Commons Sitting of 8 August 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Woking Urban District Council (Basing-stoke Canal) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),
Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Midland Railway Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Aberdare Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Brighton, Hove, and District Railless Traction Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered.
Amendments made.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Paddington Borough Council (Superannuation and Pensions) Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Poplar Borough Council (Superannuation and Pensions) Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Rhondda Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Partick Burgh Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]: Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

  EAST KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the third time.

PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, ETC.) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration Tomorrow, and to be printed.

LOCAL GOVEENMENT ACTS, 1888 AND 1894, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACTS, 1889 AND 1894.
Report from the Joint Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
Copy presented of Second Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Customs and Excise, for the year ended 31st March, 1911, being the Fifty-fifth Report relating to Customs and the Fifty-fourth Report relating to the Excise [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
GOVERNMENT LABORATORY.
Copy presented of Report of the Principal Chemist upon the work of the Government Laboratory for the year ended 31st March, 1911, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 2nd August; Sir Frederick Banbury]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 7th August; Mr. Hobhouse]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

ALIENS ACT, 1905.
Copy presented of Return of the Alien Passenger Traffic between the United Kingdom and Ports in Europe or within the Mediterranean Sea during the three
936
months ending 30th June, 1911, together with the number of Expulsion Orders made during that period requiring Aliens to leave the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

HARWICH HARBOUR.
Copy presented of Abstract of the Accounts of the Receipts and Expenditure of the Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board from the time of their incorporation down to and inclusive of the 31st March, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
INEBRIATES ACT, 1898.
Copy presented of Further Regulations made by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Arrest of Miss Malecka in Russia.
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has yet received any reply from the Russian Government to his request for the immediate release of Miss Malecka, the British subject imprisoned at Warsaw, in the event of her trial not being held forthwith; and, if so, what is the nature of the reply?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The reply of the Russian Government reached His Majesty's Embassy at St. Petersburg on the 30th ultimo, and has just been received here. It states that both Miss Malecka and her father are to be considered Russian subjects in Russia under Articles 325 and 326 of the Russian criminal code, as they never obtained the imperial sanction to renounce Russian nationality. The necessity for obtaining this sanction was extended to the Polish provinces by an Imperial Ukase in 1850, so that it is immaterial whether Dr. Malecka was born in Poland or in Russia proper. The reply points out that the British naturalisation law of 1870 recognises that no person can be validly naturalised as a British subject in so far as that person's country of origin is concerned, if such naturalisation is contrary to the law of that country. The reply

  937
  promises that the matter will be dealt with as quickly as possible, and adds that Miss Malecka's arrest was the outcome of her political relations with the Polish Socialist party. I cannot well give more of the reply, which is long, in answer to an oral question; but if the hon. Member will put down an unstarred question I will give the substance of the reply at greater length.
  Mr. H. LAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the Russian Government have indicated the date on which the trial will take place?
  Sir E. GREY: No they have not indicated the date in the reply. They have only said that they will expedite it as much as possible.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask whether, under the circumstances, the British Consul will be instructed to still watch the case as it proceeds on behalf of the Government?
  Sir E. GREY: The important part of the reply is that Miss Malecka is not a British subject, but I will instruct the British Consul to do everything consistent with the fact that Miss Malecka is not a British subject in Russia. More than that I cannot do.
  Mr. MORRELL: Are we to understand that the Foreign Office abandon their claim that Miss Malecka is a British subject?
  Sir E. GREY: As I said in the answer in the reply which has only been just received here, it states the fact which is new to me, that the necessity for obtaining sanction to emigrate from Russia is extended to the Polish Provinces. Until I have had time to investigate I cannot say more.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how Miss Malecka could obtain sanction considering that she was not born at the time?
  Sir E. GREY: The question is her father's nationality.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked whether the Russian Government have yet communicated to him their intention of bringing Miss Malecka to trial; whether the date has yet been fixed; and whether our Government will be represented at the trial?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative; that to the second in the negative; while as regards the third question, a Consular Officer shall be instructed to attend the trial if the Russian Government consents.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I ask whether not merely the consul but English counsel will foe instructed to have a watching brief and to attend the trial?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot instruct English counsel.
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether in the case of Miss Malecka, the Acte d'Accusation, giving particulars of the charge against the prisoner, has yet been received; whether he is aware that until this document has been served it is impossible for the prisoner to apply for bail or obtain any legal advice as to her defence; and whether, in view of the fact that Miss Malecka has already been imprisoned for over four months under these conditions, he will take immediate steps to urge upon the Russian Government either to produce such particulars or to release the prisoner without further delay?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first question is in the negative. As regards the second, I have no authoritative information as to the law on the point in question. As regards the third, I have just replied to a question asked by the hon. Member for West Donegal, and the hon. Gentleman will have learnt from my answer what the state of the case is at present.
  Mr. MORRELL: Are we to understand this lady has been in prison for eighteen weeks and the Russian Government is still unable or unwilling to produce particulars of the charge against her?
  Sir E. GREY: The hon. Member ought to understand from my first reply that the Russian Government have put forward a very strong case that she is a Russian subject.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is it not the fact that the British Ambassador made a request for particulars on July 11th, and that no answer was given?
  Sir E. GREY: That is all based on the assumption that we had the right to claim Miss Malecka as a British subject in Russia. If that assumption cannot be sustained, of course we cannot press the request.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked whether, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg had been instructed on 13th July to represent to the Russian Government that Miss Malecka should not be kept in prison without the particulars of the charge against her being furnished, and considering that no particulars of the charge, in spite of repeated requests, have yet been given, His Majesty's Government will take steps to press for Miss Malecka's immediate release?
  Sir E. GREY: I am unable to add anything to the replies returned to other hon. Members to-day.

