Commons Sitting of 20 April 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Derwent Fisheries Provisional Order Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Private Bills (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Halifax Corporation Bill.
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Liverpool Overhead Railway Bill,
Paignton Urban District Council Bill,
Widnes and Runcorn Bridge (Transfer) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Chesterfield Gas and Water Board Bill,
Northampton Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Luton Corporation Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday next.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11) Bill (by Order),
Read the third time, and passed.

PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES) (PREVENTIVE DETENTION).
Copy presented of Circular issued by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to police authorities, indicating the practice to be observed in presenting cases of habitual criminals to the Director of Public Prosecutions, under the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NEW WRITS.
For county of Devon (North-Western or Barnstaple Division) in the room of Ernest Joseph Soares, esquire (Manor of Northstead).
County of Dorset (Eastern Division), the Hon. Frederick Edward Guest (one of the Commissioners for executing the Office of Treasurer of the Exchequer of Great Britain and Lord High Treasurer of Ireland).—[Master of Elibank.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Mexican Insurrection.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any British Force had been landed in Mexico; if so, under what circumstances; and whether he was in a position to give further information regarding the situation and the measures which were being taken to protect British interests?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): A force of men from His Majesty's ship "Shearwater" were landed at San Quentin (Lower California) at the request of British subjects and United States citizens for the protection of their lives and property, the Mexican officials having withdrawn from the town. The force was re-embarked after a few hours. The second part of the question is answered in my reply to the hon. Member for West Ham, S. (Mr. W. Thorne).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked what steps, if any, had been taken by the Government to protect British commercial interests in Mexico in view of the disturbed state of the country; whether any representations had been made to the United States Government that the recognition of the Monroe doctrine by Great Britain was conditional upon the power of the United States Government to maintain its paramountcy on the American continent and to protect established British interests, especially in such countries as the Central American Republics and Mexico; and whether there was any contemplation of joint action between Great Britain and the United States Government in support of the Diaz administration and against the insurrection, professedly in order to protect British and American interests?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Except in a few isolated cases in which His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires has applied to the Mexican Government for protection, His Majesty's Government have not received complaints that British commercial interests have been injuriously affected. The reply to the remainder of the question is in the negative.

  Buenos Ayres (Berthing Facilities).
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been called to the delays to British steamers at Buenos Ayres owing to the want of proper facilities for discharging their general cargoes; whether he is aware that the berthing of steamers in the docks at Buenos Ayres and the deposits for the reception of their cargoes are under the control of the Argentine Government; that steamers arriving in Buenos Ayres have to wait long periods, in some instances as much as twenty days, before obtaining a discharging berth for general cargo; that this delay is largely due to the Argentine Government refusing
  1012
  to limit the time goods remain in the Government warehouses, in order to make profits out of storage rent; that in some instances goods remain stored in these warehouses for very long periods; that these delays are inflicting losses upon British shipowners; and whether he will communicate with the Argentine Government with a view to improving the conditions of the ports of Buenos Ayres and Rosario, so as to facilitate the discharge of British vessels and reduce losses to British shipowners?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I have received no complaints in regard to any of the points mentioned by the hon. Member. I am, however, aware that there has been great congestion of shipping at Buenos Ayres. In 1907 a Committee of nine members was appointed to make regulations for the services of the port, of whom three are British.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Will the hon. Gentleman communicate with the Argentine Government in the matter?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot promise to do that.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Why not?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is unusual to communicate with the Government of other countries about their ports.

  Naval Construction (Exchange of Information).
  Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked whether the proposed exchange of information on matters of naval construction between the British and the German Governments was to take place before or after the presentation of the Naval Estimates for the year to Parliament?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am unable to make any statement concerning the details of the proposed arrangement at this stage.
  Mr. PEEL: Cannot the hon. Gentleman answer the question whether it will be before or after the presentation of the Naval Estimates?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If I cannot give the details I cannot answer that question.

  Ottoman Christian Subjects (Military Service).
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked whether at the present time Ottoman Christian subjects now made amenable to military service in Turkey were handed over to the Turkish military authorities by the Egyptian authorities after having sought refuge in Egypt, with a view to avoiding military service under conscription; whether that practice constituted a reversal of the policy hitherto followed by the Egyptian Government; and, if so, whether any in structions had been issued to the British advisers of the Egyptian Government to countenance that change of policy?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have no information on the points raised by the hon. Member, but His Majesty's Acting Agent at Cairo will be asked for a report.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention had been called to the action of the Kesteven County Council in letting off the shooting rights over small holdings belonging to the Council, without reference to the occupiers of the holdings and against their interests; whether he was aware that a memorial of protest signed by 14 of the small holders was disregarded by the Council; whether any provision for letting the shooting rights in this way was included in the scheme submitted to the Board; and what was the policy of the Board in the matter?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir E. Strachey): Enquiry has been made into this matter. It appears that all the occupiers signed agreements containing a clause reserving the shooting rights. After doing so they sent a letter of protest to the Small Holdings Committee of the County Council who have apparently determined to adhere to the arrangement. No provision for letting the shooting rights appears in the draft scheme submitted to the Board. Each case must be considered on its merits, but the Board do not see any objection in principle to the separate letting of shooting rights inasmuch as it enables the rents payable by the small holders to be proportionately reduced.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will the Board sanction a scheme even where the tenants
  1014
  object to the shooting rights being let over their heads?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: It would be a question for consideration whether or not it was desirable to do so.
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he was aware of the practice of certain county councils on the receipt of applications for land under the Small Holdings Act, 1908, to put a representative of the Commissioner of Canada in communication with the applicants in order to induce such men to emigrate; and whether he would take any steps to prevent the Act being carried out in this way?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I am not aware that such a practice exists. The Kesteven County Council, to which the hon. Member for Burnley specially directed my attention in a supplementary question, strenuously deny that they have at any time followed the course suggested.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiry as to the Lindsey County Council, Lincolnshire?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Certainly, if the hon. Member desires.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the hon. Gentleman extend his inquiries?
  Mr. J. W. WILSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, how many of the small holders on the Woodrow Estate, Catshill, of the Worcestershire County Council are a year or more in arrear with their instalments of purchase money; how many persons agreed to buy holdings on this estate; how many of them are still in possession of their holdings; and what is the area of land held by each person?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Two tenants are more than a year in arrear with their rent; twenty-seven agreed to buy their holdings; and twenty-one are still in possession of them. Eight hold 3 acres, four hold 4 acres, three hold 5 acres, four hold 6 acres, and five others hold, respectively, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 18 acres.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Are we to understand that out of these twenty-eight who have purchased their holdings six have lost them?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: That is a question that the hon. Member, I think, must give me notice of.
  Mr. J. W. WILSONasked how many of the tenants of the Catshill allotment estate of the North Bromsgrove Urban District Council were in arrear with their rent on September 29th, 1910; what is the total number of tenants on the estate; the acreage of the same; and the rent paid?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Five tenants were in arrear with their rent on the date named. There are eighty-two tenants on the estate, which comprises 62 acres. The rent paid is £2 10s. 6d. per annum.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked how many small holdings were during the year 1910 constituted upon the large estates owned by the Crown and under Government administration; and whether these bear a due proportion to those constituted on property in private ownership?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Burnley yesterday will afford the hon. Member all the information which it is in my power to give.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the Government in this connection consider the advisability of converting into small holdings all farms falling vacant within the Duchy of Lancaster, and so show their genuineness in this matter?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper, and I should require notice.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of converting into small holdings all farms falling vacant on the Crown lands?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That again is not the question.

  Importation of Horses.
  Mr. FITZROYasked whether any precautions were being taken, and, if so, what precautions, to prevent the importation and distribution of horses suffering from infectious diseases into this country; whether any restrictions and, if so, what restrictions were placed on the movement of horses when imported; whether similar restrictions and regulations as to the importation and distribution of horses were in operation in Ireland as in the United Kingdom; whether the Board issued orders through the Board of Trade to the shipping companies and railway com-
  1016
  panies for the thorough disinfection of horse boxes and stables belonging to them; and, if so, what was the nature of such orders?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Glanders and Farcy Order of 1907 provides that no horse brought from abroad shall be landed in this country unless accompanied by a certificate of freedom from disease. The Order is enforced by the various Local Authorities. No restrictions are placed on the movement of horses when imported. Provision is made in the Animals (Transit and General) Order of 1895 for the cleansing of horse-boxes used in railway traffic. I will send copies of the two Orders to the hon. Member for his information. The information asked for relating to Ireland should be obtained from the Chief Secretary.

  Land Banks (Germany).
  Mr. STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, whether he could give the name or names of the land banks in Germany which advance 90 to 100 per cent. of the money for purchase of farms?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The names of the banks were not given in the information which the Board obtained through the Foreign Office on this subject. I will obtain them if the hon. Member wishes.
  Mr. STANIER: Will the hon. Gentleman get that information, and also state whether the banks are Government banks or limited liability companies?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I will inquire.
  Mr. STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he could give the rate of interest charged, the terms, and the length of time for repayment, charged by the German land banks to enable tenants to purchase their holdings?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: It would appear that an annual payment at the rate of 4 per cent. of the amount of the loan is made for a period of 60½ years. Interest is calculated at the rate of 3½ per cent.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, whether he could give the number of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, and the number of existing cases, in Russia, Germany, and France, during March last, respectively?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: One hundred and ten thousand one hundred and twenty animals were attacked with foot-and-mouth disease in 2,045 communes in European Russia in November last. In France the disease was reported to exist in February last in 145 places (étables) in forty-two communes. In Germany the disease existed in March last in 10,153 places (gehöfte), in 2,627 parishes (gemeinden). These figures are taken from the latest available official returns. The figures for March are not available, but the Board have no reason to believe that any material change in the situation has occurred.
  Mr. STANIER: Will the hon. Gentleman give the figures in Germany for March; they have been published by the German Government?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I will get the information.
  Mr. STANIER: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that that point is covered by the question on the Paper?

  Destitute Children.
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary whether he has received a copy of a resolution from the Castlerea Board of Guardians, requesting an alteration in the law, in order to assimilate with that existing in Great Britain, enabling the board of guardians to board out destitute children, notwithstanding that their parents are alive; and whether he can say if there is any immediate probability of such an alteration in the law being introduced by him?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for East Waterford on 21st February last.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the grounds upon which the Local Government Board disallowed the pension granted by the Castlerea pension committee to Patrick Reddy, Claboy, Ballintubber, county Roscommon; if he is aware that the pension committee was satisfied, in the absence of evidence from the Census returns and baptismal certificates, that this man was over seventy years of age, and, acting upon the certifi-
  1018
  cate that his youngest brother, if alive, would be seventy years of age next November, granted him the pension; and whether, in view of this fact, the Local Government Board will reverse their decision?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board upheld the appeal of the Pension Officer on the ground that Patrick Reddy had not reached the statutory age. No satisfactory evidence as to age was produced by Reddy, and his parents' family was traced on the Census returns of 1841 and 1851. In the former year Patrick's name did not appear as a member of the family, while his age was recorded in the Return of 1851 as seven years. He would therefore appear to be about sixty-seven years old at the present time. The brother Martin referred to would, if alive, be older than Patrick, not younger, as alleged. In the circumstances there is no reason why the Board should reverse their decision, even if such a course were open to them.

  Congested Districts Board (Trinity College Estate).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary what further steps have been taken by the Congested Districts Board to complete the purchase of the Trinity College estate in and around Caherciveen, Portmagee, and Valentia Island?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Nothing further has been heard by the Congested Districts Board from the Trinity College authorities in this matter.
  Mr. BOLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Congested Districts Board will approach the agent of Trinity College on this matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will communicate with them.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary whether the tenants on the Aylward estate, near Strokestown, in county Roscommon, have requested the intervention of the Congested Districts Board, with the object of getting the estate sold and suitably treated, so that the uneconomic holdings may be enlarged; and whether the Congested Districts Board have taken any steps in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The requisitions referred to have been received, and the owner was informed that the Congested

  1019
  Districts Board would be willing to negotiate for the purchase of the estate. No reply has yet been received from him.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether the Congested Districts Board had taken any and, if so, what steps to negotiate for the purchase of the estate of Mr. Myles O'Mahony, in the parish of Tuogh, county Kerry?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have taken no steps for the purchase of this estate.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether the Congested Districts Board had under consideration at its last meeting the resolution passed at the public meeting in Glencar on 2nd April with reference to the compulsory purchase of the estates in the parishes of Glencar and Tuogh; and, if so, what action does the Board intend to take?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The resolution referred to has not been received by the Congested Districts Board.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether any and, if so, what progress has been made in the negotiations for the purchase by the Congested Districts Board of the estate of the late Major Mahony, at Dooks, county Kerry; has the Board been in communication with the agent on the subject; and has any definite offer been made by the Board by which the interests of the evicted tenants have been safeguarded?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board inform me that they are awaiting the lodgment of the maps and rental in the case of this estate which the agent has been asked to furnish.
  Mr. BOLAND: Will the tenants of this estate be consulted in this matter, or are the negotiations to be carried on over their heads altogether?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Oh, no, Sir.

  Mullingar Quarter Sessions.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary if his attention had been called to the remarks of Judge Curran, at the Mullingar Quarter Sessions on 10th April, that the blank calendar did not represent the state of the county; is he aware that since the last quarter sessions ten cases of malicious injuries, three cases of unlawful assembly, two of forcible possession, one
  1020
  of larceny, one of cutting the person, and one of assault endangering life were reported to the police, and that there have been fifteen cattle drives recently in Westmeath; and if he has any explanation to offer why proceedings have not been instituted in any of these cases?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have seen a newspaper report of the remarks made by the judge at the recent Mullingar Quarter Sessions. Proceedings have been instituted in all cases in which the offenders have been detected by the police, and thirty-nine persons have been prosecuted in connection with the particular offences referred to by the hon. Member. Ten of the cases of cattle driving are the same as the ten cases in which claims for compensation for malicious injury were made.

  National Schools, Ireland (Annual Grants).
  Mr. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary what have been the annual grants for building, enlarging, and endowing national schools in Ireland for the years from 1906–7 to 1910–11; what was the similar average for the five years preceding 1906–7; and what is the amount granted in this year's Estimates?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The total amount provided in the Estimates for building grants for national schools in Ireland for the five years beginning with 1906–7 was £230,000. The amount provided in the previous five years was £137,500. The amount in the Estimates for 1911–12 is £65,000.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland for 1905–6 on the question of grants for building and improving schools; and seeing that in that Report the Commissioners declared that an annual grant of £100,000 for five years would be required to deal with the arrears which had accumulated in consequence of the practical suspension of grants for the previous four years, will he state what steps he proposes to take?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to the statement in question. I have received an assurance that the sum of £240,000 which the Treasury undertook to provide for the purpose of building grants during the six years ending 31st March, 1913, will be substantially increased, and I shall be in a position to state the exact

  1021
  figures when the Vote for Public Education in Ireland is under discussion.
  Mr. LONSDALE: When will that be?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I hope at an early date.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Before Whitsuntide?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I hope so.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary whether he could state the circumstances in which two members of the Royal Irish Constabulary attended an adjourned meeting of the delegates of the Killimer, Kilmihill, and Kilmurry branches of the United Irish League, called on 9th April to select a candidate for the approaching county council election, there having been no police at the previous meeting and nothing suggestive of disorder having arisen?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the inspector-general that, on the occasion referred to, two policemen happened to be on duty in the neighbourhood of the meeting. They had not been previously ordered to attend, and were unaware that the meeting was to be held.

  Indian Punitive Expedition (Abors).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give further information regarding the progress of the punitive measures which are being taken against the Abors?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Secretary of State is advised that the season is too late to admit of punitive measures against the Abors before the rains begin. A force sent into the country now might be cut off by swollen rivers. The question of the action to be taken directly the cold weather begins is under the consideration of the Government of India.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is there any further news of the party that are now in that country?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Not since the telegram which the Secretary of State caused to be published in the newspapers the day before yesterday.

  Assassination of Mr. Mainwaring (Ceylon).
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the assassination of Mr. Mainwaring, assistant
  1022
  superintendent of police, at Alutgama, Ceylon, by a native police constable, Pens Singho, who shot him with a carbine; whether the native military police in Ceylon have free access to ammunition; and, if so, in view of this recent occurrence, whether he will consider the desirability of placing it in charge of the station-house officer or some other responsible official?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): Yes, Sir; my attention has been drawn to this unfortunate occurrence. I understand that the ammunition in the Alutgama Police Station is kept in a strong-box, under lock and key, but that on the day of the murder the strong-box had been left open for the purposes of the inspection on which Mr. Mainwaring was engaged when he was shot.

  Mombasa Waterworks.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked whether the proposed new waterworks at Mombasa have yet been sanctioned; and, if so, when work upon them will be commenced?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The works in question have not yet been sanctioned.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is an anticipation that they will be sanctioned in the near future?
  Mr. HARCOURT'Sreply was inaudible.

  New Hebrides.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any official reports of recent disturbances and fighting in the New Hebrides; and, if so, what steps he is taking to restore order?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have no official information as to the disturbances in the New Hebrides recently reported in the Press, and I have no reason to suppose that the two resident commissioners will need any assistance to enable them to restore order.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any report as to the sale of intoxicating liquor and arms and ammunition to the natives of the New Hebrides prohibited by Articles LVII. and LIX. of the Convention of 1996; and whether he will take the necessary steps to have the regulations of the Convention respected?
  Mr. HARCOURT: A new joint regulation to prevent the consumption of alcoholic liquor by natives in the New Hebrides has just reached me, and the covering despatch from the High Commissioner intimates that he may possibly be able, at a future date, to suggest further safeguards. I am asking him to report fully upon these questions as soon as he is able to visit the New Hebrides.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Does that also refer to arms and ammunition: they are part of my question?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am afraid I have omitted to notice that my reply was especially with reference to the alcoholic liquors.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, certainly.

  Territorial Forces (Warwickshire Land).
  Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, owing to the taking of land for the Warwickshire Territorial Force Association, the rateable value of the parish of Kingsbury, near Tamworth, has decreased to the amount of £453 10s., in consequence of this land not being liable to rates; and, seeing that the loss to the local rates for the year ending 31st March, 1911, was £84 8s. 1d., and in view of the hardship thus entailed on local ratepayers, whether the Treasury will give an annual grant to make good such loss?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I regret that I cannot comply with this proposal. Grants in lieu of rates are only made in respect of premises in the occupation of the Crown for the public service when such premises are provided and maintained directly out of Votes of Parliament. The premises in the occupation of county associations do not come under this category, being in a similar position to Volunteer premises prior to the Territorial Forces Act, for which no contributions in lieu of rates were given.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these were not premises, but land?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: For the purpose of a contribution in lieu of rates from the Imperial Exchequer premises and land are of the same value.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a very great hardship to the parish which has suffered, and which has to make up the deficiency from the rates; surely the Treasury ought to give the balance in a case like this?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It will be open to the local associations to make a voluntary contribution. Whether they will be prepared to do so, of course, I cannot say; but they will be in a position to do so.

  Income Tax Collection.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state upon what date he proposes, in conformity with his promise, to furnish the names and addresses of all persons, companies, and firms who have, during the month of March, been called upon or otherwise communicated with by any officer of the Inland Revenue with a view to the postponement of the payment of Income Tax until after the 31st day of March, 1911?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have already, in reply to a question the day before yesterday, furnished the names of all the companies upon whom an official of the Inland Revenue called. No other companies were, so far as I can ascertain, communicated with, and I have therefore no further information to give.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does that apply to persons and firms?
  Mr. HOBHOUSESo far as I am aware there are no persons or firms. I used the description "companies" in the largest possible sense.
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked whether it is proposed to extend to small Income Tax payers the extension of time for payment which has already been given to railway companies and other large contributors to the Income Tax; and, if not, whether he can state the reason for discriminating between two classes of taxpayers?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No extension of time has been given either to railway or other large companies. Certain railway companies were asked to pay the tax due within three weeks of it becoming due, and no individual Income Tax payer has been given less than that time in which to pay any tax due.
  Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was unusual pressure put in certain districts upon small Income Tax payers?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir; I am not aware of that fact. If the hon. Member will give me any information I shall have inquiries made.
  Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked what were the instructions given by the chairman of the Board to the official of the Inland Revenue which he is stated to have misunderstood, and were they given verbally or in writing; and, if in writing, will he lay them upon the Table of the House?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I beg to refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London on the 3rd instant. The instructions were given orally.
  Mr. PEEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what were the instructions, in order that the House may have an opportunity of judging how far they were misunderstood by the person to whom they were given?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is a little difficult to explain to the House how the official misunderstood his orders. The instructions, as I understand given orally were, that payments due by these companies should be paid on or by the 30th March. For some reason or other the official misunderstood that, and chose to construe that as meaning April.
  Mr. PEEL: Is there any record at all of these instructions?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir; because it was never for a moment supposed they would be misunderstood. Therefore there is no necessity of keeping such record.
  Lord BALCARRES: I should like to know why should it be necessary to give instructions at all that the eight railway companies in question should pay their taxes at the statutory time?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As I understand, it has been the practice for a very considerable period in the particular case of the railway companies—which, as I explained to the House, are governed by special laws—to ask them to pay upon such and such a date. We were merely following the usual practice.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Is it not a fact that under the law railway companies have to pay the last moiety of their Income Tax by 30th March, and is it not a fact that they have always paid on that date, or
  1026
  within a few days of that date; and, if so, what was the necessity of going round and asking them to pay by the 30th March?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not know whether that is the law. I did not know hon. Members were going to ask me these questions of detail. It is the case that railway companies are bound to pay their tax at some date subsequent to 20th March. It is obvious if their payments are to be included in the financial year, they must be paid within a few days of that date. The year comes to an end eleven days after that date, and, as I explained to the House, in asking them to pay on 30th March, we are merely following the usual practice.
  Mr. PEEL: Was it one official made the mistake or several officials?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As I have already several times explained to the House, it was one official.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: When and how did the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue find his instructions were misunderstood—
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The first I learned of it, and I believe the first news the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue had of it, was the question put to me by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London.
  Mr. NEWDEGATEasked whether instructions were given to the collectors of taxes in Birmingham to postpone the collection of the Property Tax, although the payment of that tax is due in January; whether, on this delay being pointed out to taxation officials by persons liable to pay this tax, the reply has been given that the matter will be attended to; whether it is the case that this tax has not yet been collected in Birmingham; and whether similar delaying orders have been given to tax collectors in other parts of the country?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not aware that any instructions in the sense indicated have been given to collectors of taxes in Birmingham or elsewhere; but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of a specific case, I will cause inquiry to be made.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: I shall be delighted to do so.

  Appointment of Magistrates.
  Mr. WEBBasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the need for more magistrates in the Forest of Dean Division of Gloucestershire; and what steps will he take in the matter?
  Mr. WEBBasked whether, in spite of many representations, the justices of the peace sitting at the last Herefordshire quarter sessions have refused to put in force the provisions of the Licensing Act of 1904, in order to reduce the excessive number of licences in the county; and whether steps will be taken, in view of the present position of the magistracy in Herefordshire, to bring to an end the great preponderance of one political party?
  Mr. AGAR-ROBARTESasked whether, in view of the fact that dissatisfaction has been aroused by the conduct of the Lord Chancellor in connection with his appointments of justices of the peace, he will give a day for the discussion of the subject?
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether, in view of the general dissatisfaction with the present method of making appointments to the bench, he will give an early opportunity of having the matter discussed in this House?
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the number of counties in which advisory committees have been appointed in conformity with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Appointment of Justices of the Peace; and can he say what are the counties in which such committees have not yet been appointed?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am in communication with the Lord Chancellor on the various subjects raised in these questions, and hope to be in a position to make a statement early in next week.
  Mr. PEEL: Is not this dissatisfaction alleged, confined to certain disappointed applicants?
  Mr. NEIL PRIMROSE: May I ask the Prime Minister as there is a possibility of an unsatisfactory answer from the Lord Chancellor, he will give us an opportunity of discussing the question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Gentleman must see that is a contingent question.

  Distribution of Assigned Revenues.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Prime Minister why, in defiance of precedent, a Departmental Committee of the Treasury has been appointed to inquire into the measures to be taken to readjust the distribution of assigned revenues and grants among local authorities instead of a Select Committee of this House; whether his attention has been called to the correspondence between the Secretary to the Treasury and the London County Council as to the representation of the county of London upon the Departmental Committee; and what he proposes to do in order that the case of London may be properly considered?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government, after careful consideration, came to the conclusion that a strong Departmental Committee was the body best fitted to undertake this inquiry. My attention has been called to the correspondence referred to, which appears to show on the part of the County Council a misapprehension of the functions of the Committee. There is no question of the representation thereon of particular interests or localities, nor is there any reason to fear that the case of London will not be fully and impartially considered.

  Election Petitions (Trial).
  Captain WARINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the judges selected to try election petitions sit in those cases both as judge and jury, and that there is no appeal, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to ensure that no judge shall be selected to try an election petition whose decisions in the previous year have been reversed by the Court of Appeal two out of three times or oftener?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think this is a practical suggestion.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of removing election petitions entirely from the purview of the judges of the High Court, and make the tribunal Mr. Speaker, assisted by the Law Officers of the Crown as legal assessors?

  Committee of Supply (Civil Service Estimates).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked upon what day it is proposed to move that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair for Committee of Supply on Civil Service Estimates?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will wait until I make my statement as to the business for next week.

  Development Commission.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked whether an application for a grant from the Development Commission was received by the Commissioners of the Treasury from the St. Andrew's Harbour Trust and acknowledged by them on 5th November last; whether similar applications were received from Anstruther and acknowledged by the Treasury on 22nd November; whether another application was received from Pittenweem; whether these applications were forwarded to the Board of Trade; whether receipts of these applications were duly acknowledged by that Department; and, if so, will he take steps to have them dealt with?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The applications in question were duly received by the Treasury and acknowledged. They are now under the consideration of the Board of Trade, who have not yet, I understand, forwarded any of them to the Development Commission. I have no power to interfere with the procedure adopted by the Board of Trade.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Am I to understand there has been a delay of five months since the Board of Trade received this application?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I cannot undertake to make any reply, but I know they are now under the consideration of the Board of Trade.

  Westminster Abbey (Wood Stagings).
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the timber stagings which are being erected in Westminster Abbey, any and, if so, what, precautions are being taken against an outbreak of fire?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): Full precautions are being taken. A fireman is on duty by day and by night, in addition to the fireman of the Abbey. Telephonic connection has been established with the London Fire Brigade. An officer of the Brigade has inspected the Abbey, and has expressed himself satisfied with the arrangements.
  Mr. BOOTH: Have the stagings been insured against fire.
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: I should like notice of that question.

  Territorial Force (Hyde Park).
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked whether a notice has been issued, or any other action taken, prohibiting or restricting London Territorials from using Hyde Park for their drills or parades; if so, whether it has been done by a subordinate official or is it an action for which a Minister is responsible; and whether, having regard to the long-continued use of Hyde Park for this purpose, and to the effect any such prohibition will have on the popularity of the Territorial Force in London, the decision will be reconsidered?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: No change has been made in the rules which have governed the use of Hyde Park for drills and parades. Territorial troops are permitted to drill there as in past years on application to the proper authority. It appears that there has recently been some misunderstanding upon this subject; but it has been removed.

  Evening School Regulations, 1910.
  Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the President of the Board of Education whether the registration requirements of Article 14 of the Evening School Regulations, 1910, have proved so difficult and complicated that in many cases teachers have been withdrawn almost entirely from the work of teaching in order that they might comply with requirements which the local education authorities of the country hold to be unnecessary and vexatious; and have the Board of Education now decided to withdraw or materially amend the requirements respecting registration?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I have no reason to believe that the local education authorities have been so demoralised, as the hon. Member suggests, by the changes in the regulations as to registration of attendances. The changes were necessary in order to secure proper control of the expenditure of public money. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. PEEL: Has the right hon. Gentleman had complaints from various local authorities as to the working of these regulations?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, but none of the complaints would justify the statement contained in the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is it not a fact that owing to these new regulations the payment of the salaries of the teachers has been deferred for a very long time?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know that there has been any connection between the two facts.
  Mr. PEELasked whether the Board of Education were informed in November last by the education authority for Leeds that the new system of registration entails upon the teachers a very considerable amount of duplication of effort, and that it was estimated that in the evening schools of Leeds there would be 2,000 attendance registers in use, as against 700 for last session; whether he is aware that the regulations of the Board respecting registration in evening schools have been condemned by practically every education authority in the country; whether he is now proposing to amend them; and whether, having regard to the failure of the regulations of last year on this subject, he will consult with people familiar with the work before issuing a new set of regulations?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Board are not in a position to check the estimate of the increase of the number of attendance registers, bcause the registers have not yet been sent up to them. In any case, however, it must not be assumed that the increase in the number of registers creates a proportionate increase in the labour involved in the process of registration. As rgards the second part of the question, I have heard a good deal of somewhat rash criticism of the regulations in question, which were necessary to secure proper control of the expenditure of public money. In reply to the third part of the question, certain Amendments are under consideration. I cannot accept the assumption underlying the fourth part of the question, but I may tell the hon. Member that in connection with the consideration now proceeding of revised regulations, the Board have had the benefit of the advice of competent persons closely in touch with the work being done in the various localities affected.

  Civil Service (Second Division Clerk).
  Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked whether the only promotion of a second division clerk to the rank of junior examiner within the last five years took place during his predecessor's tenure of office in November, 1907?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for giving me an opportunity of correcting a mistake which I made unintentionally and in all good faith when answering one of his Supplementary questions on the 6th April. The appointment referred to in the question was made by my immediate predecessor in office. I have since refreshed my memory, and I find that what occurred in the case in which I proposed to transfer a member of the clerical staff to the higher staff, was that the officer concerned, after carefully considering the proposal, declined my offer, as he already received as Staff Clerk a salary superior to that which for several years he would have received as an Examiner.
  Mr. PEEL: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has, in fact, made no such promotion to the rank of junior examiner?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. I have stated quite explicitly in my answer that it was my predecessor who actually made the promotion. I made an offer of promotion to a second division clerk, but he did not accept my offer.

  Development Fund (St. Andrew's Harbour Trust).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received an application from the St. Andrew's harbour trust, setting forth the necessitous condition of the harbour and asking for a grant from the Development Fund, which was forwarded to him by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury on or about 5th November last; whether similar applications have been received from Anstruther and Pittenweem; whether he will state when the Development Commissioners propose to inspect these harbours; and whether adequate notice of the dates of their visit will be given in order that representations may be prepared to lay before the Commissioners?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): An application from the St. Andrew's Harbour Trustees for a grant from the Development Fund

  1033
  was received from the Treasury on the 7th November last. Similar applications from Anstruther and Pittenweem have also been received. I am at present in communication with the Secretary for Scotland with regard to these applications, but am unable to state what action will be taken by the Development Commissioners when the applications are before them. There has been and will be no avoidable delay on the part of the Board of Trade in this matter.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a delay of five months with regard to this application, and also that the Development Commissioners are inspecting ports to the north of Fife at this moment?
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not think there has been any avoidable delay.

  Coronation (Presentation Mugs).
  Mr. HUNTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the fact that the Coronation mugs for Wallasey, Cheshire, are to be made in Germany, but are not to be stamped as made in Germany; and whether, in view of the law as to the marking of goods manufactured abroad, he intends to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BUXTON: I understand from the newspapers that the order referred to as given to a German firm has been cancelled, and that it has been placed with an English firm. If a case should arise of an attempt to introduce goods the importation of which is prohibited by the Merchandise Marks Act steps will, of course, be taken to put the provisions of that Act into force.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the real point of this question, which is that it is possible at present, I understand, to introduce goods into this country without any foreign mark on the goods themselves, and will he take steps to rectify that?
  Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.

  Railway Companies (Uniform Mechanical Appliances).
  Mr. JAMES THOMASasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can now state what steps are being taken to compel rail-
  1034
  way companies to provide some uniform mechanical appliance to substitute Rule 55, having regard to the inspecting officer's report on the Hawes Junction and Pontypridd disasters?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have carefully considered this matter, and I have asked the railway companies to consider the desirability of providing mechanical or electrical appliances at places where detentions are frequent, or where trains are liable to stand out of sight of the signal cabin. Where mechanical appliances were provided Rule 55 would be no longer necessary in its present form.

  Delagoa Bay Disorders.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the critical state of affairs in Lourenzo Marques, Delagoa Bay, South-East Africa, and the prejudice and danger occasioned thereby to British subjects and British vessels; will he explain why a British man-of-war has not been sent to Delagoa Bay to protect British interests; whether this is due to the inefficient condition of the vessels forming the Cape Squadron; whether there is a German cruiser or man-of-war at Delagoa Bay or in the neighbourhood; and whether, in the absence of any British man-of-war, a German warship, if present, will afford protection to British subjects?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): In consequence of reports received from Lourenzo Marques of possible disorders which might involve prejudice to British subjects, orders have been given for the Commander-in-Chief in H.M.S. "Hermes" to proceed there, and he will arrive on the 23rd April. H.M.S. "Hermes" has just completed a refit, and is efficient. No German man-of-war is at Delagoa Bay, though the "Seeadler" is going to Durban to be in readiness for the protection of German subjects.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Admiralty will take steps to prevent the recurrence of the very unfortunate circumstance which occurred at Zanzibar, Jamaica, and St. Lucia, where British subjects and British interests had to seek protection and assistance from foreign men-of-war?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a long way from Lourenzo Marques.
  Captain FABERasked if the right hon. Gentleman will state why the orders for the departure of His Majesty's cruiser "Forte" to Delagoa Bay was cancelled?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The reason was that the Admiral wished to go in his own flagship, and the "Forte's" refit was arranged to take place as soon as that of the "Hermes" was completed.
  Captain FABER: Is it not a fact that the "Forte" was under repair at the time?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The "Hermes" was under repair. I may say that the "Forte" was kept at Durban up to the 25th March ready to proceed to Lourenzo Marques.
  Captain FABER: Are we to understand that the Admiralty had no vessel which they could send up to Lourenzo Marques?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have already stated that the "Forte" was kept at Durban ready to proceed to Lourenzo Marques.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is it not a fact that the pace of the "Forte" is only twelve knots an hour?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say. I must have notice of that question.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Will the hon. Member say why on the first intimation of these disorders a British man-of-war was not sent to Lourenzo Marques; and will he also state whether it is not a fact that the reason a vessel was not sent was due to the inefficient state of the ships?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, it was not due to the inefficient state of the ships. The "Forte" was due for refit, but it does not follow that she was not effective or unfit for any active service which might be required of her. I may instance the work she did at Cape Point in helping to save the crew of the wrecked Portuguese liner.
  Mr. HOUSTON: But the "Forte" is not the only vessel stationed there. What was the condition of the other vessels?
  Captain FABER: Is this an additional reason why we may sleep quietly in our beds?

  Postal Staff (Manchester).
  Mr. CLYNESasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction caused by the reduction in
  1036
  the payment previously made for the cooking of meals for the postal staff in Manchester; and whether, in view of the need for such work and the increased number of persons now employed, he can cause a favourable reply to be sent to the memorials addressed to him on the subject?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): This matter is under inquiry, and I will inform the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to arrive at a decision.

  Imperial and Local Taxation.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the committee recently appointed to consider the relations between imperial and local taxation consists almost exclusively of officials of Government Departments and county borough authorities, and contains only one person who can properly be deemed to represent the interests of agricultural ratepayers, who are the most serious sufferers from the present incidence of local taxation; and whether, in order to ensure that the decisions of the committee shall be received with respect and confidence by every section of the community, the Government will increase the representation upon the committee of county areas and rural ratepayers?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for the Eddisbury Division last, Tuesday.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he asked me to defer this question for three days, in order to give him an opportunity to reply?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The whole question was answered by the Prime Minister not ten minutes ago. If the hon. Member will look at the Paper to-day he will find that the whole subject has been most adequately dealt with, and I can add nothing of any value to the right hon. Gentleman's statement.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that London is not the rural districts?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Perhaps the hon. Member does not understand that the principle which would apply to London will apply to the rural districts.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: No, I do not.

  Working Class Dwellings (Doncaster Corporation).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the Doncaster Corporation applied to the Local Government Board for permission to borrow £31,500 for the erection of 138 working-class dwellings, and that the application was refused; and whether he will consider the advisability of providing local authorities with greater power in spending ratepayers' money without the intervention of the Board?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): As a result of pressure from the Board, proposals were submitted by the Corporation of Doncaster with a view to carrying out the housing obligations imposed upon them by the Doncaster Local Acts of 1904 and 1908, under which a large number of working-class dwellings had been demolished. The proposals were carefully considered, and a local inquiry held at which considerable opposition was manifested to the proposals, including opposition from the Doncaster Trades and Labour Council. The Board have refused to sanction the proposals on the ground that the site is not suitable, and that it would be difficult to use it for the erection of houses for the working classes in such a manner as would secure healthy conditions for the occupants of the houses. The Board have requested the Corporation to submit amended proposals for the erection of houses on some other site, and the Corporation propose to take this course. I am sure the hon. Member would agree with me in thinking that a low-lying site of about seven acres, difficult of access, and enclosed on one side by the River Don, on another by a railway on an embankment, and on another by a lofty viaduct, can scarcely be regarded as an ideal site for housing the working classes, and that the moral of the story is scarcely that which he suggests.

  7th Hussars (Foreign Service).
  Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the 7th Hussars have done sixteen years' foreign service out of the last twenty-five years, he will advise a further period of home service, so that the respective terms may be more in proportion to the usual periods of home and foreign service?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The reply is in the negative.

  Illegal Trawling (Moray Firth).
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that since the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act came into operation sixteen months ago forty-six foreign trawlers have been reported as fishing in the Moray Firth on 303 occasions, he can give any estimate of the number of days these same foreign trawlers have fished in these waters without being reported?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The Moray Firth is patrolled continuously by one or other of the Fishery cruisers, and I have no reason to believe that foreign trawlers working in the Moray Firth often escape observation. It is impossible to give any estimate of the kind suggested.
  Mr. PIRIEasked how many, respectively, of the eight Dutch, of the nine, respectively, Belgian, Danish, and Norwegian, and of the eleven German trawlers, habitually fishing in the Moray Firth, in waters closed to British trawlers, attempted to land their fish in British ports; on how many occasions was the fish condemned; and why it has hitherto been considered inexpedient to disclose the number of the vessels of the various nationalities exploiting the waters which the Government preserved for their benefit?
  Mr. URE: Two Danish trawlers and one Norwegian trawler, after being observed at work in the Moray Firth, attempted to land fish in a British port, and on each occasion the fish were condemned. The reason why it has hitherto been considered inexpedient to disclose the names and numbers of the vessels of the various nationalities observed trawling in the Moray Firth is that it would give to the trawlers so observed information as to when they had and when they had not been observed, and so aid them in disregarding the by-law.
  Mr. PIRIE: Can the Lord Advocate explain why the information was only obtained through my asking the question of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and why it was withheld from me when I persistently asked for it from the Scotch Office?
  Mr. URE: Because the answer is so obvious.
  Mr. PIRIE: Is not the obvious answer that the Scotch Office wish to screen themselves?
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Lord Advocate, with reference to the case of the conviction of Durrant, trawl master, on 16th January, and as to which he stated that all the attendant circumstances were considered, is it the case that no proper nautical bearings were taken of Durrant's supposed position, which was fixed by-cross bearings taken from the land, one on the 13th June by Fair Isle fishermen, and the other on Sunday, 9th October, by the Fiscal from Lerwick, it being admitted that Durrant's trawler was not there at that time; and if he can explain how a vessel's correct position can be ascertained by bearings taken in such a manner?
  Mr. URE: Questions as to the bearings taken in connection with this case were raised at the trial, the defence alleging that the bearings were not properly ascertained. The Sheriff, however, found that the case was sufficiently proved. I cannot admit as accurate my hon. Friend's description of the methods by which the trawler's position was fixed. According to the evidence accepted as reliable by the judge who tried the case, the offences were committed within a mile and a half of the shore, and therefore well within the three-mile limit.
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Lord Advocate, with reference to the conviction of the master of the trawler "Sarah," of North Shields, as to which it was explained that the special circumstances of the case, namely, the presence of foreign trawlers fishing alongside and the unblemished record of forty-three years' service as a trawl master, presumed a modified sentence of a fine, will he consider the possibility of restoring the trawling gear, of the value of £70, which was also confiscated?
  Mr. URE: The forfeiture of the trawling gear is a matter independent of the fine. The trawling gear is presumably the property of the owner of the trawler and not of the master, and it was sold on 24th March.
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Lord Advocate if his attention had been called to the case of Captain Powdrell, who was fined £ 150 at Wick for illegal fishing in the Moray Firth on the 29th instant; if he is aware that when" Captain Powdrell was arrested by the fishery cruiser "Norna" there was a fleet of foreign trawlers, mostly Norwegian,
  1040
  trawling round a dan between Captain Powdrell and the land; can he state the number of such vessels and where it is supposed that they landed their catch; and if those vessels are included in the number of foreign trawlers already reported?
  Mr. URE: My attention has been called to the case to which my hon. Friend refers, in which Captain Powdrell, of the trawler "Sunshine," who has been convicted of illegal trawling on various previous occasions, was fined £100 for illegal trawling in the Moray Firth, and an additional £50 for disobeying the orders of the officer of the fishery cruiser. I am informed that the trawler "Sunshine" was trawling in company with three foreign trawlers (two German and one Danish) about five miles from the land outside a dan placed about three and three-quarter miles from Wick Head. On observing the cruiser the "Sunshine" trawled out to sea for about thirty-five minutes before being overtaken. There were no other trawlers in the vicinity except those referred to. I have no information as to where the foreign trawlers landed their fish, except that they did not land them at any British port. These foreign trawlers are included in the number of those already reported.
  Mr. PIRIE: In view of the numerous cases of doubtful justice, and that these cases are constantly occurring, can the Lord Advocate say what steps are being taken to ensure an appeal from the sheriff's decision in similar cases in future?
  Mr. URE: There is no appeal allowed by Statute; nor is it desirable that it should be allowed.
  Mr. PIRIEasked the annual cost of patrolling the Moray Firth, the total amount of fines imposed on British trawlers since October, 1909, and the number of fishery cruisers employed in that service; whether their time is more occupied in reporting the presence of foreign trawlers or in arresting the masters of British vessels; and if it is considered that the results hitherto obtained by that patrolling can be considered satisfactory or as achieving the supposed end the Government had in passing the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act?
  Mr. URE: It is impossible to state the annual cost of patrolling the Moray Firth with any reasonable degree of accuracy, as the different cruisers, whose cost of maintenance varies, relieve one another from

  1041
  time to time in the Firth. Apart from His Majesty's ship "Ringdove," there is, as a rule, one, and there are sometimes two, of the Board's cruisers on duty in the Moray Firth. The total amount of fines imposed upon British trawlers since October, 1909, is £425; but only £25 has been paid, the convicted men having in most cases gone to prison. The cruisers report all trawlers observed, whether British or foreign. The degree of success to be attributed to the operation of the Act of 1909 referred to is a matter of opinion which cannot well be discussed in a reply to a question; I may state, however, that in the opinion of the Government more experience must be obtained before a decided view can safely be expressed on the subject.
  Mr. PIRIE: Are we to understand the Government propose to allow this state of things to continue, in which these waters are preserved for the special use of the foreigner at the expense of the British trawler?
  Mr. URE: No legislation is in immediate contemplation.
  Mr. CARLISLE: Will the Lord Advocate take steps for the removal of this mischievous Act from the Statute Book?
  Mr. URE: Certainly not.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of getting more preventive cruisers?

  Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897.
  Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked the Lord Advocate whether all the local authorities in Scotland have appointed veterinary surgeons for the purpose of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897; whether one has been appointed to the staff of the Local Government Board of Scotland; and, if not, will he see that such an appointment is made with the object of securing a uniform standard of meat inspection?
  Mr. URE: I am informed that veterinary surgeons have been appointed for the purposes of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, by the local authorities of all the burghs and county districts of Scotland except nine outlying districts. No appointment of a veterinary surgeon has been made to the staff of the Scottish Local Government Board. The medical member of the Board is thoroughly versed in the question of meat inspection, and no need has been felt for the appointment
  1042
  of a veterinary surgeon in order to secure the object referred to in my hon. Friend's question.
  Mr. PRICE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are taken to secure there is a uniform standard of meat inspection?
  Mr. URE: Administration by extremely highly skilled experts.

