made last Tuesday as to the importance of the clause? I think he will agree with me that a postponed discussion of this

  793
  character never takes long if the Government of the day at half-past one in the morning drops the reins for a moment. The discussion next day is a discussion in which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition can take part. When it is admitted that Clause 1 as a whole is a proper subject for discussion by the Committee, is it not worth our while, perhaps at the expense of two-and-a-half hours, to have the views of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition? The right hon. Gentleman must have his time-table, but it is important that Clause 1 should be viewed as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman has nothing to gain by keeping us up to-night; he has something to lose. He will lose the advantage of hearing the Prime Minister on the subject. I should be the last person to suggest there has been any breach of faith. There has been none. But there has been disappointment.
  Surely the Government must recognise the importance of having an ordered discussion of a clause such as this, involving a novel departure of great magnitude. When one body invites another to take such a step they generally tell them that all the difficulties have been foreseen, and that their methods have surmounted all difficulties. But that is not the case in respect of this clause. The Government have themselves recognised in the fullest manner that it is difficult to define a Money Bill in such a way as to prevent large measures of public policy being passed under the guise of a Money Bill. The Prime Minister told us this afternoon that he and his colleagues in the Cabinet had devoted many hours, I think he said, to attempting to devise such methods as my hon. Friends have attempted to find by their amendments. He apparently abandoned the task in despair. Is that a reason why the Committee as a whole should refrain from leaving the Clause as it now stands? Surely the very fact that the Cabinet have failed to find a device and are dissatisfied with the devices that have been proposed is a reason, and an overmastering reason why this Committee as a whole should review the Clause as it now stands before they make it an integral part of the Bill we are asked to pass. It is all very well to say, "Here is a hole to be filled in, but I do not like your patch." If that is the case, the Government should produce a patch of their own. The plan is admittedly full of holes. We ought to review it, not at 1.30 in the morning, but during the first
  794
  two and a half hours of a sitting, in order that we may see the magnitude of the holes in the legislation, which the Government admit, and find out whether we cannot patch it. We are trying to make a new Constitution, and it is absurd to say we should pass the first Clause without reviewing it as a whole.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: This Clause may very well be a short cut to confiscation. [Interruption.] I know the suggestion will be welcomed on the Benches opposite. It is just because it is true that we are asked to pass it at 1.30 in the morning. How is it possible that consideration can be given to the Clause as amended under these conditions. The Home Secretary says that its principle has been admitted in the House of Lords and elsewhere, but he does not say, what we ought to know, that we are not trying to pass a temporary measure, but to fix the relations of the two Houses in the case of Money Bills for all time and under all conditions, whatever may be the constitution and composition of the other House. There has been no real debate on this Clause because we have had all the talk upon this side of the House.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Clause cannot be debated upon this Motion. The hon. Member must confine his attention to the Motion.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I not point out that we should have a free discussion because there has been no free clash and play of opinion which makes Parliament what it is. We have had replies from Ministers and we have had one or two speeches from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) who has acted as bottle-holder for the Government. There has been nothing else. We are entitled to reasonable conditions to debate the Clause as amended. It is an ill omen that we have had no Amendments except verbal Amendments admitted. The Clause is now before the Committee as a whole. With all its imperfections it would conduce to the further progress of the Bill if we were as reasonable men allowed to debate it at a reasonable hour. Instead of doing that we shall waste time for several hours, and instead of dealing with it by serious debate we shall deal with it by a series of interruptions and jeers from hon. Members below the Gangway opposite.
  Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: I only intervene in this Debate for a very few moments in the interests of the Patronage

  795
  Secretary to the Treasury. I have observed the composition of the majority which the Government have had to-night. It is composed of a certain number of Liberals, of thirty hon. Members from Ireland, and of twenty-eight independent Labour Members, of whose independence we have had an example already this afternoon. I think it is in the interests of the right hon. Gentlemen that Progress should be reported, so that he can get his scattered forces together by to-morrow. He is fighting to-day not with the Liberal party but with a remnant of the Liberal party and certain allies.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not in order on this Motion.
  Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: I will not take it any further, but will simply say that I am trying to do the right hon. Gentleman a good service by supporting this Motion, for he can telegraph all over the country and get enough Liberals here so as to have a real Liberal majority.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: I simply desire to ask what authority have we—this miserable rump of a Parliament—to discuss this very important question and deal with this Clause in this way. The last division list showed that a very small proportion of the House is now in attendance. The Government have brought us here while more favoured individuals are taking a holiday, and naturally the attendance during the day has not been very large. Hon. Members do not like to be called a rump, but they must realise that it is a very important matter to make such a grave change in our Constitution. We have been told that there has been sufficient discussion, but we cannot have a sufficient and proper discussion at this time of night. A great number of Amendments have been perfunctorily replied to from the Treasury Bench by right hon. Gentlemen who have obviously not understood them. The Home Secretary laughs. He was the most conspicuous instance that I had in my mind. When these perfunctory replies were considered insufficient and the real meaning of the Amendment was pointed out, no answer was given. In view of the fact that we have not our full debating strength present owing to the extraordinary circumstance of being brought here on an Easter Tuesday—a day on which a great many well-regulated trades unions arrange to have a holiday [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no"], at any rate, no regular trades unionist works
  796
  at this hour, except under special conditions regarding overtime, which I understand are not to be allowed in this House—in view of these facts I maintain that under the present conditions we cannot have, and have not had, a satisfactory discussion.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If ever there was an occasion when the Government ought to give way and allow a proper discussion to take place, this is the occasion. Let me point out how the argument of the Home Secretary falls to the ground. He dealt, with the reference to the words he had used on Tuesday last. He told us that he assumed that during the early part of to-day we should deal with the provisoes, but he had absolutely forgotten, until reminded by the Postmaster-General, that a large part of the time that he himself had allocated to the discussion of the Bill had been taken up by the Motion of the Prime Minister, which he had not foreseen. Therefore, on his own showing, we are at least entitled to the time he had intended we should have.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I gave you up to ten o'clock.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Fully two hours were lost by the time taken up with that matter and that makes all the difference. I come to another feature in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. He told us we had wasted time. I am quite willing to admit that there has been some waste of time if that is any satisfaction to him, and that I should have preferred to have had that time taken up with the discussion of other matters rather than some of those which have been discussed. It so happened that I was present during nearly the whole of the discussion which took place, and I would like to point out why the discussion took the form which it did. We had one or two most important subjects for discussion. One especially was with regard to limiting the powers of this House under the Bill on Money Bills. Time after time points were made on this side of the House which had not been made by previous speakers and which required an answer from the Gentleman in charge of the Bill for the Government. Three or four of them sat on that Bench and let them go by default, they never met them in any way. In these circumstances how was it possible to devote our discussion to the proper subjects? The Home Secretary told us on Tuesday, and told us truly, that

  797
  the discussion of this Clause 1 deserved an ordered debate. Nobody can deny that it does, but he assumes that we are not entitled to it because it happens not to fit in with the time-table as he expected it to do.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: You have used up the time.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Not at all. I will deal with that point. Supposing even that it is our fault? The Home Secretary said it deserved careful and ordered discussion, and now he refuses to give it to us. It does not matter whether it is our fault or his. Does anybody pretend at this hour of the morning, with a House such as we have around us now, it is possible to give the discussion that ought to be given to so important a part of the Bill?
  An HON. MEMBER: We are the best of friends.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, we are the best, and I do not want to do anything which will make it otherwise. What are we going to do by Clause 1, even apart from the rest of the Bill? We are making the greatest change in the Constitution that has been made in the lifetime of anyone in this House. The Home Secretary told us that we had taken up six days in the discussion of Clause 1, as if that were something wonderful. It has taken 1,200 years to make the Constitution which Clause 1 does away with. Is six days too long a time in which to frame a new one? I say again, and I do not think anyone who has followed this discussion can deny it, that it is the only possible opportunity we have on this Motion to discuss this most important part of the Bill, not merely in the form in which it was introduced, but what is far more important, in the light of what the Government has shown its intentions to have been, by the Amendments which it refused to consider, as well as those which have been rejected.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the Home Secretary to look at his copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, col. 203. He will see there that he agreed that the provisos should stand over until after the holidays, and having agreed to that he went on to say, "As to the general Debate on this Clause I quite believe that is a matter which should stand over until after Easter." Then the right hon. Gentleman agreed that the provisos to which the Leader of the Opposition had alluded were extremely important, and should also
  798
  stand over until after Easter, and that the Debate on the question that the Clause stand part should also take place then.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That is another point.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am not in any way blaming the right hon. Gentleman for agreeing to that. I am very much obliged to him, but I do say that if he will look at the speech he will see that he said nothing in it about time. I am not saying there was a bargain or that any time was given. There was no question of a timetable, but we are quite at liberty to consider that there should be an ordered Debate in view of what was said and that it should have proper time. That being so we come down to the House and we find that two hours, I do not say it was more, was taken up by the Prime Minister's Motion and the Debate on it whether he should take Wednesdays, a Motion never made before. We go on to this Bill after that, and we find at a quarter-past 12 we are asked to take up the question that the Clause stand part, although everybody has admitted that this question is really a very important one. Now I rise in the interests of peace. I am perfectly serious. I think it will be found that the right hon. Gentleman had not quite realised the effect of his second speech on Tuesday morning. I appeal to him whether it would not be fair to adjourn the Debate now, and we would go on to the next Clause at a reasonable hour on Thursday. It must be evident that if we go on now some heat will be engendered, and if my suggestion is accepted that would be avoided. I do not think that more than three or four hours would be taken over this Clause on Thursday. That would be the outside. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to propose. If he would say three hours we might possibly meet him, or even if he is prepared to say a shorter time. We might sit here until six in the morning and be no better off.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My interest in Clause 1 is passed, and passes on to Clause 2, and I have to consider what progress we can make with Clause 2 on Thursday.
  Sir F. BANBURY: You must get Clause 1 finished before you go on to Clause 2. The right hon. Gentleman stated on Tuesday morning that we should have an ordered debate on Clause 1. If he will give us that on Thursday, in all