  Baghdad Railway.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information that he can give the House in regard to the negotiations between this country and Turkey in respect of the construction of the southern section of the Baghdad Railway?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government have lately put their views before the Turkish Government on this and other matters in connection with the proposed increase of customs dues, but I cannot make any detailed statement pending further negotiations.

  Persia.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked if Major Stokes has accepted an office under the Persian Government; and, if so, has his appointment the approval of the British Government?
  Sir E. GREY: I understand that Major Stokes has been offered an appointment by the Persian Government. It cannot have the approval of His Majesty's Government unless the conditions of the appointment are consistent with the terms and the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1907.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the circumstances and conditions of Major Stokes's appointment are or are not contrary to the provisions of the Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1907?
  Sir E. GREY: The appointment, so far as I know it, is vague. It may apply to the whole of Persia, but if it applies to the North of Persia only, there would be a strong case for considering that it was not consistent with the spirit of the Agreement.

  Declaration of London.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he would state by what method of procedure he proposes to make it a condition of the ratification of the Declaration of London that the general report of the grafting committee shall be treated by all the signatory Powers as an authoritative interpretation of the provisions of the Declaration, and that the word enemy (l'ennemi) in Article 34 of the Declaration shall be taken by all the signatory Powers to mean the enemy Government and not the enemy people; whether he intends to ask for the express consent of all the signatory Powers to such conditions; and, if not, by what means he proposes to make such conditions binding on the signatory Powers?
  Sir E. GREY: I propose to ask the signatory Powers to remove any doubt on these points by expressing an affirmative opinion.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give any explanation or definition of the meaning of the words, base of operations or of supply, which are used in the General Report of the Drafting Committee in connection with the interpretation of Article 34 of the Declaration of London; whether he proposes to ask the signatory Powers for any explanation or definition of these words; and whether he proposes to inform the signatory Powers of the meaning attached to these words by His Majesty's Government, and to ask thorn whether they agree with His Majesty's Government as to such meaning?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot add to what was said in the Debate as to the definition of the words; nor can I make any further statement, as to the course which His Majesty's Government may take.
  Mr. BUTCHER: In view of the great difference of opinion expressed in the Debate as to the meaning of the words "base of operations or of supply," will the right hon. Gentleman ask foreign Governments as to their definition?
  Sir E. GREY: I am considering that point.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order to illustrate the meaning of the words in Article 34 of the Declaration of London, a place serving as a base for the armed forces of the enemy, he would state what