  Collapse of Brick Kiln (Silverwood Pit, Rotherham).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the roof of a brick kiln collapsed at Silverwood Pit, Rotherham, on Tuesday, 11th April, which caused the death of one man and seriously injured two others; how long the kiln has been built and how long it is since the roof of the kiln was re-lined; and if factory inspectors have any power to inspect brick kilns in brick fields?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I have received a report from the factory inspector on the circumstances of this case. The kiln was built nine years ago, and the lining has been renewed or repaired from time to time when found necessary. The chamber, however, in which the accident occurred had not been re-lined, as it had not been thought to need it. Brick works are subject to the inspection of the factory inspectors, and the works in question were visited last September, but nothing calling for notice was observed in connection with the kilns. I should add that the accident occurred at night and not while work was going on; and that the persons killed and injured were trespassers who were using the kiln as a sleeping place. I am informed that if it had happened while work was going on any workmen who might have been in the chamber would in all probability have had warning—for example, by the dust and mortar falling—before the accident actually took place.

  Assistant Inspectors of Mines.
  Sir WALTER MENZIESasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that all nominations for the last ten years for the position of assistant inspector of mines have been given to men occupying considerable social position, and none whatever to working miners, however much these latter may have qualified themselves for such a post by education

  1043
  and experience, he will issue regulations with conditions for nominations to these positions, as has recently been done for sub-inspectors, and thus remove the discontent which at present exists?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean Division on the 23rd March. There is no foundation whatever for the statement that in nominating candidates to compete for the post of inspector of mines any weight is attached to social position, or that applications from working miners are ignored. All applications are, and have been in the past, considered impartially on their merits, with a view to the nomination of those who are best qualified in every way for the position, with special regard to their practical experience of mining. This is clearly stated in the regulations, a copy of which I shall be happy to send to my hon. Friend.

  Sidney Street Attack (Police Duty).
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Home Secretary what steps he has taken to sift the charge, made in letters dated 25th and 28th February from the Rev. Lionel S. Lewis, of inaccurate information having been given in Parliament with regard to the arrangements for feeding police officers during the recent disturbance in Sidney Street; whether he is aware that Mr. Lewis pointed out that returns made by the police officers of the Leman Street section house on 7th February as to the hours they served, would substantiate the statements originally made by Mr. Lewis; whether he has called for those reports; if so, what was the maximum, minimum, and average number of hours that the men in question stated that they had been on duty, foodless and unrelieved; and whether the original returns can be published?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have again caused the statements made by the men concerned to be examined, and find that the information already given by me that the men may have been engaged for twelve or thirteen hours is substantially correct. According to the men's statements, the maximum number of hours is 14½, the minimum 11¾, and the average under thirteen hours. I see no reason for publishing any papers.
  Viscount WOLMER: Has the right hon. Gentleman examined the reports himself?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I have not read the reports myself. I have verified the
  1044
  actual facts, which I have stated to the House, that the men were employed on an average less than thirteen hours. It may very often happen that the police in times of emergency or soldiers in battle may be kept working rather beyond the ordinary hours.
  Viscount WOLMER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would give rather more confidence if he would publish the reports, which he has not examined himself, so that the public may have an opportunity of judging the matter?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am always ready to give the House full information, but we do not want to multiply frivolously and unnecessarily the publication of Parliamentary Papers, as the only result would be that nobody would read them with interest.

  Aliens (Prevention of Crimes) Bill.
  Captain FABERasked the Home Secretary, with reference to the contemplated Aliens Act, whether he can bring together some of the most experienced chairmen of quarter sessions and magistrates to consider the lines upon which the Act should be put into force?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall be happy to bear this suggestion in mind when my Bill has passed into law.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will lay on the Table any recent information and reports which he has received before the Bills go to the Grand Committee?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There is a very full report published every year on the working of the Aliens Act, and I do not think I can add to that.
  Captain FABER: May I ask whether it would not be possible to consult the chairmen of quarter sessions before you actually bring the Bill into law, so that they may exactly understand where they are?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I think we are closely in touch at the Home Office with chairmen of quarter sessions, but, running my mind over the Bill, I do not see the necessity for such a special step.

  Mormon Missionaries (Chesterfield).
  Captain FABERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the Mormon campaign; whether Mormon missionaries are making house-to-

  1045
  house calls in Chesterfield and offering money bribes to girls to emigrate; and whether he contemplates any action against the Mormons?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that tracts have been distributed at houses in Chesterfield by Mormons, but that no instance is known to the police of the offer of money bribes to emigrate. As I have already stated, the whole question is receiving consideration, and if the hon. and gallant Member has any definite information, I shall be glad if he will communicate it to me.
  Captain FABER: Is it not possible to include Mormons in the Aliens Act?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a very difficult question, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look into the matter he will realise that it is not so simple as it seems at first sight.
  Captain FABER: Is it not the fact that no law can touch them, unless they really practice polygamy in this country?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There is very wide toleration of opinion in this country, and it is only when those opinions merge into action contrary to the law that the law can step in.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information from the Foreign Office with regard to the expulsion of Mormons from Germany?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: They can do a great many things by police action in Germany which we cannot do in this country, and to do which I do not propose to ask the House to give me powers.

  Salford and Pomona Docks (Accidents).
  Mr. CLYNESasked the number of accidents, fatal and otherwise, which occurred during the last two years for which figures are available, at the Salford and Pomona Docks?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of accidents reported to the inspector under
  Section 104 of the Factory Act as occurring at these docks was in 1909 four fatal accidents and 436 non-fatal accidents; in 1910, nine fatal accidents and 461 nonfatal accidents.

  Army Boots (Renewals Allowances).
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the amount of the cash allowances per annum which is made to infantrymen for the purpose of boot renewals, and at what price they purchase new boots out of the Government stores?
  Colonel SEELY: The infantryman receives a cash allowance of 24s. per annum, paid quarterly in his clothing allowance for the purpose of boot renewals. The purchase price of now boots from Government stores is 12s. a pair. In Highland regiments the allowance for shoes is 22s. a year, and the price is 11s. a pair.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALFOUR: Perhaps the Prime Minister will make a statement as to next week's business.
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday and Tuesday next week, and on Wednesday, till a quarter past eight, we intend to proceed with the Committee stage of the Parliament Bill.
On Thursday we propose to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates.
Sir F. BANBURY: Are we going to sit late?
The PRIME MINISTER: I should not like to say anything as to that. It depends on the progress made.
Mr. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman stay up himself?
The PRIME MINISTER The PRIME MINISTER moved: "That the proceedings on the Parliament Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 129.

Division No. 155.]

AYES.

[3.45 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Barnes, G. N.

Bowerman, C. W.

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Brace, William

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Barton, William

Brigg, Sir John

Agnew, Sir George William

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

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bentham, G. J.

Brunner, J. F. L.

Alden, Percy

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Boland, John Plus

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Booth, Frederick Handel

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

Byles, William Pollard

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Jowett, F. W.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Joyce, Michael

Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

Clough, William

Keating, M.

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Clynes, J. R.

Kellaway, Frederick George

Radford, G. H.

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Kelly, Edward

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Kilbride, Denis

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Reddy, M.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Lansbury, George

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Crooks, William

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Crumley, Patrick

Levy, Sir Maurrce

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Cullinan, J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Roe, Sir Thomas

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Logan, John William

Rowlands, James

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Rowntree, Arnold

Dawes, J. A.

Lundon, T.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Delany, William

Lyell, Charles Henry

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

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Lynch, A. A.

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

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sheehy, David

Dillon, John

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Shortt, Edward

Doris, W.

Maclean, Donald

Simon, Sir John (Allsebrook)

Duffy, William J.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

Snowden, Philip

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Spicer, Sir Albert

Elverston, H.

Marks, G. Croydon

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Essex, Richard Walter

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Summers, James Woolley

Esslemont, George Birnie

Martin, Joseph

Sutton, John E.

Falconer, J.

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Fenwick, Charles

Masterman, C. F. G.

Tennant, Harold John

Ferens, T. R.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Ffrench, Peter

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

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Fitzgibbon, John

Menzies, Sir Walter

Toulmin, George

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Millar, James Duncan

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Gill, A. H.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Mooney, J. J.

Verney, Sir Harry

Guest, Major Hon. Sir Edward

Morgan, George Hay

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Gulland, John William

Morrell, Philip

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Hackett, J.

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Wardle, George J.

Hancock, J. G.

Nolan, Joseph

Waring, Walter

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Harmsworth, R. L.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Webb, H.

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

O'Doherty, Philip

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

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

O'Dowd, John

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Grady, James

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Haworth, Arthur A

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Wiles, Thomas

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wilkie, Alexander

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Shee, James John

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

Henry, Sir Charles S.

O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

Higham, John Sharp

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

Holt, Richard Durning

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hughes, S. L.

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

Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Hunter, W. (Govan)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Johnson, W.

Pirie, Duncan V.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pointer, Joseph

of Elibank and Mr. Illingworth.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Pollard, Sir George H.

NOES.

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

Campion, W. R.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Aitken, William Max

Carlile, E. Hildred

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cassel, Felix

Finlay, Sir Robert

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Castlereagh, Viscount

Fisher, W. Hayes

Ashley, W. W.

Cator, John

Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

Baird, J. L.

Cautley, H. S.

Fleming, Valentine

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

Cave, George

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Forster, Henry William

Baldwin, Stanley

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Foster, Philip Staveley

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

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Gardner, Ernest

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gastrell, Major W. H.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Gibbs, G. A.

Barnston, Harry

Clive, Percy Archer

Gilmour, Captain J.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Grant, J. A.

Bird, A.

Craik, Sir Henry

Greene, W. R.

Bottomley, Horatio

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Guinness, Hon. Walter E.

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

Cripps, Sir C. A.

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Croft, H. P.

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

Bull, Sir William James

Dalrymple, Viscount

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Butcher, J. F.

Dixon, C. H.

Harris, Henry Percy

1048

1049

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Newdegate, F. A.

Sykes, Alan John

Houston, Robert Paterson

Newman, John R. P.

Talbot, Lord E.

Hume-Williams, W. E.

Nield, Herbert

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

Hunt, Rowland

Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Thynne, Lord A.

Joynson-Hicks, William

Parkes, Ebenezer

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

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

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Perkins, Walter F

Valentia, Viscount

Kerry, Earl of

Ratcliff, R. F.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Kimber, Sir Henry

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

Kirkwood, J. H. M.

Rawson, Colonel R. H.

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Knight, Capt. E. A.

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Larmor, Sir J.

Rice, Hon. Walter F.

Wolmer, Viscount

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Worthington-Evans, L.

Lewisham, Viscount

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sanders, Robert A.

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

Stanier, Beville

Younger, George

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

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

MacCaw, Mm. J. MacGeagh

Staveley-Hill, Henry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Dr. Hillier and Captain Faber.

Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on the Parliament Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the
Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 133.

PARLIAMENT BILL.— [Seventh Day.]
Bill considered in Committee.—[Progress, 18th April.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

PARLIAMENT BILL.— [Seventh Day.]

  CLAUSE 2.—(Restriction of the powers of the House of Lords as to Bills other than Money Bills.)
  (1) If any Bill other than a Money Bill is passed by the House of Commons in
  1052
  three successive Sessions (whether of the same Parliament or not), and, having been sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, is rejected by the House of Lords in each of those Sessions, that Bill shall, on its rejection for the third time by the House of Lords, 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

  1053
  thereto, notwithstanding that the House of Lords has not consented to the Bill: Provided that this provision shall not take effect unless two years have elapsed between the date of the first introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons and the date on which it passes the House of Commons for the third time.
  (2) A Bill shall be deemed to be rejected by the House of Lords if it is not passed by the House of Lords either without amendment or with such amendments only as may be agreed to by both Houses.
  (3) A Bill shall be deemed to be the same Bill as a former Bill sent up to the House of Lords in the preceding Session if, when it is sent up to the House of Lords, it is identical with the former Bill or contains only such alterations as are certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons to be necessary owing to the time which has elapsed since the date of the former Bill, or to represent amendments which have been made by the House of Lords in the former Bill in the preceding Session.
  Provided that the House of Commons may, if they think fit, on the passage of such a Bill through the House in the second or third Session, suggest any further amendments without inserting the amendments in the Bill, and any such suggested amendments shall be considered by the House of Lords, and if agreed to by that House, shall be treated as amendments made by the House of Lords and agreed to by the House of Commons; but the exercise of this power by the House of Commons shall not affect the operation of this section in the event of the Bill being rejected by the House of Lords.
  Mr. CAVE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "If" ["If any Bill other than a Money Bill "], to insert the words "after the first Dissolution of Parliament which shall take place after the passing of this Act."
  The effect of the Amendment will be that Clause 2 will take effect after a Dissolution and not in the present Parliament. I think the reasons for this Amendment are very clear, and, indeed, lie on the surface. The Government are proposing a great constitutional change, under which, if it becomes law, there will henceforth be no power in any House to refer to the people any measure which may be proposed in this House. We are told that there was a mandate for this particular Bill, but I think no one says there
  1054
  was a mandate for more than this one Bill, and yet we are told, I do not know with what truth, that the intention of the Government is, if this Bill becomes law, to introduce and pass into law in the present Parliament, without reference to the people, such great measures as a Home Rule Bill, a Bill for Disestablishing the Church in Wales, a Licensing Bill, and other matters of that kind as to which there is great controversy. We are told from time to time that the party opposite have some respect for the will of the electors of this country. I want to have an opportunity now and hereafter to test whether that is true. Proposals for Home Rule have been at least twice before the electors, and each lime they have been rejected. The nation has never pronounced in favour of a Home Rule Bill. Then take Disestablishment. I do not think a measure for Disestablishment has ever been submitted to the country at all as a test question. There never was an election in which that was made a test question, so that the people could pronounce upon it. As to the Licensing Bill, when it was rejected two years ago, it was recognised on all hands that the Government dared not go to the country upon it, and yet this Government, which professes to be solicitous to give effect to the will of the electors, proposes actually to introduce in this House, without referring to the people at all, these three very measures on which the people have hitherto declined to pronounce a favourable verdict. I do not think anyone really believes that if you submitted to the country now any one of those three issues you would get a verdict in its favour. I doubt whether anyone in his heart believes that. Nor even do I believe that if you submitted the three together, and the process of log-rolling went on, the supporters of each measure supporting the other, you would get a verdict for all the three. Yet the Government are actually proposing, if and when this Bill is passed, to ask the House to pass those three very measures, and when they are rejected by the other House to pass them again and again, and pass them into law under this very Bill, though the people will not have a chance of saying whether or not they desire them.
  That is showing a cynical disregard of the very purpose for which we are here. We are here to give effect to the views of the electors, and we shall see before the debate is concluded whether hon. Gentle-

  1055
  men opposite take that view or not. But take this as a first test. You have never submitted to the electors these three measures, and yet, if the Amendment is not accepted, you are going to pass them into law behind the backs of the electors. There is a special reason why the Government should be careful at the present time. This measure is by admission, indeed on the face of it, a measure of a temporary kind. The preamble shows that sooner or later we are to have a Second Chamber differently constituted, but, as I gather, with some real check on the proposals which pass this House. But during the interregnum there will be no authority which can check the proceedings of this House. There will be no check at all upon it, unless it be the check of dissolution. I ask the Government to apply that check, and to say that while there is no effective Second Chamber with an effective veto, they should take special pains not to pass into law anything which the people have not in terms approved. This Amendment would give them a chance of following up that precept. It will put to the test whether it be the fact that the people approves this Bill, and whether they approve also the measures which are to follow this Bill. I ask the Government to say whether or not they will adopt that suggestion. If not they will show themselves indifferent to what the will of the people is. While they profess to be desirous of destroying the Veto of the other House, they are only cheating the people of their Veto and preventing them from saying whether or not they desire these future measures to pass into law. I ask the Government to say, having made this great constitutional change, if they are able to carry it, that they will go to the electors who sent us here to ascertain from them whether or not they are willing to sanction the measures which will follow this.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I suppose this Amendment is serious, but it amounts to a negation of the whole Bill. This is the proposal which was put before the country at the last General Election, hut the hon. Gentleman positively asks this House of Commons, having been returned for that purpose, to abnegate the function for which it was returned until after another Dissolution. It is not a question of Home Rule or Disestablishment, or any specific measure. The Amendment would prevent the applica-
  1056
  tion of the Clause to any measure of any sort or kind, until another dissolution takes place. It is, in fact, to deny the mandate given to this House, and it is obviously impossible for the Government to accept it.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think the peculiar tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman is due to the impossibility which he found in answering the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend. If you cannot refute an argument, it is always convenient to assume that no argument exists, and of that elementary form of Parliamentary tactics the right hon. Gentleman has shown himself a master, as he is a master of most forms of Parliamentary tactics. In the few cursory observations made by the right hon. Gentleman the one glimmer of argument was that at the last General Election the country not only decided to have this Bill, but decided to have all the other Bills in the course of the present Parliament which this Government might pass. That he calls a mandate from the people. I do not agree with either half of that double contention. I think it perfectly true that at the last election the country showed itself desirous of dealing with what is called the constitutional question, but that they actually gave the Government a mandate for this particular way of dealing with it I do not believe in the least; nor do I believe that if you cross-examined the odd thousands of electors who returned the Government to power, you would find they could tell you exactly what this Bill is. They could tell you that they desire to see some amendment or alteration of the relations between the two Houses and of the constitution of the Upper House; but the idea that we are to be told that they desire this Bill, with Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, and the rest of it—that they desire the particular solution that the Government lay before us—or indeed, in the absence of discussion in this House, that they would be in any case in a position to form an opinion upon it, seems to me wholly absurd. But let us grant, for the sake of argument, that the people desire this Bill substantially in the form in which the Government have introduced it. What possible warrant is there for the right hon. Gentleman's next suggestion, namely, that the electors also desire every other measure casually mentioned, or casually not mentioned, by the Members of the Government in their election addresses during the course of the last

  1057
  General Election. The course of events is against the validity of such a suggestion. Everybody knows that it is an untrue suggestion. Everybody knows that the people desire to see some modification in the relations between the two Houses of Parliament and in the constitution of the Upper House, but they do not on that account necessarily say that they want Disestablishment in Wales, or Home Rule, or any of the other measures which the Government or their supporters may or may not have suggested in the passing phases of this or that political dilemma.
  What my hon. and learned Friend proposes in this Amendment is surely a common-sense suggestion. If you choose to say that this House is not merely to be the proper organ to manage all our national business, unchecked or unassisted by another Chamber, if you are prepared to say that whatever measure it passes three times shall have the force of law of itself, you are bound, as a necessary corollary, unless you have a Single Chamber only, to add to that some means of showing that the electors were consulted before the new system, or after it, and that they had some means by referendum or otherwise of offering their opinion upon it. You must have one or other of these two things. What the right hon. Gentleman actually suggests is that at the last General Election when the party of which he was a member was returned by a majority of one, and when the other two parties in alliance with his party made up the majority to 124, the electors not merely gave him a mandate to pass this Bill, but to pass every other measure, over the head of and unchanged and unaltered by the Second Chamber, which the log-rolling instincts of the groups composing the majority may think it desirable to pass in the course of the next three or four years. That is a preposterous suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether my hon. and learned Friend was serious in making the proposal in the Amendment. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is serious in turning this great revolution, this great constitutional change, which it is, and must be in whatever form it is passed, into an instrument to be used for passing other and even more revolutionary changes without giving the electors, of whom hon. Gentlemen opposite talk so much, the opportunity of expressing their real opinions upon those changes. My hon. and learned Friend challenged hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say whether, if the election
  1058
  had been taken on Home Rule, any man in his heart believed that the last election would have had the same result. Every man knows in his heart that it would have been nothing of the kind. Nobody does think so. If my hon. and learned Friend is right in that, what are you doing by this Clause, unless you pass the Amendment? You are using the public favour, which you have got undoubtedly, for the purpose of making some change in the constitution of the Upper House as an instrument for forcing upon the people changes the nature of which they practically have not realised, which they have certainly not thought over, which have never been argued before them in the country, which they have never read of being argued in this House. From the very nature of the case you are abusing, improperly and unconstitutionally, powers which you have seized from the electors in order to carry out changes for which they have given you no mandate.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I assume that if the ordinary course of events is followed in reference to this Amendment it will be negatived, and that the one which stands further down on the Paper in my name will be ruled out of order for the reason that it would be regarded as dilatory. Therefore, I desire at once to avail myself of this opportunity of stating one or two reasons why I think the House should give more serious attention to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member than was bestowed upon it by the Prime Minister. I assume that, as a matter of course, the Amendment will be negatived. Notwithstanding the eloquent tribute recently paid by the Leader of the Opposition to the purity of our system of voting in this House, I still respectfully associate myself with the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Hugh Cecil). I venture to say that if we had the opportunity of counting heads in the House, I could give the exact figures of the Division before it takes place. I had a desire to move an Amendment which would bring this Bill itself within the operation of the same machinery which it sets up for other legislation. But I assume I shall not get a chance of moving that Amendment, and therefore I desire to say that I shall certainly vote for the Amendment now before the Committee. I desire to suggest to right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House that they should endeavour to find some better reasons for opposing the Amendment than those given by the Prime Minister. What

  1059
  is the position of the matter? The House has resolved that Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill. I went through the tedious task of sitting up all night and voting for that Clause because, rightly or wrongly, I conceive it to be the sole function of this House to deal with finance. Having decided that, we now come to the provisions applicable to general legislation, and we are asked to vote for a Clause which, as the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cave) has pointed out, will enable this House to pass any kind of legislation it likes between now and the next General Election.
  I want to put this respectfully to the occupants of the Treasury Bench. Can any one of them produce in the course of this discussion any election address or any report of any speech by any responsible Minister of the Crown telling the electors that if this Bill passes into law the Licensing Bill—I take that measure as an illustration—should be enacted under the provisions of this Bill? No such representation was ever made. I stand here in the misunderstood rôle of a democrat. I say in pursuance of my conception of that rôle that to retain the hereditary House in its present form with all its anomalies and objections and to simply limit its Veto would be to retain a political anachronism. I do not know what ground there is for suggesting that the electors ever gave a mandate for simply limiting the Veto. Speaking from my own experience, I say distinctly that what we talked to the electors about more than the Veto was the hereditary principle. We chaffed the Peers on their crests and mottoes, we enlarged on the acreage of their landed possessions, and we aroused indignant cheers by repeating the circumstances under which their titles were created. But on no occasion did we ever say to the electors that it is impossible to carry out any reform of the Lords at present, and that all we intend to do is to clip their powers so far as the vetoing of legislation is concerned. I do not understand this modern conception of democracy which would permit any anomaly to remain in your laws, provided that you stand in with the results. You say: "If it comes to undeveloped land put on a halfpenny; if it comes to leasehold property put on a tax of 10 per cent., but let the House of Lords retain the hereditary principle and simply allow us to limit their Veto."
  As far as I am concerned I look at this Clause in this way. If it were a temporary
  1060
  expedient, if before it came into operation we had the prospect of some reality being given to the Preamble of the Bill, I could understand the position. But I do not think that the Committee appreciates the only declaration which I have heard on behalf of the Government in its defence of that measure. When the present Secretary of State for War (Lord Haldane) was a Member of this House he used, in the course of his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, a phrase which has rather escaped attention. He said, "Whatever may be the provisions of the Reform Bill to be hereafter introduced, we intend to keep everything we get under this Bill." (Cheers.) I am glad that the War Secretary has some faithful adherents below the Gangway, and that being so, we have to take this Clause as the expression of the definite intention of the Government in regard to permanent legislation. Therefore, I say we are not entitled to go behind the backs of the electors in the way now proposed. I am not in any way a Home Ruler, but I have always thought that one of the chief arguments against the Union was that the present relations between the two countries were brought about by fraud. I do not want to see them rectified by fraud. I want to see any measure which may be proposed based on a sounder and better foundation than that of cheating the electors. I do say very seriously that the electors as a body did not understand this Bill to mean that the reform of the constitution of the Second Chamber was to be indefinitely postponed. I said on a previous occasion that one of my Constituents did not understand what the Veto meant. He thought it was a vegetable. I have in my possession a letter from one who says that he cannot understand my opposition to the Veto and that he had supported Sir William Harcourt's Veto Bill.
  The public do not understand this Veto proposal. The country does not understand the meaning of this limited revolution. What the average man in the street does understand is that it is an anomaly to make a man a hereditary ruler simply by qualification of birth. He understands that the power of the House of Lords over legislation in this country is based on a false premise and a false foundation. I strongly support the Amendment because I consider it to be in the best interests of the Liberal Party. (Laughter.) I mean the party of Liberalism. I believe it would be in the best

  1061
  interests of true democracy, and I am quite certain that if we are going to force this Clause through to-day in the way proposed, the result will be anything but beneficial to the interests of the party with which I am associated. I believe this Amendment to be just and necessary. I do not think that any measure which can be introduced by any Government, including Home Rule, under the provisions of this Clause has the remotest chance of becoming law. The conception that by simply carrying a Bill backward and forward along the corridor for three years you will do anything but sicken and disgust the public, is a stupid conception which I do not myself understand.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is really addressing himself to the Clause as a whole and not to this Amendment. I must ask him to address himself to the Amendment.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I was simply endeavouring to address myself to the argument that under the provisions of this Clause a measure should become law on the third occasion of being passed by this House. In conclusion, I say that the Clause covers such infinitely wider powers than were ever understood by the people that they would be detrimental to the best interests of the democracy, and I, therefore, support most heartily the Amendment.
  Mr. ROYDS: I understood the Prime Minister to say that he did not advance any arguments against this Amendment, because he had a mandate from the country to pass this Bill in its entirety. If that is so, why are there so many right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who never appealed in their election addresses on the Parliament Bill—never even referred to the Bill—and had not a single paragraph in their election addresses, which by any stretch of imagination could be connected with any particular Clause of the Parliament Bill?
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The Prime Minister is apparently under the impression that the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend is not serious. This is one of the most important Amendments that have yet been introduced into the Bill. If this Bill becomes law it may happen that the electorate will change their minds and turn against the party which is led by the Prime Minister. Then the Prime Minister might say, "This being so, we are not going to have a fresh
  1062
  election at the end of the septennial period. We are going to take advantage of the privilege we have of sending up Bills to the House of Lords to pass a Bill extending our electoral period for another seven years." An hon. Member tells me that is provided for, but that can be got over easily. I have quotations from Ministers on that Bench which I am prepared to read—
  The CHAIRMAN: There is a specific Amendment on that particular point.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Suppose that the Bill is going to pass, the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend is a constitutional Amendment. It has always been the practice that when the franchise is altered this House appeals to the electors, because the House, while it rests on a different basis from that which has been established, does not really represent the people. Therefore, in order to carry out the idea of the Constitution as soon as this Bill is passed, the House of Commons ought to go to the electorate for authority to confirm them in the legislation which they have carried out. What my hon. and learned Friend says is that this Bill is not to come into operation until the electorate had been consulted. That is very kind on the part of my hon. and learned Friend, because it gives the Prime Minister four or five years' more time. It does not say "as you are altering the Constitution you must at once go to the electorate." What it says is "You have altered the Constitution, you have four or five years' time, but as you have altered the Constitution this particular power does not come into operation until the electorate is consulted." This Amendment demands more argument than has been developed by the Prime Minister, and perhaps he will see his way to accept it.
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: Like the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bottomley) I have an Amendment which I think probably will be excluded if this Amendment is dealt with. If I had felt any doubt about supporting my hon. and learned Friend it would have been entirely removed by the observations of such a sturdy democrat as the hon. Member for South Hackney. The object of this Amendment is to apply a different time for coming into effect to two different portions of this Bill. There is nothing unprecedented about that. In many cases different portions of a Bill come into effect at different times. My argument to postpone the effect of the second portion of the Bill is that you have

  1063
  by the first portion of the Bill effected a very large constitutional change. Of course, it is argued by hon. Members opposite that it has not done so, that it merely declares the law to be what the custom already has been; but the arguments advanced earlier this week show that that was not so, and it would be well to wait until we see the effect of that important alteration in the Constitution and not apply two violent alterations at the same time. The effect of the Bill is to apply a particular form of procedure to other measures, and that form of procedure is that they shall at least have two years before they come into operation. This measure, which is far more important than other measures which will come into operation under it, because it settles their procedure, is to come into operation at once. There is an extraordinary want of logic about making the more important measure come into operation immediately on being passed, while the less important measure can be delayed. The hon. Member opposite referred to the question of the composition of the House of Lords. This Amendment will give an opportunity to the Government of dealing with that question before the second part of the Bill comes into operation, because the whole danger that the right hon. Gentleman anticipated from the House of Lords was that the House of Lords would be able to assert again its right of dealing with the finances of the year and throwing out the Budget. That has been put entirely beyond the power of a Second Chamber, by the first Clause, and therefore he need be under no anxiety on that point, as, under the five years' Clause he would have at least three years in which he would be able to deal with the composition of the House of Lords.
  But I think the strongest argument in favour of this Amendment is that the electors would look upon the measures which are proposed to them with entirely different eyes, according as they knew whether or not there was a Second Chamber which might deal with those measures or that if there were no Second Chamber those measures would undoubtedly come into law if passed by the Government of the day. It may be said that the electors on this occasion probably knew what they were about, and know that if this measure did become law then the other measures referred to, though not so much in election addresses and speeches, would also
  1064
  become law. I think that is entirely to misunderstand the position of the ordinary elector. He is apt to concentrate on one subject at a time, and not to consider other and larger measures. I am quite sure that many electors have not the imagination to place themselves in such a point of view as to see that after a time if these other measures are brought forward there will be no Second Chamber or no House of Lords to deal with them. If they felt that any Bill, whatever that Bill might be, proposed in this House would become law without the interference of a Second Chamber I am convinced then that they would scrutinise those measures, and demand to have far more than the vague outline which is put before them at General Elections before they would decide to put a Government into power that was going to deal with complicated provisions of large changes and revolutionary Bills. You will have, I think, to interpret in future the ideal mandate far more closely than has been done. Up to now it has been the constitutional practice to say "You have returned particular Members to Parliament; let them deal as they wish with the large questions of policy which may come up." That has been largely the constitutional idea, because it has been known that there was a Second Chamber in the way which would correct any great divagation from the principles that had been put before the people at the election. But that would be so no longer. Therefore I submit that the whole question of limitation and determination of mandate will have to be construed far more strictly.
  The CHAIRMAN: All this is in order on the Clause, but not on this Amendment.
  Mr. PEEL: The last point I wish to urge is that if the Bill is dealt with under the proposals made by my hon. and learned Friend, I think it will throw some air of decency and constitutionalism over the operations of the Government. These operations of the Government are very violent; the changes they advocate are very revolutionary, and at least I think, in the interests of the Government—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the Amendment.
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: I was attempting to address my remarks to the Amendment, but I do not think I will continue my observations.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I do not think the Prime Minister, in the answer which he gave to this Amendment, sufficiently considered the difference between Clause 1 and Clause 2 of this Bill. The meaning of this Amendment is that before the changes proposed by the Bill come into force, the electors should have an opportunity of expressing their opinion as to the powers which the Government will have under Clause 2. So far as Clause 1 is concerned, the Prime Minister said that he considered that to be only a declaration of the existing law; but, so far as the second Clause is concerned, it is quite clear that it introduces an absolute change as regards the constitutional practice of this country, by substituting what is, in fact, a Single-Chamber system for the system we have at the present time. I am not going to discuss that matter now; it arises on the Clause itself. What I want to know from the Prime Minister is this: Can he give any precedent in our constitutional practice, where there has been an absolute change in the whole basis of our Constitution, in which the Government in power have been allowed to use the change for their purposes before the electorate has been consulted? It is an extremely important principle, because without inserting an Amendment of this kind, not only now but at any future time this House could exercise the power of altering the Constitution of this country from top to bottom, introducing any provisions or Bills they liked, during a period of interregnum, without consulting the electorate at all as to the proposals they bring forward. Let me remind the Prime Minister about one very important point as regards this Bill, and that is the period of interregnum, the period during which this Bill is in force before any change has been made in the Second Chamber, in accordance with the proposals contained in the Preamble. What is the fact? During that interregnum, unless this Amendment be adopted, we should have a Cabinet absolutism in this country unknown, as regards its absolute power, to any other assembly, or to any other Constitution which exists in the civilised world at present time. Under these circumstances, surely the electorate ought to have a voice in saying whether they are going to allow, during a period of interregnum of this sort, this absolute power which the Government are claiming under the provisions of the Bill as it stands at the present moment. So far as the democratic principle is concerned, this Amend-
  1066
  ment is based on the principle of the electorate having power to say what shall be done under the provisions of a Bill of this kind. Of course, the Bill, as it stands, is wholly undemocratic and wholly inconsistent with representative principles.
  If this Amendment were introduced, it would be impossible for the Government to use the powers which the Bill gives them until there had been a dissolution, and until they had obtained the mandate of the people on the basis of the terms and powers which Clause 2 would give them if passed in its present form. It appears to me, as regards the Constitution of this country, that we have hitherto been free from a position of that kind; we have really had a guarantee that before any great change is made the will of the people is to be properly ascertained, whereas, if this Clause is passed, and the Amendment is not introduced, an absolute power will be given which I am satisfied the people of this country never realised at the last General Election, and, in fact, hardly realise up to the present time, owing to the enormity of the constitutional revolution which is now intended to be brought about. On these grounds I urge most strongly that the people should be consulted, that they should be allowed, under the principle of constitutional representative Government, to have an opportunity of stating their view before the Cabinet seek to put in force what would give them absolute power as regards Home Rule, Disestablishment, and all those measures if the Clause is passed in its present form, and without the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston Division.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The Prime Minister spoke only for the fraction of a minute, but he made a very remarkable speech all the same. He did not argue on the merits of the Amendment in any way whatever. He addressed himself solely to the proposition that he had a mandate from the country to carry the Bill without this Amendment, and therefore it was not necessary to argue the matter at all. This from an advocate of the representative system, the right hon. Gentleman who is so indignant when it is suggested that any question should be referred to the people, in which this House which is the representative council, debating and deciding with independent mind the issues propounded to it, and who gets up for thirty seconds or so, and says the matter has been decided by the country, and that

  1067
  he is not going to argue about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] But that is not the representative system; it is a plebiscitary system carried out in an extremely clumsy and unreal way. The idea of the right hon. Gentleman is that the House of Commons has only the function of mechanically registering what the Government of the day proposes. When Parliament has changed the character of the House of Commons, and has made it the supreme authority instead of being one of two co-ordinate authorities, the House of Commons should be re-elected in order that the country might decide what sort of House of Commons it wants to entrust with these greatly extended powers and functions. That seems to be an elementary and reasonable proposition. Apart from all the other issues—the question of taxes on food, old age pensions—
  The PRIME MINISTER: That has nothing to do with it.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that nobody got in on old age pensions at the General Election? I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge what he thinks. In a great many country districts old age pensions excited greater interest than the Parliament Bill and the whole of the other issues put together. The whole mandate here is that you have 150,000 votes, and a tax on food is quite enough to convert a majority into a minority. A strong Radical, or if not a strong Radical at all events a decided Liberal in politics, who is an eminent Nonconformist, in discussing this question with somebody was asked whether he was in favour of abolishing the House of Lords. "Not at all," he replied, "but I think they ought not to interfere with the Budget; I am against their having power in finance, and I want to see that power abolished." That is not a proposition with which I altogether agree, but it is a proposition which a great many people assented to in the country, and all their votes given for the Bill were given without any ultimate regard to the passing of the second Clause, and without any consideration of what kind of legislation would follow. All those considerations are obvious enough, and I would not have taken up the time of the House in discussing them if the Prime Minister had not grounded his position solely on the mandate he has received. The reasonable
  1068
  thing is that a new House of Commons should be elected to use the powers given under this Bill.
  Mr. CHURCHILL Mr. CHURCHILL made an observation which was inaudible.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It is very characteristic of the Home Secretary that he should say that another General Election would be an intolerable burden. I quite agree it would be an intolerable burden to the Government; they would probably come out of it in a minority; at any rate, was there ever a more absurd proposition than that you are to carry an unending series of legislation with a House of Commons elected, certainly not on subsequent issues which are to be propounded to this House if this Parliament is continued, but a House of Commons elected on the prior issue in respect of this constitutional question, which was certainly not a proposition that the Government should have a free hand to write anything it pleased into the Statute Book during the coming years. The real issue on this Amendment is whether we really believe in trusting the people or not. What the Government really have in their minds is that they will not carry their Bills that they have in contemplation if they accepted this Amendment. They know that they would be beaten, and the people are only one of the many instruments for carrying out their purposes. They have imposed upon them by the groups on whose support they depend, a variety of items which appear in their programme. They want to carry those items through, and they think that if they accepted this Amendment they would not be able to carry those items, and therefore "the will of the people" is only a phrase used in perorations on platforms when all other expedients fail. Therefore we bring forward a proposition which is founded on democratic principles, but which the Government resist without argument. I hope we shall, in future, be spared appeals to the people of whom the Government are afraid, and whom they dare not consult in regard to legislation they want to pass.
  The PRIME MINISTER 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, 217; Noes, 135.

  Division No. 156.]

  AYES.

  [3.55 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Delany, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Dillon, John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Doris, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Duffy, William J.

  Logan, John William

  Alden, Percy

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Elverston, H.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Barnes, George N.

  Falconer, James

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Maclean, Donald

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Barton, William

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Fitzgibbon, John

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Marks, George Croydon

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

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Bentham, G. Jackson

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Martin, J.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

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

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gulland, John W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Boland, John Plus

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Meagher, Michael

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hackett, J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hancock, John George

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Brace, William

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Brigg, Sir John

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Brocklehurst, W. B

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

  Mooney, John J

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morrell, Philip

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

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

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Byles, William Pollard

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  O'Dowd, John

  Clough, William

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Grady, James

  Clynes, John R

  Johnson, William

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Malley, William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Shee, James John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Palmer, Godfrey M.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Joyce, Michael

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Crooks, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Cullinan, John

  Kelly, Edward

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Pollard, Sir George H.

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

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Sheehy, David

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Shortt, Edward

  Webb, H.

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clithero)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Radford, George Heynes

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Whyte, A. F.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Sutton, John E.

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

  Reddy, Michael

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

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

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Toulmin, George

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Rowlands, James

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  of Elibank and Mr. Illingworth.

  NOES.

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

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Aitken, William Max

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fleming, Valentine

  Newman, John R. P.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Nield, Herbert

  Ashley, W. W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Baird, J. L.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Balcarres, Lord.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Perkins, Walter Frank

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

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Grant, J. A.

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Barnston, Harry

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Rice, Hon. W. F.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bird, A.

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Snowden, Philip

  Bull, Sir William James

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks.)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Campion, W. R.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sykes, Alan John

  Cassel, Felix

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Cator, John

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Joynson-Hicks, William

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

  Cave, George

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Kirkwood, J. H. M.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lansbury, George

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craig, Capt. J. (Down, E.)

  Larmor, Sir J

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Yate, Colonel C. E

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Younger, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Stanier and Col. Chaloner.

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

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Finlay, Sir R.

  Division No. 157.]

  AYES.

  [5.0 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Shee, James John

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

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

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Hackett, J.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Hancock, John George

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Alden, Percy

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

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

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Balfour, Sir Robert Lanark

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Barnes, George N.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Barton, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Radford, G. H

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Hughes, S. L.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Johnson, William

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Reddy, Michael

  Black, Arthur W.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Boland, John Plus

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Brace, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Kelly, Edward

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Lansbury, George

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sheehy, David

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shortt, Edward

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Logan, John William

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Clough, William

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Clynes, John R.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Snowden, Philip

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, NW.)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Sutton, John E.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Maclean, Donald

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Crooks, William

  M'Laren, H. D (Leics.)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Crumley, Patrick

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Cullinan, John

  Manfield, Harry

  Toulmin, George

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Marks, George Croydon

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Martin, Joseph

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Delany, William

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Meagher, Michael

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Dillon, John

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Doris, William

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Webb, H.

  Duffy, William J.

  Millar, James Duncan

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Molloy, M.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Whyte, A. F.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Mooney, John J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Elverston, H.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Falconer, James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Dowd, John

  Fitzgibbon, John

  O'Grady, James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

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

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Glanville, H. J.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  NOES.

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

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

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

  Aitken, William Max

  Baird, J. L.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. V.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Barnston, Harry

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  1070

  1071

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Bigland, Alfred

  Grant, J. A.

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Bird, A.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bull, Sir William James

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

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Campion, W. R.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Royds, Edmund

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cassel, Felix

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Cator, John

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stanier, Beville

  Cave, George

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sykes, Alan John

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Larmor, Sir J.

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

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

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

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Finlay, Sir R

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Macmaster, Donald

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

  Fitzroy, Hon Edward A.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Flannery, S. J. Fortescue

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Newman, John R. P.

  Younger, George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nield, Herbert

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 222.

  Division No. 158.]

  AYES.

  [5.8 p.m.

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

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Aitken, William Max

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hume-Williams. Wm. Ellis

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Kerry, Earl of

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Larmor, Sir J.

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

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Finlay Sir R.

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

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Barnston, Harry

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Benn, Arhur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

  Bigland, Alfred

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Macmaster, Donald

  Bird, Alfred

  Gardner, Ernest

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Newman, John R. P.

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Grant, J. A.

  Nield, Herbert

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Campion, W. R.

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Cassel, Felix

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

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

  Cator, John

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cave, George

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Royds, Edmund

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

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

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Sanders, Robert A.

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

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Stanier, Beville

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Younger, George

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Sykes, Alan John

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Glanville, H. J.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Dowd, John

  Alden, Percy

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

  O'Grady, James

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Hackett, John

  O'Malley, William

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Hancock, John George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Shee, James John

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Balfour, Sir Robert Lanark

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Barnes, George N.

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

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

  Barton, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hayward, Evan

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Boland, John Pius

  Hughes, S. L.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Johnson, William

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Brace, William

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Brigg, Sir John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Brocklehurst, William B.

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Joyce, Michael

  Reddy, Michael

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Keating, Matthew

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

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

  Kelly, Edward

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lansbury, George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Clough, William

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Clynes, John R.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Compton-Rickett, Right Hon. Sir J.

  Logan, John William

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lundon, Thomas

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

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sheehy, David

  Crawshay, Williams, Eliot

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Shortt, Edward

  Crooks, William

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Crumley, Patrick

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Cullinan, John

  Maclean, Donald

  Snowden, Philip

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs. NW.)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Summers, James Woolley

  Delany, William

  Manfield, Harry

  Sutton, John E.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Marks, George Croydon

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dillon, John

  Martin, Joseph

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Doris, William

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Duffy, William J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Toulmin, George

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Elverston, Harold

  Millar, James Duncan

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Esmonds, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Molloy, Michael

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Wardle, George J.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Mooney, John J.

  Waring, Walter

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wason, John Cathcart

  Falconer, James

  Morrell, Philip

  Webb, H.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Murray, Capt Hon. Arthur C.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Whyte, A. F.