  799
  probability we shall be prepared to meet him and discuss it in a reasonable spirit. If he will not do that we must take refuge in the powers we have got; but I hope he will look again at his speech and will consider what I have proposed, which I have done in the interests of peace.
  Sir WILLIAM BULL: I rather think the Government have changed their minds in this matter. The proposal was that after Easter the Parliament Bill should be taken on Tuesday and Wednesday. At the same time we were promised a debate on the provisos, and an ordered debate on the whole Clause. I believe the Government had in their mind and that the Home Secretary intended that we should debate the provisos to-day and should have the ordered debate on the Clause on Wednesday. Then the arrangement was altered; Wednesday was taken from the Parliament Bill, which was put back to Thursday, and it was then that the thought came that they would seize more time by finishing both to-night. The Home Secretary knew there would be the Army Annual Bill for Wednesday, and he thought he could snatch the whole of Clause 1 to-night. I ask the Home Secretary what did he originally propose to do on Wednesday? When he spoke on Tuesday last did he intend to get through the provisos and the ordered debate to-day? Did he propose to take Clause 2 on Wednesday? That was the first arrangement. The first arrangement was that this Bill should be taken to-day (Tuesday) and half Wednesday. Now I ask the Home Secretary what had he in his mind when he was speaking last Tuesday, when he said we should debate the provisos and also have an ordered debate on the clause as a whole? I say that the Government, the Home Secretary, and the Prime Minister then had in their minds the idea that the proviso should be taken to-day (Tuesday), and that there should be an ordered debate on Wednesday.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I assure the hon. Gentleman that no such idea ever entered into our minds. We always contemplated that this day should see the end of Clause 1.
  Sir WILLIAM BULL: A great many right hon. Gentlemen did not think that.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It seems to me the right hon. Gentleman overlooked the
  800
  capital point in this discussion. He treated the matter as though it was a controversy between the two parties—the Ministerial Party and the Opposition—when he said "You have not used the time allowed to the best advantage, and, therefore, we cannot allow you any more time." I confess I think, especially when you are dealing with a matter of extreme importance, when you are dealing with a Bill which is strictly and literally unique in Constitutional history, it does seem to me reasonable to have regard to the House of Commons as a body. We have taken different views in the course of recent discussion as to the position and weight of the House of Commons; but does any one really think that Debate between two and three or two and five in the morning will be of any value whatever from the point of view of the efficiency of the legislative system?
  An HON. MEMBER: Why not?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Well, look round. Do we look like an active-minded intelligent legislature. I confess I find my legislative faculties somewhat dimmed, and still more my open-mindedness is somewhat obscured. A Debate at this hour of the morning is an unreality. In my opinion Debates from the point of view of the persuasion of the House of Commons are always unrealities, but that is not the point of view of the Government or of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. They maintain that Debates in the House of Commons are of great importance and persuasion. I do not think so. Does any one really believe there is going to be a valuable Debate at this hour of the morning, or that this important question will be treated as such a question ought to be treated? Or, again, that this House will debate the question to the instruction of the public mind throughout the country? How are we going to perform that function at this hour? I agree that is a function that still remains to the House of Commons. My point is really that the right hon. Gentleman does not meet the case for reporting progress when he says to the Opposition, "You ought to have done differently." The point is, has the House of Commons a proper opportunity consistent with efficient performance of its functions to debate a great question like this at this hour of the morning? I submit it has not. What sort of object-lesson are hon. Members giving to the country of the manner in which the House of Commons does its

  801
  business and therefore of its fitness to have the supreme power which hon. Members opposite wish to give it. I think hon. Members are not consulting the interests of their own party in affording an instance like this. Therefore I think the Motion ought to be agreed to for the sake of the credit and the efficiency of the House of Commons.
  Mr. CHURCHILLrose 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, 147; Noes, 90.

  Division No. 149.]

  AYES.

  [2.0 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Hancock, John George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Adamson, William

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

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pointer, Joseph

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. C. E. H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barton, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Hughes, S. L.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Johnson, W.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Brace, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Brunner, J. F. L.

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

  Rowlands, James

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Joyce, Michael

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Keating, M.

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

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Clough, William

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

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

  Clynes, J. R.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sheehy, David

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shortt, Edward

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lundon, T.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lynch, A. A.

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

  Cullinan, John

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Maclean, Donald

  Sutton, John E.

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Tennant, Harold John

  Delany, William

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Toulmin, George

  Dillon, John

  Meagher, Michael

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Doris, W.

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Duffy, William J.

  Middlebrook, William

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Mooney, J. J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Morrell, Philip

  Webb, H.

  Falconer, J.

  Neilson, Francis

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nolan, Joseph

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Ogden, Fred

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Malley, William

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

  NOES.

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

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Aitken, William Max.

  Campion, W. R.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Carlile, E. Hildred.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Cassel, Felix

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Grant, J. A.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Greene, W. R.

  Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Gretton, John

  Barnston, H.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hardy, Laurence

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Hills, John Waller

  Bull, Sir William James

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Hohler, G. F.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Mount, William Arther

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Hunt, Rowland

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

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

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lyttleton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Younger, George

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Mr. Ashley.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Stanier, Beville

  Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 147.

  Division No. 150.]

  AYES.

  [2.5 a.m.

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Aitken, William Max.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Goulding Edward Alfred

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Greene, W. R.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gretton, John

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Barnston, Harry

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Hills, J. W.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hohler, G. F.

  Stanier, Beville

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Starkey, John R.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sykes, Alan John

  Campion, W. R

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kerry, Earl of

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Cassel, Felix

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Chaloner, Colonel R G. W.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts, Mile End)

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

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lee, Arthur H

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Courthope, G. Lloyd

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dixon, C. H.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Younger, George

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Mr. Ashley.

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Mount, William Arthur

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hancock, J. G.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Adamson, William

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Cullinan, J.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartshire)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

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

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Delany, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Barton, William

  Dillon, John

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Doris, W.

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Edwards, Alien C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Johnson, W.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Falconer, J.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Brace, William

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Ferens, T. R.

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

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Ffrench, Peter

  Joyce, Michael

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Keating, M.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Clough, William

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Clynes, J. R.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Lundon, T.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Summers, James Woolley

  Maclean, Donald

  Pointer, Joseph

  Sutton, John E.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Toulmin, George

  Meagher, Michael

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Middlebrook, William

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Millar, James Duncan

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Morrell, Philip

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Webb, H.

