CLAUSE 1.—(Powers of House of Lords as to Money Bills.)

HC Deb 18 April 1911 vol 24 cc673-839

[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 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 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 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 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, 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. 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 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. 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 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 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, 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 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- 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 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 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 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- 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 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 MINISTER

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, 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.

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."

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 —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. 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 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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. 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, 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- 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 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 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. 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." 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. NEVILLE

moved 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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. 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 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 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 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. 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. CHURCHILL

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

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 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 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.

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 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. 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, 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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, 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- 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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.

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 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- 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 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 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. 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, 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. CHURCHILL

claimed "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.