  1074

  1075

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: I beg to move, after the word "If" ["If any Bill other than a Money Bill"] to insert the words "within three years after the passing of this Act."
  This Amendment is in exactly the same terms as an Amendment which I proposed on Clause 1, but there is an entire difference between the two. I agreed largely with the statement of the Home Secretary on that occasion that, Clause 1 being purely financial and there being a good deal of common ground between the two sides, it seemed unnecessary to limit the Clause in the way proposed. With that I agreed so far as pure finance was being dealt with; but in this Clause the case is very different, and the Amendment is a really serious and important one. The Government have given a pledge of some sort in the Preamble that they will at some future time reform the Second Chamber. This Amendment is intended to speed up the time at which that reform will take place. At present there is no definite pledge of any sort or kind. There is a shadowy statement in the Preamble, but if you try to construe it into anything concrete you are generally met by one of those cryptic utterances of the Prime Minister, or the plain, straightforward uncomfortable assurance of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) that the Preamble is only a pious opinion. The difference between the two sides on this Clause is very acute. The Clause seeks to abolish entirely the Veto of the House of Lords, and it places in no other hands any suspensory power. It is perfecely true that there is the Preamble, but I very much doubt whether we shall see the Preamble carried into effect unless we can insert some limitations of the kind I am proposing. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, who has a habit of letting the cat out of the bag, in which he largely resembles the Lord Advocate, said, when we dealt with this Amendment on Clause 1:
  "It is true there is a Preamble, but that is a pious opinion. It says 'hereafter.' I have always understood that 'hereafter' is a long way off. No responsible Minister has suggested that we are to have a reform scheme in the present Parliament."
  The Prime Minister, discussing the same Amendment, said:—
  "As and when the opportunity arises the Government regard themselves bound not only in honour but by the spirit and letter of their pledges to give effect to the Preamble."
  1076
  "As and when" is one of those cryptic "wait and see" utterances which are the Prime Minister's stock-in-trade in cases of this sort, which may be very satisfactory to the Government, but are extremely unsatisfactory to everybody on this side and to a large number of people outside the House. The Committee and the country are entitled to something a little better and more precise than that. They are entitled to know whether the Government have any plan at all, and, if so, when they are likely to submit it to the consideration of the House. It is with a view, if possible, of getting some declaration upon that question that I move this Amendment. It is entirely different from the last Amendment. It deals with another point altogether. I trust that the Government since they have on their own initiative said that the House of Lords must be reformed and put on a popular footing, will give us some sort of idea as to when it will be placed on that popular footing, and given the fresh powers which I assume that this Second Chamber is likely to receive—unless, indeed, it is to be, in the case of Clause 2, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy said on Clause 1, absolutely debarred from exercising any further powers than the emasculated House of Lords is in their interregnum to be permitted by the present Government. The powers of the House of Lords are being taken away now on the ground that that Assembly is unfitted to exercise them properly. Apparently, the Government intend, if they can, to withhold those powers from any new Second Chamber that may be set up.
  I think it is not at all unreasonable to ask, before we proceed with the discussion of the very important Amendments which are bound to be considered on this Clause, that the Committee should have some better indication than has yet been given as to what the future has in store for us in the way of a reformed Second Chamber. How long does the Prime Minister think his mandate is going to run? How many measures does he assume he is entitled to pass on the strength of the majority given, not to him, but to the coalition, at the last General Election? The Prime Minister is in the unfortunate position of not even being at the head of the largest party in this House, and of holding his power, not at the hands of an independent party, but at the hands of a combination of three

  1077
  parties. Therefore, as we all know, and as I believe the Home Secretary himself will admit, that this Bill is a means to an end, the country is surely entitled to know how long the autocratic tyranny of the present House of Commons is to last, and when we may hope to have an opportunity given to the country to say who shall exercise power in the future. The Amendment gives the Government three years in which to crystallise their Preamble into law. No one can say that is too short a time for the purpose. Everyone on this side will agree that it is rather too long, and that, if possible, it should be shortened. The Leader of the Opposition in speaking on this Amendment on the last occasion asked how long the Government required to fulfil a pledge of honour; if three years was not enough, would four or five do; and then he added—I was rather sorry to hear it—that any date short of the Day of Judgment would be better than the Bill. That is looking a long way ahead: it is very near "hereafter," according to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. I earnestly hope it foreshadows a longer period than hon. Members opposite are likely to occupy those benches. I trust we shall get from the Government some satisfactory reply to the Amendment which I now beg to move.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): Although when this question was raised on Clause 1 speakers on the Government side deprecated a long discussion being raised, our appeals were not so fortunate as to find favour with hon. Members opposite. A long discussion took place in which various speeches were made from the Treasury Bench, and after three or four hours' debate the question was settled by a division.
  Mr. G. YOUNGER: The discussion was prolonged by a speech from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: At any rate, there was a prolonged discussion on the matter. I quite agree that it was not on the same point, because Clause 1 deals only with finance, and we were able to give an overwhelming answer to any attempt to interfere with the rights of the House of Commons in matters of finance. But the case is quite strong and good as against the present Amendment. The hon. Gentleman asks us to say that this Bill shall last only three years, and that it shall lapse at the end of that period, his object being to
  1078
  give us three years in which to bring a reformed and reconstituted Second Chamber into existence. We have no intention in accepting any such temporal limitation, which might conceivably plunge us into the gravest inconvenience. We do not intend, after going through the whole laborious process of carrying this important constitutional change, to run any risk of the results of the last eighteen months' fierce fighting throughout the country being filched from our grasp. There must in the course of these proceedings be a Debate on the Preamble, and then I quite agree there must be a more detailed statement than has yet been made in regard to the general position of the Government on the Preamble. I agree that that must be thoroughly debated across the floor of the House. I do not propose at all, in answer to this Amendment, to go into that matter. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is a very shrewd politician, in demanding that the House of Lords should be reconstituted within the next three years, is really indicating a course which is in the general interest of his own party. I should have thought that, from their point of view if the House of Lords is to be reconstituted, it would be much better that it should be done when, as they would put it, the powers of evil were less strong than they are at present, and when the reconstitution might be made on Conservative and not on Liberal lines. Therefore I do not think that they lose anything by our not accepting this Amendment. As to what will happen if the Amendment is not accepted, the awful state of things will continue under the Parliament Bill in which a Liberal Government will be in exactly the same position as Unionist Governments are always in, namely, that being possessed of a parliamentary majority of the elected representatives in this House, they will actually be able to carry their measures into law in the lifetime of the Parliament in which they are introduced.
  Sir R. FINLAY: The Committee will be very glad to know from the Home Secretary what precise meaning he attaches o the word "temporal."
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I used an awkward word. I meant any time limit.
  Sir R. FINLAY: I thought the word "temporal" was advisedly chosen as projecting the reform of the House of Lords into a future which might be very dim and

  1079
  very distant. The Government are always talking about their mandate from the country for this Bill, but if they have such a mandate it is a mandate for the Preamble as well as for the Bill itself. Nothing can be more explicit than the Preamble in its statement that this measure is merely provisional, that the Government intends to reconstitute the House of Lords upon a popular basis, that when that is done provision will have to be made for regulating the relations between the two Houses, but that in the meantime it is desirable to make the provision contained in this Bill. Well, do you mean that or not? This Amendment is a very good touchstone of the sincerity of the Government in regard to the Preamble. The Home Secretary has said that we shall have time for a full Debate upon the Preamble. I was very glad indeed to hear that from the Home Secretary. That Debate will be an interesting and instructive one. There was one feature in the Home Secretary's speech that I could not regard with the same satisfaction. It was this He referred to the question of the period when the reform and reconstitution of the House of Lords would be dealt with as if it were a question to be looked at merely from a party point of view. I do not think that is the true point of view. He said: "Is it not much better for you that this question should be dealt with after three years have expired?" The Home Secretary-seems disposed to intimate that it is just possible that he might no longer occupy the responsible position he now holds.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I was offering consolation to the hon. Gentleman because I could not accept his Amendment.
  Sir R. FINLAY: What was the reason the Home Secretary gave? You may, he said, have to deal with that question; it may be in the hands of the Unionist party. Whereas, he intimated, in his expectation during the next three years it would be in the hands of the party which he adorns. I say that is not the point of view on which the question of the reconstitution of the Second Chamber ought to be approached. It is a great national question which ought not to be dealt with merely from the point of view of party. The Home Secretary said that he and his friends were able to give conclusive arguments against the adoption of a time-limit with regard to Clause 1. I
  1080
  do not admit that we were vanquished by strength of argument. I may be partial, but I think on the whole we had very much the better of the argument. We were beaten by those who voted and did not speak. I do most respectfully put it to the Committee and the Government that it is a right thing that we ought to have some words in this Clause which will give some reality to the statements contained in the Preamble. Those statements seem on the face of them explicit enough. But such speeches as the Home Secretary has made on this occasion, and on other occasions, have somewhat extinguished their effects.
  In proposing this Amendment we are endeavouring to fix the Government to something definite. It is no use speaking to the Home Secretary to see whether he will take five or seven or ten years. He will take no limit whatever. I am afraid that is because he means, if he remains in power for a very long period of years, that there shall be no reform whatever of the House of Lords. I venture to say that it is not right to get support in the country; it is not right to reconcile differences in the Cabinet, by putting in a Preamble which you do not honestly intend to carry out. I hope that this Amendment will be pressed to a Division, and I certainly shall have great pleasure in voting for it. The First Clause was important, and I wish we had introduced it in regard to the First Clause. Important as the First Clause was the Second Clause is infinitely more important. It goes to the very root of legislation which will affect everything that is valuable in our institutions, and I certainly think that the Committee bas reason to be grateful to my hon. Friend for again bringing this proposal forward.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: Of all the Bills that have ever been before this House I should imagine there is none which raised upon the Committee stage a greater number of more important points than is raised by the present discussion on the Second Clause of this Bill. And of all the points there is not one more important than that which is raised by the Amendment of my hon. Friend. This point is raised now for the second time. Each time it has been raised the attitude of the Government towards it—and it is an absolutely fundamental point, and one recognised as fundamental in the country—seems to be more mysterious and more unsatisfactory than before. When it

  1081
  comes up on Clause 1 we are told to wait for Clause 2. When it comes up on Clause 2 the Home Secretary says wait till we get the Preamble, and we will tell you all about it.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I never said that.
  Mr. SALTER: Well, perhaps that is a mistake; but, at any rate, we were told to wait until this, and what we have been told now is not satisfactory. We are sensible men, but in face of the conspiracy of silence which exists on the other side we cannot but be disagreeably sensible of the fact that what we say here will have no immediate and practical effect in the Division Lobby. But there are, no doubt, people outside this House to whom we may speak. They follow these Debates. They, I venture to say, have fixed their minds upon the point which this Amendment raises. The man in the street knows very little, and cares very little, about the many details, important as they are, of this Bill. But the question of the Reform of the House of Lords is one in which he is interested. What in that respect is going to be undertaken, and when it is going to be undertaken, are matters which raise a great interest outside. People outside realise that this Bill is, as it shows upon its face, a provisional and temporary measure. It has to go down upon the Statute Book as a provisional and temporary measure—not a permanent Bill. It does not profess to be a permanent Bill. It is not so framed, and the intention of the Government is that it shall be passed as a stop-gap and until we can get something better.
  That intention is recorded in language of the greatest gravity both across the threshold and upon the very forefront of this Bill. The Government start with it in the Preamble. They say, "it is our intention to bring in a Bill to reconstitute to re-empower, and to relate this House to the new reformed Upper Chamber." That is their intention. It is more solemn, it is more precise, than any speech or Ministerial pronouncement in this House, because it is to go upon the Statute Book of the Realm. More than that, it was referred to by the Prime Minister when this matter came up on the First Clause. I think I am quoting his exact words that this matter was "recognised by the Government as an obligation of honour." I imagine when the Prime Minister used those words he was speaking of what was recognised by
  1082
  the Liberal party as an obligation of honour. We have heard some sounding phrases from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy. All I can say is that if the Prime Minister—
  The CHAIRMAN: The Debate is taking almost the same general course as on the first Clause, and we have settled this matter as regards that Clause. It is in order to raise a similar Debate on this Clause because the considerations are different, but I do think hon. Members who take part in it ought to apply themselves to the consideration of the effect of this Amendment in regard to the terms of this Clause, and not speak upon the general question, which was debated at great length on the first Clause.
  Mr. SALTER: I will endeavour to follow your ruling, Mr. Emmott. Honestly, I am not sure that it is possible. I will endeavour not to offend, and if I cannot further address the Committee without transgressing your ruling I shall not attempt to go further. But, upon my word, I doubt whether it is really possible to discuss this all-important matter, a matter about which we feel most strongly, if we are to confine ourselves to distinctions between Money and non-Money Bills. What I am asking the Committee to consider is this: When a thing is stated to be recognised as an obligation of honour, I take it that that means that it is a thing which must be done at the first possible opportunity. There is no member of this Committee who would not agree that if a man is under an obligation of honour to do a thing and has the opportunity to do it, and leaves it undone that his title to be called a man of honour—
  The CHAIRMAN: This is really continuing the old Debate. If it is impossible to differentiate the discussion on the Amendment to this Clause from the discussion on the last Clause, then clearly I ought not to allow the discussion to go on.
  Mr. SALTER: I am sorry that, within those limits, I find it is impossible to go on.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I desire to say a few words on behalf of myself and my Friends in regard to this Amendment. I understand that this Amendment is based upon the principle that if it is intended to smuggle this Clause through, it is better that mischief should be done for three years rather than for all time. I am afraid that three years gives the Government an opportunity of smuggling through this

  1083
  House, under cover of this Bill, at least one measure, that is the Licensing Bill, that requires the fullest consideration. Therefore, it is with some trepidation, and with much respect to your ruling, that I shall vote for permission to the Government to put this Clause into operation for three years. One hon. Gentleman said that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy had "let the cat out of the bag." He has much greater control over the Parliamentary bag than I possess, but it is in reference to the speech of the Home Secretary that I am going to venture also to let one cat out of the bag. The Home Secretary said that the effect of this Clause, if unamended, would be to put the Liberal party and the Liberal Government on an equality with the Unionists. The worst result, he said, that would happen would be that Liberal measures, approved by vast majorities, would actually pass into law. If that were the only effect I should be alarmed. But the cat I wish to let out of the bag is this: That this measure is never going to pass the House of Lords in its present form, and, consequently, the only way in which it will become law is by a process which I cannot elaborate now, but by which the Liberal party will obtain an automatic majority in the other House. Consequently the effect of this Rill, if this Clause is unamended, will be, not that the Liberal party will be on an equality, but will have an automatic majority in the other House, and will continue to have a majority in the other House, and therefore we will have set up Single-Chamber Government. Until the Unionist Government comes into power and creates more puppet peers this Clause must have the effect of making the Liberal party absolutely supreme in the councils of the nation—
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how that matter affects this Amendment.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Of course, I am in the same difficulty as the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Sir R. FINLAY: Upon a point of Order, I most respectfully submit the Preamble applies to the whole Bill. When we discussed the three years' limit with reference to Clause 1 we were confined to dealing with it as an effective financial Clause. We have now come to a Clause which deals with all Bills other than Money Bills, including, of course, it may be, Bills of the
  1084
  utmost possible gravity. I most respectfully contend that discussion is impossible without adverting to the general aspect, of course as applied to the very important class of Bills with which this Clause deals.
  The CHAIRMAN: We do not deal with the question, settle it, and then deal with it again. If it is a matter which cannot be dealt with except as affecting the whole Bill, it ought to be kept for a new clause. The matter was dealt with at very great length on Clause 1, and now it is being dealt with again on this question. An Amendment can be proposed, and has been proposed; but I think the argument ought to be confined to its application to this Clause, and not to the Bill in general. After all, the Preamble must be discussed at a later stage.
  Mr. LONG: The last intention in the world I have, Mr. Emmott, is to appear even to dispute any ruling that comes from the Chair. I recognise, as we all do, the absolute impartiality and strength of the conduct of the Chair, in what has been, and also is likely to be, a very difficult Debate. I should be the last person to try to argue with the Chair, but I am bound, with the very greatest possible respect, to point out the very great difficult position in which the Opposition finds itself. The position is this. The result of your ruling, I understand, to be that we are forbidden to discuss in this Debate upon Clause 2 questions which, although they have been raised and discussed on Clause 1, arise in a totally different way, and affect a totally different range of questions on this Clause. Clause 1 deals with purely financial questions. The Clause we are now discussing covers a very much wider area than Clause 1, and, although it raises and compels those opposing the Bill to advance the same arguments, they are advanced in respect to totally different questions of a very much wider character and possibly of even greater importance. It seems, at all events, we should be allowed to introduce the effect of the Preamble upon this part of the Bill, which differs entirely from Clause 1, on which a Debate already has taken place and a decision arrived at. I understand from your ruling that any such argument is forbidden, and that we must raise such questions in the form of a new Clause to be taken at a later stage of the Bill. Well, of course, if that is the position, while we have your advice as to the way in which we might raise the matter, we have no security at all that we shall have an opportunity of presenting

  1085
  the new Clause or of securing a Debate upon it. For my part, I cannot but regret in a matter of this very great importance that the Debate should be curtailed by a ruling which I do not for a moment dispute, but which I must regret.
  The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my ruling or else I was very unfortunate in explaining it to the Committee. The Debate really is being conducted on the Preamble, and on the question whether the reform promised in the Preamble will take place. It would be quite in order to argue that the Amendment on this Clause is necessary owing to the measures which are pre-posed to be dealt with when this Clause comes into operation. It would be quite in order to argue in that way, but that is not what has been done. A Debate has been carried on practically on the Preamble, and the question has been asked over and over again, "Are you going to bring reform into operation." That question was asked and answered upon the first Clause, and I do not think that that part of the Debate ought to be renewed.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: When this interesting point of Order arose, and I unfortunately brought your displeasure upon myself, Mr. Emmott, I was endeavouring to reply to the Home Secretary in regard to a certain state of things, and I venture to assume that when you permitted him to state to the House what would be the effect of allowing the Clause to remain unamended, it might be reasonable for me to add some reasons for differing from him. However, I do not press that now. The Home Secretary under no circumstances will accept the time limit for the introduction of the reform of the House of Lords. I respectfully refer him to the tenets of His Majesty's Speech from the Throne last year, in which reform of the House of Lords is stated to be contemporaneous, if not almost anterior, to the Veto. I want to know why the Government altered their intentions, and I venture to reply by saying the answer is they know reform of the House of Lords cannot be carried.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The way the Home Secretary treated the Amendment is characteristic, and indicates the part he has assigned for himself in the course of these Debates. When the Prime Minister speaks we have a magnificent display of constitutional profundity. He is vir pietate gravis. However bad the case he
  1086
  is arguing, he throws the constitutional halo over it. The Home Secretary plays a different part. He comes before the Committee as a prancing partisan. He says we have fought for eighteen months and we do not mean to have anything filched from us. He says to us on this side of the House, "You will have your turn one of these days and you can use it when you get it." That tone is characteristic of his speeches, but that is not the way that questions of this sort ought to be discussed. What we are now asking by this Amendment is that the Government will make good something that they have solemnly promised to do. We want to apply to their constitutional proposals a very ordinary principle of business.
  We see private Bills promoted sometimes which seek to acquire exceptional powers, and we see in such circumstances a time limit constantly imposed upon them so that these powers shall lapse if not used for the purpose for which ostensibly they were sought. In Railway Bills you have the powers sought for acquiring land, but there is constantly a time limit put in, and the promoters of the Bill are told "Unless you carry out your design under the Bill this power shall lapse in a certain period." I have instances in my mind where I have known these powers to lapse. It is a common recognised business principle, and it is a safeguard used against the grant of exceptional powers if no serious intention of carrying out what is asked for is shown. We now ask for certain specific time limit in order that a new Second Chamber may be created which would work more harmoniously with this Chamber. That was stated in black and white, and we ask the Government now, "Do you mean to carry out your promise?" We ask them, are they honest? and surely if they are they could carry out in three years what they stated. There is a great difference in arguing these questions on Clause 1 and Clause 2, because ex hypothesi the first Clause carries out the existing law according to the Government's view. We deny it, but the second Clause is a revolutionary change, and for what? In order that a Second Chamber may be constituted so as to make it work harmoniously with this. We say to the Government, give us some earnest that you really mean what you say. If you have the will of the people behind you, as you say you have, then give us some assurance that you are going to carry out what you promised.
  Mr. BIGLAND: It seems to me that the Parliament Bill, as we are now discussing it, is on the face of it a temporary Bill, and therefore we ask the Government to lay down a specific time as to how long this temporary arrangement should last. It seems to me that as soon as the Second Chamber is constituted the Parliament Bill as we are now discussing it, will vanish, because it must follow that the new Second Chamber must have different authority and power to the one referred to in this Bill. Therefore it is only natural that we should try to induce the Government to name a time or to give us some idea when a limit is to be put to this temporary arrangement, or to say how long it is to continue. I think all of us were amused last week, when we got our copy of "Punch," to see there a picture which deals with the points raised in this Amendment in a very farcical way. There we have the picture of a right hon. Gentleman between the shafts of a cart, and saying to another right hon. Gentleman he is willing to do anything in reason, but he will not put the horse before the cart. What we ask the Government is, "How long will the right hon. Gentleman stay in the shafts and drag the cart, or what day will he be willing to say that the horse shall take his right place?
  Mr. BUTCHER: This Amendment appears to me to be a direct test of the sincerity of the Government. We have been told over and over again by an authoritative spokesman of the Government, that this Bill is a mere temporary expedient, and cannot possibly be a settlement, and we ask them now to place some limit upon this temporary expedient. May I remind the Prime Minister of his own words in regard to this matter spoken in this House on 29th March last year upon the Resolutions upon which this Bill is founded. He said:—
  I do not put forward the Resolution…as a final or an adequate solution of the problem with which we have to deal.…The problem calls for a complete settlement, and in our opinion that settlement does not brook delay."
  Well, now, if it does not brook delay, why are we delaying it? Is not three years long enough?
  The CHAIRMAN: This is really debating the general question again. The hon. Member must stick to the Amendment as affecting this Clause. He is talking about the whole Bill, and raising a question which ought to be raised upon the Preamble. He must argue upon the
  1088
  Amendment as applied to this Clause, or he will not be in order.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I shall endeavour, Mr. Emmott, to abide by your ruling. I say this Clause is a revolutionary procedure, but, admittedly, a temporary one. The question is, when is this revolution going to cease, and how long is it to last? We said three years is long enough. The Prime Minister says the complete settlement must come at once, and therefore I appeal to the Prime Minister to say if three years is too short, can he name a period in which you would carry out this complete settlement. In other words, will he say that the revolution affected by this Clause shall only last, say, for four years? Why should the country be put to the uncertainty as to whether this so-called temporary expedient is to last for ever? If the Government is sincere, I put it to them, now is the time that they should give evidence of their sincerity by putting some time limit upon the extraordinary and unprecedented procedure imposed by this Clause.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: This Amendment has a very different significance when applied to this Clause as compared with its significance as applied to Clause 1. We have been told again and again that Clause 1 did no more than put into statutory form rights which this House always had a right to exercise, and simply established the constitutional rights of the House of Commons. This Clause assumes absolutely new powers, and it establishes for all purposes of legislation a Single Chamber Government. We have to bear in mind the Preamble, and it is impossible to look at this Clause without reference to the Preamble, because it tells us that after all enormous as are the powers of Clause 2, this measure is avowedly only temporary, and these powers are to be reconsidered at some future time when the House of Lords has to be reconstituted. This Amendment will secure that at the end of three years you should either have carried out your undertaking stated in the Preamble to reform the House of Lords and define the relations between the two Houses, or else you must relapse into the present condition of things. The other alternative is that you must go to the country and ask the electors to renew your mandate and confer upon you powers which have been conferred upon the Government in this House by the result of the last General Election. I dispute the statement

  1089
  of the Home Secretary that this Bill represents the mandate of the electors after eighteen months of incessant conflict. That conflict, so far as the electors were concerned, was confined to an extremely short compass, so short that I have great doubts whether they really understood the nature of the Bill which we are told hon. Members opposite were returned to pass into law. The Veto resolutions were only discussed for a fortnight last year, and although the Parliament Bill was printed, it was never discussed.
  The lamentable death of our late King silenced all constitutional discussion for a while. Then the Conference silenced discussion for a further time, and everybody supposed that the Parliament Bill was not the last word of the Government, and that some change would be made in the proposals put before Parliament and the country by the Government. But directly the Conference broke down the Government went to the country with their proposals, and there was no time to formulate, in such a way that the country could understand them, any other proposals. The consequence was that the electors voted in a somewhat puzzled condition as to what the election was all about, and they hardly understood why they were asked to reconsider the decision arrived at in the previous January so soon. Now we are told that the verdict of the last election is the result of eighteen months of incessant conflict over the Parliament Bill, that the electors have pronounced decisively in its favour, and that the Government are to be absolved from the undertaking in the Preamble. You are now asking the Government to spend a part of those three years in considering how they will carry out the mandate of the electors in respect of the Preamble. The Government can do a great deal in those three years, and surely we are not asking them to concede very much. They can carry Home Rule, Disestablishment, and various other measures which the various sections of their miscellaneous followers have at heart. All we are asking them to do is at the end of three years, if they have not done what they undertook to do at the General Election—namely, define satisfactorily to both parties the relations of the two Houses and reconstitute the House of Lords, they should either drop the powers they are now asking for, or ask the country to renew them. That is a reasonable proposition. I think it would be well to enforce upon the Government the truth that a Constitution
  1090
  such as ours, which is not merely an ancient but an Imperial Constitution, which touches the great Dominions as well as our own country, cannot be dealt with as a mere pawn in a party game, as the Home Secretary would deal with it. I think it would be a good thing if these three years were spent by the Government in profitable meditation as to how to meet the admitted difficulties in our Constitution, and how to define the relations between the two Houses, and reconstitute the Second Chamber in a way which would be permanent and satisfactory, and in a way which would not lead to a reversal of our constitutional policy whenever there was a change of Government. For these reasons I think this Amendment should be acceptable to the Government, as I feel certain it would be acceptable to the country.
  Mr. GEORGE CAVE: The supporters of this Amendment insist upon the view that if the Government really mean to reform the House of Lords they ought to accept this Amendment. But apart from that argument there are the strongest reasons why this Amendment should be accepted. You are trying in this Clause a great experiment, the most momentous experiment which has been proposed for the last 200 or 250 years. There is not the least exaggeration in that statement. You are suspending the Constitution, and trying a great experiment. What I suggest is that you should adopt this experiment for a limited time, and see if it brings about the results which you expect or whether your proposal is not something which is subject to the observations and criticisms which we have put forward. The Constitution was suspended once before. The Long Parliament did that, then they abolished the House of Lords, but the experiment did not last for more than four or five years. It is quite true there was no time-limit in the Bill, for it was done by a Resolution in those days; but, in spite of that the experiment did not last. The House of Commons took upon itself all the powers of the Legislature, all the powers of the Executive and, to some extent, the powers of the judges; but within five years the country would have no more of it, and the new House of Commons, elected in the year 1659, abolished the whole thing and restored the Second Chamber with its full powers. If the country tried that experiment 250 years ago, without any time limit, and found it necessary that a limit should be imposed,

  1091
  why are we not entitiled to say that you should try this experiment yourselves for a limited time only, say for three, four or five years, and let the country judge as to the result.
  This is the most vital change which has been proposed for generations, and it ought not to be made a permanent change. There ought to be a chance of reconsideration, after the country has seen what measures are passed under this Bill, and then the country would be able to judge whether those measures are wise or not. But, quite apart from that, I want to say that really hon. Gentlemen opposite might be satisfied to try this experiment for a period of three years. We know what the main purpose of this Bill is. It is to pass Home Rule. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] If you pass this Amendment you can pass Home Rule within three years, and then your work will be done. When you have carried out that purpose, which I may not call a bargain, you will have paid the price and then let us go back to the normal state of things and amend the Constitution in a reasonable and a proper way. I quite
  agree that the verdict of the last election showed that the country was not satisfied with matters as they are. I think we have all frankly accepted that view and no one has accepted it in a more pronounced way than the other place. The House of Lords has passed a very strong series of resolutions dealing both with the constitution of the other place and with the relations of the two Houses, and it is frankly accepted on this side of the House that a change is necessary. I do not, however, think that the country is prepared for this particular change, and that is why I should like to see this Amendment passed, so that the measure may be recognised as being only an experiment. It we do not insert this Amendment I think we shall find that a grave mistake has been made.
  The PRIME MINISTER 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, 237; Noes, 145.

  Division No. 159.]

  AYES.

  [6.15 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hackett, John

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hancock, John George

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Clough, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Clynes, John R

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

  Alden, Percy

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hayward, Evan

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Crooks, William

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

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Cullinan, John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barnes, George N.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

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

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Barton, William

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Delany, William

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Johnson, William

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

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bentham, G. J

  Dillon, John

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Doris, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Black, Arthur W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Boland, John Pius

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Joyce, Michael

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Keating, Matthew

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Elverston, Harold

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Kelly, Edward

  Brace, William

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Brigg, Sir John

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Falconer, James

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lansbury, George

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Byles, William Pollard

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Logan, John William

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lundon, Thomas

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Lyell, C. H.

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Sheehy, David

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Shortt, Edward

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Parker, James Halifax

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Maclean, Donald

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Snowden, Philip

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Manfield, Harry

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  Summers, James Woolley

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Pointer, Joseph

  Sutton, John E

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Taylor, John D. (Durham)

  Martin, Joseph

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Meagher, Michael

  Priestley, Sir A. (Grantham)

  Toulmin, George

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Radford, George Heynes

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Millar, James Duncan

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Molloy, Michael

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Mooney, John J.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Reddy, Michael

  Wardle, George J.

  Morrell, Philip

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

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

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Dowd, John

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

  Ogden, Fred

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Grady, James

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

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

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  O'Malley, William

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

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

  Scanlan, Thomas

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

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

  O'Shee, James John

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

  NOES.

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

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Aitken, William Max

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

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

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Macmaster, Donald

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fleming, Valentine

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Barnston, Harry

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Bathurst, C. Wilts, Wilton)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nield, Herbert

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Bird, Alfred

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Greene, W. R.

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Gretton, John

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Burn, Col. C. E.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Butcher, John George

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Campion, W. R.

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Hardy, Laurence

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Cassel, Felix

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Royds, Edmund

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Cator, John

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Cave, George

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

  Stanier, Beville

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Kerry, Earl of

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

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

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

  1094

  1095

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

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

  Younger, George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Question put, "That the words, 'within three years after the passing of this Act,' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 237.

  Division No. 160.]

  AYES.

  [6.25 p.m.

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

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Aitken, William Max

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Fleming, Valentine

  Nield, Herbert

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Baird, J. L.

  Forster, Henry William

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

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

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

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Baring, Captain Hon. G. V.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rice, Hon. W. F.

  Barnston, Harry

  Grant, J. A.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Greene, W. R.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gretton, John

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Royds, Edmund

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bird, A.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Stanier, Beville

  Burn, Colonel, C. R.

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Staveley-Hill. Henry

  Campion, W. R.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Cassel, Felix

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sykes, Alan John

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cator, John

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Cave, George

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down. North)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Courthope, G. Loyd

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

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lewisham, Viscount

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

  Worthington Evans, L.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Mills, Hon. Chas. Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Younger and Mr. Salter.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barton, W.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Agnew, Sir George William

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Alden, Percy

  Bentham G. J.

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

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Boland, John Pius

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Barnes, George N.

  Brace, William

  Clough, William

  Clynes, John R.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Kelly, Edward

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Radford, G. H.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lansbury, George

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Reddy, M.

  Crooks, William

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Logan, John William

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Lundon, T.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Delany, William

  Lynch, A. A.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Dillon, John

  Maclean, Donald

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Doris, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Duffy, William J.

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

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Manfield, Harry

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Elverston, Harold

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Sheehy, David

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Shortt, Edward

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Meagher, Michael

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Falconer, J.

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

  Snowden, Philip

  Fenwick, Charles

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Ferens, T. R.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Molloy, M.

  Summers, James Woolley

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Mooney, J. J.

  Sutton, John E.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morgan, George Hay

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Gill, A. H.

  Morrell, Philip

  Tennant, Harold John

  Glanville, H. J.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Toulmin, George

  Hackett, J.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hancock, J. G.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Ogden, Fred

  Wardle, George J.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Grady, James

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

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

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Malley, William

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Shee, James John

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Hughes, S. L.

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

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

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Johnson, W.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pointer, Joseph

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

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Keating, Matthew

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) is really a Second Reading Amendment, and in any case it has been disposed of by the decision already come to.
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "any Bill other than a Money Bill," and to insert instead thereof the words "a Bill not being either a Money Bill or a Bill to extend the maximum duration of Parliament."
  1098
  I only propose to move the second of the two Amendments which stand in my name, and I have chosen the more limited one for the reason that the first Amendment also stands in the name of several of my hon. Friends who have more experience in this House, and I do not wish to anticipate the points they may bring forward. This Amendment proposes to exempt from the scope of Clause 2 and from the scope of the new procedure of legislation introduced by this Bill a very limited class of Bills—Bills to extend the duration of

  1099
  Parliament. In that limited form I hope it will commend itself to the Government, and I trust that they will give it very serious consideration. It is necessary for me, in order to bring the attention of the Committee to the importance of the Amendment, to make some few observations. It is a feature I believe unique, or almost unique, in our Constitution that legislation in this country is in one form only—by Act of Parliament. At any rate, that has been the case up to this time. By Act of Parliament any form of legislation may be carried, whether it relates to the most unimportant and trivial matters or whether it be something which strikes at the very root of the Constitution and entirely alters its framework. It can only be done in one way—by Act of Parliament. In other words, Parliament is omnipotent to this extent, that the only limit is that it cannot limit its own omnipotence. That may seem a little paradoxical at first, but it is true that the only thing Parliament cannot do is to make an Act of Parliament irrevocable. It cannot prevent a future Parliament from repealing that Act of Parliament.
  Under this Bill, however, we are to have something entirely novel. We are for the first time in the history of the Constitution to have two means of legislating, one by Act of Parliament and the other by the Act of the House of Commons. That is done under this Bill by a method which has perhaps become somewhat familiar, by saying that that is to be deemed an Act of Parliament which is not an Act of Parliament. In fact, an Act of the House of Commons is to be deemed an Act of Parliament. We do not propose by this Amendment to limit the omnipotence of Parliament, but we do propose to limit the omnipotence of the House of Commons. We are not putting limits by this or any other exemption on the paper on the powers of Parliament, but we are putting limits on those new powers of legislation by the Act of the House of Commons alone. In any way, if we are to have Single Chamber Government thrust upon us, then at least, let us withdraw from that Single Chamber the power of extending and perpetuating its own existence. Under this Bill certain safeguards—paper safeguards I would call them unless this Amendment is accepted—are placed upon that Single Chamber Government. For instance, it is provided that a Bill must be sent three times to the House of Lords,
  1100
  and you have the further safeguard that the duration of Parliament is to be limited. But unless you exempt from this provision Bills which extend the duration of Parliament, then undoubtedly these safeguards are mere paper safeguards, and can be swept away by the very authority upon which we intend them to be safeguards.
  The Bill itself recognises the special necessity under the new circumstances of limiting the duration of Parliament, because it provides in one of its latter Sections that the duration of Parliament in future is to be five years instead of seven. The necessity for that was stated by the Prime Minister to be that when you have this new legislation by Act of the House of Commons, instead of by Act of Parliament, it will be necessary that the House of Commons should at more frequent intervals be brought into touch with the people, and derive fresh strength and authority in the form of new mandates from the electorate. In this Bill the Government have recognised that necessity, and that being so I cannot understand how they can refuse to accept an Amendment which merely has for its object to safeguard and give real effect to that necessity. Do the Government wish that the House of Commons should have the power of extending its own existence without the consent of Parliament. Do they wish that, under any conceivable circumstances, it should have that power? If they do not wish it, then I cannot understand why they should not accept my Amendment, because that Amendment only carries out and gives effect to the Clause which the Government themselves has thought it necessary to put into this Bill, to still further limit the duration of Parliament. I may be told by the Prime Minister that this is unnecessary, and that no House of Commons would think of doing such a thing.
  But I would like to point out that there have been two cases in which Parliament has extended its own duration. I am citing them merely as historical illustrations. It may be said that the circumstances of those days do not apply to the circumstances of the present, but I submit that circumstances may very well arise under which it may be a great temptation indeed to the House to prolong its own existence. I have for that statement an authority which, I think, will not be questioned—the authority of the Home Secretary himself. With regard to the historical illustrations, there was, in the first place, the Long Parliament. That was the

  1101
  only case in our history when we had Single-Chamber Government. It was just after the House of Lords had by resolution been abolished. Within two or three years of that time the Long Parliament brought in a measure which was known as the Bill of Perpetuity, under which a Member, once a Member of this House, was to remain so for life. That followed within three years of the time of our having Single-Chamber Government established. The other instance I have to cite is that of the Septennial Act. That Act stands in a different category, because it was an Act of Parliament. It was an Act of the three Estates of the Realm, and, therefore, it is not subject to the same objection as the first instance I gave. It was an Act which extended the duration of Parliament from three to seven years, and it had at least that significance. In 1715, by the Septennial Act, a Whig Government extended the duration of Parliament to seven years, and it is curious that in the recital of that Act one of the reasons given for the extension was the aversion to the incurring of election expenses and the fact that frequent elections were likely to lead to more violent and heated animosities among the subjects of the realm. I quite admit that at that time there were very special circumstances which would have made a change of Government most embarrassing. The recital, I may mention, also deals with other points, such as the dangers of Popish plots. But, at any rate, we have here, under a Whig Government, an extension of the duration of Parliament. I do not complain of that extension because it was made by Act of Parliament; but are we not likely, in modern times, to have a recurrence of the same state of things? Has the aversion to frequent election expenses diminished after 250 years? Have the hot animosities referred to in the Preamble of that Act as being generated by elections diminished? I do not think that any Member of this House will be prepared to say that they have, and, moreover, the love of power on the part of Governments certainly has not diminished. But I may quote as an authority for the proposition that this is a real danger, a statement made by the Home Secretary in this House. Speaking on 13th April, 1910, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "I quite recognise what the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) has said as to the danger of the Government, in the declining years of its power, seeking to make itself immortal by prolonging indefinitely the life of Parliament.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1910, cols. 1255–56.]
  Mr. CHURCHILL: What followed?
  Mr. CASSEL: I have only given that part of the statement that was relevant to my case.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not verified the quotation, but it looks as if it were a preliminary to a "but."
  Mr. CASSEL: I have only that extract here. I think it is a fair extract. I have not given the whole of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. It is taken away from its context, but I do not think that matters in this case. I think if you read the whole context it perfectly fairly expresses what the right hon. Gentleman meant. He said:—
  "I quite recognise what the Noble Lord has said as to the danger of the Government, in the declining years of its power, seeking to make itself immortal by prolonging indefinitely the life of Parliament."
  Does the right hon. Gentleman not admit that is a danger? If he does not, that is another matter, but he has entirely changed the opinions which he then expressed; but whether the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentlemen opposite think it is a danger or not, I submit that many people in this House do think it is a danger, and surely if it is not one then this Amendment cannot do the least harm and the Government would not be injured in any way by accepting it. It may also be urged that if one exception is made to this Clause other exceptions may be necessary. I quite accept that, but it is not an answer to this exception. I agree that other exceptions are also necessary, but that fact cannot be an answer to a proposal of this kind if otherwise it is sound and does not infringe upon the principle of the Bill. Those other exceptions, I think, can be easily specified and clearly stated in the Bill, and the fact that other Amendments may be necessary cannot be an answer to this one. Then it may be urged that this provision itself may be repealed, but that is an objection which might be easily met, because words could be inserted to deal with it. I think this Amendment is perfectly reasonable, and there can be no sound objection to it on the part of the Government. It does not infringe any of the principles of the Bill, but merely carries them out and gives effect to them, and if we are to have any such uncontrolled power on the part of the House of Commons in the future, at least let us not give them the power of perpetuating and extending their own existence.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and learned Gentleman put upon the Paper an Amendment with a much more extended scope than the comparatively modest proposal which he has just submitted to the Committee. I confess if we are to have a discussion, as I think we ought to have, on the question of what class of legislation, if any, should be excepted from the provisions of this Clause, I think that discussion could have been much more conveniently taken upon the wider words which are put down upon the Paper, but which for reasons I cannot understand the hon. Member has apparently now withdrawn.
  Mr. CASSEL: I did explain.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, the hon. Gentleman used some words of modesty about his own qualifications which I am sure the Committee will agree with me are quite unnecessary in view of the excellent speech he made. In reference to the Amendment he has proposed—I am only speaking for convenience of discussion—I desire if I may be allowed to do so, and I think it would be convenient in the first place to deal specifically with the particular Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has proposed, and then to state in general terms the grounds upon which we will oppose all the Amendments of that character or any Amendment in the sense suggested for the purpose of excluding from the operation of this Clause particular classes of legislation. I think it would be convenient that I should do so, because the arguments which I shall use for that purpose will be applicable to this Amendment, and equally applicable to subsequent Amendments, and it will save myself and my right hon. Friends therefore the trouble of repeating ourselves and taking up the time of the Committee. First as to the very modest Amendment with which the hon. Member has contented himself for the moment. That proposal is to exclude from the operation of this Clause any Bill to extend the maximum duration of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman seems to be under some apprehension that I suppose a Liberal House of Commons in the future might take advantage of this Clause to extend its own existence or that of the Parliament to which it belongs and thereby illegitimately use the new powers which this Act would confer upon them. The history of the matter as far as this particular point is concerned is very
  1104
  simple. It is quite true that according to our common law—I am citing now the greatest authority on the subject, the work of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Anson) who sits on the Front Bench opposite—by our common law the efflux of time does not dissolve a Parliament at all, but the Sovereign can keep Parliament in existence as long as he likes.
  An HON. MEMBER: As long as he reigns?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, as long as he reigns, and unless by one of those unfortunate accidents which sometimes occur even in a constitutional country, the reign is brought to a premature conclusion. I do not think, however, we need bother about that; but so long as he reigns he can keep Parliament in existence; and Charles II. detained for seventeen years the Parliament which existed at his accession. It was not until the Triennial Act, which was passed after the Revolution of 1693, that this House, with the assent of the House of Lords, restricted the duration of Parliament to a definite term—namely, three years. Some years later, under special circumstances to which the learned Attorney-General has referred, and which I think he admits, justified the very strong proceeding that was then taken—there was very grave danger at that time and a disputed succession to the Crown—Parliament passed the Septennial Act, and thereby I agree prolonged its own existence itself for the first and only time since the passing of the Triennial Act. That was done with the assent of both Houses, the House of Lords as well as the House of Commons; and supposing the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were carried it would still be in the competence of the House of Commons, with a Conservative majority, with the assent of the House of Lords, to prolong the existence of a Parliament for an indefinite duration of time. That was the point which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made in the speech of which a somewhat truncated extract was given by the hon. Gentleman just now. The fact is that this is another illustration of the way in which you are going to deal out uneven treatment between the two parties in the State. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes it is, there is absolutely nothing at this moment if we have a Conservative majority sitting on this side of the House—there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent this Parliament from prolonging