  Neilson, Francis

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Robinson, Sidney

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Rowlands, James

  Williamson, Sir A.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ogden, Fred

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

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

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

  O'Malley, William

  Sheehy, David

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

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

  Shortt, Edward

  Sir R. FINLAY: I think that this Debate with regard to the Clause as a whole takes place under almost unexampled circumstances. The Home Secretary last week admitted that the general question of the Clause, as amended, deserved a considered Debate. He demands that we should Debate it to-night. Is the Clause about to receive any proper Debate at this hour?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Committee has decided that question.
  Sir R. FINLAY: Yes, the Committee has already decided that question and I am not going to re-open it, but I think it is quite legitimate to point out the importance of the subject and the hour at which a Debate on it is being forced upon us by the Government. It is of the highest importance that the country should be got to recognise what the Government are about. But considering the disadvantages under which we are placed we shall do our best to bring out the circumstances, so that the country, and even the Government, may realise what are the tactics which they are pursuing. I object to the proposal that this Clause stand part on several grounds. In the first place I object to it as being based upon bad history and bad law. We have been told with almost wearisome iteration that this Clause merely represents the present state of Constitutional law. I say it does nothing of the kind. It was stated some considerable time ago by one of the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that what they desired to do was to change the law. That is the only straightforward view of their policy that has been given. There is no doubt whatever that this Clause intro-
  806
  duces an entirely new view of Constitutional law into the proceedings of these Houses of Parliament. It is said that the House of Lords had no right to reject a Money Bill. It is a right that they have always asserted; it is a right that they have never abandoned; it is a right that has been recognised by this House itself over and over again, and it is a right that this House has admitted until this enterprise was entered upon by the present Government as a challenge of what has existed as a matter of Constitutional law. In these circumstances my first objection to this Clause is that it professes to crystallise the existing Constitutional law when it does nothing of the kind and reverses unquestionably the Constitutional law of this country.
  My second objection to this Clause is that it effects an enormous extension of any view that has, up to this point, been taken by the Members of the present Government themselves. The Lord Chancellor, in the course of a Debate in another place, said that the power to reject Money Bills in the House of Lords was absolutely unquestionable. When that was quoted, in the course of a subsequent Debate, he said that what he was asserting now was that there was no right in the Lords to reject a Money Bill referring to the Supply of the year. Does this Clause stop short at preventing the House of Lords from interfering with a Bill which makes provision for the Supply of the year? It goes enormously beyond that. It sweeps within the definition of Money Bills the vast variety of measures which deal in some way or other with finance. It is an extension beyond what has ever been put forward on any previous occasion as the doctrine of

  807
  privilege in this House. I desire to point out to the Government some of the ominous things that they have done. Great measures of policy, new proposals in national policy, may be introduced in the guise of financial measures. The Government will not listen to any proposal to take precautions for the purpose of preventing the machinery of this Bill from being abused so as to pass into law over the heads of the Lords measures of that kind which although in one sense they are financial are, in substance, far more political than financial.
  That is the attitude the Government take up. May I refer to one most significant incident in this Debate which took place earlier this evening? The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General were both pressed and challenged to deal with one specific point bearing upon the practice and the reasons why this Clause extends it. We all understood the Prime Minister to say that a Bill to provide payment of Members of this House was a Bill which the Lords could not have touched as the law stood before the present Bill was introduced. The Attorney-General on the other hand had assented, and when challenged assented again this evening as he had on the previous occasion, to the statement that the Bill to provide Free Education was a Bill the House of Lords might have dealt with.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I said one Bill—the Bill of 1891.
  Sir R. FINLAY: Yes, a Bill to provide Free Education was a bill which the Lords would have been justified in rejecting; nay, not only rejecting, but would have been justified in amending, because the Act was amended in several respects by the Lords and their amendments were accepted in this House. I most respectfully submit to the Committee and to the Attorney-General that these two statements are not reconcilable. The Attorney-General and the Prime Minister were both challenged to reconcile them and we had no response whatever. The only response that took place was that the closure was moved. I invite the Attorney-General to reconcile now, if he thinks he can, these two statements made by himself and the Prime Minister. Now to most of us it seems there is a complete contradiction on that point. I refer to it not for the purpose of referring to a contradiction which may
  808
  at times creep up between the law officer and the Prime Minister but for the purpose of referring to the difficulties in which the country and the House of Commons are involved by the wide scope of the Clause and by the attitude adopted by the Government towards amendments proposed to be made to it. I think it has been universally recognised that if the privileges of the House of Lords in connection with Money Bills is to be done away with some effectual provision must be made against tacking. There are a great many matters which, although they might not fall within the legal definition of tacking, would fall within the spirit of the rule, and therefore the importance of making some provision for such cases must be recognised by everyone. It was recognised by the Prime Minister in connection with an Amendment standing in the name of the Member for the Kingston Division.
  Surely is it not something like privilege run mad, when it is admitted that the subject is an important one, that no sufficient safeguard has been afforded for the rights which the House of Lords have hitherto exercised, but the Government plunge into legislation of this kind, reducing the Lords to absolute impotence, however clear it may be that the spirit of the law as regards tacking has been infringed, without providing some substitute which would prevent grosser abuses. The only thing the Prime Minister said was that he objected to the language of the definition. Otherwise the proposal received no recognition at all. I think the country ought to recognise, and I believe the country will be made to recognise, the tremendous nature of the step the Government insist upon taking under such circumstances. The country may have reason to experience it in a very practical shape indeed. As the Prime Minister said, finance is an instrument of great potency and flexibility. The cheers from below the Gangway which greeted these words in an earlier portion of the evening was an indication of the way in which hon. Members opposite propose to use that instrument of great potency and great inflexibility. Indeed, the country may find itself launched in legislation at which it may stand aghast—a course of which the great majority of Gentlemen immediately behind the Government may disapprove, but to which the Government may find themselves unable to offer any resistance owing to the exigencies of a tactical situation.

  809
  I regard this Clause as a thoroughly bad one, and I do trust that we shall do everything in our power under the circumstances to let the country recognise what sort of legislation it is that is being forced through Parliament in this way.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman's speech, although delivered under special circumstances of which he complained, certainly left nothing to be desired from the point of view of lucidity and argument or vigour of expression. I am sure that the manner in which he has addressed himself to the proposition will show that the House of Commons and the Committee of the House of Commons is not incapable of conducting a discussion of this importance with animation or perseverance although the hour is somewhat late. [Lord Hugh Cecil interrupted.] If the attendance of the Noble Lord's party does not reach one hundred it is truly a curious thing the Noble Lord should wish to call attention to the fact that so few patriots are at hand to stop the revolution which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us it is of the highest importance that the country should know what is meant by this Clause.
  We ask for nothing better than that the country should realise that the Government, by this Clause, is reclaiming and securing to the House of Commons a power which, in the political lifetime of all who are gathered here, has never been disputed until the autumn of 1909. We are, by this Clause, affirming a practice under which we have grown up. The basis of our claim is that the sole control of finance shall rest with the House of Commons. That that claim should be disputed now is only a sign of how far the Conservative party has been led away from the doctrines of liberty by their leaders in recent times. Every authority, the most ancient and modern, every text book, every history, no matter from what standpoint it is written, which deals with the English Constitution, has always proclaimed as the first and foremost characteristic of that Constitution that the House of Commons, and the House of Commons alone, must control not only all aids and supply to the Crown, but all matters of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman and his Friends have spent six days in denying these obvious principles which, two years ago, not one hon. Member opposite would have
  810
  ventured to deny. I am not going at this hour of the night to go over ground which is familiar, which has been the battle ground of two general elections over the length and breadth of the land. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends are more regal than the Crown and more lordly than the Lords. Lord Lansdowne, in his Resolutions, accepted the principle that the House of Lords should resign these claims to control finance.
  Sir R. FINLAY: Subject to safeguards.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am dealing with a definite question of principle, and Lord Lansdowne in his resolution has definitely disclaimed—much, I notice, to the disgust of some of his followers—that they should exercise in future control over Money Bills properly so defined. But you have argued this question not on the question of tacking alone. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Robert Finlay) speaks as if the discussion on these six days had taken place on the question how you could make sure that the term "Money Bills" could not be abused. The discussion has ranged over propositions of a very different character. If the Opposition had concentrated attention upon that important question and devoted half the time they had had at their disposal to a minute and painstaking examination of that point, the debate would have been a much more formidable ordeal for the Members of the Government than it has been. Yet they have chosen to interest themselves in a variety of proposals so outlandish and absurd, in no way related to the real dispute between the two parties and between the two Houses, and so far removed from anything they would dare to stand forward and champion at an election in the country, that they have only themselves to blame if the course of the discussion has left the Government unscathed and almost unassailable. This is a matter on which we have arrived at an absolute and definite conclusion. We know that whatever hon. Gentlemen may say for the purpose of conducting a Parliamentary combat in the House of Commons, they will not seriously challenge the principle of Clause 1 in this Bill here or anywhere else.
  The emptiness of the galleries during the whole course of the discussion shows that it is well known here and outdoors that this is not a real fight between