  941
  ports in Great Britain could not, in the view of His Majesty's Government, be regarded as places serving as bases for the armed forces of this country?
  Sir E. GREY: It is not possible to give a list of ports in advance; it would depend upon the facts at the time.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman state any one or more ports which could not come within the definition at present?
  Sir E. GREY: No commercial ports which are not serving as bases of supply would come within the definition.
  Mr. YERBURGH: Is it not the case that in the event of war, under the Declaration of London, it will not be the British Government that will decide what is a base of supply, but it will be left to the enemy?
  Sir E. GREY: At present belligerents decide for themselves, without any definition, but under the Declaration of London there will be a definition by which those belligerents who have signed the Declaration will be bound. How they interpret that definition is of course a matter which rests with the belligerents themselves?
  Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman name one port in the United Kingdom which could not at present be regarded as a base of supply?
  Sir E. GREY: None of the great commercial food ports of the United Kingdom could be regarded as bases of supply, because they are not bases of supply.
  Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask for one by name?
  Sir E. GREY: It would be much more to the point if the hon. Member would ask what ports could come within the definition of base of supply. I could give an answer to that, and all others would be outside it.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman really not answer my question and name one port in the United Kingdom which could not be regarded as a base of supply within the meaning of the Declaration?
  Sir E. GREY: There are a number of ports—Liverpool, Glasgow, Bristol, and any number of our great commercial ports.

  Albania.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he was now able to communicate to the House any further intelligence, received from His Majesty's Minister at Cettinje or from other sources, respecting the condition of the Albanian shepherds and their families now penned within the marshes south of Scutari; whether he was aware that the report that the sufferers had received permission to return to their homes in the mountains was not borne out by the testimony of the Austro-Hungarian Chargé d'Affaires at Cettinje in his report to the Vienna Foreign Office; and whether His Majesty's Government had received any information as to the arrival in Montenegro and at San Giovanni di Medua of Red Cross League representatives commissioned by branches in Europe to distribute food and clothing and medical aid to the women and children who had been driven from their homes by the Turkish troops; and, if not, whether he would state what steps the Foreign Office was taking to make itself acquainted with the state of affairs in these regions?
  Sir E. GREY: I have received no information on these points. In any case, the only remedy is the restoration of a happier condition of affairs in Albania. The latest news I have received is that the refugees are returning to Albania, which points to an improvement in the situation.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Are the people of the marshes included in the general pacification?
  Sir E. GREY: I assume they are, but I will ask the Vice-Consul at Scutari, the nearest Vice-Consul, to deal with these points in a report of the situation.

  White Slave Traffic.
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked what are the international agreements made or proposed to which this country is, or is willing to become, a party relating to the suppression of the white slave traffic?
  Sir E. GREY: There are two international agreements having for their object the suppresion of the white slave traffic, to both of which this country is a party. The first, which relates more particularly to the administrative measures to be adopted by the States parties to it, was concluded in 1904, and published as a Parliamentary Paper in No. 24 of the

  943
  Treaty Series of 1905. The second instrument was signed at Paris in. May of last year, and its object, stated shortly, is to secure legislative action with a view to bringing the laws of the contracting States into harmony. This Convention will be published when the ratification of the Powers parties to it have been deposited at Paris, which at present has not been done.
  Mr. KING: Will the last-named convention necessitate legislation in this country?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask for notice of that question.

  Arbitration Treaties.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he could officially inform the House that a treaty of arbitration between Great Britain and the United States had been actually signed at Washington; whether he was able to say that a similar treaty between the United States and France had also been signed in Paris; and whether lie could encourage the hope that by further international agreements of a like nature the burden now imposed on the people for national defence would be greatly lightened?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have no official information about the second part, but the hon. Member has no doubt seen that a treaty has been signed. The answer to the third part must depend upon public opinion not in this country alone. If in other countries there are found, as I trust may be the case, many persons of the disposition of the hon. Member himself, the hope that he entertains will be greatly encouraged.
  Sir W. BYLES: With regard to the first part of the question, have not the House of Commons some right to expect that a momentous matter of this kind should be communicated directly to them, and that they should not be dependent on the Press for their information?
  Sir E. GREY: With regard to the Treaty with the United States, I have telegraphed to Washington to know how soon the Treaty may be published, and directly on agreement between the two Governments as to date of publication I will lay the Treaty before the House.
  Mr. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to the date when the Debate will take place?
  Sir E. GREY: No, I cannot say when the Debate will take place, but the promise which has been made with regard to that will be kept. All I can undertake is that as soon as possible the Treaty shall be laid before Parliament. The time at which it should be debated is a matter for the Prime Minister to decide.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is it not the case that the Treaty has already been published in the Press?
  Sir E. GREY: I believe it has been published in the Press, but, of course, in regard to a treaty with another Government, one is obliged, as a matter of form, to get the consent of the other Government. I should certainly use the fact that it has already appeared in the Press as a reason for not evading publication.