  1105
  its own duration to twenty years. There is absolutely nothing, and the hon. and learned Gentlemen knows that perfectly well.
  Sir F. BANBURY: There is the character of the House of Lords.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Baronet, whose interruptions are usually to the point, says "there is the character of the House of Lords." It is not the character of the House of Lords, it is the character of Parliament. Everybody knows that no Parliament from which ever side the majority was derived would ever dream of committing such an outrage on the constituencies which returned it as to prolong its own existence beyond the term for which it is elected. It is not the character of the House of Lords, but the character of the House of Commons, and it is the common-sense of the people of this country which is the only real and adequate safeguard against any such outrage as that. Provided these two assemblies are self-respecting assemblies, and, far more, so long as this House depends upon the respect of the country, it is a perfectly illusory danger, and there is no reason for making any safeguard. Therefore, as far as constitutional danger is concerned, the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is in the first place unnecessary and in the second place it is one-sided. I should like, if I may, to state in more general terms the objections which the Government have, not merely to this particular Amendment, but to all the various proposals which are put down on the paper for excluding from the operation of this Clause a variety of subjects. I should be quite out of order at this stage to go into the merits of the particular proposals, but I think I am entitled to review them as a whole and state the grounds which, as they are applicable to all, will in turn be applicable to each, why we object to them.
  There are twenty-three suggested exceptions from the operation of this Clause and four others in regard to which the special procedure of referendum is proposed. Let me enumerate briefly what the exceptions are—the bases of taxation, the rights, privileges and procedure of the Lords, the Act of Habeas Corpus, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the Acts of Union with Scotland and Ireland, the right of the Crown to summon Parliament, the Civil List, the Creation of State Monopolies, the question of Control of the Offensive and Defensive forces of the
  1106
  Crown, the appointment of Judges, the administration of justice, self-governing Colonies, the Established Church, the privileges and prerogatives of the Crown, the composition of the House of Lords, Electoral areas, the Duration of Parliament, the relations of the two Houses, taxation except by Parliament, trial by jury, amendment of the present Act, and further, the Protestant succession and National Parliaments for England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. What is left to the operation of this Clause? What is left which is to affect the area of legislation if all these objects are excluded from the possible operation of the Clause? Of course, I am not reading that kind of auctioneers' catalogue with a view of exciting merriment, but I am reading it from the point of of view of showing what lies really at the root, and is, indeed, the common ground of all these Amendments, including the one which is now before the Committee—it is to exclude from the operation of this Clause everything in the nature of what is called constitutional change. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that that is the common characteristics of the various Amendments of which they have in different forms given notice. Some of them, I think, go even beyond that very elastic phrase, but I think that is their intention, that is their common characteristic and object. The question, therefore, which arises here for the first time, and which will arise on all the other Amendments, and which, I think, I can most conveniently discuss, is whether or not we ought to exclude from the operation of this new procedure anything in the nature of what is called constitutional change.
  7.0 P.M.
  Let me point out what in theory the assumption which underlies this Clause really is. When we talk about a Single Chamber and the rest of it, we are apt, perhaps unconsciously, perhaps in the stress of controversial prejudice, not really to appreciate what is the assumption on which this Clause proceeds. We who advocate this Clause say the presumption is that the House of Commons, freely elected by the constituencies of the country, represents for the time being the opinions and the aims of the electors. It is a very simple proposition, which would have been treated as a platitude a few years ago. I do not say the presumption is always true. But that is at any rate what our constituencies say when they go through the other-

  1107
  wise perfectly nugatory and meaningless operation of a General Election. They send us here to represent them, and to carry out, as their representatives, what are their opinions and their wishes. That is the A B C of representative Government. There are many shortcomings and many drawbacks and many things which might be improved, but that is the essence of representative Government.
  But it is a presumption the strength of which may be weakened by time. There is not the same strength in the presumption that the House of Commons is elected by the electorate after the expiration of a certain number of years as there was when they came fresh from contact with those who sent them here, and it is for that reason that the Government, carefully safeguarding, as they have done in this Bill, the rights of the electors, have provided two special precautions against a House of Commons which had ceased to be representative in its character carrying measures as to which there was no presumption that the constituencies approved of them. The first is the provision that after the second Session of a new Parliament you cannot, under this Bill, take advantage of its machinery for over-riding the Veto of the House of Lords without a fresh election. The second is the shortening of the duration of Parliament from seven years to five, which in practice no doubt will be four years. By the erection of these two safeguards you protect against abuse the prima facie presumption that the House of Commons for the time being represents the electorate, and will only assent to Bills which the electors approve. If that is the case, what reason is there in regard to the House of Commons, which is presumptively in that sense representative of the people, for excluding from its competence, after the provision made by this Clause for due deliberation and delay, the over-riding authority to carry into law measures which the electors have approved? What reason is there to suppose that the House of Commons, still acting in what I may call the plenitude and the freshness of the mandate which it has received from the constituencies of the country, will endeavour to force into law in the domain of Constitutional legislation proposals which those electors from whom they have freshly come have not authorised and would not approve? In the next place, how are you going to draw the boundary
  1108
  line? When it is admitted, as it is admitted, that a common characteristic of all these proposed exceptions is that there are Constitutional changes, how are you going to draw any boundary line between that which is constitutional and that which is not? I was refreshing my memory only yesterday—I have already quoted something from the Treatise of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Anson)—by a reference to an equally great authority, I mean Professor Dicey, in his classical work on the Law of the Constitution. He says, in the very first page of that book, speaking of the difference of the English and the American Constitution—an English lawyer, writing on the English Constitution:—
  "He may search the Statute Book from beginning to end but he will find no enactment which purports to contain the articles of the Constitution. He will not possess any test by which to discriminate laws which are constitutional or fundamental from ordinary enactments. He will discover that the very term 'constitutional law,' which is not, unless my memory deceives me, ever employed by Blackstone is of comparatively modern origin."
  The distinction between constitutional and unconstitutional, between fundamental and non-fundamental, between organic and non-organic laws is totally unknown here in Great Britain, and you are seeking by these Amendments, of which I only take this as an example—the argument I am now using will be applicable to all—to introduce for the first time that which all our great writers on constitutional law, all our jurists and all our judges, will agree is a thing totally unknown to the British Constitution and to the history of our law, and which it would pass the wit of man, and certainly of the framers of these Amendments, to reduce to anything like a scientific or anything but a chaotic form. Let me illustrate what I am saying by one or two very familiar cases. Some of our privileges and some of our institutions are defined and regulated by Statute Law, Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus Act, the Act of Settlement—these are statutes. They appear upon the Statute Book, and Parliament can alter or amend them if it pleases. But a great deal—I am not exaggerating when I say by far the larger part of our constitutional rights and liberties do not depend upon statutes at all, but upon unwritten convention the growth of custom recognised by usage, slowly crystallised from usage into law which will not be found in any Statute Book whatever. Are you going to recognise that distinction, or are you not? Are you going for the first time to say that you are to except

  1109
  from the operation of a new constitutional procedure those parts of our Constitution which are embodied in written law and leave the rest where they are—unwritten, unregulated by statutes, interpreted by the Courts of Judges and the usages of mankind? Again, when you come to that part of our law which is statutory, how are you going to discriminate either in importance, in range, in indestructibility, or in sacrosanctity, between one department and another? For the first time in this Amendment, or this series of Amendments, you are introducing a principle totally unknown to the British Constitution, the principle of discriminating in character, in importance, and in sacrosanctity between different parts of our legislative constitutional system. That would be an innovation far beyond anything which has ever been proposed in this or in any other Bill. It would be a revolution of the Constitution.
  You may say that that is a high Tory-argument, but it is simply an argument based upon the difficulty of doing a thing which had never been done before or upon the presumed inexpediency of departing from a uniform series of precedents. But it is a great deal more than that, because the moment you introduce these discriminations, in other words the moment you except from the omnipotence of Parliament certain categories of legislation, that moment you are introducing of necessity an outside authority to determine whether or not any particular Act of Parliament is valid. You are doing what under a written Constitution like that of the United States, like that of our own Dominions and Colonies, is constantly done. You are invoking the courts of law to say not what is the meaning of the Act of Parliament, not only what is the extent of the rights and obligations which Parliament has imposed, but you are inviting them to say whether Parliament is or is not in any particular case acting within its constitutional powers. You have, in other words, for the first time introduced into our statute law and into our Constitution a region of doubt and difficulty and ambiguity as to whether any particular law is constitutionally binding on the subjects of His Majesty the King. I am not speaking in any party sense at all when I say that these are very serious considerations which anyone who is acquainted with the history, genius, and spirit of the British Constitution ought to bear carefully in mind. An hon. Gentleman interrupted a few moments
  1110
  ago when I was pointing out that this was a wholly new departure in our Constitution by saying, "So is your Veto," by which he meant, of course, "So is your limitation upon the Veto of the House of Lords." It is nothing of the kind. I have pointed out over and over again in these Debates that the Veto of the Crown was just as operative 200 years ago as the Veto of the House of Lords is to-day. We have got rid of the Veto of the Crown without any violent breach of continuity in the history of our Constitution. We are not taking away the Veto of the House of Lords. We are only limiting its duration and its extent. The Veto of the Crown has gone. It is as dead as Queen Anne.
  Mr. H. LAWSON: Not by statute.
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, it is gone by disuse; and so ought the Veto of the House of Lords to have gone by disuse. And so it had gone by disuse in the case of financial legislation, when the House of Lords was led by great and capable statesmen—by the Duke of Wellington and Lord Derby, who heeded public opinion outside. It is only since the House of Lords has created itself into a permanent and partisan ally of one particular political combination of the State that it has become, unhappily, necessary to deal by legislation with a state of things which one might have hoped, in the gradual, peaceable evolution of our constitutional system, would have adjusted itself without legislation.
  I was betrayed by that interruption into matter which is not strictly relevant to my argument. The whole point is this: You must assume, for the purpose of this Amendment, that this new procedure is to be brought into operation. It is no good to say, "We object to this, and things ought to remain as they are." In that case, reject Clause 2 altogether. But here we are on an Amendment to Clause 2. You are proposing to allow Clause 2 to operate in certain cases, and to restrict, or to exclude, its operation in others. Assuming that there are cases in which it is right that this House of Commons, freshly representing the electors of the country, and so near to the date of its election that the expiration or the wearing out of its mandate cannot be presumed—assuming that there are cases in which this House is clearly entrusted by the country with the mission of carrying into legislative effect certain great and important

  1111
  changes—there are such cases—and that these changes may properly be made by the machinery of this Clause, how are you going to exclude from it everything which is of real importance in the development of our political and social conditions?
  I have heard an allusion from the other side, and we shall no doubt hear more of it as the discussion proceeds, to Home Rule. Of course, it would not be in order, nor would it be in any sense relevant to this Amendment, to discuss Home Rule, and I shall only take it by way of illustration of my general argument. I am very glad to take the case of Home Rule, which is in some sense a test case. We had an election last December. No one I think will dispute that this Parliament Bill, and this particular Clause of the Bill, were clearly before the electors at the time of that election. It was upon this Clause in particular that they were invited to pronounce. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If ever there was anything approaching to the nature of a referendum, it was the General Election of December last year. Nobody supposed that the Parliament Bill was anything but a means to an end. It is not an end in itself. It was never represented as an end in itself. It is an improvement in our constitutional mechanism. You may say it is not an improvement, but at any rate it is a change in our constitutional mechanism, and it is a change initiated and advocated with one object, and one only namely, to make the progress of legislation desired by the people as represented here in the House of Commons easier and more facile than it has hitherto been—that is to say, when the Liberal party is in power. It is to establish in that sense something like equality between the two parties in the State, and it is to secure for us who are now in power an equal chance of carrying our legislation. But nobody invents a machine for the sake of the machine itself to exhibit it in a museum as a triumph of the mechanical ingenuity of the person who invented it. The machine is there to do work. If this Amendment, or any in this series, were carried, the, machine would be paralysed as regards a large part, if not the whole, of the work it is intended to do.
  Take the case of Home Rule as an illustration. I constantly see it as represented that the Government are pushing this Bill, and this Clause in particular, without any of the Amendments now suggested in order that they may "spring a trick"
  1112
  upon the electors of the country. What is the "trick?" The trick consists simply in this, that having told the electors—as we did tell them in the clearest and most explicit terms—that we wanted to improve our constitutional machinery, in order to carry out by means of that machinery certain objects—one of which is the grant of self-Government to Ireland—and now that we are going to try to get the machine, we are told we may not apply it without breach of faith or trickery to any of the purposes for which we are getting it. It is one of the flimsiest grounds on which to base a charge of breach of faith or trickery that has ever been suggested. I happen to be for the time being the spokesman of my own party. I have never concealed from the country, and not only have I never concealed from the country, but I have explicitly stated to the country in the clearest possible terms before the election took place, that if the electors gave us a mandate to pass this Bill, we should use the machinery created by the Bill, and use it in this Parliament for the purpose of carrying out Home Rule. And to ask us now—as you are asking by this series of Amendments—to go through the elaborate operation of setting up this improved constitutional machine, and yet, at the same time, to enter into a self-denying ordinance not to apply it to any of the purposes—social or political—on which the hearts of our fellow-countrymen are set, is to ask us to degrade the operations of Parliament to a sham.
  That is my general reply to the whole series of Amendments—and I hope I shall not have to repeat it on the specific Amendments—which seek to exclude from the operation of this Clause particular measures. I say you will never establish that which is the object of this Bill, and of this Clause in particular, namely, fair and even play as between the two great parties in the State—you will never set this House of Commons to carry into legislative effect the mission which has been entrusted to it by the electors at the polls—unless you give us over the whole sphere of legislation, power, after adequate deliberation and delay, to carry into law with the consent of the Crown the will of the people.
  Mr. BALFOUR: We have listened to a very strange performance on the part of the Prime Minister. He began by a few perfunctory remarks relating to the

  1113
  Amendment, and having dealt for two or three minutes with the Amendment he then wandered off into a discussion of ten or twelve Amendments which are to succeed this. And not content with that excursion from those rigid lines of Debate which earlier in the evening were laid down from the Chair, the Prime Minister, who has twice moved the Closure to-day on other people when dealing with the general points raised by particular Amendments, wandered off into what I can call nothing else but a Second Reading speech on the whole Bill. I have no particular objection to that procedure, but I say to the Committee if the Prime Minister is to be allowed to indulge, I hope he will not be so grossly unfair to those who criticise his Bill as to try and cut them short when they are following his own example and dealing with matters raised by the Amendments. I now pass from the manner of the Prime Minister to what is quite as astonishing—namely, the matter of his speech. The Prime Minister, having thrown a few words to my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr. Cassel) then enumerated the series of later proposals on the Paper, which he said he would dispose of so far as he was concerned in a single speech, and that speech he proceeded to make. Having read out these Amendments, he said quite accurately that in the main they might be described as constitutional Amendments, and he said, further, that if the House of Commons is not to deal with the matters referred to in the Amendments what is left for the House of Commons to deal with?
  I have often charged hon. Gentlemen opposite of the Radical party with so persistent an appetite for constitutional change that more important subjects were neglected and thrust into the background with the result that the country was kept in a perpetual turmoil in regard to the machinery of legislation instead of dealing with the subjects of legislation which ought to occupy us. Now I find that the right hon. Gentleman has described his policy, the policy of the Front Bench, and the policy of his party in language far stronger than any I have ever ventured to use. What is left, says the right hon. Gentleman, for the Radical party to do, if the region of constitutional legislation is excluded. A precious avowal from a Radical Prime Minister—an avowal which certainly fits in with my own observation of their practice, but which I never before thoroughly realised
  1114
  was part of the fixed theory on which they work. Then, says the right hon. Gentleman, constitutional change being the one subject in which we are interested, how are we to carry it out, and who ought to carry it out? He then proceeded in terms to announce his unmitigated adherence to Single-Chamber Government in its strictest form, and applicable to everything without exclusion, provided only that the House of Commons had been elected sufficiently recently. That is an entirely new doctrine for the Radical party. It is an entirely new doctrine for that bench. Where is the Foreign Secretary? We know that the Secretary for War (Lord Haldane) cannot be here to answer for himself, but the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is still left, one of the authors of the Preamble. He is still able to defend and explain it. I wish to know if this doctrine of absolute Single-Chamber Government, which the right hon. Gentleman has announced to-day in terms without disguise and without qualification, is the doctrine of the party which he leads and represents, what is the use of the Preamble, what is the use of your representative Second Chamber, and what is the use of your Second Chamber at all? The right hon. Gentleman went so far as to say—it was an amazing statement to make—that in the peaceful order of evolution, which was so unhappily disturbed by the action of the House of Lords two years ago, the power of the House of Lords to reject or modify Bills against the will of the House of Commons ought, in his opinion, to have become one of the obsolete parts of the Constitution.
  Is that Second-Chamber Government? Is that the Government you yourselves have established in South Africa? Is that the Government which you established in Australasia? Why is it a Single-Chamber Government has been repudiated in the most vehement language by your own Foreign Secretary? I think he used words which have become famous about the result of Single-Chamber Government on the Radical Party. That concerns me less than the disasters promised, or rather suggested, to the whole community by the right hon. Gentleman if you were to get rid of a Second Chamber. I am not, of course, now going to go into the whole of the subject of Second-Chamber Government, but I do say that the Prime Minister himself in introducing the resolutions last year, and the Bill last year, and in introducing the Bill this year, and in

  1115
  discussing it upon the Second Reading, has never approached the nakedness with which he has to-day announced the information to the House and to the country that what he is in favour of is absolute Single-Chamber Government to deal with everything, with this single qualification, as I understand it, that the House of Commons must not be elected more than two or three years before it sets to destroy, may be, or profoundly modify the Constitution. I do not wish to go back to the Foreign Secretary's speech which I have now got. He is not here to defend it. I have referred to it adequately, and I do not think it has ever been repudiated. I believe that the Government themselves have declared specifically that they are in favour of a Second Chamber, though they do not like the present one.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Hear, hear.
  Mr. BALFOUR: "Hear, hear," says the right hon. Gentleman. Then what happens to his speech. Why has he occupied the attention of the Committee and strained the rules of order for half an hour, if at the end of it he is still in favour of an effective Second Chamber? Why is he in favour of a Second Chamber? He is in favour of it as every sensible man is in favour of it, in order that you may have these great issues subjected to a double tribunal until it becomes perfectly clear that the country itself is behind the change, and that the country itself deserves the change. It is very easy apparently for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to persuade themselves that the country is in favour of a change. They come back to these walls. They have not got to ask the country any questions, they declare "The country is with us. The country knew what they were doing when they sent us back to power with a majority of so and so. The country were perfectly conscious of all the programme we put before the House, and we have the country behind us." Then the right hon. Gentleman explains, as regards Horn? Rule, a matter which I should have thought was beyond this Amendment in particular, that he had been absolutely open and candid with the people, and all the electors who returned him with a majority of one, so far as his own party is concerned, though with a much larger majority I agree, so far as the allied parties were concerned, were perfectly conscious when they voted for him that
  1116
  they were not merely voting for a constitutional change in the relations between the two Houses of Parliament and for a reform of the House of Lords which they are not going to get, but that they were fully aware that Home Rule would be carried over the heads of the Lords and without any further reference to themselves.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: You yourself said so.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Of course I said so. The point was, did the electors when they returned the present Government to power know that they were voting for Home Rule whether they desired it or not? I say they did not. I have always said they did not. I tried to bring home that in voting for what I believe they did want, which was some modification of the existing system, they were bringing upon themselves this danger. Unfortunately, I did not persuade them of it. At this moment they are not persuaded of it, nor will it be easy, even for those who are desirous of bringing it home to them, among whom I do not include the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me now, nor the Prime Minister, thoroughly to realise it until the actual danger is upon them. And everybody who does not talk in platitudes that appeal to the minds of a certain class is perfectly aware that when you are dealing with the cross currents and exciting topics, personal and others at a General Election, remote issues like that, especially upon a subject on which this generation of voters have had very little knowledge and experience are not realised. Everybody knows, who looks facts in the face, and tries to realise the truths of what goes on at a General Election, that the statement I have made is a correct one. What says the right hon. Gentleman? He bitterly complains because we allege that if this House of Commons is to be used for the purposes of Home Rule that use is a forgery, and he quotes his own speeches, and says. "As Leader of my party, I made it perfectly clear." He did not make it perfectly clear. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Albert Hall."] After all everybody knows that at a General Election clearness does not mean making one perfectly grammatical, lucid statement upon an issue. Much more than that is required to make a thing clear to the vast masses concerned, and when the issue is not an immediate issue great pains should have been taken to see that the issue was made clear. What pains did they take, and how did the election addresses deal

  1117
  with it? How many speeches upon it were made by them to English audiences? What space did it occupy in the speeches made by Ministers to English audiences? Did the right hon. Gentleman himself, before he went to his Scottish audience and was heckled, make any reference to it? Did he do more than say, "I said something quite clear about this last year. Look at my speech"? That is what a statesman of the right hon. Gentleman's rank and ability and character thinks is an adequate way of bringing before the voters of this country one of the greatest issues with which they could be confronted.
  I think the course which the Government have taken in this matter has been scandalous, and I think the defence is worthy of the cause. The right hon. Gentleman says, "How can you distinguish between constitutional and non-constitutional issues?" It never has been done, because we never had a written Constitution, because a written Constitution never was created and never was required until the right hon. Gentleman came into office and altered the Constitution so that now, in effect, you must have, and are going to have after this Bill passes, something in the nature of a statutory written Constitution. He quotes Professor Dicey, who says: "You may look in vain among constitutional authorities, and you will never find anything about fundamental or constitutional or written laws and practices." Professor Dicey is perfectly right. The man who has made that distinction necessary, and has done it since Professor Dicey wrote, is the right hon. Gentleman himself. He is the man who is making a written Constitution necessary. He is making it absolutely imperative that this House should take a hand and ask the country to have some means of distinguishing the fundamental laws of this country from those which are less fundamental and less vital to our national life, and when the right hon. Gentleman says that the task is impossible he really might look around and see that in every country but our own the impossibility has been accomplished and that every country but our own has taken the kind of precautions that my hon. and learned Friend wants to take and other movers of Amendments on the Paper desire to take. As to the very precaution which the right hon. Gentleman says in the first place is undesirable, every other country in the world—I am talking of the great countries
  1118
  —has made that very distinction and has embodied that distinction in their Constitution. How absurd then it is to come down to this Committee and to tell it that what other countries have accomplished without difficulty is beyond the capacity of the British House of Commons.
  The right hon. Gentleman seems to think it natural and proper and democratic to say that a Parliament which has been elected within two years or one year may properly be made omnipotent over everything connected with the State. I say that is a monstrous doctrine, because after all you are dealing here not with the interests merely of the electors who send us to this House. Their interests are, speaking for themselves, a passing interest. But we whom they send to this House and Parliament as a whole are not merely representatives of the changing prejudices of the electors. We are trustees for the future. To what body of trustees elected in that way would you give, not merely immediate interests and temporary questions that must be decided at once, but decisions affecting the whole future history of the country, of which maybe no reversal is possible, and which you are going to take in a Single Chamber that has come back full of all the passions and prejudices born of platform controversy, less in the mood, perhaps, in its very first Session than in any other, to discuss these questions in a calm and statesmanlike spirit. To them you are going without a check or hindrance to commit the whole Constitution which we have inherited and which we ought to send down unimpaired to our descendants. The right hon. Gentleman made an immense parade to-night of constitutional learning. He quoted my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University, he quoted Professor Dicey. He wandered over centuries of our history. What does all this learning cover? It covers, and is intended to cover nothing else than the results of a most unhappy bargain struck between right hon. Gentlemen opposite and those below the Gangway. Through that bargain the whole constitutional history of this country is to be sacrificed, because it suits the passing necessities of a party which finds itself, so far as this country is concerned, not the first party in this House. Because of those necessities, and those necessities alone, the responsible Government comes down and preaches the doctrine of absolute Single-Chamber supremacy, and tells us that the whole history of our past, the

  1119
  whole experience of all mankind, which is freely and constitutionally governed, is to be thrown to the winds in order to satisfy those who love neither you nor your Constitution.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Some of those who sit on these benches are rather surprised at the two speeches to which we have just listened. I was rather surprised because on an Amendment earlier in the afternoon we on these benches were not allowed to trespass one hair's breadth from the particular Proposition before the Committee. We were astonished to hear the Prime Minister just now absolutely de part from the Amendment before the Committee, and practically give us a Second-Reading speech on the principles of this Bill. My object in rising is to try and bring back the consideration of the Committee to the particular Amendment we are considering. The object of that Amendment is to make impossible for any Government in the future to raise the period of the duration of Parliament from five years, to which it is to be brought down, to seven years, or any longer number of years. The reason for this Amendment is an excellent one, and it is precisely the same as Sir Henry Campbell-Banner-man gave when he brought forward his Veto Resolution in 1907. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman made it part of his Resolutions that it was absolutely necessary to reduce the maximum period of Parliament. That was part of his plan, and it is now part of the Government's plan that the period of Parliament should be reduced to five years. If that is part of their plan, then what my hon. and learned Friend is asking by his Amendment is that the Government should adhere to that plan, and that they should not have power to increase the number of years from five years to any other number of years, or the object might be to perpetuate for a longer period the duration of Single-Chamber Government. The Prime Minister himself admitted this danger in a speech which he made on 23rd February of this year. He said:—
  "No one pretends, I certainly do not, that the correspondence between any given judgment of any given House of Commons and that of the electorate is invariable and precise. The House of Commons may, particularly under the unduly long term embodied in the Septennial Act, under which it at present exists, outstay, and we have seen Houses of Commons which did outstay what is called the mandate given to them by the electorate. The House of Commons may pass a measure by a majority small in number, and obviously accidental in its composition. The House of Commons may, through the crush of business, or through hasty
  1120
  procedure, pass a measure in an imperfect, incomplete and even misleading form. But these are risks we admit—I for one certainly admit—ought to be guarded against, and we have guarded against them. In the first place we propose to shorten the legal duration of Parliament from seven years to five years, which will probably amount in practice to an actual legislative working term of four years. That will secure that your House of Commons, for the time being, is always either fresh from the polls which gave it authority, or—and this is an equally effective check upon acting in defiance of the popular will—it is looking forward to the polls at which it will have to render an account of its stewardship,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February. 1911, col. 1749, vol.21.]
  The Prime Minister in that speech admits that there may be abuses if the House of Commons has too long a period in which to exercise this restriction upon the Veto. He makes it a part of his plan that the maximum period of Parliament must be reduced, and it is to be reduced to five years. What we are arguing now is simply that the Prime Minister and his friends should not be in a position to abuse the power which the present Bill gives them. If they were in a position to increase the maximum period of Parliament it would be in their power to perpetuate Single-Chamber Government for an indefinite period of time. We had evidence given this afternoon that Parliament was perpetuated in the time of Cromwell, but common-sense was too much for an abuse of that kind, and the Rump Parliament came to an end, the House of Lords being again restored. I sincerely hope that this Amendment will receive some consideration from the Government. It is clearly one which may be differentiated from other propositions which the Prime Minister has mentioned, and for these reasons I beg to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I hope, if necessary, that it will be carried to a Division.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I trust that the latitude which has been allowed to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will be extended to those who are to follow them. I have listened to what seemed to me to be an extremely interesting and important speech from the Prime Minister, a speech which will be widely read and quoted, and in which he laid down the doctrine of diminishing mandate, or what I prefer to call a series of diminishing mandates. I never heard it so plainly put before; and it would appear that when the House of Commons is returned it really does represent the people, but that there comes a time when it no longer does so, though unfortunately it continues to legislate. The question is what is to be done? Upon that theory, what is the course the Government propose to take? As I

  1121
  understand they propose to say that for the first three years of the five this House of Commons is representative of the people; that is to say, for the first three years out of the five they may carry their will against the Opposition of the other House, but in the fourth year, on the 1st January of the fourth year, their position becomes very doubtful. Is it not a reasonable observation that, if this change is required, and if the House of Commons, whether the majority be Liberal or Conservative, ceases to represent the people after three years, you should take some steps to obtain the opinion of the country? What is the position during the last two years of the five? It is a very strange one. The House of Commons, on the theory laid down, has ceased to represent the people in the same way or as certainly as it did before, yet it is to continue to exist, and, what is more important it is to continue to legislate, and to legislate without the assistance or co-operation of the House of Lords. If the House of Lords agree then they may be taken to represent the people, but if the House of Lords differ then they are not to be taken as representing the people. That appears to be one of the strongest admissions of the value of the representative character of the House of Lords which I have ever heard made. Another observation, based on the theory of diminishing mandates is this. Take the case of a Bill brought in under this new machinery in the closing years of the period of Parliament.
  8.0 P.M.
  It is brought in by the Government which has just ceased to enjoy that plenitude of authority with which it started. The Government introduce it in the third year, and it is to become law against the repeated opposition of the House of Lords by mere iteration of the House of Commons, which, on the theory laid down by the Prime Minister, has ceased and has legitimately ceased to represent the people of the country. Against the opposition of the House of Lords, and by mere iteration recorded in this House, though they have ceased to represent the people, they can continue to legislate. The Prime Minister, in the course of his most important speech, asked this Committee why they should introduce an undoubted novelty into the Constitution by making this distinction between ordinary and organic legislation. For my own humble part I am profoundly convinced that
  1122
  we shall not have gone far in this business of Constitution making which we have so lately undertaken before we realise that we must substitute for the old double classification of Money Bills and ordinary legislation a triple qualification such as obtains in our own Dominions—in two of them, at any rate, and in almost every other civilised country in the world—namely, money legislation, ordinary legislation, and organic and constitutional change. It is because we are going to face the danger from which we have hitherto been free, and for the reason that every foreign state has found it necessary to make this triple classification, states like France, Germany, the United States—every progressive foreign state—that we shall require under this new system to make a fundamental distinction between money legislation, ordinary legislation, and organic and constitutional change. We must adopt the safeguards which are in use in countries like Switzerland and the United States—the more democratic the country the more striking this fact of safeguards seems to be, and the reason is the danger of violent resistance and even the danger of civil war. In this country we have hitherto had the advantage of a strong and Conservative Second Chamber. I submit to hon. Members opposite that whatever form of Second Chamber you have it will be found to be Conservative in the broadest sense of the word. Every Second Chamber is, in the true sense of the word, Conservative, or else it fails in its object. The reason why we must make this distinction is because we are facing a new danger. So long as we had a strong and Tory House of Lords, so long no change was made until it has recommended itself to a Conservative body by having become the position of a large and recognised majority in this country. Such changes are safely made; the minority which is overridden is a small minority, and the danger of disturbance is small. We are going to face other and very different conditions when we sweep away that Second Chamber, and when we legislate on fundamental matters, upon which the people may feel deeply, by a bare majority of this House. We shall have then to face dangers to which, for many a long day, we have not been accustomed. There will be the danger of a great body of opinion in the country upon whom a hasty change is being forced, and who may honestly believe themselves an actual majority in the country when

  1123
  the House of Commons is forcing on them a change of which they do not approve. That is a great change which I am perfectly certain will drive us before long to make that distinction which we have made in the Constitution of our own self-governing Dominions, and which every foreign country has made, and a change which this Amendment indicates, and that is between the ordinary output of the legislative machinery and proposals for restricting the legislative machine itself.
  Dr. HILLIER: I listened to the speech of the Prime Minister delivered a short time ago with astonishment. I must say I failed absolutely to understand the line of argument by which he endeavoured to demonstrate that the Constitution of this country was more to be found in the usage and practice and procedure of Parliament than in the great Statutes. He enumerated several great Statutes with which it has been the habit of hon. Members opposite, from time to time, to compare the Parliament Bill. I will cite as instances the Magna Charta and the Bill of Bights, both of which were referred to by the Prime Minister as embodying certain portions of the Constitution and constitutional law. I may say with regard to those measures, whatever the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman may be as to their relative importance, as expressing the Constitution of the country, in the opinion of Pitt they did constitute the Bible of the British Constitution. It has been argued from the other side that the Parliament Bill in itself was comparable to the great Charter or to the Bill of Bights. Without attributing that degree of magnitude to this measure, I at least feel that the Parliament Bill, if it be carried as it stands to-day, or even as Unionists in some respects would amend it, does undoubtedly represent one of those great fundamental changes in the Constitution of this country which may be comparable in a measure to the Charter and the Bill of Rights. While that view is held and argued continually by hon. Members opposite, we are told at the same time this afternoon by the Prime Minister that this measure, after all, is merely to be regarded as a means to an end, and as a portion of constitutional machinery for obtaining certain desirable ends. I submit, with all deference to the right hon. Gentleman, that that view of this measure, although it may to some extent be true, is not a fair and complete description of this Bill,
  1124
  because it does embody certain fundamental changes in the Constitution. On that ground, as an hon. Member on this side has pointed out, it is essential that in making a fundamental change of the sort you should embody by such an Amendment as he has moved, or by other Amendments which stand on the Paper, certain safeguards to the people of this country against the abuse of a measure of this sort.
  So long as the Constitution of this country was to be merely a matter of procedure and usage, those safeguards were to a large extent unnecessary, but from the moment you begin to reduce the Constitution of this country to a written Constitution, as this Parliamentary Bill proposes to do, then it is perfectly obvious those safeguards must be inserted, and that unless they are inserted we shall be, through this House alone, or by the Cabinet of the day, more strictly speaking, the means, by no matter of how small a majority, to completely alter the Constitution of this country in the future. As every great civilised Power which has adopted a written Constitution has been careful to provide, even in the case of our own self-governing Dominions, provisions of this sort for protecting the nation from the abuse of power which such a measure as this confers, in so far as that has been necessary to the written Constitution of every other civilised Power, I say it is equally necessary to this country that those safeguards should find some place in this Bill. The refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to accord any countenance to Amendments of this character, not only gives rise to misgiving amongst hon. Members on this side, but will, when the significance of this position comes to be appreciated by the people of the country, rouse the very gravest misgivings throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon spoke openly in favour of what is nothing else than Single Chamber Government, while only the other day, when an Amendment was discussed which proposed that Finance Bills should not be sent to the House of Lords at all, the Prime Minister in that Debate objected to that Amendment because it was too revolutionary, and because he said it was desirable that we should have the advantage of the discussion of an important financial measure in the House of Lords, which he stated contained many eminent men whose opinions and advice were of the greatest value to the country.

  1125
  If that is so with regard to a Finance Bill, how much more so is it true of such measures as are dealt with in this second Clause. I must say that I cannot for a moment understand how the right hon. Gentleman can deny that this measure is of such a fundamental character as to embody to a very large extent a most important part of the constitution of this country in the future. That has been constantly urged by his own supporters, and it cannot for a moment be denied that the changes contemplated are of the most fundamental character. If, therefore, you are going to embody the constitution of the country in measures of this sort, and if it is to be a written constitution in the future, then assuredly no arguments have been adduced by hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite, or can be adduced, which will convince the people of this country that it is not necessary in that written constitution to insert at least moderate safeguards so that we shall not have organic changes made in this country merely by the exercise of the power of a small majority which may be at the disposal of the Cabinet of the day in the House of Commons.
  Mr. MILLS: I do not propose to detain the Committee at any great length after listening to the speech of the Prime Minister, in which he told us that the Government were going to refuse the next twenty-three Amendments without hearing any arguments either for or against. After that statement it would be more or less waste of time for us to discuss those Amendments. I think, when we hear that statement, we must also reflect on the great danger which will ensue when this House and the Cabinet are in control over the Government of the country. How can we talk about the great freedom of this House and the representative character of this House, if the Government who have control of the majority in this House can take their obsequious followers to support them without allowing any discussion on a great series of Amendments upon an important measure like this, and when they can veto them all at once in that way. I do not think that that is upholding the dignity of the House of Commons, which is now so necessary, as it is going to be the only force in the Government of the country. I rose not to draw attention to that fact, or to the Prime Minister's general statements, but to direct attention to one fact which, I think, has been overlooked, and which makes it very needful
  1126
  that this Amendment should be accepted. This Amendment, after all, does not in any way affect the principles which the Government presumably are aiming at in this measure. When we ask them to insert a provision that Parliament should not go on indefinitely it ought to be borne in mind that the state of Parliament in the future will be very different from what it is at this moment—that is to say, you are going to introduce a different class of Member into this House. Instead of having ordinary Members of Parliament, you are going to have professional politicians—that is to say, you are going to pay Members of this House. Surely, if you are going to pay Members of this House, it is only right and proper that you should introduce into your Bill a provision preventing Members prolonging the existence of Parliament, and therefore of their salaries to an indefinite extent. The Prime Minister said the safeguard which the country had against the House of Commons prolonging its existence is in the character of Parliament. I venture to say you are striking a very heavy blow at the character of Parliament when you propose to pay Members. You are putting a very great and unnecessary temptation on those Members when you allow them the opportunity, not only of increasing their salaries to an indefinite amount, and an Amendment to stop that was refused yesterday or the day before, but you are also giving them the additional temptation of safeguarding for themselves a comfortable income for life. For that reason, which I think is an eminently practical one, I would respectfully urge on the Government to accept that Amendment.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I do not propose to follow or range over the same wide field travelled by the Prime Minister and subsequent speakers this evening. I shall endeavour to confine myself not merely to the Amendment which my hon. Friend did not move, but to the actual Amendment which he did move. I should like to comment upon one of the contentions of the Prime Minister with regard to the great difficulty of framing a written Constitution in this country. He drew a comparison between two great sources of English liberties—
  And, it being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. HOLT: I understand that the promoters of the Bill are willing to strike out Clause 5 in Committee. If that is so, it will very fairly meet the objections of those of us who have put down Motions for the rejection of the Bill. If the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding), who, I understand, represents the promoters, confirms that arrangement I shall have nothing more to say.

LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL.

  [CLAUSE 5.—(Agreements with Steamship Companies and others.)
  The Company may enter into and carry into effect agreements with reference to the conveyance of passengers and merchandise from to and between all or any of the ports or places which are mentioned and referred to in the last preceding section of this Act with any steamship company or other company or persons having and using steam or other vessels. Provided that except in the case of any temporary hiring or chartering all such vessels shall be registered at a British port. Provided also that Sub-section (5) of Section 33 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, shall (without prejudice to any other enactment applicable to such traffic) apply in the case of all through rates charged in respect of traffic conveyed in such vessels in pursuance of any such agreement.]
  Mr. GOULDING: On behalf of the promoters, I desire to say that they will concur in the view of the hon. Members opposite, and will not proceed with Clause 5. I hope, therefore, the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, and allow it to go upstairs to be considered by a Committee.

PARLIAMENT BILL.
Postponed proceeding on Amendment proposed on consideration of Clause 2 [see col. 1051], which Amendment was: In Subsection (1) to leave out the words, "any Bill other than a Money Bill," to insert instead
1128
thereof the words, "a Bill not being either a Money Bill or a Bill to extend the maximum duration of Parliament."—[Mr. Cassel.]
Debate resumed.
[The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. H. Whitley) in the Chair.]
Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: When the proceedings were interrupted by Private Business I was saying that the Prime Minister had laid considerable emphasis both on the difficulties and on the expediency of endeavouring to place this country under the yoke of a written Constitution. The Prime Minister pointed out in some detail that the liberties and the privileges of the English people were drawn in the main from two different sources—that one large class depended upon the sanction of statute law, while another and no less important class depended upon usages and unwritten customs. Probably no more important class of customs and no more important liberties of the people of this country exist than those which depend at present upon the unwritten privileges of this House—privileges which have never received the sanction of statute law, but which have gradually grown from year to year and from century to century. It is the intention of the Government, under the present Bill to give to those same privileges the sanction of statute law. The Prime Minister then proceeded to his second contention, that discrimination between the different classes of legislation was a new principle to introduce upon the Statute Book.
I think we have in this very Bill an example of discrimination, in so far as the Bill in itself discriminates, very ineffectually I admit, between ordinary legislation and legislation which may be directly or indirectly classed under the heading of Money Bills. The Home Secretary tonight recognised the great changes which might ensue from the extension of the duration of the sittings of this House. But on April 13 he stated:—
"We have a definite Resolution on the Paper, and we shall have a definite Clause in the Bill, making five-year Parliaments necessary and inseparable from our constitutional system."
It is quite clear that at that time the Home Secretary regarded Clause 5 of this Bill as the pivot Clause of the whole measure. Unless some such Amendment as that now suggested is accepted it will be quite within the competence of some future House to repeal Clause 5 with or without

1129
the assent of the Second Chamber, and so to remove that very portion of the Government scheme which the Home Secretary has characterised as both necessary and inseparable. Of all the arguments advanced against this Amendment there was only one on which the Prime Minister laid any emphasis. He stated that the Amendment was unnecessary. From the point of view of Members on this side the Amendment is not only necessary but of very great importance indeed, and I hope before the Committee divides upon it we shall hear some more cogent reasons why it should not be accepted.
Mr. NEWMAN: Earlier in the evening the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) told us that the man in the street does not understand this Bill and that some electors consider it to be a sort of vegetable. If the man in the street takes the trouble to read the Debate of this afternoon, and particularly the speech delivered just now by the Prime Minister, he will be able to specify the vegetable included in this Bill and also its cooking. In other words, he may get some sort of glimmering of what the Bill really means. The Prime Minister told us that the machinery is to be used in this Parliament. To many electors of this country the Veto Bill may be a vegetable. But one thing is certain: to many thousands who are not contented at all with the legislation of this House the Veto Bill is not well understood, and appears as a vegetable. To the loyalist minority in the provinces of Ireland the Veto Bill has been well understood from the very beginning. To them it has meant Home Rule. They know perfectly well that if this Veto Bill is passed by this Parliament Home Rule for Ireland will ensue within the lifetime of this Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, I happen to be in a position to speak as a representative for that large minority, hailing, as I do, from the province of Munster, and being at the present time absolutely the only Member in the House of Commons who can claim to have been born and bred in one of these three provinces. We have faced this peril before on two occasions. But on each occasion we have been able to appeal to Cæsar. On this occasion we have not been able to appeal to Cæsar, either during the General Election or afterwards. We have been told that the Home Rule question was put before the country at the last two General Elections. Was it? Of the 270 Members who were returned to this Par-
1130
liament on the Liberal side how many mentioned Home Rule in their election addresses? [HON. MEMBERS: "Most of them."] Hon. Members are a little bit out of it. One hundred and eighty-six did not mention Home Rule at all. Yet hon. Members tell me that Cæsar was appealed to, and Cæsar said that the minority in Ireland are to be put upon by the Home Rule majority. Home Rule was not before the country at the last General Election. But if this Veto Bill is passed, if hon. Members opposite get their way, Home Rule will be before the country and will be passed, and the loyal minority in Ulster, Munster, Leinster, and Connaught will not have a chance to appeal. [HON. MEMBERS: "They will at the next election."] What is the good of that? Ireland will have had Home Rule.
The Prime Minister made what I may call an omnibus reply this afternoon. I am trying to put forward an omnibus objection. I have myself many pages further down the Paper an Amendment dealing with this very subject, though it is possible that the matter will have been discussed long before my Amendment is reached. I take therefore this opportunity, as one of the loyalist minority, of putting forward my objections to the Veto Bill as likely to be the means of thrusting Home Rule upon us, and putting the loyalist minority under the heel of men not altogether loyal. I am convinced that even many, if not most, of the Nationalist Members would prefer that Ireland should get Home Rule with the full sanction of England, Scotland, and Wales; that Home Rule should not be shoved through in this underhand manner.
Major WHITE: I want to emphasise what was said just now by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Basingstoke Division. I would like further to thank him on behalf of my Friends on these Benches for having at last drawn away a curtain from the pretence so often put forward on the opposite benches of a real wish for a Second Chamber. Single-Chamber Government has been shown in all its nakedness. Because the only time the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in the course of a long speech, dealt with the Amendment at all was for about one minute. He then dealt with it in this way. He said he could not accept the Amendment, because if he did it might lead in the future to a Liberal Government, when they tried to extend their time of office, being vetoed by the Second

1131
Chamber; on the other hand, if a Conservative Government were in office, they might, by collusion with the Second Chamber, be able to get the extension they wished. The very fact of the right hon. Gentleman putting that forward shows any wish on their part to get a reformed and reconstituted Second Chamber is worth nothing at all. If they really wished this reform they speak of they would be able to secure what everybody on both sides of the House wants, a strong but impartial Second Chamber. For that reason I think we on this side of the House and the Unionist party throughout the country owe a great deal of thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for his speech this afternoon. It showed in clear and unmistakable terms the policy of practically virtual Single-Chamber Government.
Sir R. FINLAY: The Prime Minister gave as his reason for rejecting the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the fact that in our Constitution hitherto no distinction has been recognised between laws effecting great constitutional changes and ordinary legislation. That is perfectly true. But I venture to think that that is the strongest possible reason for having as a check an effective Second Chamber. It is just because we have not the security which the constitutions of other countries provide against great organic changes being carried out without the people being consulted that it is essential that we should retain the protection which an effective Second Chamber affords. In this country Parliament is omnipotent. It is not fettered by any constitution. Whatever Parliament chooses to enact is law. The omnipotence of Parliament was all very well so long as within the forms of the Constitution there was some security that vast, momentous changes should not be carried out without the people being consulted, and without their acquiescence. That security we have in the House of Lords. The House of Lords was strong enough to resist the House of Commons until it appeared clearly that it was the settled will of the people that such great changes should be made. The House of Lords was not strong enough to oppose the will of the people when that will had been sufficiently manifested. For that very reason we have in that institution a security that no great change would be carried out until it appeared that the people, not merely owing to a passing
1132
gust of opinion, but in their settled and determined will, desired that some organic change in our institutions should be made.
In this Bill by the second Clause it is proposed to sweep all that security away. There is absolutely no change which if this Bill becomes law may not be carried out over the heads of the people, and without their having been consulted upon it. You will have parted with that security which ensured that before such changes were made the people of the country should have some voice in the matter. The question never has been, as was represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite at the election, whether the House of Lords or the House of Commons should be supreme. Both Houses exist merely for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the people; for the purpose of securing that in matters of vital importance the settled will only of the people should prevail. That security you are now preparing to part with. I venture, most respectfully, to submit to the Committee that it is simple madness to apply to Single-Chamber Government, which the Prime Minister has to-night advocated, those doctrines which form part of the Constitutional law of this country, as long as we have security in the existence of an effective Second Chamber that the people should be consulted before any great constitutional change was carried out. The Prime Minister went on to give another of his reasons for rejecting this particular Amendment—namely, that a strong presumption must be taken that the House of Commons, at all events until it had passed middle age, represents the will of the people. That may be so if the House of Commons is supposed to deal with a subject upon which the people have been fairly and adequately consulted at the General Election which returned that House of Commons. Is it not preposterous to apply that doctrine, as the Prime Minister sought to apply it, to one great change which we now know it is proposed to carry out as soon as this Bill becomes law? It was not by accident, that the subject of Home Rule for Ireland was left out of the addresses of most of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, and from the addresses of a vast number of their supporters. Just enough was said about Home Rule to secure the Irish vote, and care was taken not to say more, for fear of offending the susceptibilities of English and Scotch electors.