  811
  the two sides, but is really an obstructive skirmish preliminary to making serious points which will be reached when Clause 2 comes to be discussed. The power of taxation is vital to the existence of the House of Commons. It is by the power of the purse that this House alone has raised itself to its great position in the constitution of this conutry and become a model to the governments of all free countries in the world. It Is not only the question of taxation, not only the power to decide how and where the burden of taxation shall be laid that is involved in the control of the House over finance; it is an even greater question, the question of where shall be the foundation of executive power. The votes which the working classes of this country have enabled them to elect Members to a real assembly which can choose the Government of the country, which recommends the Ministry to the Crown, and all attempts of the House of Lords to interfere in the slightest degree with the sole control of the House of Commons over finance are attempts to take away from the House of Commons the power of recommending Ministers to the Crown which is the essentially vital power of the House of Commons and on which depends almost everything which can describe our character as a self-governing democracy.
  We know perfectly well that these pretensions which have been advanced are no longer advanced with the seriousness with which they were advanced two years ago. We know that two elections have made their mark in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have no reason to complain if hon. Gentlemen still continue in their clamouring that lordly interference is to be exerted upon the finance which the House of Commons has hitherto controlled, to choose the Ministers, to fix the moments of dissolution, and finally to choose the burdens to be imposed upon the people. If that is your policy, pursue it in every constituency as you wish and feel, but for our part we have no intention of submitting to such pretensions or of recognising that the House of Lords, or anybody which may succeed them, has the right to deprive this House of its ancient, undoubted, historic and indefeasible right of being the sole judge and sole authority to decide all matters of finance appertaining to the United Kingdom.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: The Committee must have been struck by the extraordinary change in the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning and the end of his speech. He started off by assuming, in very much the same way the Prime Minister did the other day, that the House of Commons claimed control over finance with every possible safeguard against talking. He finished up with the claim that what we really required was the absolute autocratic efficiency of the Cabinet. He said that what his Party desired was to reclaim for the House of Commons powers never disputed until 1909. That is sole control over finance. But the whole of these six days' debates have shown that their real desire is not only control over finance, but practically control over all highly contested questions, and it is perfectly obvious that the only questions that are allowed to come under Clause 2 will be questions of inferior importance. Under the definitions laid down in Clause 1 there is always a means of making almost any subject a financial measure. The right hon. Gentleman only dealt with that part of Clause 1 which affects the question of financial measures as opposed to other measures. Clause 1 does contain another proposal which, to my mind, is of the very greatest importance both to this House and to the country, and that is the very novel and I think very dangerous position in which it is proposed to place Mr. Speaker. It throws upon him new duties and responsibilities. He has the responsibility of giving a decision which may throw the whole of this country into a vortex of excitement and political struggle—a responsibility which cannot fail to have a reflex action upon the Speakers of this House. I believe that the effect of throwing upon the Chair this duty will be to detract from the high character of the Speakers, and make them necessarily men who, because they will be chosen more and more, as in other countries, from party motives, will become more and more subservient to the pressure of the party from whom they received their appointment.
  One other point. It is perhaps an ordinary point, but it is, notwithstanding, one which, as the Clause stands, lays it open to considerable criticism. In the beginning the Clause started off with the general principle that a Money Bill is sent up to the House of Lords at least a month before the end of the Session. The question will arise. What is "a month before the end of the Session"? We had it

  813
  the other day from the Home Secretary that a month before the end of the Session does not mean a month before this House ceases to exist. He said there was no reason why this House, when it had finished its work and sent a Bill up to the Lords, should go on marking time for a month in order that the Lords might consider the Bill before that time elapsed. If that be so, what really is the meaning of the words "before the end of the Session"?
  If this House is not sitting, it is obvious that the meaning of that term is very vague and meaningless. It is one which I venture to think might reasonably be put in a clearer light, because to ordinary people it would be assumed to mean a month before this House came to an end of its labours, and before the Session practically ended. Obviously the most important part of this Clause, after the danger that is involved in the change of the position in which the Speaker will be placed, is the question of tacking. We had from the Prime Minister an assurance that what the Government desired was that this House should have control only over Money Bills from which all possibilities of tacking were eliminated. There were some proposals to-night by way of giving effect to the promise the Prime Minister gave, and these have been rejected, and I venture to say that as things stand now there is absolutely no provision whatever to prevent tacking in the worst and most obvious form, and practically any Bill which you choose to make into a Money Bill can be made into a Money Bill, and I have not the slightest doubt they will do it in many important cases.
  [Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I confess I am surprised at being called upon to discuss matters of this moment at this hour of the night. The Home Secretary has no doubt thrown an animation into the debate, partly by his demeanour and partly by the startling character of his historical presentment of the relations between the two Houses. If we are to recast the Constitution of the country, which after all has stood us in good stead for a good many hundred years, we ought not to be asked to do it between two and three o'clock in the morning.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Committee has already come to a decision on that point.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I am sorry that I should be out of order in expressing
  814
  regret at having to address the House at this hour of the morning. What I want to point out first is this, that we are putting the relations of the two Houses on a most important matter into a written form. We are doing it in such a form as to allow no departure, no elasticity, no divergence from the letter of the law that is now laid down. We have been told that discussions in the House of Lords are of such value that we ought not to put this Bill into such a form as would preclude them from discussing money matters at all. What they may discuss, or what they may lay down as sound opinion or may suggest in the course of their debates can have no effect upon this House, because the House in Committee deliberately, at the instance of the Government rejected an Amendment which would have given us a few days even to consider what had passed in the House of Lords before that automatic process came into force by which the Bill becomes somehow or other an Act of Parliament.
  The Home Secretary (Mr. Churchill) has told us with a good deal of display and gesture that this Clause does nothing more than state, in a written form, the well-understood relations between the two Houses. Why, when we are dealing with the Home Secretary's history and law, I say his law was imperfectly understood and his history somewhat imperfectly remembered. We have claimed, and it is not denied by the Lords, our right to initiate taxation. But the Lords have claimed, and we have admitted their right, to reject a Money Bill, and they have never foregone their right to amend a Money Bill, though we have never admitted it. Mr. Gladstone said they were quite right to retain their rights for possible use in time of need. Can it be said that this Bill stereotypes these conditions in the words in which it now stands? It is a perversion of law and history to tell us that this Clause merely recites in a form in which no departure can be admitted the well-understood relations in which the Houses have stood to each other in the past. It is idle to suggest such a thing.
  It is not only that this Clause assumes to this House rights in matters of finance which the House has never claimed and the House of Lords has never admitted in past times, but the definition of a Money Bill is a matter about which we have never been able, in the course of the last few days, to get an explicit answer from the Government. The Prime Minister told us

  815
  a most reassuring thing last Tuesday that the Clause referred to Money Bills in the strict sense, such as Finance and Appropriation Bills, adjustment of Revenue and taxation for the year, the imposition of taxation, and the appropriation to the public service of money so raised by taxation. What did we hear to-day? That a Bill, based upon a money resolution, but relating to matters of great public interest such as payment of Members of Parliament was a matter which would come within the four corners of the Clause. That suggests a very formidable invasion of the hitherto well-understood rights of the Lords. Nothing has been more assured or more regular in practice than that a Bill of general interest, although based on a Money Resolution, has been capable of amendment by the House of Lords so long as the Lords did nothing by that amendment to increase or diminish the amount of the charge which the House of Commons proposed to lay upon the people. That is a right we have never disputed, but from what we have heard to-day there is good reason to fear that right may be disputed in the future, and it may be held that Bills of that character come within the meaning of Clause 1.
  If that be so, if large matters of public interest can be withdrawn from the consideration of the House of Lords and not merely withdrawn, but automatically passed into law a month after they are sent to that Chamber, surely we are called upon to enter upon a final discussion of the matter before we come to Clause 2. What is the good of the securities of the Bill, the delay of two or three years, or all the provisions of Clause 2, which would prevent important matters being hurried into law whether the country wills or not, or without the constituencies having any opportunity of expressing an opinion on the matter: what are all these securities against delay worth, if by the introduction of a Money Clause, or if the fact that a Bill is concerned to a considerable degree with the expenditure of public money has this sweeping effect? That is what was suggested to us this afternoon. Surely the discussion of Clause 2 would in that case be very much diminished in interest, because such a Bill may pass into law by the mere will of a Single Chamber. A majority, however composed, containing however many discordant elements, may act together for a certain purpose common to them all, and pass such Bills into law without reference to
  816
  the House of Lords. That possibility of the limitation of Clause 2 by the provisions of Clause 1, of which we have too much reason to fear by what we have heard this afternoon, does need a fuller vindication by the Government than we have been able to obtain. We have asked again and again, and our appeals have been met by the Closure, Under these circumstances I think that even now we are entitled to ask what is the understood meaning of a Money Bill in the mind of the Government.
  These are not the only features in this Clause which I think would call for fuller discussion than they are likely to obtain at this hour of the night. We are making a written Constitution which is naturally inelastic. There can be no give and take. A written Constitution needs a tribunal to interpret it, and the Government in their wisdom have chosen the Speaker as the tribunal. I admit that the logical course with a written Constitution would be to establish some tribunal outside this House or the other House, a perfectly independent judicial body, but I also admit that would run counter to the feelings of Members of this House. I confess it would run counter to my own, and I believe it would run counter to the feelings of the other House also. But surely some means might have been devised to prevent burden being thrown upon the Speaker; to prevent the occupant of a Chair, the impartiality of which for the past 150 years has always been the pride of the House of Commons—to prevent the occupant of the Chair from having to decide a matter which may arouse strong party feeling, and which, if he decides against a party, may imperil his election at the beginning of the next Parliament. I say by the choice of the Speaker as tribunal in this matter you have not merely not chosen the best tribunal, because I believe a joint Committee of the two Houses would have been best, but you have so dealt with the office of Speaker as to bring it within the range of party feeling, and to lower the office of Speaker.
  It is a grave misfortune that an office which at one time was held by practically the spokesman of the Crown, which has shaken itself free from party feeling, which has been a model in the history of legislative Chambers, and which has been singular for its splendid impartiality, should have thrown upon it a duty which will inevitably bring it within the range of party feeling and influence so as to do an