  Bogra Gang Case (Calcutta).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he was aware that the High Court of Calcutta, in what was known as the Bogra Gang case, had recently acquitted twenty-nine men who had been all convicted by the sessions judge of Bogra of alleged dacoity, and sentenced to terms of imprisonment varying from five years to life sentences; that the trial lasted two months and 250 witnesses were called for the prosecution; and that the case against the accused depended mainly upon the evidence of a police informer which the High Court held to be unreliable; and whether the Secretary of State could say upon whose advice this prosecution was launched upon such evidence?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Secretary of State has no information on this subject, but has telegraphed for a report.

  Bombay University (Examination Subjects).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether his attention had been called to the action of the Governor of Bombay in warning the Senate of the Bombay University against retaining English history as a compulsory subject for the examination for a B.A. degree; what were the grounds of this action; and had it the sanction of the Secretary of State?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I understand that, the Senate proposed to substitute "the History of England, political and constitutional," as an obligatory subject for the present group "history and political economy," which includes the History of England (political and constitutional), the History of India, and political economy. The Bombay Government think that the proposed change would encourage cramming, and have in the ordinary course put their opinion before the Senate of the University. There was no necessity for their consulting the Secretary of State before doing so.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the Government of Bombay disapprove of the study of English history by Indians?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member's question arises from a misapprehension of the circumstances. History of England is already an obligatory subject, but the Senate endeavoured to narrow the number of subjects that are to be compulsory, limiting it to the History of England, whereas now, in fact, the History of England and the History of India are compulsory subjects. The Government of Bombay made representations upon the subject, with a view, not to abandoning the History of England, but to maintaining a wider syllabus.

  Territorial Force.
  Mr. SANDYSasked what number of recruits joined the London Division of the Territorial Force during the six months ended 30th June?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): Two thousand five hundred and fifty-nine recruits joined the two London divisions during the six months ended 30th June, 1911.
  Mr. SANDYSasked what was the present strength of the Territorial Force, and how this compared with the strength of the force on the corresponding date of last year?
  Colonel SEELY: The figures are as follows:—

  1st July, 1910.

  1st July, 1911.

  Officers

  …

  9,803

  9,600

  Non-commissioned officers and men

  …

  260,981

  258,853

  Mr. SANDYS: Things being as they are at present, is the right hon. Gentleman
  946
  generally satisfied with the numbers and training of the Territorial Force?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think I could make a statement on that subject at question time without wearying the House. I should be glad to make a full statement on the proper opportunity.
  Mr. SANDYS: As the right hon. Gentleman is unable to reply are we to assume that he is not satisfied?
  Colonel SEELY: Certainly not.
  Captain WARINGasked the Undersecretary of State for War if he is aware that an increase of pay has been granted to Territorial officers who are acting as adjutants of Territorial units as from April of this year; and whether, in view of the fact that many of these officers have already performed the duties of adjutant for several years, he can see his way to make the increased grant of pay retrospective?
  Colonel SEELY: The consolidated allowance to Territorial officers appointed adjutants has been increased from £100 to £200 a year to take effect from 1st April, 1911. It is regretted that it is not possible to give further retrospective effect.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Arising out of that, may I ask, seeing that some of these adjutants have been, forced to do the work for two years for a much less figure than the present adjutants, would it not be more in accordance with Liberal principles to make this retrospective?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think the facts stated by the Noble Lord are quite accurate. I regret I cannot add anything to the answer I have already given on the general question.