1133
That is the state of things under which right hon. Gentlemen have been returned to power, and I venture to say it is preposterous that there is, in these circumstances, any presumption whatever that on a great constitutional change such as that to which the Prime Minister adverted, the House of Commons, if it carried it into law over the heads of the House of Lords, would be representing the will of the people. What was said by the Member for Waterford? He said that the House of Lords was the obstacle in this matter. Why was the House of Lords the obstacle? Merely because it said, "You shall not carry a measure of this kind until the people are consulted." And it is for the purpose of having that obstacle swept away that this Bill is pressed forward. And it was because it was well known the electors of England and Scotland were very sensitive, to say the least of it, on this subject, that Liberal candidates as a rule in the great majority of cases endeavoured as far as they could to divert attention, both in England and Scotland from this subject. I venture to say the speech of the Prime Minister will be read in the country with amazement. It will open the eyes of a great many good people to the precipice to the brink of which they are being unconsciously led. It is well the country should see how things actually stand, and that it is face to face with Single-Chamber Government undiluted and undisguised which is to be applied to the greatest as well as to the smallest changes in our institutions.
Mr. NEVILLE: Members on this side of the House have been extremely interested in what has fallen from the Prime Minister, not only from the point of view of the matter, but from the very peculiar strength of the language which the Prime Minister found it necessary to use upon this occasion. It seems to me there is one aspect of the case which has been partially overlooked, or has not had that amount of stress laid upon it which ought to be laid upon it. The doctrine laid down by the Prime Minister, as I understand it, was that Members who are sent to this House merely represent the majority who have sent them there. Of course, upon purely party matters nobody will deny that that is so. But it must be remembered that we not only represent the majority in our constituencies, but that we represent the country at large, and all sections of the country. I suppose that there was never
1134
an election yet in which after the election the elected members did not make the statement after being returned that he hoped he would represent those who opposed him in his election as well as those who voted for him. I am sure that is the spirit of every Englishman. He looks upon himself as the representative, not merely of the majority, whether his majority be one, or ten, or a hundred, but he tries to represent, as a loyal English gentleman, the constituency that returned him as a whole. Therefore it seems to me the fundamental duty of every Englishman, whatever his party may be, is to give prominence to all considerations, and to meet all views of all sections of the country. We ought not to ram down the throats of a very large minority and a minority which has the largest representation in this House to-day, and which to-morrow will be larger, and we ought not to force these things through without seeing if we cannot arrive at a business solution.
Let us take another point of view. The point of view I take now is, we are the representatives of the country at large and not merely of the exigencies of any party. Parliament docs not exist for the benefit of any party but for the benefit of the country as a whole. We are the trustees, as the Leader of the Opposition said, for the future as well as for the present, and I would ask any Gentleman in this House who is a business man and looks at business matters from a business point of view, if he had to constitute any trust for anybody for whom he has affection, would he not devise and lay down the lines under which that trust was to be managed. The Prime Minister earlier in the Session made allusion to what he called the chapter of accidents, and he said a chapter of accidents is the bible of fools. It is exactly, and as far as ever it is possible, for us to prevent that chapter of accidents becoming the bible of fools in this country that these Amendments are put forward by the Opposition. It is to prevent this chance and change in a written Constitution these Amendments are moved. Up to the present time the Constitution of this country has been the matter of growth; it has been lopped here and watered there; it has been tended with loving hands and loyal friends in this country. But, of course, there is no one in this country who considers our Constitution as a scientific one. And when we are now dealing for the first time with a

1135
scientific Constitution and shaping the future Constitution of this country, surely that is the time that we should see that the safeguards should be safeguards indeed and not paper safeguards—safeguards which will ensure that the people who are here afterwards to be the trustees shall have an opportunity of knowing what their trust is and how to carry it out, and not say, as was said by someone in the country, "Trust Asquith—trust him and that is enough." I submit that it is a business proposition, when dealing with the Constitution of this country, that it is imperative to lay down in the strongest possible manner the limitations within which the power of this country is to be wielded. Up to the present time the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite have been very much like boys quarreling about the rules of the game. You never go into the parks where—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The argument which the hon. Member is using does not appear to have any connection with the Amendment.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I point out, Mr. Whitley, that in your absence the Prime Minister made an entirely Second Heading speech, to which I think we have a right to reply.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member for Bootle will admit that the Speech we have just been listening to is a little wide of the Amendment.
Mr. NEVILLE: I will not pursue the point with which I was dealing any further. I submit to the Committee that we are now dealing with an entirely new set of facts, which have never arisen before, and when you are manufacturing Constitutions it is idle for the Prime Minister to say, "I rely upon those usages and those precedents which, when we had an unwritten Constitution, every one of us loyally supported and paid attention to." When the Prime Minister finds out that he is pressed hard upon any one of those points he retires, and says, "After the Constitution is made as we want it let us make use of the same usages and privileges as were in vogue before." That is not playing the game. You cannot run with the hounds and at the same time be the hare. It is our duty, as business men entrusted with the future of this country, to see that these things are done on business lines, and
1136
ensure that there is as little friction as possible in the future. It is upon these matters that friction often arises, and if there is any possibility of avoiding friction I am quite sure it would avoid it—we shall be playing the game instead of quarrelling about the rules. The Prime Minister said the words "fundamental," "organic," and "constitutional" were unknown in our history. Of course they are unknown in our history, because there has not been any reason why they should be used. Go north or south or east or west in any country in the world, and you will find it is a fact that where you have a written Constitution it becomes necessary to have these safeguards so that the people dealing with the Constitution will know the rules of the game, and will recognise that those rules should not be altered at a moment's notice or at the caprice of any particular majority so as to give one particular party a greater advantage than another.
Hon. Members on this side have approached this Bill with every desire to see that it should be a workable Bill. We do not like the Bill, and we do not want it, but if we have got to have it I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to make it something that will last not only our own time, but during the time of those who come after us. I hope hon. Members will do their best to foresee and provide against any possibility of friction and get the rules of the game settled in such a way as will produce the least amount of friction and inflict the least amount of inconvenience and hardship upon any particular sections of the community. There is not a game played in this country which does not have the rules carefully drawn up. In all games the fight has always been about the rules. We have now the opportunity of making the rules in Parliament, and I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite if they cannot see-something beyond their own party view on this question and look forward to something which is greater than party, and which is too apt to be left out of sight by people who are really thinking merely of the present and not of the future. When we have altered our Constitution and abolished all those safeguards which we have had up to now; when we have abolished the opportunity now given to constituencies and electors alike of expressing their opinion on these great constitutional questions, it seems to me that we must do our best to supply something in place of what has been taken away. One of the subjects alluded to by the Prime Minister was

1137
Home Rule. It is a most significant fact that the question of Home Rule was never mentioned at the last election by the Prime Minister until after the boroughs had polled Everybody knows that in the boroughs it is most important that the question of Home Rule should be kept in the forefront. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Albert Hall speech?"] I do not think the Irish Members were satisfied at all with the Albert Hall speech, and they prefer to have their money down. Until the election began the Prime Minister never mentioned Home Rule. He never mentioned it until he was heckled in his own Constituency on that point after the boroughs had polled. That is a very important matter, as everybody knows who has had any experience of constituencies in the West Riding of Yorkshire or in Lancashire. I have stood many times as a candidate in one of those constituencies—I am not a bit ashamed of it—and I know quite well that in the counties I have mentioned the question of Home Rule is one which has to be dealt with very delicately. It seems to me that the argument of the Prime Minister broke down when he dealt with Home Rule. On these benches we know that this Bill means Single-Chamber Government. The Prime Minister has stated that he has not changed his views. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite remember what the Prime Minister said on this point last year, and even this year. When they hear his words I think they will see that there has been a great change. On 13th March, 1910, the Prime Minister said:—
"I myself and my colleagues are of opinion that it is desirable in this, as in other democratic countries, to have a Second Chamber."
On 29th March, 1910, he said:—
"A lung experience and perhaps closer study of the facts, possibly that insidious and potent influence, the growing conservatism of age, have brought me to the conviction that whatever may be the case elsewhere, in this country there is both room and need for a Second Chamber."
This Session, on 21st February, the Prime Minister said:—
"No one proposes—I certainly do not—to dispense in this country with a Second Chamber. I will give a reason amongst many others—"
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to intervene again, but I must point out to the Committee that we cannot have this discussion twice over. We must take the whole thing together, and we cannot have another discussion on the same question.
Mr. NEVILLE: I do not wish to trespass in the slightest degree upon what may be
1138
coming afterwards. I am afraid I was only following the example of the Leader; of the House, but I have already sufficiently wearied the Committee.
9.0 P.M.
Mr. HARRIS: The Prime Minister asked why we should distinguish between one class of legislation and another. I think the answer is because it is necessary to do so unless you are to have Single-Chamber Government pure and unadulterated. Let me give an example. Under this Bill the House of Lords could be abolished, and any change, however drastic, could be effected in the Constitution by a majority of the House of Commons without any appeal to the country. What use is it to give independent powers to the House of Lords when that House may be swept out of existence or have its powers curtailed by the House of Commons if it shows any independence whatsoever? Even if the House of Lords were reconstituted on a popular basis, it would be in such a position of subordination to the House of Commons that it could not discharge its duties of revising the Acts of the House of Commons freely and without prejudice. It is not proposed that the House of Lords should be reconstituted under this Bill, and I notice one of the prominent supporters of the Government, the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) said that an impotent House of Lords might be all right, but a reconstituted House of Lords would be a positive danger. I now gather the Prime Minister has adopted that policy, and, therefore, we are not to have a reconstituted House of Lords, but a House of Lords left un-reformed and exposed to all the prejudice of which we have had a recent experience and which is so easily, so cheaply, and so unfairly excited against an hereditary Chamber. It is impossible to expect the House of Lords, constituted as the Government propose to leave it, and with no assured position in the Constitution, could perform effectively the powers which the Government profess to desire it should perform in the future. It is essential, if the House of Lords is to perform its duties effectively—even those duties which the Government are professing to grant it—that it should have some security of tenure in the Constitution, subject, of course, to the people of this country. Otherwise, it is quite impossible to expect it to discharge those duties fairly and impartially. The Prime Minister asked why we should distinguish between one class of legislation and another—between

1139
Amendments of the Constitution and other forms of legislation. I think the answer is to be found in the fact that every civilised country in the world considers it necessary to safeguard its Constitution from hasty and ill-considered Amendments, not to mention deliberate attacks upon the Constitution itself. Elaborate precautions are taken—whether by a Second Chamber with effective powers, or by provision for direct reference to the people—to protect a nation against hasty and ill-considered Amendments of the Constitution. Apparently the Government do not think the British Constitution is worth safe-guarding. They are proposing that the majority of the House of Commons shall do what it pleases with the Constitution, and no one shall say them nay—not the Second Chamber, nor even the people of this country. I venture to think this is an example of the levity with which the Government have taken in hand the reform of the Constitution—a levity which I imagine will astonish our Australian brethren who are now coming to visit us. Mr. Bryce has pointed out the great care with which the Australians took in hand the establishment of their Constitution. He said:—
"The statesmen of this Convention which framed this latest addition of the world's stock of instruments of Government, had passed in review all previous experiments, had found in them examples to follow, and other examples to shun, and had drawn from them the best essence of the teachings they were fitted to impart. When the Convention prepared its highly finished scheme of polity, it delivered its judgment upon the work of all who had gone before, while contributing to the materials which will be available for all who come hereafter to the work of building up a State."
Can anyone describe the scheme of the Government in the words used by Mr. Bryce in reference to the manner in which the Australian Commonwealth was set up? The Government are proposing to set up a new Constitution for these kingdoms and to write it in two short Clauses. They ignore the essential points which must be considered whenever you are proposing to set up a written Constitution. They ignore the precedents which must be before them—British precedents which exist in the case of the Australian Commonwealth and also in the case of the South African Commonwealth. The fact is we are now really able to apply the touchstone to the proposals of the Government. We now know this Bill is not what Mr. Bryce calls an "instrument of Government." It is not a measure of constitutional reform at all. It is an instru-
1140
ment for jerrymandering the Constitution in order to enable certain party measures to be carried, measures which the Government may think perfectly legitimate, but measures which ought not to be carried with great risk to the stability and security of the Constitution.
Sir A. CRIPPS: I should like to say a few words in answer to what I may call the astounding statement with regard to constitutional law made by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, as an example and as a justification of what he is proposing in this Bill, said the Veto of the House of Lords has already been disused, and he backed that up by a reference to the Veto of the Crown, and to the action of the Duke of Wellington and Lord Derby. We ought to draw every distinction between what is called the Veto of the Crown and the Veto of the Second Chamber. The prerogatives of the Crown are exercised under the direction and at the discretion of the Prime Minister for the time being. That has become part of our constitutional system. I should like to ask whether right hon. Gentlemen opposite think that a Second Chamber would be satisfactory which only exercised discretion in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister for the time being. Yet that is the principle which the Prime Minister laid down. He said you ought to treat the Veto of the Second Chamber in the same way as you now treat the Veto of the Crown. Under those circumstances the Second Chamber would be a sham and a fiction of the very worst conceivable kind. It would simply have to obey the dictates of the Prime Minister for the lime being.
The right hon. Gentleman went on, with an extraordinary want of knowledge of constitutional history, to refer to what was done in the time of the Duke of Wellington. The Duke was a Member of the House of Lords which rejected the Reform Bill of 1832. That Bill was only passed in this House in the first instance by a majority of one, but after the matter had gone to the country and the country had given its decision in favour of the Bill, the Duke of Wellington advised the Second Chamber to give way. That is the advice of every constitutional lawyer and every constitutional statesman, and it has been so from that time down to the present. It was given by Lord Salisbury and by Lord Cairns. The constitutional doctrine is this, that the House of Lords, when the will of the people of this country

1141
has been adequately and constitutionally ascertained, do not any longer claim to stand in the way of that will. That was not only the doctrine of the Duke of Wellington, but it has been the doctrine of all the great Leaders of the House of Lords from that time down to the present moment. But that is entirely inconsistent with the disuse of the Veto. The very object of the Veto was to make sure, before some novel legislative proposal was accepted, that we should know what was the will of the people and what the people desired as regards any great revolutionary change of that kind. Thus though the Prime Minister based his case for his Bill partly on an analogy between the Veto of the Crown and the Veto of the Second Chamber, and partly in reference to an historical summary of what has been done since the days of the Duke of Wellington, I venture to say there is no analogy between the Veto of the Crown and the Veto of the Second Chamber, and that the right hon. Gentleman's summary of history was wholly inaccurate from a constitutional standpoint.
The next point the right hon. Gentleman made was this. He said that there was a presumption, particularly in early days, that the House of Commons expressed the will of the people. If the House of Commons really gave an expression of its opinion, one might agree with what the Prime Minister said. But that is not the fact at all. The question is whether the Cabinet for the time being has properly construed what the people have desired, or what was their mandate at the last General Election. That is a different matter altogether, and the reason why we want a Second Chamber is to see whether the views of the Cabinet or of the Ministry for the time being are correct or not. As for talking about the presumption of what the will of the House of Commons may be, we have no will; we have no power of independent expression. The real duty, the real purpose of the Second Chamber is to ascertain whether the Cabinet for the time being or the Ministry for the time being are acting in accord with the real desire of the people of this country, or whether they are putting forward some measure merely for party purposes, and on party lines. It is on that ground that it is essential, if we are to have a Single Chamber system that we should have some method of correcting what the Cabinet for the time being puts forward in the House, in order to discover
1142
whether it is what the people of the country desire, or what they would resent. I do not want to go into particular matters which have been mentioned, but I may take one illustration. I am not going into the question of Home Rule, but I will take as my illustration the Home Rule Bill of 1893. What was the case there? That Bill was passed by a House of Commons which had come back fresh from contact with the people. The question was—did the people of this country desire that Bill to be passed or not? When they had an opportunity of expressing their opinion they said that the views of the Ministry for the time being—Mr. Gladstone's view in fact—were not their views at all, that he had wrongly interpreted the mandate which they gave him, and now they had the chance they had shown him he was wrong and assured him that they did not desire Home Rule in that form at all.
The next part of the Prime Minister's argument was very curious. He said that so far as Law Books were concerned one did not find a distinction drawn between constitutional changes and other legislative changes. I have a threefold answer to that. In the first place the changes—twenty-three in number—which he indicated are not brought forward in the name of constitutional changes at all. They are all exceptions of particular classes of legislation from the purview of the proposed Bill. It is only for his purpose and for his convenience, in order to make a speech that no private Member would have been allowed to make, that he collected these various proposed exceptions under the name of constitutional changes. Secondly, let me say this: As a matter of fact, there is no one in this House who is not perfectly well aware what is meant by the term "constitutional changes." We have not got to go back into musty old Law Books, we have not to peer into Blackstone, in order to construe ordinary, plain, average English language. There is no one in this House or outside who does not appreciate what is meant by constitutional change as against mere ordinary legislative proposals. We know that by constitutional change we mean a change in the mechanism of the governing power in this country; we are not dealing with some legislative proposal which constitutional powers are making. There is a distinction, well known to every Member of this House, and to every student of the English language—there is a perfectly understood difference between changing the Constitution of the country

1143
and asking the Constitution in its present form to bring forward some change which the people of this country may desire.
As regards this particular Amendment, I do not think it is necessary to deal with it at any length, because the real point of the Prime Minister's statement was, not in reference to a particular Amendment, but it presented his views as to the whole purport and intent of Clause 2 of the Veto Bill. He laid down in the strongest possible language, the Single Chamber principle. He laid it down on the basis that the Veto which now exists ought to have been disused. Against the Single Chamber principle every Member on this side protests. It means giving absolute autocratic power to the Cabinet for the time being. I do not want to go into the general question more than to say that it means giving absolute autocratic power to the Cabinet, and that it means also altering our Constitution from top to bottom. It means further bringing about the destruction of the Veto for all practical purposes; indeed the Prime Minister has said that in his view the Veto ought to have been abolished some years ago. On all these grounds, when the division on the Amendment is taken, I shall most heartily support my hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: This discussion on a particular Amendment has taken a somewhat wide scope, and I do not intend in any way to broaden that scope. But one or two of the points which I may take which do not appear to be relevant to the Amendment will be solely directed to the arguments which the Prime Minister brought forward to-day. I think there was a strange inconsistency in what the Prime Minister said, that it was impossible or a matter of enormous difficulty to distinguish between different kinds of legislative proposals and to say this is the kind of Bill which must fall into one category, and this other is a Bill which comes under a different category. It is very strange to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that, when he has passed through a clause separating Money Bills from other kinds of legislation, and laying upon the Speaker of this House—upon one single man, however eminent—the duty of distinguishing between the two classes of measures. Whatever may be said as to the difficulty of distinguishing between constitutional change and non-constitutional change, it cannot be more difficult than
1144
the question of deciding whether the monetary provisions of a Bill are the main substance and the essence of the Bill, or whether the other provisions can be so described. That is at least as difficult a question as any question of what is constitutional and what is subordinate, and yet that great distinction of enormous difficulty, the Prime Minister has affirmed, ought to be made by and imposed upon the judgment of the Speaker of this House. The Prime Minister said there was no precedent in this matter, but there is. There is the precedent of the Parliament of 1653—not a very happy precedent it is true—and the Prime Minister, therefore, is quite wrong in saying that a precedent does not exist, because in the instrument of Government which was imposed by Cromwell upon the Parliament of that time, a distinction was drawn between what were circumstantials and what were fundamentals. What Cromwell said in 1654, talking of the instrument of Government which was then the Constitution of the country, was:—
"I draw a distinction between the circumstantials and the fundamentals of the Constitution. The former you may alter, and I would not have been averse to any alteration of the good of which you could have convinced me. The latter I cannot permit you to alter. There are many circumstantial things which are not like the laws of the Medes and Persians. But the things which shall be necessary to deliver over to posterity, these shall be unalterable, else every succeeding Parliament will be disputing to change and alter the Government; and we shall be as often brought into confusion as we have Parliaments, and so make our remedy our disease."
The words of Cromwell in 1654 show how it was impressed upon his mind that there must be a distinction between those things which could not be altered except after solemn consultation of the will of the people and the ordinary process of legislation. The system which he alluded to only broke down for the want of a tribunal because, in framing that Constitution, no tribunal of appeal was decided upon. But now in this Bill the Prime Minister has fixed and carried through the House for the moment a tribunal—we do not like the tribunal, but it is the tribunal of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker is, according to the Prime Minister, able to deal with the greater difficulty raised by Clause 1, and there is no reason why he should not have jurisdiction in regard to the question to be decided under Clause 2. The Prime Minister spoke of constitutional solution. He spoke of powers going out of existence by desuetude. In this connection he spoke of the Veto of the Crown having gone. Has it gone? I doubt it. I feel with

1145
an hon. Gentleman who spoke before that it remains, and can be exercised. It is true that under the practice of the Constitution it has not been used for the last 200 years, but then the Constitution as it exists will pass away if this Bill becomes law. Meanwhile the power is there, and if it is there why can it not be applied and hold good. The old constitutional objection to it will have lapsed if the Constitution has passed away, and it is there and it can be used should the circumstances arise in which it should be used. The process is very simple. The King has only to send his commissioner to say three words in French and a Bill is dead, and where these powers do remain it is only a question of the circumstances of the moment whether they become effective or not, and whether it might not be the duty of the Sovereign to call them into play.
But apart from that the Sovereign has other means of imposing an indirect Veto upon Bills. It is not so very long ago as constitutional history goes that a Sovereign dismissed his whole Ministry, and it is rather a remarkable thing. The Reform Bill was carried in 1832, and in the autumn of the year 1834 the whole of the first Reform Ministry were dismissed by the Act of the King. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite allude somewhat cryptically at times to the precedent that King William IV. set by intimating that he was willing in certain circumstances to create a sufficient number of peers to pass the Reform Bill. But they do not refer to that other and extremely useful precedent, whereby the whole Ministry of the day, having betrayed their trust and having ceased to be in touch with the people, were dismissed by a stroke of the Royal pen, and to come later than that when the most important in popular estimation of the Ministers of the day was dismissed by the Sovereign in 1852. Therefore the Royal Veto does remain, and it only requires special circumstances to call it into play. The Prime Minister again spoke of the constitutional doctrine that what the people affirmed must become law. I will not go into that matter at length, because my hon. and learned Friend below me has spoken of what happened in 1893. But I must say this, if ever there was an election which was fought on a single topic, it was the election of 1892, which was fought on the question of Home Rule. The matter had been before the House and the country in different forms for six years, and violent agitation had taken place on the question.
1146
An election took place, a majority favourable to Home Rule was returned. The Home Rule Bill was brought in, was carried through this House, and if the doctrine which the Prime Minister enunciated to-night had any relevance, undoubtedly it would have been the duty of the House of Lords to have passed that Bill. But they did not pass it, and the result was that they more truly interpreted the will of the people than the Government of the day. Again, the Prime Minister said, all we shall do by our present proposals is to do away with the unequal treatment that our party is subject to under present arrangements. He said when we are in a majority we cannot pass our Bills, and when you are in a majority you can, and he said we want to make the House of Commons supreme in order that we may have an equal chance with you. But he has forgotten his own Preamble. He has forgotten the whole object of this Bill, which is to set up an independent Second Chamber. If ho sets up an independent Second Chamber would it not have the same power to reject our Bills as to reject theirs? That is the real question between us—whether a truly independent Second Chamber shall be set up, that shall stand as a buffer between the casual majority of the day and the real will of the people, and whether by our repeated declaration and by the resolutions which our leaders have put forward and carried through the other place have made it quite clear that we are willing to take our chance of our Bills being rejected if it is not clear that the will of the people really desires it. The Prime Minister, in making the statement he did this afternoon, entirely ignored the whole of the Preamble and the case on which the Bill rests.
I want to allude to another point which the Prime Minister made? He spoke as if we were proposing by this and other Amendments on the paper an entire reversal of our ancient constitutional practice, but he forgets the innovation he is making himself, and I want to put this point to the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General. What example can they produce of a Constitution of any great country in the world which is at once flexible and Single Chamber? There are certain Constitutions which are Single Chamber—not many, but there are one or two. Norway is one. But is that Constitution vested in a Single Chamber, and does it give omnipotence to that Chamber in the sense that our Parliament is

1147
omnipotent. Again, there are many Constitutions in which no doubt the resistance of a Second Chamber is limited; but in those cases there are fundamental constitutional rules which limit the powers both of the first and second Chambers altogether, and I ask the Attorney-General whether he can give any example of a Constitution of any great country in which at once the Single Chamber, or the First Chamber, has supreme power, and at the same time the Constitution is so flexible that it itself can be overturned by ordinary process of law? I ask him whether it is possible to give any example of that, and if not, it will be obvious that the Prime Minister is asking us in this Bill to embark on a plan for which he can draw no support either from the traditions of this country nor from the experience of any civilised country in the world. I have run over in my mind the Constitution of various countries. In Germany, I believe, constitutional change can come about without special process in the Empire, but then you have the Bundesrath, which is a far more efficient and peremptory Second Chamber than in any other country. I need not go to America because there, not only is the First Chamber not omnipotent, but the two Chambers together with the President, cannot effect a Constitutional change without special reference to the people. I think I could go over them all and show that there is absolutely no warrant unless you go to a few States which are of very small consequence or in an extremely unenviable situation, such as Turkey, in which anything like analogy can be shown to the Constitution as it would exist if the Prime Minister succeeds in getting through this Bill.
Coming from these general points to the special Amendment, with regard to the duration of Parliament, the Prime Minister brushes aside as an impossibility that any Parliament should seek to prolong its own existence. But this Parliament twice has done so successfully, first in 1641 and second in 1715. In 1641 it was done as a precaution against the Sovereign's power of dissolution and under the stress of the circumstances of the time that Bill passed through both Houses, that Parliament should not be dissolved without its own consent and that Parliament went on till 1649, when it was subject to a violent clearance of all those who were distasteful to the Army, which represented the voice of the people at the
1148
time, and the remnant which were left were finally expelled by Cromwell some four years later, which shows that the only cure for Parliamentary despotism is a military revolution, a fact which I commend to the attention of hon. Members opposite. But again, in 1715, Parliament was then authorised only to sit for three years, and resolved to sit for seven, an instance, as the great authority, Maitland, says, of the omnipotence of Parliament, because if it could go on for seven why not for seventy? You have the situation therefore, that Parliament, being omnipotent, is now to have all that omnipotence vested in the Second Chamber. The dangers of its omnipotence were always great, but when the omnipotence is vested in one Chamber controlled by a bare majority and dictated to by the Cabinet of the day, the situation may become grave in the extreme, and may call for very heroic remedies indeed. After all, human nature remains the same. When a party finds itself in circumstances of great difficulty it will resort to very unusual means to get rid of them. Under this Bill any Government that is in power will find itself under circumstances of peculiar difficulty in the last two years of the existence of that Parliament. They may find themselves losing their popularity and at the same time being goaded on by their supporters to pass some special measures, and they will find that the Veto, such as is left of it, of the House of Lords is in their way. If they can prolong their existence, it may be for six months or a year, they will get the two years within which their will may prevail against that of the Second Chamber, and therefore by this very Clause will add a new danger and a new difficulty, because you add a new temptation to the Government of the day to prolong its existence in order that under the provisions of this Clause their will may prevail. If at the end of their third year they can succeed in passing a Bill for prolonging the existence of Parliament six months or a year more, that will give one year more for the exercise of their powers wider this Clause. It may easily be a tremendous temptation to the Government of the day to use their power, or their supporters may force their will upon them, to do it, and as human nature, and English human nature, has twice in the course of constitutional history succumbed to the temptation it is very easy to conceive circumstances under which it will succumb for the third time. There-

1149
fore it shows that if the scheme of the Government is honest and they really mean that Parliament shall sit for five years and no more, they ought in honour and logic to accept the Amendment.
Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend promised that he would not extend the Debate beyond the scope already agreed to. I have the highest opinion of his Parliamentary abilities, but I am perfectly certain it does not lie even in his power to make the Debate wider than it was made by the Prime Minister. I have now been a Member of the House for a long enough time to feel almost as if I were one of its old Members. I have rarely listened to a more interesting speech than that of the Prime Minister, and I could wish that he would give a speech of the same kind on every Amendment which is introduced. But I have never listened to a speech which seemed to me so amazing under the circumstances. It was extremely difficult to understand with what object the right hon. Gentleman began a Second Reading Debate at this stage of our proceedings, but towards the end I think I gathered some explanation of his speech. It had reference to the Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway. If the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) were present, perhaps he could explain why that speech was made at this particular time, although hitherto the right hon. Gentleman has not made speeches of that kind without our being able to see the motive. On this occasion I see no special reason why he should have been made to toe the line.
Mr. CHURCHILL: That is quite unworthy of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Even from that point of view I do not quite accept the right hon. Gentleman as the best possible judge. What I intend to do is to go over, as far as I can, the same ground covered by the Prime Minister. He spent two or three minutes I think in dealing with this particular Amendment moved by the hon. Member behind me. The object of that Amendment was simply to prevent this or some subsequent House of Commons, where the Government had a majority, from making its life permanent for all time. What was the answer of the Prime Minister? He said, in the first place, that that is possible now, if there is a Unionist Government in power with the present House of Lords. That is an argument he is very fond of using, but I am bound to say that I do not see the force of it. Two
1150
blacks do not make one white. We have always understood, at least I did, that one of the objects of this Parliament Bill, which the Prime Minister told us has been submitted to a referendum, was to correct the House of Lords, and was to prevent it from representing merely one party in the State. That seems to me to be one of the weakest arguments that he could possibly bring forward. The Prime Minister says: "You imagine some Liberal Government would wish to continue its existence." But such a thing is not impossible under modern conditions. As my hon. Friend has pointed out it has been done more than once in this country. It was done on the occasion referred to by the Prime Minister in 1715, and the right hon. Gentleman pointed out the reason which caused it to be done at that time. He said that the reason was sufficient to justify it. I am perfectly certain that if the Home Secretary, who is such a judge of what is worthy, were to decide at this moment whether or not the Government of which he is so distinguished a Member—I mean that sincerely—should continue, whether its life should be prolonged, I am perfectly certain that, without any intention of being influenced by his personal considerations, the right hon. Gentleman would instantly come to the conclusion that the interest of the State demanded that this Government should continue, and that we on this Bench should not take their places.
The Prime Minister said further that the Amendment was quite unnecessary because there were checks now upon the powers which were given to the House of Commons under this Bill. I would ask hon. Members opposite what is the value of a check upon the House of Commons which depends upon the House of Commons itself to exercise? There is no check of any kind in this Bill which the House of Commons, if it so chooses, may not throw aside. The Prime Minister in the course of his speech over and over again dwelt on the evolution which has taken place in our constitutional conditions. Ho took it for granted that the House of Commons, returned by the electors of this country, represented those electors and was entitled to carry out its programme because the electors had sent the Members here. I have no desire to go into the general question of Second Chambers; but I would point out this, which is a commonplace to anyone who has given the smallest consideration to this subject, that a great deal of the

1151
trouble which has happened in other countries—for example, in France at the time of the Revolution, and in our own country at the time of the Long Parliament—was due to the simple fact that the men who were fighting for liberty did not recognise that there was a danger on the other side of the tyranny of those in the House of Commons. I say, without going further into the matter, that the Prime Miniser has assumed that the only danger is the House of Lords, while, as a matter of fact, all experience and history show that there is an equal danger in putting too great power into the hands of the House which exists by the votes of the electors. Then the Prime Minister went on to a less general argument. He said that what we are proposing to do is most unconstitutional. He said that we are proposing to set up a different Constitution under which the courts of law would have power to decide certain matters with which they cannot at present deal. I do not think that any spectacle can be more amazing than to see the right hon. Gentleman produce one text book after another showing what the constitutional practice of the country is when he is defending a Bill which is going to do away with the Constitution of the country.
It is perfectly obvious that so long as we do depend upon a Constitution which gives Parliament unlimited power, there is no need for any written Constitution, but this very Bill does attempt to lay down a written Constitution, so far as an Act of Parliament can lay it down, and to suggest that while it is right for a Government which have a majority to lay down a written Constitution to suit themselves, it is wrong to put limits on that Constitution, seems to me to be one of the grossest absurdities. But, as a matter of fact, the whole argument which the right hon. Gentleman used from that point of view does not exist and has no foundation. The Amendment of my hon. Friend is not in the form of any constitutional change. It is a definite subject, The point is that Parliament should not continue its own existence, and if you take any one of the twenty-three Amendments you will find that they all deal with equally definite points, and the Courts of Law would have no more power in these matters than they have to deal with a Money Bill. All that is necessary is to put some section in the Parliament Bill which would exclude a Court of Law from judging and which would make the matter subject to the decision of the Speaker.
1152
There is only one other aspect of the question to which I should like to refer. The Prime Minister said that this Parliament Bill is a machine, and that it is not a machine for show but one to be used. Well, of course it is, but what use it is put to apparently is to depend solely upon the discretion of the Cabinet of the day. I read with great interest the Debates which took place in another place recently, and in which Lord Rosebery and Lord Morley were throwing chunks of quotations at each other. In that kind of contest Lord Rosebery got the better of it, for the books from which the quotations were taken were books written by Lord Morley. One of these quotations seemed to be very germane to the Prime Minister's description of this Bill as a machine. Speaking of the authors of the French Revolution—which is about the stage now reached by the Gentlemen who sit on the bench opposite—he points out that Burke says that power is given to subvert and destroy but not to construct. They have the Parliament Bill, which has its subversive and its constructive side. That side they leave entirely alone. There is no one to construct except such machinery as is fitted for further subversion and further destruction. That is what the Prime Minister truly described as the machinery which he is now setting up. He referred by way of illustration to Home Rule. He says, "Can anyone doubt that I made it perfectly plain to the electors of this country that if they gave us support on the Parliament Bill we were going to use the machine to carry Home Rule." That is a bold statement to be made by the Prime Minister. He, like the rest of us, issued an election address. Election addresses are issued for the one purpose of putting before electors not only questions of importance, but questions which are going to come up in the Parliament to which they seek election. The Prime Minister never mentioned Home Rule. Of course, Prime Ministers are very busy. They have a great many things to occupy their minds, and possibly he forgot all about it. But what about the Irish Secretary (Mr. Birrell), whom I am glad to see here? One would have expected him to remember it. But it escaped his memory, and there is not a word about it in his election address. But the right hon. Gentleman, in one of his speeches in Bristol, I think the day before the poll—and I am told that there are a great many Nonconformists there—
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): And in other places too.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Who quite approve of limiting the power of the House of Lords, but are not specially fond of Home Rule. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman said "Home Rule was one of the questions which ought to be left, and should be left to the judgment of the people." Then, he added, which is most significant—perhaps he attached a different meaning from that which I attach to the words: "If some of these persons present thought that Liberals would smuggle a Home Rule Bill through the House of Commons three years following, all he could say was that their ignorance was beyond conception." I agree their ignorance of the lengths to which this Government will go. The Prime Minister said that some of us had spoken of the possibility of passing Home Rule in this Parliament when it had not been, in the words of the Chief Secretary, submitted to the people as equivalent to a fraud. I am one of those who have said more than once on the platform, and I am glad to have the opportunity of repeating in the House of Commons, that I consider it would be one of the greatest frauds that have ever been perpetrated on the country. I do not suggest for a moment that the gentlemen who sit on that bench have more than their own share of original sin. Recently I have gone through an experience which I hope never to have again, and that is two elections within three or four months. I am bound to say that the effect of that experience on me has been for the moment to make it difficult to adopt the attitude of considering that everything we say is angelic and that everything that comes from them is from the point of view of fallen angels. That is difficult after you have done it twice running. I do not take that view. I do not say that they are much worse than other people; but I do say this that they have been subjected to an unusual temptation, and they have not had the power to resist it. They are precisely in the position which was foreshadowed by Mr. Gladstone in 1885, when he said that much as he admired the Liberal party, he could not trust them if they depended on these gentlemen for votes. They do depend on these gentlemen for votes, and I doubt if there is one of them who trusts himself.
Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman has delivered to us a speech with all his
1154
usual precision and lucidity, and with less than his usual controversial asperity—considerably less. Most cordially I beg to acknowledge that. But I think the last few sentences of the hon. Gentleman reveal a danger which he should be on his guard against. He told us that he was arriving at a more philosophical frame of mind, that chastened by the experience of two successive General Elections, he was not able to adopt the position that everything on one side of the House was quite white and everything on the other side was jet black. That is a very satisfactory state of mind for him to arrive at. But I hope that arriving at it he will not fall into the danger of assuming a too condescending attitude, because it is a form of philosophy which is so very superior in discussion that however proper to my mind it may be it seems to be irritating in its effect when addressed to persons whom the philosopher regards, after all deductions have been made, as hopelessly misguided and wrong. The only other flaw in the tone and manner of the hon. Gentleman's speech was his reference to the suggestion that the Prime Minister's speech to-day had been dictated by some ultimatum presented to him by the hon. Member for Waterford. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman, if he will only apply a portion of that philosophic mood which he developed under the stress of two elections to that proposition, will feel that however good it may be with which to begin a debating speech in the House of Commons he is perfectly well aware that there is not the faintest shadow of truth in the suggestion. But then the hon. Gentleman followed the line of the Leader of the Opposition in making a very harsh criticism of the Government, be-cause they declined among other things to exempt from the scope of the Parliament Bill Home Rule, and he said, as the Leader of the Opposition said, that this was a fraud on the country, that they had not been probably advertised of the fact, and he suggested that they had no idea that the Parliament Bill would be used for such a purpose and so forth. And then he referred to the fact that people did not mention it in their election addresses. It is quite true that a good many people only mentioned one subject in their addresses at the election. They only mentioned the subject of the Parliament Bill because that was the specific issue.
Mr. BONAR LAW: If none of us, or only a few of us, had mentioned Tariff Reform in our election addresses, would we have been justified in bringing in a Tariff Reform Budget?
Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think there is any formal constitutional point attached to anything that is mentioned in an address when an election is fought as this last one was upon the actual emergency of the Parliament Bill. It is true that many candidates confined themselves solely to that Bill, and did not mention, in their address, a number of other subjects of which they were in favour. So far as I am concerned I never mentioned Home Rule in my address—I only mentioned the Parliament Bill. I have no desire to push my words in an election address into undue prominence, but since the challenge has been thrown across the floor of the House I have taken the trouble to verify my references to Home Rule, and I say there is no reference to Home Rule in my address. But I made sixteen speeches in England and Scotland, in all of which I referred at length, or at any rate in a number of sentences, occupying eight, ten, and twelve lines of the report, to the subject of Home Rule. But it does not rest on the utterances of a particular Minister. We went through all this matter at this time last year. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said: "You are seeking to use this instrument for a purpose the country never dreamt you would use it for." But last year they specifically asked us by Amendment across the floor of the House of Commons to exclude Home Rule from the scope of the instrument.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If this discussion is continued now it cannot be repeated on subsequent Amendments. I think it would be better that it should not be raised on the present occasion, as I have already pointed out to two hon. Members on the other side.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I should be very sorry to go against your ruling, Sir, and will not say another word on the subject I have made my point, and I need not discuss it further. I have got all the material here which will enable me to drive it home, but it may be taken for granted. I will refer specifically to the subject of the Amendment which is before the Committee. I have only one word to say on that, following the hon. Member for Hackney, who quoted me. The party opposite
1156
are not very fortunate in their quotations, and I would really urge upon the hon. Gentleman the importance of attempting to do justice to the quotations he makes. The hon. Gentleman quoted a passage from a speech of mine, and I said to him "That leads up to a 'but,'" and I have now been able to verify my statement, and I may be excused for one moment if I read the whole quotation. The hon. Gentleman quoted:—
"But I quite recognise what the Noble Lord has said as to the danger of the Government, in the declining years of its power, seeking to make itself immortal by prolonging indefinitely the life of its Parliament. But we have all been—"
I went on to say:—
"But we have all been through that danger; we have all passed through that danger during the years of Conservative predominance, when the party opposite had a majority in the House."
Then I went on further to say that the Noble Lord did not attach sufficient importance in his speech to the provision which limits the duration of Parliament to five years. Then the Noble Lord spoke of Parliament in the sixth year prolonging its existence beyond the quinquennial period. I went on to say:—
"And when the Noble Lord speaks of Parliament in its sixth year prolonging its existence it is quite clear that he was not bearing in mind the provision of quinquennial Parliaments which, after all in the first instance, will be established by the Resolution which we are now asking the House to assent to. Even if he had been bearing that in mind, the period required to pass legislation through the House would, in addition, be so long that legislation could not be passed within the time. It would only be in the third year at the very latest that some step of this kind would be taken, whereas all these years in which the Unionist party had a majority we had been exposed to their taking this step, which they would be much more likely to take towards the end of their tenure of office than in the earlier period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1910, cols. 1255–56, vol.16.]
10.0 P.M.
Mr. CASSEL: The point is that this Amendment seeks to prevent the five years' period to which the right hon. Gentleman attaches such importance from being extended.
Mr. CHURCHILL: My point was that the hon. Gentleman should not select one single sentence of the speech and take it from its context in order to support his contention, when it was quite apparent from the whole context of the passage that it did not support his argument, and was of an entirely opposite character. I am sure he did not use the quotation he made in that way intentionally; it was one of the quotations which had been worked for him, and this is one of the evils of verifying quotations by proxy. I