  817
  injury to this House worse, to my mind, than any assumption of power which is rashly undertaken in this Parliament Bill and this Clause we have under discussion. By failing to give us a satisfactory definition of a Money Bill suggests an assumption by this House in all matters of legislation in which money bears no serious part—and we know the power of the majority of this House. We know that we are putting legislation of a very varied character into the hands of the Executive Government, and that we are, in cases of dispute, calling upon the Speaker to determine questions which the Speaker ought never to be called upon to determine, questions which affect not only the privileges of this House against the outside world, but questions which touch the power of the other House. In that way we are imperilling the position of the Chair. Under these circumstances I think this Clause deserves fuller consideration, and I call upon the Government once more to give us some real explanation of the character of a Money Bill, so that, at any rate, whatever may be the faults of the Clause otherwise, we may be assured that Money Bills capable of definition under this Clause may not seriously invade the legislation which is proposed to be dealt with under Section 2.
  3.0 A.M.
  Mr. CASSEL: We have now been discussing this Clause six days, and that discussion has at least established one fact. It is that it is absolutely impossible in human language to define what a Money Bill is. Even the Prime Minister himself has admitted that the present definition is unsatisfactory. We ourselves have tried our best to improve it, and the Home Secretary has admitted that some of our Amendments have been important. Notwithstanding the efforts of both sides of the House to try and produce a definition of a Money Bill which is workable, intelligible, or which will really define within the corners of this Clause what the House intends, all these efforts have shown that that is impossible. It is impossible to lay down in black and white and definitely in a Clause what has previously been the subject matter of conventions, of precedents, which have been understood in this House, and which have been ruled upon by Speakers, but which are incapable of being so defined and laid down that the definition may apply to all circumstances. As this Clause stands there is no purpose, however novel or revolutionary, to which money can be applied which cannot be brought within the limits
  818
  of such a definition. Whether it be payment of Members, purchase of railways in the country, or purchase of private property, however wide, extensive, and far-reaching the object may be, it comes within the Clause, and the Speaker, acting upon that Clause alone, would be bound to give effect to it as a Money Bill.
  Nobody in the House intends that in a case of that kind the Second Chamber should not have a voice. The only reason why we leave it in the present form is because nobody can produce words which will adequately express what the House intends. Surely we would do far better to cut the Clause out of the Bill and go back to the ancient usages and privileges of this House, which none of us on this side deny as far as they go, and rely upon these rather than upon any written constitution. In the first place, this Clause cannot be put in such a form as will really convey the true meaning or intention of this House. In the second place the discussion has shown that it is impossible to find a satisfactory tribunal to decide whether a measure comes within the meaning of the Clause or not. To a legal tribunal I admit that there are objections; but the selection of the Speaker has also its objections. Even the Prime Minister recognised it was only a choice of evils. In the third place, when you have gone through this process you have created a Constitutional difficulty in connection with what will arise when the Bill has-become an Act of Parliament, because a court of law in the future will have, for the first time, to enquire whether the circumstances have occurred which the Bill says make it become an Act of Parliament. There is nothing in the nature of prima facie evidence in the Bill that it is an Act of Parliament. The Bill contains a Clause stating that the Speaker's certificate is not to be questioned in any court of law. This means that you would have to produce the Speaker's certificate in a court of law, and I cannot imagine any procedure more inconvenient than that in every proceeding under a Revenue Act you would have-to produce the certificate of the Speaker. Unless you prove that the circumstances have happened which makes the measure an Act of Parliament, no court would recognise it as being an Act of Parliament.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Does the hon. Member assert that with the Royal Assent given to a Bill in the form in which a Bill would be passed a court of law would challenge it?
  Mr. CASSEL: I do not see how the court could act otherwise; the Bill would not be passed by three Estates of the Realm. The only fact the court would have before them was that the Bill said that when certain things had happened the Bill would become an Act of Parliament. Then the court would hold an enquiry as to whether the Bill had been sent to the House of Lords a month before the end of the Session, whether the certificate had been given by the Speaker, and, if so, was that certificate produced in court? I am suggesting to the Attorney-General difficulties which I think will arise hereafter if this measure becomes law. In the future the great point which will arise between the two Houses will be as to what are Money Bills within this definition, and, again, when the third year of a Parliament comes and Welsh Disestablishment, say, has not gone through, great pressure will be put on the Government so to promote such a Bill as to make it a Money Bill within this definition. After measures have been rejected once or twice by the House of Lords, then the supporters of the Government, even against the wish of the Government itself, will force them to try and so modify the Bills as to make them Money Bills within the meaning of this Section. In conclusion, I again appeal to the Government that as a result of these six days of discussion which have shown that neither a satisfactory definition nor a satisfactory Tribunal can be produced, that they had better fall back on the ancient privileges of the Constitution instead of attempting, for the first time, to give us a hopeless and unworkable written Constitution.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: After the speeches during the later part of the evening, one is struck by the reiteration of the old difficulties and troubles which have separated us for some time. I do not propose to re-state them or re-argue them, because I am quite sure no one would be convinced. It would be useless re-stating views which have been stated from this side on so many occasions, and equally it would be useless to contradict again to-night my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir R. Finlay), who asserted apparently that constitutionally the House of Lords had the right to reject Money Bills. The point that separates us is an important one, and is worth some observations in considering this Clause. The whole question before us lies simply on this—whether or not the Lords have constitutionally or
  820
  had constitutionally the right to reject Money Bills. Nobody disputes now the statement that they had no right to initiate a Money Bill, or that they had no right to amend a Money Bill. I hear some faint echoes from the other side, very faint echoes. I quoted quite recently and con quote again if necessary some sentences from a book by the right hon. Baronet who represents Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities (Sir R. Finlay). I think he was in the House the last time I quoted them, and that he again assented to them. He used the expression there that the right of the House of Lords to amend a Money Bill had fallen into desuetude. He did not suggest any such right existing at the present moment, and certainly the colleague of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) who sits for the City of London did not suggest that there was; he has stated that he would be the last to say that there was a right to amend a Money Bill in the Lords. May I add one more quotation? It was the right hon. Gentleman who said that the Commons and not the Lords had the uncontrolled right to deal with the finances of this country. The Leader of the Opposition did not use the word "initiate," nor did I. That has gone long since. Even the hon. Baronet opposite would hardly assent to or assert the right to initiate a Money Bill in the Lords.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Certainly not.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am glad he has travelled so far. I pass over the question of Amendment to the real point which was discussed, namely, whether there was a right to reject. Not a legal right, for no one disputed, no one ever has disputed that the Lords had a right legally to reject. But that is on a very narrow use of the term "legal." The question was rather whether they had a right constitutionally, according to usage. I am not going to weary the House by going over that again. It is well known, the difference between legal right and constitutional right. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Finlay) quoted the Lord Chancellor. I think when he was doing so he would have done well to have quoted one or two other sentences from the Lord Chancellor's speech on the Budget of 1909–10. The Lord Chancellor is the highest judicial authority in the country. He said: "The noble Marquis assumed it was within the rights of this House (the House of Lords) to reject the Finance Bill of the