1157
am sure, however, that the hon. Member will say now that a most improper use was made of one sentence detached from the context, so as to represent an entirely different set of arguments from that which the context supported. I put the quotation from my speech in the same category of sloppy quotations with which we have been familiar in the important affairs of Canada at an earlier period. I want to ask a question of the Leader of the Opposition, and to put a point for his consideration, on the subject of the course of our Debates. It is quite true the Prime Minister widened the discussion of this Amendment very largely beyond the limits which were permitted in regard to an earlier Amendment, but as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition knows it has often been found convenient, where there is a variety of Amendments referring to one particular point, that the House should have an opportunity on one Amendment of discussing the whole of the subjects raised by the Amendments, where the Chair permits it, and it is the general wish of the House that it should be done. It is obvious if the Leader of the House widens the discussion other Members who speak afterwards naturally wish to have the same privilege and advantage. I want to ask the Committee, as far as it can be ascertained by the process of discussion, whether they think it will be of advantage to them and to the party opposite in particular that the general discussion on which we are now engaged should be prolonged for a much longer period this evening, or whether they prefer we should get on almost at once to the various specific Amendments on which they propose to take the sense of the House? The Government have not got a strong opinion one way or the other, but we have a strong opinion that there must be some reasonable limit to the number of ways and the number of forms in which the question of exemption can be presented, and we hope at an early period on Monday to reach a point when the question of exemption in all forms will be definitely decided. If that be so, and if it is generally recognised as being a reasonable proposition, as I have no doubt it is, it would be a good thing for the Committee to consider at this juncture whether they would prefer to take the Debate in a perfectly general method, or whether they would like to choose and keep on to specific Amendments, which raise definite questions of principle in succession.
Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has made an appeal to me to which I will do my best to respond. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that I commented upon the very wide extent over which the Prime Minister had taken the discussion, an extent which was in rather sharp contrast with the rulings from the Chair on earlier Amendments which had been closured at the instance of the Prime Minister. I entirely agree with the general dictum laid down by the Home Secretary, that it is convenient for the House that the Leader of the House should have, for the interests of the House, latitude given to him, and I think the Chairman perhaps is right in extending a latitude to him which is not extended to less distinguished Members. There are occasions on which it is undoubtedly right that the Leader of the House should be able to deal in a rather broader spirit with a question than would be allowed under the strictest rules of debate. I confess I thought that the Prime Minister not merely used that legitimate weapon given to the Leader of the House, but I thought he wandered not merely away from the twenty-three subjects of exemption which he found on the Paper, but that he went into a great Second Heading Debate on general principles as to Single-Chamber Government. Whether I am right or wrong in that commentary, I do not in the least complain of the Prime Minister having brought into the purview of his speech other Amendments than those with which we are immediately dealing. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to ask whether in my view it was a convenient course for the Committee to proceed to treat all those exemptions in one Debate and regard the one Debate as settling the fate of every exemption. Frankly, I do not think that that would be possible. It is perfectly true that the Prime Minister flatters himself, or at all events thinks, he has got an argumentative battery which may be equally directed against every one of those Amendments and that that battery is so placed that from whatever point the enemy approach they will equally be mown down by his artillery. That may be the Government view. But I do not think that the Committee will be acting in accordance with precedent or would be acting with propriety if it were to lay down now on the first of these Amendments the doctrine that any Gentleman who desired to propose one of the other exemptions was to be excluded because the Government beforehand announced that, sheltered

1159
behind their batteries, they were not going to tolerate any advance from any quarter.
I do not think that the Government are necessarily as deaf to reason as they pretend to be. I see no grounds for thinking that on some of those subjects ray hon. Friends may not be able to show to the Committee that there are really special and substantial grounds, seriously worthy of the consideration of the Committee and of the country, why particular subjects should be excluded from any general condemnation which the Government chose to pass on these lists of exemptions. The Government say they can accept none. But I think the House ought to hear the reasons why the more important of these subjects should not be excluded. I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite carry their desire to support the Government to a point at which they are resolved not to hear any special argument which may be addressed with regard to special questions. Let us grant that a particular item and argument is decided upon, or at all events has been listened to and dealt with in the Debate, yet special reasons still remain to be dealt with. I think it would really be a very bad augury for the future discussion of this Bill if we were to accept the view that because the Government think they have got an argument equally applicable, like a universal patent medicine, to everything which they consider a disease, if for that reason we were not to deal with particular subjects which vary in all these different cases. Under those circumstances I do not think, as far as we are concerned, that we can accept this discussion as deciding the general question. How long the discussion is to last does not depend on me. Speaking for myself, and for most of my Friends, we are clearly of opinion that we ought to be allowed to have the opportunity of dealing specifically with all the main points, and all the main exemptions which have been put on the Paper, and of having them separately and severally decided on by the sense of the Committee.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I listened with great pleasure both to the Prime Minister and to the Home Secretary, and perhaps I may be allowed to say, as the Home Secretary complimented the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Bonar Law), that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary spoke with very unusual absence of provocative element in his speech. As I
1160
understand, this Amendment raises the important question whether the House of Commons is by its own authority to have the power to extend its own duration. It also raises the question that there is a distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental laws. It seems to me that the first argument that is used, or rather the argument that is most relied on, is first of all that you must have a system fair to both sides, and that if you leave to the House of Lords absolute Veto on fundamental changes of law you are applying something which restricts the Liberal party owing to the alleged bias of the House of Lords, and that it does not restrict the Conservative party. That argument is not in any respect sound, but it is singularly unsound in respect of fundamental changes of law. It is quite true that the Conservative party, much more rarely than their opponents, produce controversial legislation. I do not think anyone can point to a single instance in which the Conservative party have ever proposed a change in the law which could properly be called a fundamental change. The Education Act, the Licensing Act of 1904, the Agricultural Rates Act—they were controversial measures, but no one would call them Bills that touched the fundamentals of the Constitution. There is a very great change, in which, though I am not concerned, my hon. Friends are, which is not fundamental—namely, Tariff Reform; but in respect of that my right hon. Friend has publicly declared that they are prepared to accept the special safeguard of a reference to the people. In reference to this particular controversy the argument of being fair to both sides does not apply. I do not think it is in any case a good argument. It pre-supposes always that Conservatism is the same thing as Radicalism, which is much the same as saying that standing still is the same thing as running forward: that is to say, it supposes that pedestrian traffic is as dangerous as motor traffic. I always thought it an unsound argument, and it conspicuously does not apply in this case.
The Prime Minister said once again tonight what he has said before, and it is really the cardinal point of his argument, that the House of Commons must be taken as representing the wishes of the people—the "opinions of the people" I think was his phrase; I do not profess to be quoting him exactly from memory—on all the questions which are before the public mind and which are dealt with by that particular House of Commons. I venture to say

1161
that that was never true. No House of Commons represents the will of the people on all the questions that come before it. How could it? Do hon. Members think, for example, that if they had submitted the Licensing Bill or the Education Bill of 1906 to a vote of the people either of those measures would have passed? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I am very confident that neither one nor the other would have passed. They themselves were vehemently of opinion that the Education Act of 1902, carried by the Conservative party, would not have passed, and that it was adopted only by a House which had been elected on other issues. I do not believe you could find a single House of Commons which, if you went through the controversial legislation that it passed, could claim on every single Bill that the people really required that measure. The true doctrine of representation is that the Members of this House are elected to exercise their own judgment, not to carry out mandates from the people at all. The old-fashioned doctrine is that we sit here as a free assembly to exercise our judgment, and, acting on our own judgment, we are, in the broad sense, representative—in the sense that we are trusted to use our best political ability, but not in the narrow sense at all. That old doctrine is as dead, I will not say as Quern Anne, but as Mr. Burke; it began to die in his day; it was moribund for some time, and now it is quite dead. No one thinks that the modern House of Commons acts in that fashion. We then fall back on the idea that the will of the people should prevail. But you cannot possibly have the will of the people prevailing merely by trusting the House of Commons to do exactly as it likes. It may be done by the referendum. It may be done by the Second Chamber, and if you do not like your present Second Chamber, make a better one. But merely to say that the House of Commons, elected as it is by the people choosing between two sets of partisans, also on a system grotesquely disproportionate—as in the case of the present Parliament, because there is a majority only of thirty-five in the coalition that is carrying this Bill—should do it will not do. Therefore, you have, on these two grounds alone, to mention no other, an absolute inconsistency between the conception that the House of Commons represents in a mirror-like sense the country. We say as to the principle of this Amendment that for matters of a fundamental character you must have some check, some power to go behind the House
1162
of Commons in order to ensure that the will of the people is to be carried out.
The old traditional system was that the existing Constitution, with all its faults—and all its advantages—did that. You do not like it! If you want to make a complete change on rational lines you will reform the Second Chamber and make a better Second Chamber, or establish some form of reference to the people, but least of all will you give to the House of Commons absolute control over issues, however important and fundamental. The right hon. Gentleman said that the powers of the House of Lords had been disused, and therefore there was no dangerous innovation in his restricting them. But he overlooked the fundamental distinction between disuse and statutory restriction. What is disuse? When a power is disused it shows that people do not want to use it. When Parliament or the Crown gives up one of its powers, allows one of them to fall into disuse, they do so because there is no occasion to employ it. If it is taken away by a party vote, that only represents a minor part; it does not represent the whole. I would like to impress upon the Commitee the real importance of the issue. We are here face to face with a departure from universal experience. There is no country in the world that has a Constitution like the Constitution the Prime Minister proposes to set up, as he has described in his speech. There is no great country in the world that allows a Single Chamber to decide not only on matters of ordinary law but on fundamental matters. I do not believe there is a country in the world that allows a Single Chamber to prolong its own existence. Therefore the Government are unjustified by any precedent. You are asking us to believe that the people of this country at the late election contemplated what you are doing. What is your argument? That we in some instances urged the dangers upon the country! You might as well say that everyone who loses his watch in a railway station where there is a warning against pickpockets deserves to lose it. Of course, you are warned against the danger, but that does not mean that the criminal or the thief is not to blame. It does not mean that those who suffer acquiesce. It was the business of the Opposition to say what they did to warn the country, and it turns out to be true. But both political parties say contradictory things at the General Election. When the people decide it is not that the Government have said the truth, but that the

1163
Opposition case is false. But it turns out that the case we put before the country was true: that the very things we warned the country that the Government were intent on doing they are intent on doing; and the Government are not ashamed. All that we said was true. The country voted against us, and the Government take that as a justification of what they are now doing.
We are engaged on the path of revolution. You are departing from the very essence of the principles of democracy, and the test is that there is nothing which hon. Members opposite shrink from so intently as any proposal to refer any of these questions to the judgment of the people. That is the true test of the matter; we stand by the people, you shrink from their judgment.
The PRIME MINISTER: I venture to appeal to the Committee to come to a decision upon this Amendment, and afterwards we can come to the specific questions mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I think it is most important we should now come to a decision on the main point of the general debate and proceed to the others as soon as possible.
Mr. BALFOUR: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, as he makes an appeal to us, to say what is his view as to the future course of the debate. Are we to have a very long sitting to-night and go on indefinitely on Monday? What is the right hon. Gentleman's view as to the future?
The PRIME MINISTER: We have no view as to the future. Our view is we shall come to a conclusion if possible at eight o'clock on Monday on this particular question.
Mr. HUNT: I do not think I quite understood what the Prime Minister intended to convey. If we are not to have another clear and wide general debate like this on this Clause, as I have not spoken at all upon this Bill, I think I am justified in going on now. I think from what the Prime Minister and various Gentlemen opposite have said, the Government will not accept any compromise, and therefore I think we are justified in fighting all we can. According to the Government, the Lords are never again to have a chance of giving the people an opportunity of deciding for themselves whether they will have a certain Bill or whether they will not, however oppressive or revolutionary
1164
that Bill may be. Yet I would remind the House the Lords have never yet prevented any Bill becoming law which the people really decided they wanted. I could give pretty good evidence as to that. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) told us in December, 1906, that:—
"The Upper Chamber had always shown far more wisdom than to oppose their will to the will of the people when the will of the people was emphatically and clearly expressed,"
He also told us that—
"If he had to choose between the House of Lords and the American Senate he should certainly plump for the House of Lords."
I think that was very good advice. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, who has just been sent to the other Chamber, said very much the same thing. He said:—
"Whenever the nation has been in earnest in regard to a measure the House of Lords have, in the end, offered no obstacle to it."
In spite of that the Liberals want to do away with any check on Liberal legislation whatever. It comes about that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) told his American supporters at Buffalo in April, 1910, that:—
"Our first business was to clear away the block, the block of the House of Lords, That accomplished Home Rule was as good as accomplished as well."
Then the hon. Member for Mid-Glamorgan (Mr. J. H. Edwards) told us that:—
"The Welsh Members also intended to fret rid of the Lords' Veto so that they might disestablish and disendow the Church in Wales."
The hon. Member went on to boast that everyone of the Welsh Members was pledged to Disestablishment, but he forgot that the Welsh Dissenters are more priest-ridden—I ought to say Nonconformist-minister ridden—than any other civilised people in the world. The pressure put upon the people in Wales was so severe that Calvinistic ministers told them that if they vote for the Tories they will go "Doon, doon, doon!" [HON. MEMBERS: "Encore."] Yes, they will go "Doon, doon, doon" with the Roman Catholics and the black cannibals. Against this combination the Unionist party in the Lords surely must fight to the last. [An HON. MEMBER: "Before they go 'Doon, doon, doon.'"] If the Lords give way they will be no further use to anybody. I do not believe the Government will ever have the pluck to create 500 lordly mushrooms. For months the Liberal papers have been trying to bluff the House of Lords. I cannot believe the present Government would be allowed by their supporters, even if they wished, to put up a really effective

1165
and useful Second Chamber. The Prime Minister told us it would take a very long time, however much we might agree as to the change, to set up a Second Chamber instead of the House of Lords. It seems to me, therefore, from the Prime Minister's own statement, that if this Bill becomes law the formation of a reformed Second Chamber will and must be indefinitely put off.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is giving an even wider extension to the Debate, and he is not in order now.
Mr. HUNT: I have every wish to bow to your ruling, but I rather thought this was a Second Reading Debate, and was
first started by the Prime Minister. However, the Prime Minister has the advantage of making two Second Reading speeches on the great subject, and he also has the opportunity of going to bed when he likes. I and other poor Back Bench Members cannot do any of these things. I hope I may have another opportunity of saying the things which I really have got to say on this question, and that I shall not be closured out by the Government the next time I try to have a go on this Bill.
Question put, "That the word 'any' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 150.

Division No. 161.]

AYES.

[10.40 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Duffy, William J.

Lundon, Thomas

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Acland, Francis Dyke

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Addison, Dr. C.

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

Elverston, Harold

Maclean, Donald

Agnew, Sir George William

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Alden, Percy

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

Essex, Richard Walter

M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Fenwick, Charles

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Manfield, Harry

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Ffrench, Peter

Markham, Arthur Basil

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Marks, George Croydon

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Fitzgibbon, John

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Martin, Joseph

Barnes, George N.

Gill, A. H.

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

Glanville, Harold James

Masterman, C. F. G.

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Meagher, Michael

Barton, William

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

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Beauchamp, Edward

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Hackett, John

Millar, James Duncan

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

Hancock, J. G.

Molloy, Michael

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Mooney, John J.

Black, Arthur W.

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

Morgan, George Hay

Booth, Frederick Handel

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

Morrell, Philip

Bowerman, C. W.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nolan, Joseph

Brace, William

Hayden, John Patrick

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Brocklehurst, William B.

Hayward, Evan

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Henry, Sir Charles S.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

Higham, John Sharp

O'Doherty, Philip

Byles, William Pollard

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Dowd, John

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Holt, Richard Durning

Ogden, Fred

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

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Grady, James

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

O'Malley, William

Clancy, John Joseph

Johnson, W.

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

Clough, William

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Clynes, John R.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

O'Shee, James John

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Jowett, Frederick William

Parker, James Halifax

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Joyce, Michael

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Keating, Matthew

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

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Kellaway, Frederick George

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Crooks, William

Kelly, Edward

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Crumley, Patrick

Kilbride, Denis

Pirie, Duncan Vernon

Cullinan, John

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Pointer, Joseph

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

Pollard, Sir George H.

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

Lansbury, George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Dawes, J. A.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Delany, William

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Lewis, John Herbert

Radford, George Heynes

Dillon, John

Logan, John William

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Doris, William

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Sheehy, David

Wardle, George J.

Reddy, Michael

Shortt, Edward

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

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Snowden, Philip

Whyte, A. F.

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Wiles, Thomas

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Wilkie, Alexander

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Summers, James Wooley

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Sutton, John E.

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

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Tennant, Harold John

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

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Rowlands, James

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Rowntree, Arnold

Toulmin, George

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Young, William (Perth, East)

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

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Verney, Sir Harry

Scanlan, Thomas

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Walters, John Tudor

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

NOES.

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

Finlay, Sir Robert

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Aitken, William Max

Fisher, William Hayes

Newdegate, F. A.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Newman, John R. P.

Anstruther Gray, Major William

Fleming, Valentine

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Nield, Herbert

Baird, John Lawrence

Foster, Philip Staveley

Norton-Griffiths, J.

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

Gardner, Ernest

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Baldwin, Stanley

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

Gibbs, George Abraham

Parkes, Ebenezer

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gilmour, Captain John

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Goldsmith, Frank

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

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Grant, J. A.

Perkins, Walter Frank

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Gretton, John

Ratcliff, R. F.

Barnston, H.

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

Haddock, George Bahr

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Rothschild, Lionel de

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Bigland, Alfred

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bird, Alfred

Hardy, Laurence

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Bottomley, Horatio

Harris, Henry Percy

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bull, Sir William James

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Stanier, Beville

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Butcher, John George

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Campion, W. R.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Cassel, Felix

Hunt, Rowland

Swift, Rigby

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Sykes, Alan John

Cator, John

Joynson-Hicks, William

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Cave, George

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kerry, Earl of

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

Walker, Col. William Hall

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Larmor, Sir J.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Clive, Percy Archer

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

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

Courthope, George Loyd

Lewisham, Viscount

Waring, Walter

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Craik, Sir Henry

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wolmer, Viscount

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

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

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Dalrymple, Viscount

MacCaw, Win. J. MacGeagh

Worthington-Evans, L.

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Macmaster, Donald

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Younger, George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

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

Mount, William Arthur

Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) after the word "any" ["If any Bill other than a Money Bill"] to insert the word "public."
On the First Clause I moved an Amendment to exempt Private Bills from the
1168
operation of that Clause and that Amendment was accepted. It applied, of course, to the limited class of Money Bills, but I do not understand that the Government will have any difficulty in accepting the Amendment on this Clause. It will

1169
be rather a serious thing if, directly or indirectly, this Bill were to break down the system of Private Bill legislation that has acted so admirably and of which I believe we are all proud. It is quite true that the case of this Clause is not quite the same as it was on the First Clause, because on the First Clause a Private Bill once passed through this House would immediately pass into law, and consequently the procedure of a Committee in the House of Lords would be rendered futile. It is true that providing for the two years' delay does make a difference in this case. The case is not perhaps quite so strong, but I submit all the same it is a very strong case because undoubtedly it would upset the theory of private Bill legislation. It would relegate the Committees in another place to an inferior position to those of this House. No case has ever been made against the private Bill Committees of the House of Lords. I believe it has been generally accepted that these Committees do their duty quite as well as the Committees of this House, but passing this Clause would relegate them to a second place, and must have some reacting effect on the Committees of this House, because the procedure of private Bill Committees is of a judicial kind, and it is of the essence of a judicial system that it should be subject to appeal. I ask the Committee to maintain the private Bill system of legislation which has always worked admirably, and I am certain it was not the intention of the Government in proposing this legislation to interfere with this system.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): As the hon. Member has pointed out there is a very broad distinction between the Amendment on Clause 2 and the Amendment which was accepted by the Government on Clause 1. In Clause 1 we were dealing, of course, with Bills intended to deal with public money and with a procedure which was at any rate, according to our view, in accordance with constitutional procedure. On the First Clause, when the Government accepted the insertion of the word "public," the object and the effect was simply to declare what we understood and persistently asserted to be the constitutional position with regard to Money Bills, and therefore it was naturally expected that the Government would have accepted the insertion of the word "public." Under the First Clause the procedure which is enacted under it is more drastic than under the
1170
Second Clause. But when we come to consider the insertion of this word for the purpose of the Second Clause the Government finds itself quite unable to accept it There is all the difference in principle between the use of the word as applied to Bills under Clause 1 or Clause 2, and in dealing with Clause 2 it is difficult to see why the House of Commons should not have the right to deal just as well with private Bills as with public Bills. Under the procedure which we are setting up you may have very important matters dealt with under a private Bill. Take, for example, a very good instance, the Bill whch dealt with tramways over Westminster Bridge. That was a very good instance of a private Bill which ought, if dealt with by the House of Commons and passed in three successive Sessions, to pass into law just the same as a public Bill. It is difficult to understand on what principle you are to draw a distinction because if you make the principle apply to larger measures why should it not apply to the smaller measures as well? It is quite right to say, and hon. Members have no doubt borne in mind, that in most instances the House of Lords would not be refusing to pass a private Bill sent up three times by the House of Commons. If so, there is no harm done, but if the House of Lords asserts its rights as against the House of Commons, then we see no distinction to be drawn between the two classes of Bills, the more especially when it is borne in mind that in the second Clause there is a safeguard in the provision as to three successive Sessions and the period of not less than two years from the introduction of a Bill. We see no reason to accept the Amendment. We say that this ought to apply to Bills of whatever character, large or small, if they go up to the House of Lords under the procedure provided by Clause 2.
11.0 P.M.
Mr. BALFOUR: After the speech of the Prime Minister before dinner we have realised that the Government have now determined upon Single-Chamber Government being nailed to their mast, but I think they are now making an extension of that system which surely from the point of view of the Prime Minister himself is unnecessary. If he applies his own doctrine to the House of Commons when it comes direct from the purifying influences of platform controversy, and requires no possible correction or safeguard from any Second Chamber, let us for the sake of argument assume that this new constitutional theory is to be accepted by the

1171
House, are we to extend it to what is called Private Bill legisation? Our Private Bill legislation has been commonly held to be the result of judicial decision. The Committees by whom the House is practically guided sit as judges, and before them appear counsel learned in the law, or at all events learned in the law of gasworks and railways. It is commonly admitted that, whatever else is to be said of the procedure of the two Houses our Private Bill procedure has been marked by an element which in foreign countries has not always been present when great financial transactions are concerned—the element of absolute purity. The decision of the two Houses, and certainly not less in the other Chamber than here, has been characterised, if not by absolute wisdom, at all events by absolute disinterestedness, and no touch of that corruption which is a growing difficulty of some very free communities has ever found its way into the Private Bill legislation of this country. Grant that there is this element of judicial impartiality in Private Bill legislation, does not that make a differentiation which the Government would do well to consider in the treatment of Private Bills and Public Bills under Clause 2 of this measure? The idea apparently of the hon. and learned Gentleman is that when this House has decided three times a Private Bill should pass into law and override the opinion of the House of Lords. Assume, for the sake of argument that whatever the House of Commons says three times is true in all matters of public concern, still when we are dealing with the House of Lords, that assembly, the strings of which are manipulated by the wirepullers of this House, chiefly by myself, at all events nobody on this side of the House manages a Private Bill. At all events it will be admitted that in dealing with Private Bill legislation, the House of Lords has never been animated by anything in the nature of party passion. No one will deny that with their judicial, or semi-judicial functions they have done their work admirably, and everyone has perfect confidence in the honesty and impartiality of their decisions. When we came to Private Bill legislation there is no question of this Second Chamber always working in favour of one political party. All that is out of the question when you come to Private Bills. The Government are overloading their Bill, they have piled on to
1172
it to-night Home Rule and other trifling matters of that sort. If they now add private legislation, if they insist that we are to have Single-Chamber Government, not only with regard to the Constitution of the country, but with regard to the rights of every corporation, and every private individual who may be touched by Private Bill legislation, if every corporate interest in the country is to be in their hands the Government will certainly lose whatever little credit remains to them with regard to the careful framing of the Constitution. I venture most earnestly to appeal to them to give way on a point, on which they have already given way, with regard to the first Clause, on which no great party issue is or can be involved, and in view of that happy time in future when the Prime Minister will seek to have his own way and will have created a Second Chamber which is a perfect mirror of public opinion, I do think he ought not to put in the Bill that this perfect Second Chamber are not capable of performing with a judicial spirit functions which even these wretched Peers have by the universal consent of all sections throughout the country performed in a manner that has elicited the admiration of every impartial critic.
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Government have no general indictment to make against the House of Lords as to the manner in which they conduct the Private Bill legislation that comes before them. Nothing of the kind is imputed in our proposals. But there may be cases in which it might be just as necessary for the provisions of Clause 2 to be applied to disputes between the two Houses over a Private Bill as in disputes over a Public Bill; and, indeed, within the memory of all of us, there was one particular instance mentioned by the Attorney-General in which the House of Lords, in reference to a Private Bill, did commit a very obvious blunder that caused great inconvenience to large numbers of the citizens of London, year after year, by rejecting a most reasonable proposal to enable the tramcars to cross the river. [HON. MEMBERS: "No; only once."] I was under the impression that it was more than once. The fact remains that the blunder, as it certainly was, was not persisted with unduly. Unquestionably cases might arise in which a similar incident might occur to the great detriment of the public interest. If the error was repaired then there would be no question of this

1173
Clause operating in such a case. It is only where the error is persisted in year after year that this Clause would apply. There might be cases of Bills partaking of the nature and form of Private Bill legislation which raise even larger questions of public policy than that which was involved in the particular instance I have mentioned. Clause 1 stands on a completely different footing. In Clause 1 we are endeavouring to give the force of law to what is the existing custom and practice. There is no doubt that under the existing custom and practice the House of Lords does deal with Private Bill legislation, even if it includes money clauses. We have no desire to go beyond the existing practice in regard to Private Bill legislation, but we establish the rights of the House of Commons in a manner in which they have not hitherto been established, and we see no reason why Private Bill legislation should be excluded from the principle sought to be provided for in this Clause.
Sir F. BANBURY: The Postmaster-General referred to the Westminster Tramways Bill, the Second Reading of which in 1905 was carried by the casting vote of the Speaker, there having been a tie on the Division. The Speaker, in giving his casting vote for the Second Heading explained that he did so in order that the Bill might be reviewed again by the House of Commons. The Bill went to the House of Lords and was rejected, but seeing that the House of Commons was so equally divided that the Speaker had to give his easting vote, that was no great enormity on the part of the House of Lords. What was the previous history of that Bill? During the four or five years it was before the House, it was, I think, carried on the Second Reading once, though I am not quite certain; but, at any rate, it was rejected only twice by the House of Lords and more than twice by the House of Commons. I think the example brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman is an extremely bad one.
I never for a moment thought that any Government, even a Government headed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, could possibly come down and state that they intended this Clause to apply to Private Bills, as well as Public Bills. The Second Reading of Private Bills is taken at ten minutes to three o'clock in the afternoon, when the House is very empty, and I venture to say that, unless there is some very special subject on which certain Members are agreed, not
1174
ten out of the 670 Members know what is in those Bills. Those Bills then go to a Committee of four Members out of 670, and, subsequently, come down to the House. Consideration takes place, again at ten minutes to three, and again, unless there are some Members who have got some grievances they wish to air, in nine cases out of ten there is not a single Member who knows what the Committee has done or what the Bill is about. If there is objection to the consideration the Chairman of Ways and Means in most cases gets up and says that the Committee have heard the evidence and fully considered the case, and that therefore as the House knows nothing about the Bill and has not heard the evidence, it is not advisable to upset the decision at which the four Members have arrived.
Under those circumstances we come to this, that it is not the House of Commons that is to be paramount, but four Members on matters which are vital to so many in this country. I have often wondered why it is considered by all parties in this House that Private Bills take up time and ought not to waste the time of the House at large. Those Bills deal with the enormous question of the investment of funds in this country, and this applies more particularly to hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, because unless capitalists are prepared to come forward for the projects authorised by those Bills employment will not be given to the people. Therefore, I think those Bills are of vital importance. It cannot be denied that to place such Bills under the supreme control of four Members and allow no appeal or revision cannot possibly conduce to the prosperity of financial enterprise in this country. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said that these Bills partake of a judicial character and that the four Members sit as judges with counsel appearing before them. There is not a single court of first instance in this country from which there is not an appeal, though those courts consist of judges who have made administration of the law the study of their lifetime. Now we are going to take four Members, who may be recently elected and who have no experience of these committees, and they are to give a judicial decision from which there shall be no appeal.
Surely the Government are not going to maintain such an unreasonable proposition. There is no question of party feeling or party politics in a matter of

1175
this sort, and it must be remembered that the House of Lords contains a large number of people eminently fitted to decide upon these matters. There are Members who have had great experience as Members of this House, and when in the House of Lords they are capable of combining their experience in this House with their experience in the House of Lords, and of adjudicating fairly upon this question. It cannot be said that the fact that there is a Conservative majority in this House will alter the decision of the committee of four who sit in the House of Lords. That was an argument brought forward against the last Amendment. There cannot be any doubt that if the Committees of this House give their decision fairly and impartially, those of the House of Lords do the same. If there is any difference in qualification, I should say that the Members of the House of Lords are more qualified than Members of this House to sit as judges. If the Prime Minister is prepared to say, "We intend that this House shall be paramount in everything; the House of Lords is to be only a sham and a delusion, a gilded Chamber to which we may send those of our supporters who are desirous of being called 'My Lord,' and contribute sufficiently to the funds of the party; we intend to keep it for that purpose and for that purpose only," I have nothing more to say. But unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to say that, I maintain that this Amendment is necessary, and no argument has been advanced to show that its adoption would in any way injure the Bill or interfere with the desire of the Government to be masters in their own house.
Mr. BALFOUR: I wish to ask a question which is most important. A public Bill is always introduced in this House; the House passes it three times, and then it becomes law automatically. But Private Rills are not necessarily introduced in this House; I am not sure that this House can decide even whether a Bill should come first here or in the other House. That makes the whole principle absurd. The whole of this rule evidently depends upon Bills being first introduced here and then rejected elsewhere. If Bills are not introduced first here, what becomes of your rule? It loses all significance. I should like to ask what is the rule now existing with regard to the House in which Bills are first introduced?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Any Bill, not only a Private Bill, can be introduced in the other House, except a Money Bill. Clause 2 does not apply to Money Bills. Precisely the same procedure will apply to Private Bills as to Public Bills.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I want to urge a new point of very great importance. I do not think the Committee properly realises what the rejection of this Amendment means, or what consequences it entails on the procedure of this House. I refer to the method of introducing Private Bills. The Prime Minister said that new machinery was to be set up. He is perfectly aware that notices for the introduction of a Private Bill have to be given in November. When that notice has been given, petitions are presented by those who have interests opposed to the Bill. This Clause allows three Sessions within two years. It cannot be possible within two years three times to give notices and provide for the presentation of petitions against these Bills. This is a point of the greatest importance. When various interests are attached they have the opportunity of presenting a petition and of being heard by Counsel before a Committee. Take the case given by the hon. and learned Gentleman. A Bill is brought forward by the London County Council as a Private Bill. Notice is given in November, and many hon. Gentlemen here who have sat on the Council know that as many as twenty or thirty petitions are presented by different interests who require a locus standi in order to be heard by the Committees appointed by both Houses. The Prime Minister will see that this is actually curtailing the powers at present existent in regard to Private Bill legislation within much closer limits than with regard to Public Bill legislation. There cannot possibly be more than two Sessions instead of three, and it will be very difficult even then to give notice so as to enable justice to be done to those interests who are opposed to and are concerned with, the Bill.
Private Bill legislation has been evolved through a long series of years with a view to safeguarding all the interests that may be involved. We propose now to do away with it by not giving the same protection to those concerned in Private Bill legislation as to those who are affected by Public Bills. There is no question in regard to the decisions of the House of Lords having commended great confidence. They have not been in the least dictated by party

1177
politics. My main point is that a general formula will not cover this case. If I may be forgiven for saying so, great master of words as the Prime Minister is, he is apt to be governed by formulas in regard to these Clauses. The right hon. Gentleman lays down a general rule and says there can be no exception to it. I do not know whether he appreciates the point. I do think it is an important one. I ask him to consider it in view of the advice that will be given to him by his law officers.
The PRIME MINISTER: I think it is a matter for consideration. If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment, I shall be glad to consider it on Report.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the matter will be favourably considered on Report I withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move the Amendment in my name—amended as suggested, and consequent on the Clause preceding it—after the word "Bill" ["If any Bill other than"] to insert the words "not being a Bill which alters or repeals any enactment affecting the Protestant succession to the Throne, and."
The grammar of the Amendment may not be beyond reproach, but I hope I may be able to secure the assent of the right hon. Gentleman to the sentiment. It is the first of the twenty-three exemptions which the right hon. Gentleman earlier in the evening attempted to annihilate at one fell swoop. It is becoming, I notice, an increasingly common cause of procedure for the Treasury Bench to make an apparently very generous speech and say the point is an important one, and therefore it is not desirable to have a general discussion from that point of view, and so confine to the narrowest possible limit the discussion on the subsequent Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman has adopted that course, and he has then grouped all subsequent Amendments under one category, the category of exemptions to the general rule. I quite agree this Amendment falls in that category, but I also think, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there may, and I think there are special reasons why an Amendment of this character deserves some consideration from the Committee, apart from the general principle. What-
1178
ever may be said against this Amendment, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take the course of saying that this Amendment is designed to meet a contingency not likely to arise. I hope whatever course he may take that is not the one he will adopt, and for this reason.
We are legislating in this Bill, unique among Bills introduced into this House, not only for a present stage of Parliamentary development, but for all future Parliamentary time, and it may well be that a time may come when a Government sitting upon the Treasury Bench in circumstances not dissimilar to the present Government, may be dependent upon, or perhaps I may say subservient to the Nationalist party below the Gangway, whose loyalty to the Protestant succession is, to say the least of it, as doubtful as the loyalty of some of their associates is to the Throne itself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] What about the Dublin Corporation? Hon. Members treat that statement with some dissent. May I ask them whether they dissent from the views of the Dublin Corporation? [HON MEMBERS: "Question." "Address the Chair."] I apologise to the Committee for having been led by these interruptions into making allegations. All I said was that it may well be that circumstances may change, and we have to recognise that we are legislating not only for present contingencies, but for all future situations. That is the worst of writing the Constitution; when you begin you have to go on, and you have to provide for all contingencies that may arise. I will not pursue an aggressive line of controversy, but I put it to the Committee that unless we make some provision as this I am suggesting this House will be for the first time in all our Constitutional history arrogating to itself a right and privilege and Constitutional position, which it has never taken in the, past, and which I do not believe it is entitled to claim in the future.
I am not going to follow the Prime Minister into his very interesting Constitutional oration, but it is within the knowledge of everybody, of course, that the Act of Settlement which established the Protestant succession to the Throne was the work, not of any one House or Estate of the Realm, but of Parliament itself. It has always been the Constitutional practice existing during the period from the time of Henry VIII. down to the expulsion of James II., when the doctrine of hereditary right was insisted upon, that

1179
Parliament itself should concern itself with the succession to the Throne. When Parliament concerns itself with that matter it concerns itself with it as being the function not of one Estate of the Realm, but of all the Estates of the Realm. The truth of that is to be found in the words of the Proclamation, in which His Most Gracious Majesty is put before the Commons. The words of the Proclamation do not refer to the House of Commons. As everybody knows, there is a meeting of the Privy Council and other distinguished gentlemen, and the Proclamation which issues is one to say that His Majesty is recognised in succession by whom? Not by the House of Commons, but by the Lords Spiritual, Temporal, and others. Under the proposal of your Bill, lightly or wrongly, it would be possible in a future State—I mean a future Parliamentary Stale—under this Bill for this House to take away from one of the Estates of the Realm that part in the control of the succession to the Throne which in the past it has exercised. I do not believe for a moment that that is the intention of the Government, but it is a contingency against which you have to provide.
There is another point which I wish to raise. Up to the present moment, and I suppose until the Preamble is brought into operation, the Members of the House of Lords sit there by virtue of a summons from His Majesty himself. If we are going to take away from the other House all power to determine the succession to the Throne, surely it is an absurd thing that you should have people sitting there to legislate by virtue of a summons from the occupant of the Throne, over the succession to which they may have no control whatever. I do not think that is logical, and I am sure it is not constitutional. Although I agree that the contingency against which the Amendment provides may be an exceedingly remote one still when you begin to write your Constitution you must write it all. I hope that whatever answer the right hon. Gentleman gives he will not say that this Amendment is entirely unnecessary because he thinks the contingency is one which is not immediately present or likely to be present
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I hope the hon. and learned Member will not think me disrespectful if I do not enter into the historical retrospect which he has presented to the Committee. This question
1180
was fully covered by the general reply which was given with so much completeness and force by the Prime Minister earlier in the afternoon. This is the second of twenty-three proposals on the Paper for exemptions from the provisions of Clause 2, each one of which is open to the fundamental objections which the Prime Minister voiced in the earlier part of the Debate. If there is one matter in regard to which it is less necessary than another to exempt from the provisions of Clause 2 it is this very question of the Protestant succession to the Throne. The hon. and learned Member cannot suggest that the House of Commons, controlled as it is by the constituencies, with ample opportunities for the consideration of the matter, is not to be trusted to deal as the country desires with a matter on which the electorate is particularly sensitive. No conflict is likely between the two Houses on this question, and there is no reason why a special provision should be made on this particular point. To do so would be to commence a category of organic laws separate and distinct from all other laws objection to which has already been expressed. It would involve the creation of a judicial tribunal to decide whether any particular matter did or did not fall within either category, and for these reasons the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to shelter himself behind the general proposition laid down by the Prime Minister which was intended to cover the twenty-three exceptions from the operation of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman says this is the second of those exceptions. He is quite mistaken; it is the third. The second of those exemptions was the one just moved by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. James Hope), and on that the Government have already given way.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, it is completely different.
The PRIME MINISTER: No, I only said we would consider it.
Mr. BALFOUR: I am sure, if the Committee had understood by the formula of the Prime Minister—perfectly well understood formula—that he did not mean to consider it favourably, the Amendment of my hon. Friend would not have been withdrawn; in fact, when my hon. Friend got up to withdraw I remember the phrase he used was "favourable consideration," and

1181
no dissent was expressed from that Bench. What I rose to point out was that the broad contention of the Prime Minister has been abandoned.
The PRIME MINISTER: Not at all.
Mr. BALFOUR: Let me remind the Committee what it was. The Prime Minister got up before dinner and said if this rule of the supremacy of the House of Commons was to be universal they could admit of no exemptions. He gave reasons for that opinion and said: "These are the reasons we shall have to urge on each Amendment." The very first Amendment which comes up is one on which that reason is abandoned by the Government.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman devoted a most interesting speech to proving that Private Bill legislation was completely different from Public Bill legislation, and ought to be exempted from the Clause.
Mr. BALFOUR: Certainly, there are special reasons applying to that Amendment why you may think, quite apart from the Prime Minister's general declaration of policy, it ought to be excepted.
The PRIME MINISTER: That was the only ground on which I said we would consider it.
Mr. BALFOUR: May there not be special grounds with regard to each Amendment? That is the whole point. You cannot dispose of these twenty-two exemptions in the manner suggested by the Prime Minister or the right hon. Gentleman, and they have shown themselves they cannot do it by the course they have been compelled to take on the very next Amendment that came up. They were quite right, and I hope they will show equal impartiality with regard to all the other Amendments. Leaving now the general argument of the Prime Minister and the defence which the right hon. Gentleman borrowed from his Leader, may I ask whether the Committee really thinks such a question as the Protestant succession ought to be decided by one House of Parliament apart from the other. It is a thing which obviously ought to be done by Parliament as a whole. I agree the contingency is extremely remote, and if it occurred the chances of any difference between the two Houses is extremely remote; but I say if it were to occur Parliament, as our forefathers understood it and
1182
as we understand it, ought to decide anything so momentous as the Protestant succession of the Throne. I am confident the country are with us, and I do not see why the Government cannot give way and accept the Amendment. They have just wasted by their obstinacy half-an-hour of our time on an Amendment on which they ought to have given way at once.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I put it to the Government that there are special circumstances in regard to this Amendment. The Protestant succession would be established by Act of Parliament; any vacancy in the Throne would be declared by Parliament. If Parliament were to deal with the succession the whole machinery of the Clause would be inappropriate. The country would be much too excited to allow of two years' delay. By assenting to this Amendment the Government would sacrifice none of the real purposes of the Bill, but they would be sure of public sentiment, which is deeply concerned in this matter.
Captain CRAIG: The Postmaster-General, in words which were unmistakable, said that in the future this House would be controlled, as in the past, by the constituencies and electorate and would be subject to any passing feeling. But this Bill takes away all possibility of the control of the constituencies after the Parliament has been elected. It takes away all the sentiment to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, because four years might elapse in the life of a Parliament before this very critical question could arise. The answer of the Postmaster-General was one of the emptiest I have ever heard. There is no question that if this Bill becomes law the very point which the right hon. Gentleman has made cannot arise. We have been complaining that if this Bill goes through another is to be immediately rushed on the top of it although the constituencies have not been consulted and although the "sensible pulse" of the people has not been felt. Therefore there is the danger that a Parliament, elected in February or March under the Parliament Bill, may eventually have to decide a question of succession to the Throne, and under this Bill a Parliament elected for something entirely different may take upon itself to perpetrate a step which is repugnant to the whole feeling of the country, and the country will have no opportunity whatever of voicing its feelings.

1183
Hon. Members have been decrying the House of Lords. Their object is to sweep it on one side. But the Lords live in the constituencies all the year round and take far more personal interest in the people than hon. Members—whatever their desires can possibly do, if they are kept in close attendance here. Noble Lords live in their constituencies, if I may call them so, in close touch with the people and know the humblest people in their parishes far better than hon. Members of this House do. They are better able to judge of the feeling of any locality at any given moment when a real, solid crisis arises than Members of this House. Does any hon. Member of this House deny that many times when there is a vacancy a candidate is sent down at the last moment who does not know the constituency and whom the constituency does not know. I think that has a great bearing upon my hon. Friend's Amendment, because when there is a great crisis and the pulse of the people has to be discovered I would guarantee that a Member of the House of Lords living on his estate and doing his best for local people and local interests would be a much better judge as to this matter of grave importance than someone who had been sent down by the Patronage Secretary to
fight a seat in a distant part of the country and who is unknown to the people. The Prime Minister in his generalisations failed to recognise, because this question was not immediately important, that if it was found necessary by the Radical party to recommend a patent Constitution they must be prepared to face these grave situations which are bound to arise. I support my hon. Friend in his Amendment, and I think that to leave to a chance majority in this House the question of a grave Constitutional change and the power to pass through a Bill dealing with say, the succession to the Throne without allowing deliberation to the other House, would be an absolutely suicidal proceeding on the part of those who value the Constitution. I think in a case of that sort we should have the advantage of the assistance of all the Estates of the Realm, and not leave it to a House which might possibly be elected as this House has been under false pretences.
The PRIME MINISTER 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, 198; Noes, 125.

Division No. 162.]

AYES.

[11.5 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin)

Clough, William

Hackett, John

Abraham, Rt. Hon. W. (Rhondda)

Clynes, John R.

Hancock, John George

Acland, Francis Dyke

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

Agnew, Sir George William

Crawshay-Williams, Fliot

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Alden, Percy

Crooks, William

Haworth, Arthur A.

Allen, A. Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Crumley, Patrick

Hayden, John Patrick

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Cullinan, John

Hayward, Evan

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Helme, Norval Watson

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

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

Higham, John Sharp

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Dawes, James Arthur

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Barnes, George N.

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Holt, Richard Durning

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

Dewar, Sir John Alexander

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Dillon, John

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Barton, William

Doris, William

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Beauchamp, Edward

Duffy, William J.

Johnson, William

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

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Black, Arthur W.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Edwards, J. H. (Glamorgan, Mid)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Elverston, Harold

Jowett, Frederick William

Brace, William

Esmonde, Dr. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Joyce, Michael

Brocklehurst, William B.

Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.)

Keating, Matthew

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Essex, Richard Walter

Kellaway, Frederick George

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fenwick, Charles

Kelly, Edward

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

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Kilbride, Denis

Byles, William Pollard

Ffrench, Peter

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Fitzgibbon, John

Lansbury, George

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

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Chancellor, Henry G.

Gill, Alfred Henry

Levy, Sir Maurice

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lewis, John Herbert

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

Logan, John William

Clancy, John Joseph

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Lundon, Thomas

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

Lyell, Charles Henry

O'Shee, James John

Sheehy, David

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Shortt, Edward

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Maclean, Donald

Parker, James (Halifax)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Pearce, Robert (Staffordshire, Leek)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

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

Summers, James Woolley

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

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Manfield, Harry

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Tennant, Harold John

Markham, Arthur Basil

Pointer, Joseph

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Marks, George Croydon

Pollard, Sir George H.

Toulmin, George

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Meagher, Michael

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Verney, Sir Harry

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

Walsh, S. (Lancashire, Ince)

Millar, James Duncan

Radford, George Heynes

Walters, John Tudor

Molloy, Michael

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Mooney, John J.

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

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

Morgan, George Hay

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Morrell, Philip

Reddy, Michael

Wiles, Thomas

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Wilkie, Alexander

Nolan, Joseph

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Rowlands, James

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

O'Doherty, Philip

Rowntree, Arnold

Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

O'Dowd, John

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

Young, William (Perth, East)

Ogden, Fred

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

O'Malley, William

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

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

Scanlan, Thomas

NOES.

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

Fleming, Valentine

Neville, Reginald J. Neville

Aitken, William Max

Fletcher, John S.

Newdegate, F. A.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Foster, Philip Staveley

Newman, John R. P.

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Gibbs, George Abraham

Nield, Herbert

Baird, John Lawrence

Gilmour, Captain John

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

Goldsmith, Frank

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Baldwin, Stanley

Grant, James Augustus

Parkes, Ebenezer

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

Greene, Walter Raymond

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gretton, John

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

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Perkins, Walter Frank

Baring, Capt. Hon. Guy Victor

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)

Haddock, George Bahr

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Barnston, Harry

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Rutherford, J. (Lancs., Darwen)

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Harris, Henry Percy

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Bigland, Alfred

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Bird, Alfred

Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

Sandys, George John

Bottomley, Horatio

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Stanier, Beville

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stanley, Major Hon. George (Preston)

Bull, Sir William James

Houston, Robert Paterson

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Burn, Col. Charles Rosdew

Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Butcher, J. G.

Hunt, Rowland

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Joynson-Hicks, William

Swift, Rigby

Cassel, Felix

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Cator, John

Kerry, Earl of

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

Cautley, Henry Strother

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Cave, George

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

Walker, Col. William Hall

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Lawson, Hon. H. (Tower Hamlets)

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Lewisham, Viscount

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

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Courthope, George Loyd

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

Craig, Captain James (Down, E)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wolmer, Viscount

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Dalrymple, Viscount

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

Macmaster, Donald

Younger, George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

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

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Valentia and Mr. Forster.

Finlay, Sir Robert

Mount, William Arthur

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 199.

Division No. 163.]

AYES.

[12.0 m.

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

Fletcher, John S.

Neville, Reginald J. Neville

Aitken, William Max

Foster, Philip Staveley

Newdegate, F. A.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gibbs, George Abraham

Newman, John R. P.

Baird, John Lawrence

Gilmour, Captain John

Nield, Herbert

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

Goldsmith, Frank

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Baldwin, Stanley

Grant, James Augustus

Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

Greene, Walter Raymond

Parkes, Ebenezer

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gretton, John

Pease, Herbert Dyke (Darlington)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

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

Baring, Capt. Hon. Guy Victor

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastb'rne)

Perkins, Walter Frank

Barlow, Montagu (Salford, S.)

Haddock, George Bahr

Ratcliff, R. F.

Barnston, Harry

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hamilton, Marquess of (L'nderry)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Rutherford, J. (Lancs., Darwen)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Harris, Henry Percy

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bigland, Alfred

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Bird, Alfred

Hill, Sir Clement L. Shrewsbury)

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Bottomley, Horatio

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Sandys, George John

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzoy

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stanier, Beville

Bull, Sir William James

Houston, Robert Paterson

Stanley, Maj. Hon. George (Preston)

Burn, Col. Charles Rosdew

Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

Staveley Hill, Henry

Butcher, J. G.

Hunt, Rowland

Steel-Maitland. A. D.

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Joynson-Hicks, William

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington N.)

Cassel, Felix

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Swift Rigby

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Cator, John

Kerry, Earl of

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N)

Cave, Geoerge

Knight, Capt, Eric Ayshford

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Lawson, Hon. H. (Tower Hamlets)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Lewisham Viscount

Ward, A. S. (Herts Watford)

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

Courthope, George Loyd

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Dalrymple, Viscount

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

Wolmer, Viscount

Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macmaster, Donald

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Younger, George

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Finlay, Sir Robert

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount

Fleming, Valentine

Mount, William Arthur

Valentia and Mr. Forster.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Abraham, Rt. Hon. W. (Rhondda)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Hayden, John Patrick

Acland, Francis Dyke

Crooks, William

Hayward, Evan

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Crumley, Patrick

Helme, Norval Watson

Agnew, Sir George William

Cullinan, John

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Alden Percy

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Higham, John Sharp

Allen, A. Acland (Dumbartonsh.)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

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

Holt, Richard Durning

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Dawes, James Arthur

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Delany, William

Hunter, Wm. (Lanark, Govan)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Dewar, Sir John Alexander

Johnson, William

Barnes, George N.

Dillon, John

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

Doris, William

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Duffy, William J.

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Barton, William

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Beauchamp, Edward

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Jowett, Frederick William

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

Edwards, J. H. (Glamorgan, Mid)

Joyce, Michael

Black, Arthur W.

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Keating, Matthew

Booth, Frederick Handel

Elverston, Harold

Kellaway, Frederick George

Bowerman, Charles W.

Esmonde, Dr. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Kelly, Edward

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N)

Kilbride, Denis

Brace, Wiliam

Essex, Richard Walter

Lambert, Geo. (Devon, S. Molton)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Fenwick, Charles

Lambert, Richd. (Wilts, Cricklade)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Lansbury, George

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ffrench, Peter

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Levy, Sir Maurice

Byles, William Pollard

Fitzgibbon, John

Lewis, John Herbert

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Flavin Michael Joseph

Logan, John William

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Gill, Alfred Henry

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Cawley H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lundon, Thomas

Chancellor, Henry G.

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

Lyell Charles Henry

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hackett, John

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Clancy, John Joseph

Hancock, John George

Maclean, Donald

Clough, William

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Clynes, John R.

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

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

1188

1189

Manfield, Harry

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

Smith, Albert (Lancs. Clitheroe)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Marks, George Croydon

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Summers, James Woolley

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Pointer, Joseph

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Pollard, Sir George H.

Tennant, Harold John

Meagher, Michael

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Toulmin, George

Millar, J. Duncan

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Molloy, Michael

Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Radford, George Heynes

Verney, Sir Harry

Mooney, John J

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Walsh, S. (Lancashire, Ince)

Morgan, George Hay

Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

Walters, John Tudor

Morrell, Philip

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

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Nolan, Joseph

Reddy, Michael

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

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Richardson, Thos. (Whitehaven)

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Wiles, Thomas

O'Connor, John (Kildare)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Wilkie, Alexander

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen)

O'Doherty, Philip

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

O'Dowd, John

Rowlands, James

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Ogden, Fred

Rowntree, Arnold

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

O'Malley, William

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

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Wood T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Young, William (Perth, East)

O'Shee, James John

Scanlan, Thomas

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Sheehy, David

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Shortt, Edward.

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Pearce, Robert (Staff'rdsh., Leek)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Mr. BALFOUR: I hope the Government will now consent to adjourn the Debate. We are past the hour of midnight, and I do not think much useful purpose will be served by continuing the discussion. I beg to move to report Progress, and perhaps the Government will express then-view.
Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government's view on the subject is that we want to get on. We are anxious to get on and make good progress. Our only desire is that the debate should be as effective as possible, and that the points selected by the House for discussion should be the most debatable and arguable points which can arise in the course of this Bill. But we want to get on. We have at this stage several Amendments, one of which is the Home Rule Amendment, to which I think hon. Gentlemen opposite attach the most importance. That is the Amendment on which they would most rightly make their main challenge on the question of exemption, and if that be so we should be very anxious to give them every opportunity in the best possible Parliamentary time that we can.
I must enter my caveat that the early hours of the afternoon are reckoned within the sphere of the best Parliamentary time. We must allow ourselves a longer period; than that. But the view of the Government, as I ventured to observe earlier this
1190
evening, and as the Prime Minister already stated, is that we ought to reach by the dinner time on Monday the termination of all this discussion in all its various forms on the subject of what should be exempted from the scope of the new anti-veto provision. That is our view. I am quite willing to admit that it will require the exertions of the House to come to that point. Certain I am it is necessary for the proper progress of the Bill. Having carefully examined the Notice Paper and the general position of the discussion, I am confident we ought and that it is proper and necessary that we should reach that point if we are in any way to fulfil the general outline and object with regard to time which the Government have repeatedly laid before the House since the beginning of the Session. Therefore, if we are not to settle the Home Rule Amendment and one or two important Amendments to-night, and if we are to begin the Home Rule Amendment on Monday, it ought to be upon a general understanding, I do not say a hard and fast Parliamentary bargain, but a general understanding that we should get rid of this whole subject of exemptions before the dinner on Monday next.
I have been looking into the subject very attentively, and I daresay if the right hon. Gentleman takes that view there are several things might be done. Either we might go to bed, and begin the discussion of the Home Rule Amendment on Monday, and have a full and regular

1191
Debate on Monday, with the fullest publicity which attaches to the afternoon proceedings, and settle the whole question of exemptions before the dinner hour on Monday, or we could in the second place, perhaps with leave of the Chair and with the approval of the Committee, transpose some of the Amendments so as to deal with some of the minor Amendments now, the least important, to clear the way for the discussion of the Home Rule Amendment, so that we finished at the dinner hour. Or, again, if there is no sort of possibility of our reaching, I do not say a bargain at all, but reaching a general measure of assent or acquiescence on those lines, then we must take the third course, which is to lay our heads together and butt into the work that lies before us; but I do not think there is any great advantage' to be gained by that. I venture to submit to the House that it might consider whether we should not consider some of the other propositions now for a reasonable period until the House has been satisfied that they have been satisfactorily dealt with, and then we should begin on Monday and settle this question of exemption by the dinner time on Monday.
Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is very satisfactory. He suggests if nothing else can be done that we should butt into the Bill. That seems to be the only use most hon. Gentlemen opposite can make of their heads. Let the right hon. Gentleman consider the remaining Amendments on the Paper. I will take only two of the remaining twenty—those dealing with the disestablishment of the Church and the alteration of this Bill itself. Let the Committee remember the Government are now by way of making a final arrangement, or at all events an arrangement final in our time, between the two Houses. But there is no security whatever that that arrangement shall be final. If you leave it to this House as a Single Chamber, you alter the whole basis of the topic we are discussing. We may be wrong in thinking that this topic ought to be put outside the scope of the arrangement. I should have thought there were many arguments from the Government's own point of view for saying that whatever arrangement is come to should have a certain permanence, and not be capable of alteration at the fleeting will of a fleeting majority. Everybody must admit that the Home Rule question and many others are very im-
1192
portant. How are we to get these through decently and in order to-night and on Monday before dinner? The magnitude of these questions is undoubted. The Prime Minister could not be here on Tuesday and cannot be here to-night. He is the Minister in charge of the Bill. I really think that to ask us to discuss these questions at an unearthly hour of the morning and in the absence of the Leader of the House, who is not merely the Leader of the House, but actually the Minister in charge of the Bill, is asking the Committee to do something which has never been asked before. I think the right hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will see that he must relax the rigour of the suggestion he has made. If he insists on carrying it out, I am afraid there is nothing left for us to do but to proceed to the best of our ability.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I should be sorry if we embarked on the process which I described in a phrase upon which the right hon. Gentleman has so wittily rallied me, without every reasonable effort having been made to avert it. I still think it is necessary for the reasonable progress of the measure that we should reach the conclusion of the many aspects of exemption from the Bill, in which, after all, the same question is discussed in many forms. I recognise that there are two outstanding questions. There is the great question of Home Rule, which has been taken as typical of the most important exemptions hon. Members opposite wish to make. Then there is the question of the instrument itself, which we agree is another matter of importance. We have very little to give away in the matter of time, and I only throw out the suggestion, without binding the Government at all. After what the right hon. Gentleman has said and the appeal he has made, I would suggest that we should finish off the small Amendments to-night, that we should deal with Home Rule by dinner time on Monday, that after that we might settle the question of the instrument itself, and that we should, before the end of our proceedings on Monday, get the word "is"—that is only nine words in two days—which would effectually dispose of the question of exemptions. It is with a great desire, not for peace, but for a regulated combat rather than a long, dragging quarrel, that I put forward this suggestion. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider it, but the suggestion is made with a sincere

1193
desire to meet the request he has made. We ought to get rid of these exemptions at a reasonable hour. Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) will fall in with the suggestion?
Lord HUGH CECIL: I understand that the alternative is between sitting late now and sitting late on Monday. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, then, I do not quite understand the position, for the Government can carry the sitting on late on Monday if they are not satisfied with the progress made. But I do not think it will be possible to debate the three Amendments mentioned by my right hon. Friend on Monday, in view of the fact that we are going to debate Home Rule. In that case the only question between the two sides of the House is whether we should take the Amendments to-night or on Monday. There is no advantage in any case in sitting late to-night and again on Monday.
Mr. BALFOUR: The Amendment now before us, Mr. Emmott, is that you should report Progress. The Amendments that follow on the Order Paper are those standing in the names of the hon. Members for Tamworth (Mr. Newdegate) and for the Ashford Division (Mr. Laurence Hardy). The first one desires to add after the word "Bill" ["If any Bill other than a Money Bill"] the words "which has been referred to a Committee of the whole House"; and the second proposes after the word "Bill" to insert the words "to the discussion of which any resolution for limiting the time of Debate in the House of Commons or in Standing Committee has not been applied." These two Amendments are more or less analogous. They deal with procedure and stand in a somewhat different relation to that on Home Rule or Disestablishment or the other great matters to which I have referred. I would suggest that on Monday we should deal with Home Rule and continue late to finish the remaining business.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I assume that by the time we have arrived at the word "is" on Monday night we shall be able to review the position. If the word "is" be secured, we should then be in the hands of the Opposition in regard to the lateness and the time that we should sit, for it will effectually dispose of the question of the exemptions.
There is only one other Amendment which I think it would be convenient to dispose
1194
of to-night, and that is the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen University (Sir Henry Craik) which seeks to insert the words "introduced by a Minister on behalf of His Majesty's Government," and then we could leave the other three to be disposed of on Monday.
Mr. BALFOUR: I think what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman might form the basis of an arrangement. Of course, it will be understood that during the course of Monday's sitting we do get to the word "is," but there should be no methods of curtailing debate—I mean no "Kangaroo," no specially drastic methods of closure. If the Government choose to ask for ordinary closure, that is another matter, but there should be no moving down the Amendment paper to certain words under what is known as "Kangaroo" closure.
Mr. CHURCHILL: We shall certainly try to get "is," and after that we shall be in the hands of the Opposition as to how the time is employed. I venture to suggest we should not be forced to have a very late sitting.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. NEWDEGATE: I beg to move in Sub-section 1, after the word "Bill" [If any Bill other than a Money Bill is passed], to insert the words "which has been referred to a Committee of the whole House."
If, as the Prime Minister said in the early part of the afternoon, we are in future to be ruled by a single chamber, it is very essential that Members in this House should have an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon the Committee stage of any measure brought before the House. In the old days the system of Grand Committees did not exist. Up to 1883 all Bills introduced into this House were discussed in Committee in the whole House. After that time two Standing Committees were set up, one for law and justice and the other for trade, and those two Committees were supposed to be non-controversial. Legal Members were appointed to the Committee of law and justice, and commercial and business men were put on the Committee on trade, because they possessed technical knowledge upon these subjects. In 1907, shortly after the Liberal Government came into Office, they thrust an enormous amount of work upon the House which it was not possible to discuss upon the floor of the

1195
House; and Standing Committees A, B and C and a Scotch Committee were substituted for the two Standing Committees, and a Standing Order was passed by which all Bills after Second Reading should, ipso facto, go to a Standing Committee, unless the House by a motion decided otherwise. There were certain exceptions which I need not quote. The late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, when he introduced the new rules, said on the 26th of March, 1907:—
"It is the intention of the Government that all important controversial Bills shall be discussed in the House and not in Grand Committee."
I could go on adding to these quotations, but I will not do so at this late hour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If hon. Members go on jeering me I will go on with the quotations.
The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will address the Chair it may have a calming effect.
Mr. NEWDEGATE: If hon. Members do not know how to behave themselves and be courteous I cannot help it. In order to save the time of the Committee I said I should not go on making further quotations, and then hon. Members below the Gangway jeered at what I said. If we are to have practically only a Single Chamber we ought in this House to be able to sit in Committee upon any measure brought before the House of Commons. According to the new rules applied to Standing Committees there are only seventy Members who sit for particular Bills with fifteen added. In regard to all our proceedings in this House I think it is necessary that a full report should appear of what goes on. It is well known that what goes on upstairs is not fully reported in the newspapers.
I have a list of some of the Bills which have been brought before Standing Committees which were considered of first-class importance, and which I think, if we are going to have only a Single Chamber ought to be discussed in Committee of this House. In the year 1907 there was the Bill dealing with Criminal Appeal. That was brought before Standing Committee B. In the same year the Factories and Workshops Bill was also brought before that Committee. A Bill dealing with Vaccination was brought before Standing Committee C, and so was a Bill dealing with Small Holdings and Allotments, all of them dealing with
1196
matters of considerable importance. In the year 1908 the Irish Universities and the House and Town Planning Bills were brought before those Committees and were not thoroughly discussed across the floor of this House. The same remark applies also to the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill. In the year 1909 Bills dealing with the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday, the Closing of Licensed Premises on Election Days were brought before Standing Committee A. and the Labour Exchanges Bill was brought before Standing Committee C. In 1910 Bills of very considerable importance like the Weekly Rest-Day Bill for the Police, and the Bill dealing with Accounts and Returns of Railway Companies were brought in the first instance before Standing Committee A, and in the second instance before Standing Committee B.
So long as there was a House of Lords to check what went on in this House, it did not matter so much about Bills being referred to Standing Committees, but if we are to have only a Single Chamber we should have an opportunity of discusing these matters, which are of very great importance to the people of this country, across the floor of this House. The other day, when the new Coal Mines Bill was introduced, the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Fenwick) said it wanted very careful consideration by the Members of this House, and he used these words:—
"The present Bill, I understand, is to be sent to a Grand Committee. In 1887 we had no Grand Committees. The Bill was considered in Committee of the whole House, and all Members interested had an opportunity of taking part in the discussion of any substantial Amendment that was brought forward, Under present circumstances, the utmost limit of the Committee upstairs is eighty, so that about only one-eighth of the House will be engaged in considering the provisions of this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1910, col. 2662.]
Those are the words of a Member respected on all sides of the House, and I say with all sincerity, if we are to have Single-Chamber Government, we ought to be able to discuss these Bills on the floor of the House of Commons. Our constituents believe, when Bills are brought before the House of Commons, we have a share in the discussion of them, but we know it is nothing of the sort. We know most important Bills go upstairs and comparatively few Members have an opportunity of saying anything at all on Bills which very often affect their constituents very vitally. I would urge the Government, as they are making this change in the Constitution of the country by which Bills will not have to run the gauntlet of

1197
the Second House as well as the first, that they should in future, instead of sending important Bills up to Grand Committee, give Members of this House an opportunity of discussing them in Committee, and so thoroughly dissecting them.
The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to change one word. The usual phrase is "Committed to a Committee."
The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Joseph Pease): I cordially agree with the hon. Member that, if we are to have a one-chamber system of government, we ought at least in this House to have an opportunity of debating every Bill upon the floor of this House, but, of course, I dissent, as no doubt the hon. Member will realise, from his proposition that we are in future going to have a one-chamber system of government. Under our present system, an opportunity is always given for every Bill sent to a Grand Committee to be considered by every Member on the floor of this House before the Third Reading. We not only get an opportunity on the Second Reading of discussing every measure, but also on Report, and of course we always get an opportunity on the Third Reading. Under the proposal of the Government the procedure will have to be conducted over three separate Sessions, so this House will have a full opportunity of discussing these measures before there is any possibility of them being carried over the heads of the House of Lords.
With regard to the character of the Bills sent upstairs it was the intention of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman that Bills of first-class importance and controversial character should be retained in this House for their Committee stage. I admit that some difficulties have occurred between the two sides as to which Bills are of first-class importance and which are of a controversial character, but taking the position broadly, only that class of Bill is retained for discussion in Committee on the floor of the House, and it is only uncontroversial Bills such as have been referred to that are sent to Committee upstairs. Reference has been made to the Mines Bill. That was not a Bill which divided opinions between the two sides of the House; neither was the Housing and Town Planning Bill. They were not the kind of Bills as to which difficulties have arisen between the two sides of the House, and I do not anticipate that any such difficulties are likely to
1198
arise in the future. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Sunday Closing Bills?"] There have always been hon. Members on both sides of the House both supporting and opposing Sunday Closing Bills, but that is not a question which divides the two parties in the way I have mentioned. These measures, I repeat, will always be considered on the floor of the House on the Report stage. I am sorry the Government cannot meet the hon. Member by accepting his Amendment.
Sir R. FINLAY: If I understand the right hon. Gentleman rightly he said that Bills which were sent to Grand Committee were not Bills on which any differences of opinion were likely to arise between the two Houses.
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: I was referring to the Bills which had been specially mentioned. No difficulties have occurred as to them between the two Houses of Parliament.
Sir R. FINLAY: But when the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Bills mentioned by the Mover of the Amendment, he was referring to them as types of the class of Bills sent to Grand Committees, or otherwise his argument is absolutely worth nothing. The whole argument put forward for the purpose of inducing the Committee to reject the Amendment was that Bills sent to Grand Committees are not Bills on which differences are likely to arise between the two Houses. I think there is a good deal to be said for that view, and, if so, why cannot the Government accept the Amendment? If it is a Bill on which no such difference of opinion is likely to arise why resist the Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that some friction has arisen as to what class of Bills should be sent to Standing Committees, and if this Amendment is rejected it will open the way to a very great abuse by way of sending really controversial measures to those Committees; and then, taking advantage of the provisions of this Bill, to pass them over the heads of the other House under the Closure. The right hon. Gentleman denies that this Bill sets up a Single-Chamber system of Government. Was the right hon. Gentleman present when the Prime Minister made his speech earlier this evening? He was, then I think if he will look at that speech he will see that beyond any question the Prime Minister declared himself for Single-Chamber Government.

1199
If you are to set up a system under which the opinion of this House is to overrule the opinion of the other House altogether, surely in the ordinary proper conduct of affairs of Parliament it will be confined to cases where the mind of this House has been fully and fairly brought to bear upon the measure under consideration, and I put it most respectfully to the Committee that the answer given by the Chancellor of the Duchy is entirely inadequate. When the whole Committee stage goes upstairs the Chancellor of the Duchy says we have got the Report stage, but will the right hon. Gentleman concede that the Closure is not to be applied to that stage. The right hon. Gentleman says he is not going to anticipate that question as it forms the subject of another Amendment, but I beg his pardon. The Amendment which relates to the Closure deals with another matter and the question is: Will the right hon. Gentleman consent that the Closure shall not be applied to the Report stage of Bills sent to a Standing Committee? On the whole I submit to the Committee the answer is absolutely inadequate and misconceives the scope of the Amendment.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I only rise in consequence of the remarks of the Chancellor of the Duchy, because after his statement I think it is well that we should look back to recent events in our Parliamentary history. He said that if Bills went upstairs we might be sure that there would always be ample opportunity for discussion on the Report stage and on Third Reading. In 1908, the Housing Bill, which was a very large measure, went to a Committee upstairs. The Government passed guillotine resolutions before it came before us for Report, which included the Third Reading stage. The guillotine resolution gave two days to Report for a Bill with seventy-three Clauses. On the first day one Clause was debated, and the guillotine fell. Clauses 3 to 29 were put without Debate. Clause 30 was deleted and removed from the Bill, and Clause 31 was put without Debate. So that on the first day we had three discussions; there were only three Clauses debated and one of them was deleted. The next day the guillotine again fell, and Clauses 57 to 73 and the new Clauses were put without Debate. The Bill was closured the next day on the Third Reading.
We therefore did not get the opportunity which the right hon. Gentleman said we
1200
were sure to have. He also said that we might be pretty sure that nothing but un-controversial measures were sent up to Grand Committees, but there was the Scottish Land Bill, which was not uncontentious in every respect. We may therefore take it that the Government are not particularly careful in their choice between controversial and uncontroversial measures. On these two points, which apparently were the only two points put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think recent records on the part of the Government show that we have any reason to trust very much to the advantages they would secure.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: In many respects this is a half-baked Measure, but in respect to this Clause it is a mere framework. Under our Standing Orders, Bills after Second Reading, unless otherwise ordered, go to Grand Committee. Every Bill under this Clause has to be verbatim and literatim the same for three Sessions one after another. Is it proposed that in these cases, as the Bill comes up Session after Session, it is to go to the same Grand Committee, or is it to be considered in Committee one year in the House, one year in Grand Committee or in what other way? But Bills may conceivably be sent to Select Committees and not Grand Committees at all. I suggest that it will be absolutely necessary to frame Standing Orders to deal with Measures under this Clause. Procedure is limited by Standing Orders, and yet there is nothing in the Bill which shows how we are going to alter our procedure by Standing Order in order to make it possible to work it.
It is farcical to imagine that for three years in succession Bills are to go to the same Grand Committee to be considered there and never once considered in those three years on the floor of the House in Committee. If this Clause is operative at least one of the Sessions the Bill ought to be considered in Committee of the whole House, and it only shows the little thought that has been devoted to the machinery of the Bill. I cannot conceive anything more raw than these Clauses are at present, and I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy whether the Government have considered the revision of the rules of procedure which will Be necessary, and if so, whether Bills are to go three Sessions automatically to Grand Committees, or if they are referred in the first instance to Select Committees they are to go to Grand

1201
Committees in the second year or to be considered in one of the three years on the floor of the House. That would aid us very much in the consideration of the Amendment, and it is necessary that the House should be informed as to what we are to expect when we have to work the Bill in practice.
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: The hon. Member no doubt knows the procedure. All Bills naturally go upstairs unless a definite Motion is made by any Member asking the House to retain the Measure in the Chamber itself for the Committee stage. It is open to anyone to move that Motion, and it rests, and will rest under the Bill, with the House each Session as to whether the Bill should go upstairs or remain in the House.
Mr. PEEL: That last observation of the Chancellor of the Duchy was made to people who are not quite so innocent as he seems to imagine. I suppose he relies on the late hour. He tells us that anyone can make a Motion that the Bill shall be considered on the floor of the House instead of upstairs. It is really grotesque. He knows perfectly well it is all settled by the Government, and we might make any number of Motions from any number of Back Benches or even from the Gallery, and the result would be exactly the same. The Government would carry the thing in exactly the way they wish. The way they treat this Amendment is a very good example of the spirit they apply to the whole question of this Bill. As regards Bills which the House of Lords might throw out, we are told it is very necessary for that reason to draw the teeth of the House of Lords and prevent them from throwing them out and to have this elaborate procedure. Then you get this other class of Bills, and we are told it is not the class of Bills which the House of Lords is likely to throw out, but apparently the same deduction and inference is to be drawn from exactly opposite conclusions.
What has been all through the defence of the Government for establishing this procedure? We have said you are establishing Single-Chamber Government. After all, in two years the Bill must pass, whatever the Second Chamber does. The reply of the Government has been. "Oh, no, delay may kill any measure!" How, we ask, is delay to kill a measure? How is public opinion to be brought to bear on the subject? They say there will be by-elections, or move-
1202
ments in the country, or any of those signs by which sensitive politicians with their ears to the ground are wont to gauge the strength and force of public opinion. That may be so with regard to large controversial measures, those measures which are discussed fully in the House and on which everyone informs himself. But is there a single Member of the House who will say that that reasoning would apply to measures which are sent upstairs to Committees? It would be absolutely preposterous to say so, for it is not the fact. You may have four of those Committees sitting at the same time. You have now three very important Bills before Committees, and, although they are not controversial in the sense of dividing the two sides of the House, they still are measures bristling with matters of detail. I refer to the Shops Bill, the Mines Bill, and the Copyright Bill. You will have these Committees going at the same time, and I would ask whether any Member would get up and tell me that he follows, or that his Constituents follow, what is going on in the Committees? It is impossible. The most that a politician in the country can do is to follow what goes on in this House.
I do not know how many people read the debates which take place in this House, but I am afraid they are few. At any rate, none of them will follow what goes on in Grand Committees for the reason that they do not get reports of the proceedings unless there should happen to be a scene or a row. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or a Member takes dinner in the room," and "Or a Member smokes his pipe."] I do not wish to deal with these interruptions. There is no OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of Grand Committees. I remember trying to refer to what had happened at a meeting of one of these Committees on the Development Bill; but, as there was no OFFICIAL REPORT it was impossible to know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said in connection with the Bill. Unless this Amendment is accepted, one of two things will have to happen. You will have to drastically alter the procedure of the House, in what you may call a reactionary way if you like, so as to secure that a far larger proportion of these Bills shall be discussed in the House than are discussed here now. If that is not done, there is no possible way in which you can get public opinion to bear upon them.
Mr. FLAVIN: Hear, hear.
Mr. PEEL: I am very glad that I have the support of the hon. Member.
Mr. FLAVIN: The hon. Member is afraid that his speeches will not be reported. There may be some chance of that being done if Bills were discussed in the House.
Mr. PEEL: It is not a question whether my speeches are reported or not. I say that the speeches even of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are not reported in Committees upstairs. I shall get on very much quicker if hon. Members do not make irrelevant remarks about the reports of speeches. If public opinion is to guide and stimulate opinion in this House, I ask how that can be done if the people of the country are left absolutely uninstructed as to what is taking place.
1 A.M.
The whole force and machinery of this Bill depends upon public discussion, and under the present procedure of this House four-fifths of your Bills will get no discussion at all if you get these Bills upstairs. Further, these Grand Committees upstairs are very often badly attended. I have often seen not one-half of the total number of Members present. Members have to do their work before they come here. For these reasons I have greater sympathy with the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and if he divides I shall certainly go into the Division Lobby in support of it.
Mr. JAMES MASON: I understood that the Amendment now before the Committee had been refused on the ground that only first-class or non-contentious measures go to these Grand Committees. The Chancellor of the Duchy went on to say that non-contentious measures were often those on which there was no division of opinion on party lines. I think he quoted the instance of the Coal Mines Bill. Surely that was a contentious measure although there were Members on one side of the House or the other who were in favour of it. You will admit such a measure as a Female Suffrage Bill to be a measure upon which opinion would not be divided upon party lines, yet it would be a very contentious measure. The Chancellor of the Duchy went on to describe non-contentious measures as those upon which there would not be a strong division of opinion between the two Houses. Many of the measures proposed just now would be amended in the other House. The reason given so far for refusing the Amendment is not at all satis-
1204
factory, and unless some better reason is given against it I hope the Committee will support it.
Mr. LONG: Before this Amendment is divided upon I desire to say a word or two because it raises questions in which many of us have taken a very keen interest and upon which there are many of us who have expressed our opinion in the Debates in this House from time to time. In the first place, I do not hesitate to say that if it were not for the fact that the hour is what it is, and, secondly, for the fact that the Government compel the Committee to make a choice as between the different Amendments and that consequently priority is given to those which are of graver importance and more attractive—if it were not for these facts the Debate upon this Amendment would not be confined to one side of the House, even with the pressure under which hon. Members opposite are now existing. [Interruption.] The hon. Member who laughs will forgive me for saying, without any disrespect to him, that he has neither the experience of this House or of the Grand Committees which justifies him. We are dealing in this Amendment with one of the most important questions the Committee can be called upon to decide. The hon. Member who interrupts from the other side will get his opportunity to reply when the time comes. I repeat that we are dealing with a question of the greatest possible importance.
The Chancellor of the Duchy will forgive mo for saying that I think he entirely misunderstood the whole case made by my hon. Friend. He put the case of the class of Bills which go to Grand Committees and argued that they were of a non-controversial character. He reminded us that it is true that there has been a slight deviation, one which I do not in any way regret, from the lines originally laid down by Sir Henry Campbell-Banner-man, but the fact remains that these Bills are not as a rule what are called highly controversial Bills. The Chancellor of the Duchy seems to have fallen into the same lamentable blunder which was committed by the Home Secretary earlier in the evening. He dealt with the matter as if it was a question of the differences between parties. We are not thinking only of Bills which divide parties in this House. We are thinking of the nation and the public interest. We ask that where a procedure is to be adopted with regard to the discussion of questions before us, a procedure

1205
which is not the usual one, that your new plan for altering the Constitution should not be followed. Surely the Chancellor of the Duchy knows that what was said by my hon. Friends who have spoken, and notably the hon. Gentleman who preceded me, as to the Debates in Grand Committees is strictly accurate. I do not believe that anybody in this House has had more experience of these Grand Committees than I have had. I served on them from their first establishment, I carried through Grand Committees several Bills as Minister; and I have served ever since in opposition.
It is ridiculous to suggest that there can be any pressure from the public to influence the work done in these Committees. It is ridiculous to bring forward the point argued by the Government on other Amendments throughout the whole of these debates that public opinion would prevent the Government of the day from exercising the new power given to them and unduly use it unfairly against their opponents. It is absurd to make that suggestion with regard to Bills going to Grand Committees. What does the Chancellor of the Duchy say on that point? His answer is that you have the opportunities on Report and Third Reading. But the greatest danger of the Bill we are now discussing is that you give the Government of the day power to pass their Bills without the knowledge of the country and behind their backs, and do so with pretty nearly as much legislation as you like.
In different circumstances hon. Gentlemen opposite, especially private Members, would have been the first to raise their voices upon this Amendment, because this Bill will enable the Government of the day further advantages in sending Bills to Grand Committees, and not to have them fully considered on the floor of the House. That is admitted by the Chancellor of the Duchy. They will thus be able to limit discussion on these Bills. What is the practice now? A Bill is sent to a Grand Committee, and the argument is at once used that it is not of a controversial character. Every Member of this House who has been a Member of a Grand Committee knows what goes on. We cannot raise in this House the exercise of the power of the Closure by the Chairman of these Standing Committees. Everybody knows that there is no record of what takes place in the exercise of the power of the Closure there. I myself raised this question of an official record of their proceedings. Parliament
1206
declined to accede to that, and at this moment there is no official record of anything that takes place before these Committees. The Bill comes back from the Grand Committee to this House and nobody knows what has taken place except what one is able to learn from the condition of the Bill as it comes back to us. The Government are fortified by the argument that it is not controversial. What do they do now? It is the common practice under the present system for the Government to move that the Report stage be limited to two or three days and the Third Reading to half-a-day. This opportunity will be given, the Chancellor of the Duchy tells us, for Parliamentary discussion, but nobody in the country-knows what is going on and what is the Bill which is to be passed into law over the heads of the House.
Had it not been for the reasons to which I have already referred, this Amendment is one which would justly have occupied a very considerable part of the time of the House. It is an Amendment of the first importance, and I believe that if hon. Members opposite could be relieved from the disabilities under which they at present suffer and were free to discuss questions in which they take an interest they would find this to be one of the most important amongst them. But they, for reasons of their own, no doubt entirely to their own satisfaction, are prevented from giving expression to their views in a speech, whatever they may seek to do occasionally by interruption. At all events this much I will say, that every word that has been said on behalf of this Amendment by its proposer and by my hon. Friend has been abundantly justified, and I believe that if the Government are determined not to admit any exemption of this kind they will find that they have forged a power which will be very dangerous in the hands of Governments less—what shall I say—less controlled by the best desires and instincts than the present Government tell us they are, and they will find that they have done a great deal to destroy the influence and power of Parliament. I regret profoundly we have not debated this Amendment under better conditions. I profoundly regret that the Government have thought fit to meet it by a blank negative, that they have not even suggested in this case some Amendment of my hon. Friend's proposal, and that they have not made some suggestion that they would be ready to deal with questions of this kind. I profoundly regret it,

1207
and I believe my regret will be shared by those who have followed as closely as some of us have done the proceedings of Parliament, whether on the floor of this House or in Committee upstairs.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I rise to say one word in reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I really do not think there is cause for the alarm he has suggested. Nobody knows more about the working of Grand Committees than the right hon. Gentleman, and nobody knows better than he that what he calls the "sinister influence of the Government" is less operative in a Grand Committee than elsewhere. We have no Whips there; the Government is not turned out by a vote in Grand Committee, and therefore the voting is free. The only Bills which are sent to it are those which do not involve party fortunes and the fate of the Government of the day, but Bills which command more or less general agreement. That is the reason why this is not abused. Although there is great weight to be attached to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, I felt it right to say that this is one point which has been overlooked by him.
Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: The right hon. Gentleman opposite made a special appeal to Members sitting below the Gangway on this side—
Mr. LONG: Is the hon. Member quoting me?
Mr. WALSH: Yes.
Mr. LONG: No, I did not.
Mr. WALSH: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that we would vote on the same lines as you do yourselves if—
Mr. LONG: I did not refer to Members below the Gangway at all. I referred to hon. Members opposite, who are not Members of the Government. I do not regard Members below the Gangway as different from those above the Gangway.
Mr. WALSH: I am sorry if I misinterpreted the right hon. Gentleman. I was not saying it in any derogatory sense, and I am sorry if I misinterpreted him. I have had a good deal of experience of Grand Committee work, probably upon some of the Bills which might be said in the real sense of the word to be non-controversial, so far as the highest party issues are concerned, and yet which laid
1208
themselves open to the widest possible area of attack. Take the Workmen's Compensation of 1906. No one can say that the industrial issues raised in that measure were not capable of exciting tremendous opposition. It is perfectly true to say that the principle of that Bill was a matter that had been already decided nine years earlier by both sides. Nine years later the Government came forward and said we propose to extend this measure. Now there could not be the slightest doubt about it, there were innumerable points of tremendous interest involved and that there should be very great consideration given by everyone to them. Does anyone mean to say that all the chief interests involved knew nothing of what was going on upstairs? The whole thing is preposterous. Every interest—every shipowner, every colliery owner, every textile manufacturer, every manufacturer knew what was going on day by day. We ourselves, the miners, had reports every day of what was going on, and I think the colliery owners had the same full reports. Take the case of the Merchants' Shipping Act of the same year. The same thing applies. Unless you do send work of this character upstairs you are going to have such a congestion here as to make public business impossible. Perhaps that is what is desired by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. I hope not; but really that would be the effect of his argument.
Mr. LONG: No, no.
Mr. WALSH: If you are going to keep great controversial Bills of that character, controversial so far as the infinity of interests are concerned, on the floor of this House, you are going to make business of that character impossible. It is only by devolution that you can make any progress at all. Take the Merchant Shipping Bill. Was that a measure of great controversy? It is known, it was open to great attack, and yet it had been agreed upon in 1834. Take the Coal Mines Bill. That Bill excited tremendous opposition. I remember statements being made about coal going up to five shillings per ton, and that coal mining was going to be made impossible. I remember an hon. Member opposite who said the coal mining industry would no longer be continued, and that the poor would no longer be able to buy coal at all. It excited a tremendous amount of opposition, but so far as practical politics were concerned it was non-controversial. It

1209
passed this House without a division on the Second Reading. Therefore we say that these matters are matters that can only be discussed upstairs. But—and this is my last word—if it is the desire of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends above him to make all public business impossible then they can do nothing better than carry the Amendment.
HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide."
Colonel CHALONER: I can quite understand hon. Members shouting "Divide," "Divide," on a question of this kind, which is of real importance and magnitude. Hon. Members would like this Bill to go through without any discussion at all, as they are going to avoid sending it to a Second Chamber if they have their way. We shall have absolutely no public control over any Bill which goes up to Grand Committee unless this Amendment is accepted. The hon. Member below the Gangway—I am sure the House was entertained by the novelty of an hon. Member opposite addressing the House on this Bill—referred to some particular Bill which he said was reported to himself and his friends and to others who were connected with him. Quite possibly so. But it was not made known to the general public. He might have taken special precautions on that particular occasion to see that he and his friends received reports of what went on. But the fact remains that no general report to the public goes out as to what transpires in these Grand Committees, and the result will be that Bills
will be smuggled through this House without any reference whatever to the wishes of the people and without any opportunity being given to the people to make known what their wishes are.
I venture to say to hon. Members below the Gangway, who are always talking about the rights of the people, that now is the opportunity of standing up for those rights. They are frequently moving Amendments and then withdrawing them, in favour of this and of that, but the moment it comes to standing up and voting for the rights of the people they want to sneak away.
I maintain that we are perfectly justified in supporting this Amendment, and upon these grounds: We believe that it is the only way of exempting those Bills which go up to Grand Committee from the provisions of this Bill, and by so doing to allow the House of Lords to deal with them in that Chamber fully, and to make known to the public what the proposals of Parliament are. In that way we shall focus public attention upon them, the public will have the right of knowing what is going on and of protesting if they think fit, which will not be the case unless this Amendment is accepted. I shall support the Amendment, and I hope it will go to a Division.
Question put, "That the words 'which has been committed to a Committee of the whole House' be their inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 84; Noes, 159.

Division No. 164.]

AYES.

[1.25 a.m.

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

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Gibbs, G. A.

Newdegate, F. A.

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J

Gilmour, Captain John

Newman, John R. P.

Baird, J. L.

Goldsmith, Frank

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Baldwin, Stanley

Grant, J. A.

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

Baring, Captain Hon. G. V.

Greene, W. R.

Perkins, Walter Frank

Barnston, Harry

Gretton, John

Ratcliff, R. F.

Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Rice, Hon. W. F.

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Bigland, Alfred

Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

Stanier, Beville

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Bull, Sir William James

Hunt, Rowland

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Joynson-Hicks, William

Swift, Rigby

Butcher, J. G.

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

Cassel, Felix

Kerry, Earl of

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kirkwood, J. H. M.

Walker, Colonel William Hall

Cator, John

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cautley, Henry Strother

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

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Lewisham, Viscount

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

Clive, Percy Archer

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Waring, Walter

Courthope, G. Loyd

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

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

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

Winterton, Earl

Dalrymple, Viscount

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Younger, George

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Finlay, Sir Robert

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

Fleming, Valentine

Mount, William Arthur

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Hackett, John

O'Shee, James John

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Hancock, John George

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Acland, Francis Dyke

Harvey T. E. (Leeds, West)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Addison, Dr. Christopher

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Alden, Percy

Haworth, Arthur A.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Hayward, Evan

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Higham, John Sharp

Pointer, Joseph

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Pollard, Sir George H.

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

Hunter, W. (Govan)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Barton, William

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Power, Patrick Joseph

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

Johnson, William

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Bowerman, Charles W.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Reddy, Michael

Brocklehurst, William B.

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

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jowett, Frederick William

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Carr-Gomm, H W.

Joyce, Michael

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

Keating, Matthew

Rowlands, James

Chancellor, Henry George

Kellaway, Frederick George

Rowntree, Arnold

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Kilbride, Denis

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

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Clancy, John Joseph

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Clough, William

Levy, Sir Maurice

Scanlan, Thomas

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Sheehy, David

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Lundon, Thomas

Shortt, Edward

Crumley, Patrick

Lyell, Charles Henry

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Cullman, J.

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Summers, James Woolley

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

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Dawes, James Arthur

Manfield, Harry

Tennant, Harold John

Delany, William

Markham, Arthur Basil

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Denman Hon. Richard Douglas

Marks, George Croydon

Toulmin, George

Dillon, John

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Trevelyan, Charles Philips.

Doris, William

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Duffy, William J.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Verney, Sir Harry

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Morgan, George Hay

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Elverston, H.

Morrell, Philip

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

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Nolan, Joseph

Wiles, Thomas

Essex, Richard Walter

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Wilkie, Alexander

Fenwick, Charles

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

Ffrench, Peter

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

O'Doherty, Philip

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

Fitzgibbon, John

O'Dowd, John

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Flavin Michael Joseph

Ogden, Fred

Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Gill, A. H.