  821
  year. If I am asked whether you can do it lawfully according to law, I answer, undeniably, yes." And then he went on: "But if I am asked whether the House can do it constitutionally, I say, in my opinion, No. And the difference between what can be done according to law and what can be done in accordance with the Constitution under which we live is notorious and fundamental." If authority is required for the proposition, at least we have this from the highest judicial authority who only the other day asserted plainly that we in this House stand, as the leader of the Opposition has Quite rightly also said, uncontrolled in the finances of this country; that the control rests with the House of Commons and not in any way with the Lords.
  We are attempting by this Clause now under discussion to settle once for all by a clause in a Bill what we have asserted is the right in the House of Commons and not in the Lords, and in that way to get rid of the many difficulties. The Lords having asserted, after a long time of lapse, that they have the right to reject a Money Bill we have been called upon to introduce this Clause and to put in black and white what the powers of the Lords and Commons must be in the matter in the future. I want also to say a word or two about a matter on which I have been challenged during the evening with reference to an observation I made on a former occasion, and which I repeated to-day, that the Education Act, the Free Education Act of 1891 would in my own view not be a Money Bill according to the definition laid down in the Bill we are at present discussing, and I venture to say that not one single word or anything that has fallen from the Prime Minister is in conflict with what I have said. When I am asked to justify such a statement I call attention to the definition, which I am afraid must now be well in the minds of hon. Members. This is the last clause as it now stands in the Education Act of 1891, "That this Act is to be recited as the Elementary Education Act, 1891, and should be construed as one with the Elementary Education Acts of 1870–1890." How can it be said, after that, that the Bill can ever be a Money Bill, seeing that it forms one of the Acts to be referred to and construed with the Education Acts for 1870 to 1890. This Act of 1891 was a free grant for tree education. I only refer to the matter now
  822
  for the simple reason that it was asserted again and again in the course of the debate that it is impossible to justify my proposition without coming into conflict with what the Prime Minister has said.
  The proposition I have asserted is that this Act would not be a Money Bill under the Clause we are now discussing. Now, I do not propose to travel any further over the ground, except to say one word with reference to the appeal from the hon. Member for St. Pancras. Of course, he bears in mind that this Bill introduces this innovation, and it says so, that if the Lords do not pass a certain class of Bill in a certain time that Bill will become an Act of Parliament, notwithstanding that the Lords have not passed it. When a Bill has once received the Royal Assent, notwithstanding that it has not received the assent of the House of Lords, it becomes an Act of Parliament. It goes into the courts of law, the courts of law see that the Act has the Royal Assent, and when the statement appears here in this Bill, which will never be questioned that such a Bill is an Act of Parliament, the courts of law must deal with the Bill accordingly. What the hon. Member forgets is that the Bill we are dealing with is one to decide that once a Money Bill has passed the House of Commons it shall become law, notwithstanding that it has not passed the House of Lords, or not passed it certainly as a Bill does which has to go through the House of Lords and receive the Royal Assent before it becomes an Act of Parliament. Of course, by Act of Parliament you can decide anything you choose, so long as you have got the assent of the three Estates of the Realm. This Bill provides, by act of the three Estates, that in future it will not be necessary when dealing with a Money Bill to have the assent of the Lords spiritual and temporal. They shall have their opportunity of passing it and that is all. If they do not choose to avail themselves of the opportunity it becomes law without having their consent or without their tendering their advice in respect to it.
  I submit in respect to this Clause that, considered in the light of the words introduced during the discussion in this House, it has been materially clarified. The discussion on the question "What is a Money Bill," has enabled us to define what is intended more lucidly with the assistance of both sides of the House. We have put into plain language what will hereafter serve as a guide to the Speaker

  823
  of the House of Commons, who will then, with all his experience and knowledge, and his acquaintance with parliamentary procedure, have a task, which is by no means difficult, or at least only in rare instances can it be a difficult one. He will be able to decide for himself, looking at that definition, whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not. I submit, therefore, that the Clause should be passed.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think the last few sentences of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech have been a startling contradiction of the speech of the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary describes the Opposition's attitude to this Clause for the past six days as being an attitude more lordly than the Lords and more Royalist than the King. He said we had been attacking this Clause in order to assert the right of the Lords over finance. He quite rightly said Lord Lansdowne had by his own resolution given up the right over pure finance. The Home Secretary's speech to-night was a distinct challenge to the Opposition, and represented the Opposition as attacking Lord Lansdowne, and claiming for the Lords control over pure finance. The whole speech of the Home Secretary is absolutely groundless. For six days our main work has been to get from the Government some definition of what is a Money Bill, and we still have the question unsolved. We have still vague phrases such as a Money Bill and such matters incidental thereunto. Can you say the valuation of agricultural land under the Budget of 1909 was a matter incidental thereunto? Can you say Disestablishment can be put into a Finance Bill under the question of Disendowment?
  Why, every single religious body could be completely disendowed by a Money Bill. The Attorney-General gave the instance of the Education Act of 1891. What would it have been without the Clause he quoted? Could that Clause not have been left out, and would not the Bill then have read as a pure Money Bill? I should have thought that that was a specific instance of grave doubt. To-day we have been discussing provisos and trying to get from the Government on specific points information as to whether a Bill is a pure Money Bill or whether it is not. We say that we cannot support this Clause because it is perfectly clear, from the whole of this Debate and from the last speech of the
  824
  Attorney-General and of the Home Secretary, that you are casting an onerous and invidious burden upon the Chair by leaving this problem unsolved. As to the charge of the Home Secretary that the whole of these six days have been spent by the Opposition in claiming the right of the Lords to control finance, what becomes of the concessions and of the Amendments the Government have accepted—the very important concession dealing with local taxation.
  Apparently the Home Secretary's speech to-night was a piece of shop window dressing for the "Daily News." It was a platform speech, and lowered the high level of the Debate which had been maintained hitherto. I would appeal to the Government to reconsider the question of the tribunal. It is perfectly clear there are still many questions open to doubt as to Money Bills. Can the Government not give the Speaker some support, or is he alone to stand up in that chair at a moment of grave crisis, with an eager Government on one side and an eager Opposition on the other, and give a decision full of moment and full of importance? It is an invidious and onerous position. We say, though we should regret to see the judiciary brought in, anything is better than leaving the Speaker cold and alone to decide important questions as to what is a Money Bill—upon which we have, for six days, tried to get an answer from the Government.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a very valuable contribution to the Debate for which we are very grateful, but I would point out to him he is mistaken in certain of the arguments he has laid down. In reply to an interruption of mine he said he did not think there were many people who nowadays would maintain that the House of Lords had a right to amend a Money Bill. May I point out to him that within the last four years the House of Lords has twice amended a Money Bill, and twice his own party accepted their Amendment. In the year 1907 or 1908, I forget which, there was a Scotch Education Bill in this House, and on the Report stage of that Bill, Mr. Sinclair—then Secretary of State for Scotland—proposed to impose a charge. Mr. Speaker ruled that charge was out of order because a charge could not be imposed on the Report stage. That charge was imposed in the House of Lords, and when the Bill came

  825
  down to this House Mr. Speaker ruled it was a breach of the privileges of this House.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That was a money provision in a Rill which was not a Money Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I must say my intellect is not subtle enough to follow the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Here was a charge imposed by the House of Lords. I quite agree that I have never maintained, and I do not maintain now, that the House of Lords have any power to initiate taxation. In this case they did initiate taxation, and they did so when Mr. Speaker ruled it could not be initiated in this House. Yet, notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Speaker ruled that it was a breach of the privileges of this House, the Government accepted the taxation thus imposed by the House of Lords. In the year 1909 there was a more flagrant instance. The Asylums Superannuation Bill was amended in the House of Lords and Mr. Speaker again ruled that it was a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons, but because it suited right hon. Gentlemen opposite they again waived their privilege.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how this bears upon the Clause.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I admit I do not know whether this question would come under the Clause, but I was endeavouring to answer the points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman and to point out that there were instances where the House of Lords had amended Bills and where the House of Lords and his own Government have accepted them. The hon. and learned Gentleman says it was only lately that the House of Lords rejected a Money Bill. They rejected the Paper Duties in 1860. Surely that was a Money Bill; it was part of the Budget. It is a curious thing that when we were trying to limit the definition of the Clause we were met with the argument that nothing could be accepted because everything came under it, and now, when we are trying to argue that certain things will come under it, the Government say they will not come under the definition. Whichever way we argue, the Government meet us with a non possumus attitude. I am sorry the Home Secretary is not here at present. He has made a characteristic speech. Having kept us up in order to consider an important Clause, and to have, in his own words, an ordered discus-
  826
  sion, he himself docs not trouble to give any valuable contribution to the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the old rights of the House of Commons must be maintained, and that the House of Lords were not to be allowed to go on in the way in which they have acted for many centuries. The right hon. Gentleman did not always hold that opinion, because I have an extract from a speech of his delivered on May 8th, 1899, in which he says:—
  "It was strange that the proven Constitution that we had in Great Britain excited the dislike and animosity of the Radicals. The Radicals had already attempted to break up Parliament, and had attacked the House of Lords. In the future they would not hesitate to assault the Throne, the most glorious and not the least essential of the Three Estates. The English Constitution was not the work of any man or assemblage of men. It had grown up year by year. With all its compromises, its inconsistences and safeguards, it had always seemed to him to be the embodiment of the national character, and the outcome of the English soil, the product of a little island lost among the northern mists."
  How is it, after these beautiful sentiments and that lovely language, that the right hon. Gentleman has changed his opinions, and desires to destroy that constitution which has grown up "the product of a little island lost among the northern mists"? That speech was delivered not so very long ago, especially when one remembers what a well-considered and well-balanced man the Home Secretary is, and how little prone he is to make any change in his opinion without well-considered judgment. I would like to point out something which struck me when we were discussing a point earlier in the evening as being very important. We know that payment of Members will come under the definition of this Clause. Supposing we have payment of Members, and we get £400 a year, is it not likely that a certain number of Members may feel that £400 is not sufficient for their needs? Knowing that the House of Lords has no control over these things, what is to prevent them taking up the attitude that £400 is not a living wage, and demanding an increase? Supposing seventy Members went to the Prime Minister and, reminding him that there would be a critical Division the following week, said that unless he made the salary up to £600 a year they would vote against him. The Prime Minister would say, "I cannot do that," but the dissipated party would say, "We know you can and that within a month it must become law. If you do not do it, your particular pet measure coming on next week will be rejected."
  It must be remembered that the Prime Minister of that day would not be