O'Malley, William

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

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

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Mr. LAURENCE HARDY Mr. LAURENCE HARDY moved in Sub-section (1) after the word "Bill" ["If any Bill"] to insert the words, "to the discussion of which any resolution for limiting the time of Debate in the House of Commons or in Standing Committee has not been applied."
I rise to move the Amendment standing in my name so as to exclude from this legislation any Bills which have come under that limitation which is generally called the guillotine. We had a discussion upon this question on Clause 1, and I do not intend to go again into the history of the guillotine at this late hour. I do wish to approach this question rather at the point at which we left it the other day in the Debate to which I refer. There was no argument used at that time for the Gov-
1212
ernment, by the Home Secretary I believe, which dealt with the question of the guillotine. Of course we were dealing with Money Bills, and the Government approached that question from the point of view that there was no possibility now of amending a Money Bill, in their opinion, in the House of Lords, and that we ought to keep control of such Bills after they passed through this House.
In Clause 2 we are dealing with Bills from a different point of view. We know that in the past there have been a great number of most important Bills which have passed through this House, and some of those provisions were passed absolutely without discussion in this House. Up to the present these Bills have had the advantage of being fully discussed

1213
in the House of Lords, where Amendments could be moved, and these Amendments could be adhered to if it were necessary for the advantage of the Bill. Under the new procedure in Clause 2, and especially in Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, the House of Lords has practically no real power of Amendment, because the only Amendments that can be accepted are Amendments which have been adopted by both Houses. If the House of Commons stands out against any Amendment made by the Lords they have really no power. We can then pass only what are called agreed Amendments. Thus we get to this position: that there may be in future most important controversial measures dealing with the largest questions, and we have had incidents to-day showing that the Government are not willing to exclude even the most important questions of all; and these Bills may be passed without discussion at all under the influence of the guillotine. These Bills will go forward to the Lords, and they will have no real power to efficiently amend them.
Therefore, Acts of Parliament may be passed in the future without discussion, without any possibility of Amendment, and we get back to the supremacy of the Cabinet through their draftsmen. Protests have been made in this House before against that danger, and that protest I desire to renew to-night. We ought to consider all that has been said on these guillotine resolutions in the past. I am sorry the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Byles) is not in the House, because I do not know any Member who has expressed so well the objections to these guillotine resolutions as he has. He said not many years ago that he "considered it was only increasing the power of the Executive. It was a very dangerous power. The Executive was one thing; the House of Commons was another." That is a point I should like expressly to emphasise—that in this case we are really giving power to the Executive and taking it away from the House of Commons. It is on this ground that I think we should be very chary, when introducing a reform of so revolutionary a nature, about allowing important Bills to pass without any opportunity whatsoever in either House of amending those Bills or securing that real Amendments shall be made in a Bill which is produced by the Government. We were told only a few nights ago by the leaders on both Front Benches of the great advantages of
1214
discussion and the modification which came from debate.
There can be no modification from debate when Bills are passed under the guillotine. There is, of course, the further great disadvantage, to which I alluded on a previous occasion when we were discussing Clause 1, that the moment you get under the influence of the guillotine there is no object in the Government making concessions. They know that at a certain time they will get their clauses, that it does not matter in the least to what point the debate is argued. It runs on to a certain hour before the clauses are passed, and there is no real discussion, no real criticism, and no interest in the debate. That is not a condition of things which was tolerated in the old days, and it certainly is not a condition of things which can be tolerated under the new conditions when you have practically eliminated a second chamber. It is on this ground that I say, when we are setting up a new constitution, we should limit the exercise of that right to those Bills which are discussed in this House. I hope the Government may consider this matter favourably, even at this late hour of the evening, and give us some hope that they will either adopt the words I suggest or do something in order to ensure that we shall have the very fullest discussion and all Bills which fall under the new rule they have suggested. I regret we have not the Prime Minister with us. We saw the great advantage of his presence earlier in the evening. We had an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend below me, the hon. Member for Sheffield. It was opposed by the Attorney-General, who declared it was quite impossible for the Government to accept it, and yet after a few speeches we know the Prime Minister rose and said it was weightily discussed, and that he was willing to consider the Amendment on Report. That is the advantage of having the Prime Minister with us. Therefore, I regret we have been forced to bring forward these important Amendments so very late in the evening when the Prime Minister cannot be present. It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh, but many of them on other occasions have expressed their dislike for the guillotine, and have said that it was not an instrument that should be incorporated in the machinery of this House. The Prime Minister himself admitted it would be better to devise some new method in place of it. Now, as it does not form part of our Standing

1215
Orders, let us at least exclude it from any Bills that would fall under the operation of the Clause we are discussing.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As the hon. Member reminded the Committee, this point was discussed on Clause 1 in its application to that Clause, and the Committee, after very full discussion, decided that it was undesirable to insert any provision of this character in Clause 1. If there was a case for the Amendment at all it would surely be in connection with Clause 1 which deals with Bills passed once rather than on Clause 2 which deals with Bills that have to pass three times before they can reach the Statute Book. Surely we can say that Bills which have passed through the House of Commons three times will have been adequately discussed. We can conceive that a measure may be a measure highly controversial. In fact, all measures that will have to be passed under this Clause will have to be controversial. It is quite absurd, therefore, to suggest that a lengthy controversial measure containing fifty or sixty Clauses would pass through this House without being fully discussed even on a third occasion. Even under Clause 1 a Bill which might be passed on the first occasion might be so deliberately obstructed by the Opposition that it might be necessary to limit discussion. The hon. Member says this is placing fresh powers in the hands of the Executive. As each Amendment comes up to be discussed hon. Members opposite speak as if the House of Commons desired to do that.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I only quoted an hon. Member opposite.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The House has the power in its own hands. The Ministry of the day is not able of itself to carry out these disastrous and unconstitutional measures of which we are so frequently accused. If measures restricting Debate were opposed by the majority of the House they would not be proceeded with, and if they were they would not be assented to. The House of Commons has in its own hands its own reputation, its own authority and complete control of its own procedure which can be affected by nothing in the relations of the two Houses.
Sir R. FINLAY: The language just used by the right hon. Gentleman as to the control by the House of Commons of its own procedure strikes me as slightly conven-
1216
tional. What has been our experience? It is this: that the power of the Government, the power of the Cabinet, has been growing every day, and that the subjection of this House to the Executive has reached a point which approaches to being a public scandal. The right hon. Gentleman said that an Amendment similar to this on the first Clause received full discussion, and, after full discussion, was rejected. There never was a more unhappy phrase. With the exception of one speech or so from the Front Benches on each Amendment, on that side there has been almost absolute silence. Of discussion there has been none. Hon. Members opposite have their orders, and their discipline is perfect. The right hon. Gentleman talks as though no great measure can be passed without the use of the closure. Does he remember the Finance Bill of 1894?—an enormous Measure which was carried through this House without the closure once being used, when the late Sir William Harcourt was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now I would ask the Committee, in conclusion, just to picture to itself what the state of things in this House will be in the second and third Sessions. The Bill that has to be carried through must be the same in the second and third sessions as it was in the first; if it is altered it ceases to be the same Bill, and you cannot avail yourself of the procedure of this Act to carry it over the heads of the House of Lords. The procedure in the second and third sessions will be an absolute farce; the guillotine will be erected; the Measure will be forced through; and this Bill, which is intended to exalt this House above the House of Lords and make it supreme, will end in degrading this House and its procedure to a point which it has never before suffered.
Mr. GRETTON: I think the Committee have every reason to protest against the way they have been treated to-night. At this hour of the night the least the Government can do is to pay some reasonable attention, and to try to make an adequate reply to the arguments advanced in support of the Amendments. But that is the last thing which the Government seem prepared to do. The Leader of the House has gone. We do not complain of that, for a Prime Minister to-day has many duties to perform. He has left his deputy, and now we have not even the deputy in charge of the House. The Committee is put off by being led by the deputy's deputy, and we have heard a most inadequate conventional speech,

1217
delivered in a most flippant manner, without any serious attempt to meet the arguments. Hon. Members opposite may want to go home to bed. This matter has reached such a point that the time has come when the House ought to be adjourned. We ought to have a responsible Minister in charge to meet the case put forward by the Opposition. I beg to move "That this House do now adjourn."
Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. May I ask whether that Motion is accepted?
The CHAIRMAN: No.
Earl WINTERTON: May I call attention to the fact that no motion to report Progress has been made since early in the evening? May I also ask whether it is not customary that such a motion be accepted at such an hour of the night?
The CHAIRMAN: I cannot discuss my ruling.
Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman, may I ask if it would be competent to move to report Progress at a later hour, or whether we are to be debarred from moving it at all?
The CHAIRMAN: I will deal with that question when it arises.
Mr. NEVILLE: It seems to me that it is doubly important that this Amendment should be considered favourably when we are at the present juncture removing the safeguards which hitherto this country has enjoyed. I do not know that there is any State which had any pretensions to a Constitution which deprived itself in such a light-hearted way of its right to second thoughts as we are doing in this civilised country in the twentieth century. Even the Persians, as some of my hon. Friends opposite may remember, had a habit of appealing from Persians drunk to Persians sober. I do not see why we should deprive ourselves in this House of a similar liberty if it is necessary. But if that be not the policy of the country at the present time surely we ought to see that the liberty of this House of Commons should be adequately safeguarded when you are going to remove the safeguards on which the country has customarily relied for several hundreds of year. It therefore becomes more important that the Amendment should be treated seriously by the Government.
1218
The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, as I understood him, took only one point in regard to this Amendment. He suggested that we had made a mistake, and that if the Amendment could be accepted at all it would have been accepted on the first Clause, and because it was not accepted on the first Clause he said we are too late to propose it now. I suggest to him that there is a considerable difference between the first Clause and the second Clause. I am assuming for the purpose of my argument, that the Government are sincere in the declarations that they have made in the House that they do not intend any tacking to take place under the first Clause. If they are sincere in that then there is a very material difference between that Clause and this Clause, because under the first Clause if there is to be no tacking then these great Constitutional questions can only come up under the second Clause, therefore the necessity for the Closure would not be so important under the first Clause as under the second Clause, under which these Constitutional questions' may arise. I submit if that is the chief argument which the Government have at their disposal it is a very poor one to produce at this time of night. The real argument we have on this side is this: we find we are dealing with a state of things which I do not think anybody in this House understands. [Interruption.] Is that an animal or what is it? A kangaroo, I suppose; one of those marsupial creatures. No wallaby need apply here.
May I point out the difficulty we are in. We do not know now—I speak for myself and the rest of my friends—whether it is the intention of the Government to have a Second Chamber or not. We are in the position of the gentleman who goes to the racecourse and sees the gentleman with the pea and the thimble and does not know under which thimble the pea is. That is the real difficulty that Members on this side of the House feel. We do not know whether we are going to have an effective Second Chamber or not. If we were going to have an effective Second Chamber it would modify our opinion upon this particular Amendment very largely. We have listened to the Chancellor to the Duchy to-night and comparing what he has said with what fell from the Prime Minister earlier in the evening, we feel that we are quite at sea in this matter, and it becomes more and more important that we should have a full opportunity of discussion upon these controversial Bills.

1219
I regret to say I remember, at a time when I was very much younger than I am now—there is surely no hon. Member who does not regret his youth unless it was a sinful youth—I can remember a great and striking demonstration of the effect of the closure to the people of the country. It was on the question of the Home Rule Bill, and a great sheet was printed showing all those Clauses that had never been discussed in this House. They were blacked out on that broad sheet just as hon. Members may have seen news in foreign papers blacked out as it is done by the censor in Russia. That broad sheet on the Home Rule Bill with the portions blacked out would give some notion how difficult it is to let the people know the nature of our discussions and form a just opinion upon them, especially since we have had this Australian animal introduced into this House, the jumping kangaroo. I really think this Amendment ought to be considered by the Government, and that they ought to make some response to the appeals that have been addressed to them. I am sure that after all they have a feeling for the dignity of the House, in which free discussion has been the greatest
advantage that our Constitution has enabled us to enjoy. They ought to give us an opportunity of the fullest discussion of any question which might affect the great masses of the people at large.
This is not a matter which affects party only. I do not think that in this Bill there is any Clause that ought to be treated as a party Clause. We ought to treat this Bill as a measure dealing with the birthright of the people of this country and of the nation as a whole. Under this Bill it will be possible to put a great controversial measure through the House of Commons and send it up to the Second Chamber, and that Chamber will have an opportunity of referring it to the people. We know what the results were when measures were referred to the people by them. By this Bill you are not only going to reduce the powers of the Lords, but you are going to destroy the power of the electors of this country to see that their work is done in the way they desire it to be done.
Question put. "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 152.

Division No. 165.]

AYES.

[2.0 a.m.

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

Forster, Henry William

Mount, William Arthur

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Gibbs, George Abraham

Newdegate, F. A

Baird, John Lawrence

Gilmour, Captain John

Newman, John R. P.

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

Goldsmith, Frank

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Grant, J. A.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Barnston, H.

Greene, Walter Raymond

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

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Gretton, John

Perkins, Walter Frank

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hardy, Laurence

Ratcliff, R. F.

Bigland, Alfred

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Stanier, Beville

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stanley, Hon G. F. (Preston)

Butcher, John George

Hunt, Rowland

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Cassel, Felix

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Swift, Rigby

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kerry, Earl of

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Cator, John

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Cautley, Henry Strother

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

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

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Clive, Percy Archer

Lewisham, Viscount

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

Courthope, George Loyd

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

Winterton, Earl

Dalrymple, Viscount

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

Younger, George

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Finlay, Sir Robert

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

Fleming, Valentine

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

William Bull and Mr. Neville.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

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

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Acland, Francis Dyke

Booth, Frederick Handel

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Bowerman, C W.

Clancy, John Joseph

Alden, Percy

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Clough, William

Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

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

Crumley, Patrick

Barton, William

Chancellor, Henry George

Cullinan, John

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Kilbride, Denis

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Dawes, J. A.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Reddy, Michael

Delany, William

Levy, Sir Maurice

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Doris, William

Lundon, Thomas

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Duffy, William J.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rowlands, James

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rowntree, Arnold

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

Elverston, Harold

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

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Manfield, Harry

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Scanlan, Thomas

Essex, Richard Walter

Marks, George Croydon

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

Fenwick, Charles

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Sheehy, David

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Shortt, Edward

Ffrench, Peter

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Fitzgibbon, John

Morgan, George Hay

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

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Morrell, Philip

Summers, James Woolley

Gill, A. H.

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Nolan, Joseph

Tennant, Harold John

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Hackett, John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Toulmin, George

Hancock, J. G.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

O'Doherty, Philip

Verney, Sir Harry

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Dowd, John

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Hayden, John Patrick

Ogden, Fred

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Hayward, Evan

O'Malley, William

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

Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

Whyte, A. F.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wiles, Thomas

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Shee, James John

Wilkie, Alexander

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

Johnson, W.

Parker, James Halifax

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

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

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

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

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Jowett, Frederick William

Pointer, Joseph

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

Joyce, Michael

Pollard, Sir George H.

Keating, Matthew

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE moved in Sub-section (1), after the word "Bill"' ["If any Bill"] to insert the words "introduced by a Minister on behalf of His Majesty's Government."
I desire to move the Amendment which is down in the name of my hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik). In doing so I have no qualms at all, even at this late hour, about troubling the House, because I recognise that on the Benches opposite there is no obligation on any hon. Member to be here. After the very happy manner in which the Prime Minister in the earlier hours of the evening chose to withdraw from the barricades I do not think the supporters—
The CHAIRMAN: I thought the Noble Lord was going to move an Amendment.
Mr. PEEL: On a point of Order. Is the Noble Lord not entitled to comment on the fact that the Minister in charge of the Bill is absent from the House?
The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord's remarks did not seem to me to be relevant to the Amendment which he had risen to move.
Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I bow to your ruling, and in explanation I would only say I was excusing myself for troubling the Committee with any remarks at this very late and somewhat inconvenient hour. The Amendment which stands in my hon. Friend's name, and which I have the privilege to move is somewhat wider in scope than the Amendment moved at a previous stage of the proceedings by the hon. Member for Sheffield, because the class of Bill affected by this Amendment includes not only Private Bills, which the Prime Minister has undertaken will form the subject of consideration on report, but it includes also Public Bills moved by Private Members in this House. Private Members' Bills stand in a class alone. In the first place they are often passed through their various stages in this House at times that are inconvenient to the majority of the Members of the House, and at times of the day when the House is comparatively thin.
In the second place Private Members' Bills deal with subjects to which the large majority of the House are often indifferent and on which many Members generally do not hold any decided opinions at all, with

1223
the result that the Bills become often a subject of private negotiation in the preliminary stages between the promoter and those Members of the House who are not inclined to support a matter in the first instance. And the further result of that is that a great many of those Private Members' Bills pass through the House, are sent to a Committee upstairs and then are brought down to this House again, and are passed through the remaining stages, are slipped through the remaining stages, without very many Members of the House being cognisant of their progress or even of their contents. Now, I think under the circumstances that is one very salient reason why this particular class of Bill should not be submitted to the operations of Clause 2. I would also remind the Committee of what took place during the 1906 Parliament. Then a number of Public Bills were introduced by private Members during the time of private Members, and those Bills were passed through their stages in this House and were subsequently taken up by the Government and converted into Government Bills.
Of course, that is a highly convenient course for the Government of the day to take because it enables the Government to filch Private Members' time in reality without doing so in appearance, and during the time that those particular Bills were still being regarded as Private Bills Private Members were quite content that they were receiving fair treatment and a proper share of the time of the House. The proper course for the Government at that time to have adopted and for the Government to adopt in future is to introduce Bills of that character upon the responsibility of one of the Ministers of the Crown. I think that at least one of the results of this Amendment would be to prevent the Government taking Private Members' time in this manner. Vow I come to my third reason for supporting this Amendment and that is, if I may say so, the principal reason. It is that this Amendment helps to carry out the original intention of His Majesty's Government when they introduced this Bill. I do not wish to refer at any length to assurances which the Home Secretary gave us when Clause I was under discussion. I may have been mistaken, but I personally understood, and I think that the great majority, certainly on this side of the House, understood in good faith
1224
that the Home Secretary, when he referred to this Bill as applying only to Public Bills, and, as we understand it, to Government Bills, was not confining his remarks to Clause 1 but was referring to the whole scope of the whole Bill.
I think the Committee will agree with me in saying that this Bill was originally and avowedly introduced by the Government in order to redress what they considered was a great injustice, which they as a Government were labouring under in regard to the House of Lords. We heard a great deal during the campaign in the constituencies about the House of Lords being a party caucus; about their not meting out even-handed justice to Liberal Governments and Conservative Governments alike. I think I may say that was the main line on which the attack was conducted by the whole of the Radical party at the recent election. If that is the case, surely that is no reason for extending the operation of this Bill to Bills introduced by private Members or to ordinary Private Bills. If this Bill was originally introduced in order to get fair play for Liberal measures introduced by a Liberal Government, if it was to remedy that state of injustice which so many Members complained of at the last General Election, then surely it should be confined to measures introduced by the Government and by the responsible Ministers of the Crown, and to those measures alone. These are the reasons which I submit to the Committee in support of this Amendment, and I think it will be obvious that there is nothing in the Amendment which runs counter to the original intentions of the Government when they formed and introduced this particular Bill. I go a step further, and I would say that this Amendment brings the Bill within the four corners of the assurance which was given to us a few days ago by the Home Secretary upon a similar question.
Mr. CHURCHILL: The Noble Lord has departed somewhat from the general attitude which he and his friends with whom he usually acts in politics have adopted on the subject of private Members' rights. Where is his championship of the rights of private Members to which we have been accustomed from hon. Members opposite? Where is his support of independent legislation? Here is the Noble Lord, who in the earlier part of the Session posed as the champion of the rights of private Members, now wishing to see the veto of the House of Lords applied to Private Members'

1225
Bills. He would deny to private Members even those rights which we are told they have left to them under the present conditions. After they have been successful in the ballot, after they have gained the advantage of securing facilities for carrying their Bills further, after they have been successful in doing this in three successive Sessions over a period of two years, the Noble Lord is not satisfied, but wishes the House of Lords to come down like a hammer on their heads.
Earlier in this Debate we were told how great is the danger of Cabinet rule, and how great has been the tendency to growth of Cabinet rule compared with the days when private Members were responsible for a great portion of our legislation. Yet here is the Noble Lord asking, at a time when we are to believe that affairs are in the exclusive control of the Cabinet, that we should put upon private Members a greater burden than any hitherto they have had to bear. By excluding private Members' Bills from this Bill it is inviting the Lords to exercise their Veto upon them whenever opportunity offers. So far from the effect of allowing private Members' Bills to be included in the Veto Bill procedure being to cast a greater temptation on the Government, as he argued it would, to take the time of private Members, that effect will be exactly the contrary. The ordinary desire of the Government would be to give private Members' Bills every possible facility. If anything could interfere with that desire, it would be the consideration that private Members' Bills were in danger from the House of Lords, and it would be a temptation to the Government to put these Bills out of their misery at the earliest moment possible.
There is one point to which I would like to draw the Noble Lord's attention before he goes home to-night. We have heard a great many things about the Amendment, but we may be still unconscious of the most important. Is he aware that it touches the fringe of women's votes. Is he aware that he is seeking to bring the House into violent collision with that movement, and that in the form of a Parliamentary amendment he is running the risk of exposing the cause of female suffrage to the absolute and unalterable Veto of the Lords? I do not know whether he has adequately considered that effect of his attitude. If he has I wish to pay a respectful tribute to his courage. I do not know to what form of
1226
constitutional argument he may not be himself exposed between this and tomorrow night.
Sir R. FINLAY: The arguments of the Home Secretary in opposing this Amendment seems to me to be hopelessly irrelevant. In presenting them he must have had some regard to the advanced hour and the presumed state of intelligence of the House. He said it would be an outrage upon private Members not to apply this Bill to them, and he asked how the Noble Lord could propose to put such a slight upon them. Was such an observation ever addressed to any assembly before. We are dealing with an extraordinary procedure to be invoked for the purpose of carrying a measure through without the consent of the whole Legislature. Is it asking too much when we say that any measure subjected to such extraordinary procedure ought to be one for which the Government have been willing to make themselves responsible from the beginning? The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has referred to a difficult and burning question. The only thing that I gather clearly from that reference is that the Government do not mean to touch that subject. What I do say, however, is that before any great change in our institutions is to be made, and is to be carried under such procedure as that provided by the Bill, the Government ought to face the situation and make up its mind that this subject has a right to be dealt with.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I was a little bit suspicious at an early stage of the proceedings this evening of why it was that the Home Secretary particularly wanted to have this Amendment discussed tonight. I now see what his reason was. He had a speech ready which he would not have dared to address to the House at four, or six, or eight, or even ten o'clock at night. The Home Secretary has somewhat strained that spirit of facetious levity which so becomes him. My Noble Friend's Amendment is a perfectly relevant serious one. The argument he addressed to the House showed that whatever case the Government might have to put Government Bills under this procedure there could be no possible case for the private Member having the same right. The Government profess to interpret the will of the people as declared at the last election. It is rather a large contention and rather a large assumption that any private Member who happens to succeed

1227
in the ballot is to be assumed to be gifted in the same right of divination of the mind of the electorate.
We in this House know the procedure with regard to private Members' Bills. They ballot and perhaps succeed, and bring in something on which they have been specially bullied either by their constituencies or friends. They bring it in under compulsion. Many a private Member, who has been successful in the ballot, has bitterly rued the day when he found himself charged with a large and complicated Bill, and would be extremely glad if he could be convinced that the will of the people was entirely against him and would make him drop it; but now, apparently, this apparatus of forcing a Bill through, if the will of the people is in favour of it, is at the disposal of any private Member who may happen to be successful in the ballot. He is to have the whole of this new portentous constitutional machinery at his disposal. That is an absurd proposition. It is one that no Member of the Government, not even the Postmaster-General, who always maintains the gravest countenance when he knows his arguments are most hollow, could uphold. But there is really a serious danger in this.
We know the tendency on the part of the Government to allow private Members' Bills to be treated as what the French call a ballon d'essai. They wish to see which way the wind is blowing, and in what way the majority of their supporters would regard the particular Measure. If these regard it in an unfavourable light they drop it. If they find there is a mass of opinion behind them, without having any responsibility themselves, after the Bill has gone through a Grand Committee, when it comes down to the House again they suddenly make up their minds and say: "Here is a thing we have to take up and must force through." That is not in accordance with ancient practice or with constitutional precedent. It is an abuse which has grown up in modern times, and is bad enough in itself without being aided by the whole of the procedure the present Government now possesses. I hope my hon. Friends will insist on this matter being proved to the bottom and discussed at far greater length than I can discuss it, because this very grave invasion is one which all who value the responsibilities of executive Government should unite to resist.
Mr. PEEL: I very much regret that the Home Secretary has treated this subject with such levity. If we had only had the Prime Minister here to add a touch of dignity and solemnity to our discussion I think he would have treated this Amendment with far more force and lucidity. The right hon. Gentleman, with that perversity of logic which seems to inflict Members of the Government at late and early hours, seems to have been making an attack on private Members, and places private Members in a worse position than Members of the Government in introducing Bills. That does not affect me because I have got rather a poor opinion of private Members' Bills. I do believe in private Members' resolutions, because I think they are far more harmless.
Mr. FLAVIN: Going, going, gone.
Earl WINTERTON: Send for the Speaker—send for one who will keep order.
The CHAIRMAN: If the Noble Lord does not cease these cries, I shall have to deal with him.
Earl WINTERTON: I rise to a point of Order. I desire to call your attention to the fact that there are continuous disorderly interruptions from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway and by the Homo Secretary, who is in charge of the House, and I am compelled to call for the Speaker from the fact that they have not once been called to order from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
Earl WINTERTON: Then I will continue to call for the Speaker.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sure I made no disorderly interruptions. If the Noble Lord thinks I have he should have raised a question of Order, instead of making interruptions.
Earl WINTERTON: I most decidedly accuse the right hon. Gentleman of making most disorderly interruptions.
Mr. PEEL: I really do not understand why the Home Secretary should rise to interrupt me in this way when he has got no point of Order. I have listened to him with perfect courtesy.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I rise very respectfully to ask you, Sir, to permit me to do what the House of Commons in every Debate has permitted a Member or a Minister

1229
to do, and that is to repudiate altogether the charge that I have been guilty of discourtesy or of a disorderly attack on the Noble Lord.
The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry; the right hon. Gentleman can make a personal explanation after. A personal explanation is not a point of Order.
Mr. PEEL: I hope I may now be allowed to continue my speech. I pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman was not raising a point of Order, but was merely rising to interrupt with a purely frivolous objection.
The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member desires to continue his speech, will he please make it relevant to the Amendment.
Mr. PEEL: I was trying to deal—[Interruption.] If there is so much disturbance behind here it is absolutely impossible to proceed. I appeal for protection.
The CHAIRMAN: I trust hon. Members below the Gangway and elsewhere will be as quiet as possible. These interruptions, from wherever they come, are most disorderly and most regrettable. They only prolong our proceedings and do no manner of good; they lower the dignity and prestige of the House, and I in the strongest manner protest against them. I ask hon. Members to be quiet and let us conclude this Debate.
Mr. PEEL: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Chairman. The right hon. Gentleman has tried to make an attack on my Noble Friend in suggesting that he was really departing from the principle which has animated hon. Members on this side of the House in trying to protect the rights and privileges of private Members. I think he was guilty of a curious perversity of logic in using that argument. What we claim, after all, is not a worse position but a better position for their Bills than for ordinary Government Bills. He says, "What are you going to do with these private Bills? You are going to invite the House of Lords to reject private Bills. Why could not they have the same advantage as those Bills introduced by the Government?" There is no invitation to the House of Lords to do anything of the sort. Does he suggest that after all these years that the House of Lords has been dealing with private Members' Bills that they have exercised their rights vexatiously or from any but a public sense?
1230
Does he suggest that because their rights as regards Public Bills introduced by Ministers are taken away, that therefore they are going to act vexatiously against the Bills of private Members? There is no ground for any such suggestion. No; these private Members' Bills are perfectly ready to stand the racket of the criticism of the House of Lords. It is surely creditable rather than otherwise that my Noble Friend should say, "No, they are not to be protected by this system which is invented for Government Bills; they are going on their own merits to the Second Chamber, and if they are good at last they are going to become the law of the land." Surely that is putting private Members' Bills into a better position that other Bills. Those which are deemed to be Acts of Parliament are not in fact Acts of Parliament at all, because they skip over the House of Lords.
By exempting private Members' Bills from this arrangement, you are really giving them more validity than you are giving to other Bills. Who is there in the future who will be able to attach the same sanctity, the same validity, the same force to measures passed by a single Chamber as to those passed by two Chambers? Everybody knows that the House of Lords only exercise these powers of rejection in very rare cases, and obviously they will exercise such powers in even rarer cases if they know that the rejection of a Bill will not prevent its becoming law. If they do exercise that power of rejection, it will be perfectly clear that they have some strong ground for doing so. If a Bill becomes law in spite of that, surely we shall not be able to attach the same force, the same validity, the same sanctity to that measure as we should to a Bill which has passed through two Chambers. It is because of that that my Noble Friend asks that these Bills should pass through both Chambers.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should not forget that there is not so much power of rejection as power of Amendment in the Second Chamber. I do not think I am saying too much of private Members' Bills when I say that they are not verbally inspired like the measures of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that there may be something in them which might be improved. The House of Lords and Committees of the Lords have shown great sagacity in affairs in the Amendments they have introduced into Bills. I believe that in certain cases

1231
these private Members' measures have been improved by the treatment they have received in the Second Chamber. I am doing them a great service when I suggest that they should have the full force and strength which comes from the approval of both Houses instead of being treated like measures of right hon. Gentlemen opposite which can never stand the racket of examination in the Second Chamber.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I only rise for one moment to say a word in personal explanation, which the hon. Member who has just spoken denied me in the course of his speech.
Mr. PEEL: Quite rightly denied.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I will not argue that point. What I wish to say is that I never used a word, nor am I conscious myself of having made any interruption that was discourteous or disorderly in regard to the speech of the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton). If I have done so I wish to express my regret for it. I do not believe there is the slightest truth or foundation for the suggestion. He may have thrown that taunt across the floor to cover himself in regard to something he said in regard to you, Mr. Emmott. I am bound to say that because I have always endeavoured to treat the Noble Lord with the utmost courtesy, and I have always listened with great attention to his interventions in debate.
Earl WINTERTON: Following the usual practice, I wish also to make a personal explanation. My protest was directed partly against the right hon. Gentleman's friends behind him, and most distinctly against himself. My accusation was that the right hon. Gentleman indulged in discourteous and, as I think, disorderly interruptions. When I rose to address the Committee some of the right hon. Gentleman's friends "barracked" me. They called out the name of an hon. Member—myself—by name instead of by the constituency he represents. Those cries were led by the right hon. Gentleman himself, the present Leader of the House of Commons, as I understand. If I was mistaken in supposing that the right hon. Gentleman did call out my name, I unreservedly withdraw.
Mr. CHURCHILL: That is perfectly true. Three hon. Members rose from those Benches, and several hon. Members professed a preference to hear the Noble Lord. I frankly admit that I called out
1232
the Noble Lord's name. That is not a disorderly interruption. Whatever he says, it is not discourtesy.
Earl WINTERTON: I do not wish to pursue the subject further. I can only say, honestly, that I do not think there is anyone on either side of the House, who can take an unbiassed view of the circumstances, who will deny that the right hon. Gentleman bawled out my name in a way intended to be discourteous. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
Mr. CHURCHILL: I distinctly said that I did not wish to be discourteous.
Earl WINTERTON: If the right hon. Gentleman makes the statement that he did not intend any discourtesy, I accept what he says. I certainly think that those who sat on both sides of the House will agree that there was every excuse for taking the right hon. Gentleman's words as I did.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I rise to ask one question in order to elicit some reply from the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I refer to private Members' Bills, which are taken up by the Government. What has not been explained by anyone on that side is this: Supposing a private Members' Bill is passed, if it was introduced and passed in one Session in this House and rejected by the Lords, will the private Member have to ballot again in the next year for that Bill or will the Government be able to take up that Bill as if it was their own and include if in the category of measures which can be passed against the wishes of the House of Lords and without Amendment by the Lords within two years by this House? That is a substantial point, and I think I have a right to claim an answer from the right hon. Gentleman or hon. Gentlemen opposite. They will have to alter the Standing Orders if that is what they mean, and now is the time to tell us what they intend to do.
Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I must say I do not think the right hon. Gentleman (the Home Secretary) wished to be discourteous. I do not think his speech was a very valuable rhetorical contribution to the debate. It was a rather powerful soporific, and it would not have wakened any of us except for the yells of hon. Members opposite.
The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to pass away from these personal matters.
Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHER: Since compliments have been flying about, I thought it would not be out of order to pay a further compliment to the hon. Member for Belfast, who, on this occasion, merged his delightful personality in that of a laughing hyena.
The CHAIRMAN: That is an improper observation, if I caught it aright.
Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I must say I enter my strongest protest against a Debate of this sort. It makes the party system supremely ridiculous. After all, hon. Members on both sides of the House have only one object in view. That is the well-being of the people. What has happened? Where is the welfare of the people? All that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do is to score a cheap point against us, and I must say at the same time that I for one bitterly resent this obstruction.
The CHAIRMAN: I must invite the hon. Member once more to apply himself to the Amendment.
Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I bow entirely to your ruling. Of course, if I am not in order I shall resume my seat.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I must press for an answer to the point I raised.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): I think I followed the hon. Gentleman's question. I understood he put this point. Supposing in the first of the three years the Bill is one introduced by a private Member. Would it be possible, consistently with Clause 2, for a similar Bill in the second or third year to be introduced by the Government? I do not think there is any doubt that Clause 2 is wide enough to cover such a case.
Mr. LONG: We are indebted to the hon. and learned Solicitor-General for his answer, though it is somewhat belated. I am not complaining, as the question of my hon. Friend was a difficult one, and the Government were not prepared to answer it at once; but it shows us how peculiar is the position in which we find ourselves. Will the Postmaster-General dispute now the truth of what I say, that the Government, doubtful as to the policy of a particular measure, and afraid to pin their own fate to that measure, will wait until it has been tried in this House at the instance of a private Member, and then when it has secured the advantage of being a private Bill and passing through
1234
because it has not been sufficiently watched, will take it up in a second Session and pass it through its stages under the new procedure. The Government are to get the double power of forcing their own legislation through and adopting legislation which has been proposed by private Members.
Notwithstanding the altitude of the Government, I venture to say this is a very serious question. I do not propose to ask the Committee at this hour of the morning to prolong the discussion because it is useless. We are not likely to get adequate Debate on the question. The only answer which the Government can give us in the circumstances we have had. I desire merely to say this, it is a proof of the scandalous manner in which we are discussing questions of the gravest public importance. The Government are not only getting fresh powers under this Parliament Bill—powers which have been possessed by no Government, and which, so far as I know, form part of no other constitution—they are getting some part of these powers in a manner which I think is not quite straightforward. Here was a power which I do not believe hon. Gentlemen opposite realise they are giving to the Government. I do not believe they realise what is the effect of Private Bill legislation, and by Private Bill legislation I do not mean such Bills as Gas and Water Bills, but those Bills which are introduced by private Members and which therefore occupy a totally different position. Under this Clause the Government are taking power in regard to such Bills. Up to this Amendment we believe the Government were asking for powers in connection with Bills for which the Government themselves were responsible. It was to clear up that point this Amendment was moved. It is in my judgment nothing short of a public scandal that we should be discussing at three o'clock in the morning in a tired and disgusted House of Commons questions so grave as the one we have under discussion.
Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: I am rather surprised at the right hon. Gentleman. His speech has been delivered on the assumption that all Private Members' Bills are introduced from this side of the House. I want to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this fact that there are Private Members' Bills introduced from his side of the House.
Mr. LONG: The hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstood me. Neither on this

1235
occasion nor on the two previous occasions I have addressed the House have I referred in any way whatever to the party character of legislation. I spoke solely from the point of view of Private Members' Rills no matter in what quarter of the House these Members might sit.
Mr. C. DUNCAN: I am not in any sense of the word trying to make party capital out of the Debate, what I am trying to do is to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that there has been some really important Private Members' Bills introduced from that side of the House, and I must confess they have had a very friendly consideration from this side of the House. There is, for instance, the Police Weekly Rest Day Bill—one of the most important passed. That was an exceedingly good Rill introduced by a Private Member, and I think if there was any difficulty in getting a Bill like that through the House of Lords the Government would be right to take it in hand. I think it is only fair and reasonable to look at this
thing from the point of view of both sides of the House. After all, all private Members may not expect to get a Bill on the Statute Book; but my experience is that when a private Member has a Bill which has some really good principle in it and on which most of the Members of the House are in agreement, that Bill does gel fair consideration, and such legislation has successfully found its way to the Statute Book.
Captain CRAIG: I rise to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that Motion can be accepted. We are sitting under peculiar circumstances to-night. An agreement was made to finish these three Amendments. That was a little more than two hours ago, and, therefore, I cannot take such a Motion.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 65; Noes, 147.

Division No. 166.]

AYES.

[3.2 a.m.

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Finlay, Sir Robert

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Baird, John Lawrence

Fleming, Valentine

Newman, John R. P.

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

Forster, Henry William

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Barnston, Harry

Gibbs, G. A.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

Gilmour, Captain John

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

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Goldsmith, Frank

Perkins, Walter Frank

Bigland, Alfred

Grant, J. A.

Rice, Hon. W. F.

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

Stanier, Beville

Bull, Sir William James

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Burn, Colonel C. E.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Cassel, Felix

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Swift, Rigby

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Walker, Col. William Hall

Cator, John

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cautley, Henry Strother

Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

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

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Lewisham, Viscount

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Clive, Percy Archer

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Winterton, Earl

Courthope, George Loyd

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Younger, George

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Alexander Thynne and Mr. Mills.

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Mount, William Arthur

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Clancy, John Joseph

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Clough, William

Essex, Richard Walter

Alden, Percy

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Fenwick, Charles

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Ffrench, Peter

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Crumley, Patrick

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Cullinan, J.

Fitzgibbon, John

Barton, William

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

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

Gill, A. H.

Booth, Frederick Handel

Dawes, James Arthur

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Bowerman, Charles W.

Delany, William

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Hackett, John

Brocklehurst, William B.

Doris, William

Hancock, John George

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Duffy, William J.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

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

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Haworth, Arthur A.

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Elverston, Harold

Hayden, John Patrick

Hayward, Evan

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Nolan, Joseph

Samuel, S. M (Whitechapel)

Higham, John Sharp

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Scanlan, Thomas

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Hunter, W. (Govan)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Sheehy, David

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook)

Johnson, William

O'Doherty, Philip

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Dowd, John

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

O'Malley, William

Summers, James Woolley

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Tennant, Harold John

Jowett, Frederick William

O'Shee, James John

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Joyce, Michael

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Toulmin, George

Keating, Matthew

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Kellaway, Frederick George

Parker, James (Halifax)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Kilbride, Denis

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Verney, Sir Harry

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

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

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Pointer, Joseph

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Lundon, Thomas

Pollard, Sir George H.

Wiles, Thomas

Lyell, Charles Henry

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wilkie, Alexander

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

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

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

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Manfield, Harry

Reddy, Michael

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

Marks, George Croydon

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Rowlands, James

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

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Rowntree, Arnold

Morgan, George Hay

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

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.

Sir WILLIAM BULL: I beg to Move in Sub-section (1) after the word "Bill" ["If any Bill other than a Money Bill"] to insert the words "or a Bill to establish a separate Parliament and Executive for Ireland."
Sir R. FINLAY: I think that under the general agreement we have arrived at the stage of our proceedings when we can adjourn further discussion. I therefore beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
Earl WINTERTON: I think some further deliberation is required before the Motion is put. I do not in any way disagree in what has been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir R. Finlay) as to the arrangement entered into, although as has already been pointed out by the right hon. Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long), it was not an arrangement in the ordinary Parliamentary sense. It was an informal agreement that our discussion should come to an end after the last Amendment had been disposed of. It is not in any wish to interfere with that agreement that I rise for the purpose of saying a few words upon the Motion. I do so in order if possible to bring back the discussion to the subject of the policy of the Government with regard to these late sittings. They decided to keep us sitting here until after three o'clock in order to discuss three Amendments which it was suggested across the floor of the
1238
House were not Amendments of great substance, but the subsequent discussion has shown that they were of considerable substance and are Amendments which would, under ordinary conditions and with an ordinary Government in power, have been discussed in the light of day and at a time when the House was in a position to give them the kind of discussion they required. Instead of that, we have had these questions taken after midnight and in a discussion lasting until ten minutes past three o'clock.
I respectfully ask the Committee by what possible logical argument can we support a state of things, in this legislature or in any legislature in the world, in which we have two important proposals and decide upon them at ten minutes past three, and then decide to report Progress. Motions have been made from this side of the House with that view more than once, and these Motions have not been accepted by the Chairman. Without making any reflection on the Chair, because it is not my object to make any reflection, and I say, frankly, if I had that object, I would put forward a Motion, I do suggest that as an additional reason for the Committee to consider, in discussing whether or not we should report Progress, the fact that this Motion, when proposed before has not been accepted—
The CHAIRMAN: That is casting a reflection upon the Chair.
Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. May I point out—
Mr. PEEL: May I call your attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Kerry called out, "It is the nature of the beast"?
The CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the hon. Member make that remark.
Mr. PEEL: Everybody here heard it.
The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member made that remark, it was grossly disorderly.
Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHER: The same Member has been interrupting all night.
HON. MEMBERS: So have you.
Earl WINTERTON: I ask if it is considered to be any reflection upon the Chair to call attention to the fact that a proposal to report Progress was put forward at five minutes to three and refused and is accepted at ten minutes past three. I hope you will consider the question. Surely there are important reasons why we should not come to an immediate decision upon this point. A short time ago the Government kept us up on another Bill almost as important as this, relating to the financial provision for the year, and we were on that occasion kept here until nine or ten o'clock in the morning, and the right hon. Gentleman speaking on that occasion said:—
"The atmosphere of the House is now much more genial. I think we are all getting into the swing of an all-night sitting, and I do not doubt that in a comparatively short space of time we shall have made substantial progress, without any repetition of the exciting moments through which we have all passed, and in regard to which we are no doubt sensible of regret."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1911. col. 1672.]
There does seem to me to be behind the question of all-night sittings an extremely important principle. Are we night after night to be kept up until past three o'clock or four or five o'clock, and kept up by a Government which laid down as one of its first principles when it came into office, that eleven o'clock was late enough for the House of Commons to conclude its business. I say it has become a really serious scandal that we should be kept here by the caprice of the Government to any hour of the morning they please, and that then the Government by arrangement with the front Opposition Bench may move to report Progress and by means of their majority get their Motion carried.
1240
Either the questions we have been discussing were too important to be discussed at this hour or they were not. If they are not, let us continue to sit every day until eight, nine or ten o'clock in the morning, and let the country know and judge of the way in which this Bill has been passed. Let the country see that it has been passed by a mechanical majority in the small hours of the morning. If on the other hand the Bill is, as we maintain, of such enormous importance, of such tremendous scope, and with such unprecedented conditions that it requires to be discussed at a normal hour, then do not let us have any of these discussions after midnight. I venture to suggest that you should report Progress for the reasons I have given. If the House is to be asked to sit at all after midnight it might just as well sit till seven or eight o'clock as till three or four.
Captain CRAIG: I do not intend to keep the Committee for more than a moment, but I think the Noble Lord has missed the point. If the Government would only put someone in charge of these all-night sittings who really could conduct the business. [Interruption.] I am only expressing my own opinion. We have had many all-night sittings—in 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, and we have seen many little ruffles on the surface of political progress, but everybody will recognise that during the days that have passed when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department has been placed by the Government in charge as Leader of this House progress has been impossible, and simply and solely through his inability to lead this House. It is patent to everyone.
The Prime Minister—who has probably-paired with the hon. Member for South Hackney and gone home—gave a pledge at question time that he would remain up here to-night in order to meet the House. What is the effect of his breaking his pledge? The effect is that heat has been aroused in the House. Undoubtedly it has. Look at the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department now. Can anyone deny that the heat that has been engendered was engendered entirely by the personality of the right hon. Gentleman? Therefore, if we are going to have these all-night sittings, and if the legislation of this country and the Empire is to be carried on at hours of the night when hon. Members are naturally inclined to follow the dictates of nature and go to bed—if it is the determination

1241
of the Government to carry on legislation at this hour, why should they not put someone in charge of the House who—I do not wish to be invidious, but why not place, say, the representative of the Board of Agriculture (Sir Edward Strachey) in charge of the House! Legislating under these conditions is turning the proceedings of His Majesty's Government into farce. It has been a farce from the very start, and it is remaining a farce now up to twenty minutes past three.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
The Orders of the day having been read, and future dales appointed,
Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and, forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned at Twenty-four minutes after Three of the clock a.m. (Friday. 21st April).