  827
  able to say that the country would object to the increase, for the answer would be, "Oh, we have only just come in, and we have got five years more to run. We do not care what the country will say so long as we can get something for ourselves." That is the real danger. In every foreign country which had adopted payment of Members, the payment originally made had been raised as time went on. The particular point he wished to emphasise was that it seemed to him an extraordinary proceeding to force through a Clause of this sort when, as a matter of fact, it represents the beginning of a written Constitution for this country. We are discussing one of the most important points in that Constitution, because the power of the purse is a weapon which has been taken advantage of more than once by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. In connection with the Licensing Bill and other measures, the Government had not hesitated to threaten people with what they would do when they had the power of the purse. This particular Clause deals with the power of the purse. In making a vital change of this kind we should have had a discussion when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition could have been present, so that we might have heard their views. We must make the best of a bad job, and trust to having further opportunity for discussion of this Clause, perhaps on Report.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to enter my protest against the Clause as we now find it. The learned Attorney-General has given us familiar arguments, in which he has placed before the Committee his views as to what the Clause is intended to do, and familiar proofs for drawing the distinction he chooses to draw between constitutional and legal right.
  Let us accept for one moment the statement that this Clause is intended to be declaratory of what the legal or constitutional usage may be. It was on that ground that the Prime Minister commended the Clause to the Committee. He said it was a declaratory Clause only. But we are entitled to ask and the country is entitled to ask what is the constitutional usage of which the Clause is declaratory. When did it begin? Was it established in 1670 or in 1860? What is this usage which is supposed to be time-honoured and deeply grafted in the roots of our Constitution? If the Attorney-General means
  828
  that for fifty years there has been no occasion, and therefore no actual exercise of the constitutional right of the Lords to throw out a Money Bill, I daresay a great many Members on this side will agree. If he represents this Clause as form on a deeply-rooted and constitutional usage for some hundred years or more a great number on this side of the House, and a great number of persons in the country dispute that proposition, and I desire to explain in a moment or two what are the grounds on which we dispute that this Clause is declaratory of such a constitutional usage. In the year 1860 a Bill for the repeal of the Paper Duties was thrown out by the Lords, and thereupon this House passed certain Resolutions. One of these was:—
  "That although the Lords have exercised the power of rejecting Bills of several descriptions relating to taxation by negativing the whole, yet the exercise of that power by them has not been frequent and is justly regarded by this House with peculiar jealousy," etc.
  and another of the Resolutions of the Commons ran:—
  "That to guard for the future against an undue exercise of the power by the Lords, and to secure to the Commons their rightful control over Taxation and Supply, this House has in its own hands the power so to impose and remit taxes," etc.
  The Attorney-General is endeavouring to pass this Clause as one declaratory of our ancient constitutional usage, whereas if he will turn back fifty years to 1860 he will find that this House had resolved that there had been an exercise of the Lords' power, and it was endeavouring to guard against the "undue" exercise.
  What this Clause is seeking to do and designed to do is to take away for ever and under all circumstances the power of revision by another House, and to leave no safeguard whatever as against the undue exercise by this House of its privileges which may have been arrogated to itself, but have never been accepted by the other House. We see, therefore, that this Clause is not declaratory of Constitutional usage, and it goes very much further than any Bill or Clause need have-gone. The truth of the matter is that the intention of the Government is to alter the law, to alter the Constitution, and to alter the constitutional practice. The soft way of setting this Clause up as merely declaratory is only an ingenious method of trying to make a great number of persons accept the Clause, which is not made for the purpose of declaring the present practice, but is more dangerous as is apparent to those who have not considered the question of the Constitution very carefully.

  829
  This Clause does more than that. It takes away that elasticity, the right of one House or the other to waive its privileges, or of this House particularly to waive privileges if it thought they were infringed by the Lords. Very often it has been the duty of the Speaker to call attention to the fact that the privileges of this House "had been infringed, and then a Motion has been made that these privileges should not be insisted upon. By this Clause that possibility is removed for ever, because there will be no power to waive privileges. That is a very great alteration in the Constitution. This Clause was originally put forward as an arrangement which would last for a certain period of time, there was to be a further alteration in the Statute, but we learned when the Debate in Committee began, and then for the first time, that it will be a permanent Clause whether the preamble is carried into effect or not. I desire, therefore, to enter my protest against the Clause.
  May I endeavour to answer the Attorney-General on one or two points. He was asked by the hon. Member for St. Pancras to deal with the possibility of a difficulty arising if this Bill is called an Act of Parliament and reaches the Courts. Surely the Attorney-General will remember many cases on which Acts of the House which were deemed to be legal at the time they were passed have been called in question afterwards, although they were Acts of Parliament carried by the three Estates of the Realm. These difficulties which may arise ought to be provided for if we are to have smooth working of this legislation. The Home Secretary attempted to pass off the clause as if it were a mere piece of machinery, and he characterised some of the amendments that had been moved as outlandish. Has he forgotten that in writing this Constitution we are legislating for extreme cases. It does not apply merely to the sequence of ordinary finance. If it is to be of a permanent character it will have to take into account those extreme cases which may arise from the permanency of such a Clause. I think it was unfair to characterise any Amendments as outlandish. Some of them led to concessions being made by the Government. They have secured a very important alteration of the Clause which has improved the definition of a Money Bill and made it, more acceptable to this side of
  830
  the House than it was. The Clause as it now stands is less harmful than it would have been otherwise, but I still think it is a Clause we may take reasonable exception to because it is very wide of the mark. The grounds on which it is put forward to the House are such that it is open to much greater criticism outside the House than it has been subjected to up to the present moment.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I thought that the Postmaster-General was going to rise to address the Committee on the discrepancy between the Attorney-General's speech and that of the Home Secretary. Had he risen we might have expected this Debate to be pursued to a successful conclusion, that "ordered" discussion which the Home Secretary has dangled before us as the ultimate recompense for our labours. I am confident that I am expressing the view of my Friends when I say that the learned Attorney-General did his very best to give to this important question the kind of consideration it admittedly deserves. I think, having said that, he on his part will accord to my right hon. and learned Friend who opened this Debate and those who have taken part in it, an attempt equally sincere to discuss the question whether or not this Clause should stand part of the Bill, upon its merits. We have not had any of the incidents to-night sometimes associated with an all-night sitting.
  That being so, I ask whether the time has not come when you should report Progress and ask leave to sit again. We have had two hours' earnest discussion. Will it be reported? Is it a loss that neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the Opposition have taken part in the discussion? Had the Home Secretary seen fit assent to the view I submitted earlier, I say that on Thursday no longer time would have been occupied with this discussion than has been occupied to-night. But if the Home Secretary were here his contribution to the Debate would be that time is everything. Time is not everything. The temper of the House is more important than time. If even now the Government would agree that it would be well to hear the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on this great change in the Constitution I do not believe they would lose a minute. Everybody knows that even at four o'clock in the morning if the Government gave way to a reasonable request by the Opposition, when the point came on again for discus-

  831
  sion it would be discussed in a method very different than would be the case if their request was refused. That is the knowledge of those who have sat in this House for a long time.
  In dealing with this Clause the learned Attorney - General and the Home Secretary agreed only upon one point—that the rejection of the Budget by the Lords two years ago was a determining factor in this matter. They differed as to history and as to the exact constitutional rights of the House of Lords, they differed on every point except as to the action of the House of Lords in 1909, and therefore we are entitled to ask them to define what a Money Bill is. Why do they not do it? I Believe the Attorney-General may believe a Money Bill has been defined. Admitting he may be right, nobody—least of all the Prime Minister—is decided that under the definition of a Money Bill it may be impossible to introduce legislation which is not purely of a financial character. When the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston was brought forward, the Prime Minister said a most serious question had been raised. He said he had spent some days with his Cabinet in trying to find a solution for the problem which has been pointed out, and he had failed. One would have expected that he would have invited the Committee of the House to have devoted at any rate as much time to the problem as was occupied by himself and his right hon. Friends. Instead of that the Government expect this Committee to come to a decision on so grave a constitutional question in the absence of those whose duty it is to guide the House to a wise decision. You cannot really exaggerate the importance of the step we are asked to take. A written Constitution is as grave a step as was ever taken by a nation. Would it not be well that the first paragraph of such a measure should be deciphered by its authors. I beg to move that you do report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This is not a Motion that the Government can accept. We have had six days' discussion of the Clause, which is perhaps the least controversial in the Bill in its main principle. I feel sure the acceptance of the Motion would be greatly resented both by
  832
  the Committee and by the constituencies, who would unanimously think that the House was wasting its time if we allowed Clause 1 to break into another Parliamentary day. I feel certain that hon. Members interested in the progress of this measure, and who support the principle of the Clause, would not for a moment accept a Motion at this time that you report progress and ask leave to sit again. Indeed, when the Committee has rejected this Motion, I earnestly trust that without further delay they will come to a conclusion on the Clause.
  4.0 A.M.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I think there are signs that the only remaining qualification which the Committee had for proceeding with this great discussion is fast disappearing, and that the calmness of temper which has up to now marked the discussion is about to disappear. I confess I think that the proceedings of this Committee approach the size of a public scandal. Is it really suggested that we can take part in a constitutional question of this degree of magnitude, and that you can alter a Constitution which has lasted for hundreds of years, and do it in an efficient manner at such an hour in the morning? Would it be contended by anyone that it is possible for Members, tired out as they necessarily are, to discuss in a proper manner a measure involving such intricate and complicated questions? The Debate has progressed as best it can in the absence of many distinguished Members. The Prime Minister, I understand, is kept away by ill-health; the Leader of the Opposition is away owing to another necessary engagement. Where the other Members of the Government are I do not know.
  It should certainly be the rule that where the Members of the Government insist on the House sitting late, every Member of the Cabinet who sits in the House should be present. If that rule be not insisted on, there is serious danger to the health of Members of this House. The only possible security we have that those who take part in and give constant attention to these discussions shall not suffer from physical breakdown, is that the Government should bear their share of the burden. To such a point have you lowered the House of Commons by sittings of this kind that it becomes a sort of struggle of physical endurance. The question is reduced to one of whose health lasts out longest. It is not only unseemly, but contrary to the best interests of Parliamentary government to

  833
  continue to insist on debating this Bill at all hours of the night and morning as we have done. I protest, but, of course, it is quite useless. The Government are a government of partisans supported by a party of partisans. Is it possible to represent in a more brilliant light the unfitness of this House for the great powers you are proposing to give it? Here it is, deaf to all argument, half-blind with fatigue, insisting on debating these great constitutional questions. Who cares for the opinion so arrived at, or attaches value to a decision taken in these circumstances?
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: What is your remedy?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: My remedy is to go to bed. The hon. Member's remedy is to remove himself to Dublin, a remedy which it is open to him to take even at this moment. I am convinced that if we are to attack a constitutional problem with becoming gravity, we ought to adjourn at timely hours. I have never been able to understand what objection the Government can take to that course from their own point of view. It is early in the Session, and it is ridiculous to say that it makes any difference to the fate of the Parliament Bill whether it passes by 20th May or 20th June, ft is only a question

  Division No. 151.]

  AYES.

  [4.10 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Lundon, Thomas

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Falconer, James

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Adamson, William

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macdonald, J. R, (Leicester)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Maclean, Donald

  Allen, A. A (Dumbartonshire)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Marks, George Croydon

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Barton, William

  Gill, A. H.

  Meagher, Michael

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Middlebrook, William

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hancock, J. G.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Bowerman, C. W.

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

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Brace, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Neilson, Francis

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Clough, William

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Ogden, Fred

  Clynes, John R.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  O'Malley, William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Johnson, W.

  Parker, James Halifax

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Cullinan, John

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

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

  Pointer, Joseph

  Dawes, J. A.

  Joyce, Michael

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Delany, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Dillon, John

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Duffy, William J.

  Lambert, George (South Molton)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Doris, William

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  of delaying the August holidays by one or two days. How incomparably better for the usefulness and dignity of this House that it should sit a day or two longer later on than sit late in order to force through a Bill of this kind. The Government know that no further Amendment can be put down to the Clause, and that any discussion on the question that the Clause stand part at an earlier hour of the day would be a useful discussion. They remain obstinate because they want to carry through a particular thing by a particular day. It has become a point of honour to sit your opponents out. To the lowest level of the lowest sort of game have we descended, I suggest that we return to an attitude of common-sense, take a night's rest, and when this discussion is resumed on Thursday it will be resumed at the proper time and in a proper spirit, and will not be disgraceful to the House of Commons, but will redound to its credit and reputation for usefulness. I heartily support the Motion.
  Mr. CHURCHILLrose 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, 142; Sloes, 78.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Waring, Walter

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Webb, H.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Sutton, John E.

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

  Rowlands, James

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Whyte, A. F.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Tennant, Harold John

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

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

  Toulmin, George

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Sheehy, David

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Shortt, Edward

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  TELLERS FOB THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  NOES.

  Aitken, William Max

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. G. A.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Grant, J. A.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Barnston, H.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Sandys, G. J.

  Boscawen, Col. A. S. T. Griffith-

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Hills, John Waller

  Stanier, Beville

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sykes, Alan John

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Campion, W. R.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Kerry, Earl of

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cassel, Felix

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

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

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

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Younger, George

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Nicholson, W. G. (Petersfield)

  Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask
  leave to sit again." The Committee divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 142.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Brace, William

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Johnson, W.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South shields)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, Leif (Rushcliffe)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jones, Wm. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Clough, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Clynes, John R.

  Keating, Matthew

  Robinson, Sidney

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rowlands, James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lambert, George (South Molton)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cockermouth)

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

  Crumley, Patrick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cullinan, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Col.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Sheehy, David

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Shortt, Edward

  Delany, William

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Dillon, John

  Maclean, Donald

  Smith, Albert (Clitheroe)

  Doris, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Marks, George Croydon

  Summers, James Woolley

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Sutton, John E.

  Edwards, A. C. (Glam., E.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Taylor, John W (Durham)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Middlebrook, William

  Toulmin, George

  Falconer, James

  Millar, Duncan

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fenwick, Charles

  Money, L. G Chiozza

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Morrell, Philip

  Verney, Sir H.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Neilson, Francis

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Waring, Walter

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Webb, H.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool, Scotland)

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

  Hancock, John George

  Ogden, Fred

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

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

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

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

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Pearce, Robert (Leek)

  Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Holt, Richard Burning

  Pointer, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Mr. CHURCHILLclaimed "That the Original Question be now put."
  Original Question put accordingly,

  Division No. 153.]

  AYES.

  [4.25 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Hunter, William (Lanark Govan)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dalany, William

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Adamson, William

  Dillon, John

  Johnson, William

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Doris, William

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Edwards, Alien C. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Barton, William

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Keating, Matthew

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Falconer, James

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

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

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brace, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Lundon, Thomas

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hancock, John George

  Maclean, Donald

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Clough, William

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

  Marks, George Croydon

  Clynes, John R.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meagher, Michael

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Middlebrook, William

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Cullinan, John

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Neilson, Francis

  "That the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 78.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Toulmin, George

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Ogden, Fred

  Rowlands, James

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  O'Malley, William

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

  Waring, Walter

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Webb, H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

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

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Sheehy, David

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Shortt, Edward

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Summers, James Woolley

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Sutton, John E.

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Taylor, John D. (Durham)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Tennant, Harold John

  NOES.

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

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Aitken, William Max

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Grant, J. A.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Greene, W. R.

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Barnston, Harry

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hills, J. W.

  Stanier, Beville

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sykes, Alan John

  Burn, Colonel C. E.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Campion, W. R.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Kerry, Earl of

  Thynns, Lord Alexander

  Cassel, Felix

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts, Mile End)

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

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Younger, George

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Mr. Ashley.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next, 20th April.
  The Orders of the Day having been read, and dates relating thereto appointed,
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present,
  The House was adjourned at Twenty minutes before Five of the clock a.m., Wednesday. 19th April.