  Veteran Reserve.
  Mr. SANDYSasked what was the number of men who had joined the London. Veteran Section of the Veteran Reserve during the six months ended 30th June, and what proportion of these were ex-soldiers of the Regular Forces?
  Colonel SEELY: The figures available show the present strength of the London Veteran Section to be 13,094, of which 617 are officers and 12,477 other ranks. Of this total the proportion of ex-Regular soldiers is approximately 61 per cent.
  Viscount VALENTIA: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these officers have served in the Regular forces?
  Colonel SEELY: In the case of the London Veteran Reserve they are mostly people who have already been officers; in the case of other counties, the matter is still not settled.

  Royal Army Clothing Department.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he can. see his way to place the women viewers in the Royal Army Clothing Department on the same footing as the men viewers with regard to annual leave, with pay, etc.?
  Colonel SEELY: As regards the viewers at Pimlico, leave with pay is only given to those who exercise supervision. The women referred to in the question do not exercise such supervision, but are themselves under the supervision of the men viewers. They receive the same benefits as the men viewers as regards paid public holidays, sick-pay, gratuity on discharge and medical attendance, but they are not entitled to leave with pay under the regulations.

  Rifle Clubs (Old Ammunition).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether he can state what arrangements have been made to sell old ammunition to rifle clubs at reduced rates varying with age?
  Colonel SEELY: I will let the hon. Member know as soon as the arrangements have been completed.

  Coronation Medals.
  Captain FABERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state whether the representatives of detachments of Special Reserve and Territorial units who are to receive the Coronation medals are men who have been actually present at that ceremony or not?
  Colonel SEELY: I am informed that with the exception of the officer actually in command of the detachment which the unit sent to the Coronation, it is not necessary for the representation of the unit to have been actually present. A circular is being sent out this week to every unit of the Special Reserve and Territorial Force calling for the names of those qualified to receive the medal.
  Captain FABER: I do not quite understand. May we assume that the people who have not been at the Coronation are the ones who will receive medals?
  Colonel SEELY: No. Some who have not been at the Coronation may receive the medal, and some who have been at the Coronation will receive the medal.
  Captain FABER: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the proportion of those who were not at the Coronation who will receive the medal?
  Colonel SEELY: It will all be made plain in the circular that is being sent out this week. It will vary according to circumstances.
  Colonel ALAN SYKES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the last order on the subject did not lay down that the officer commanding the unit, and the senior private were to receive the medal? Is that order going to be rescinded?
  Colonel SEELY: No, Sir; but since it was issued His Majesty has been pleased to add to the number of medals which may be issued to each unit.

  Army Ordnance Department.
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of raising the status of the Army Ordnance Department writers, and grant these clerks greater facilities to advance to higher posts in the department, having regard to the fact that most probably these men would be called upon to fill important positions and undertake additional responsibilities in a national emergency, as was exemplified in the late Boer War?
  Colonel SEELY: The status of the Army Ordnance Department writers has lately been reconsidered. They are eligible for promotion to the posts of foreman and storeholder and at Woolwich Arsenal to the post of civil clerk. It is difficult to increase their opportunities of advancement without interfering with the training of the Army Ordnance Corps, on whom primarily the additional duties and responsibilities must fall in time of war.

  Finance Act (1909–1910).
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the case of an employer paying the Income Tax chargeable on his employé's salary, the allowance in respect of the employé's chil-

  949
  dren, provided by Section 68 (1) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, is deducted by the assessors from the sum paid by the employer; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of giving instructions that claims for allowance in respect of children shall be made separately by those entitled to such allowance?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Section 68 (2) of the Act referred to provides that the relief in respect of children "shall be given either by way of reduction of the assessment, or repayment of the excess which has been paid, or by both these means as the case may require," and in these circumstances I am unable to issue instructions restricting claims for the allowance in the way suggested.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. LUNDONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention to have the amending Old Age Pensions Act carried into law this year?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope this measure may receive the Royal Assent before the House rises.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that James O'Rourke and his wife Margaret O'Rourke, of Conrea, Rossinver, county Leitrim, who had been in receipt of the old age pension for over twelve months have, on appeal, been deprived of the same, on the ground that their names could not be traced in the Census of 1841 or 1851; and whether, having regard to the fact that these people produced certificates of their ages from the parish priest and the medical doctor of the district, together with several certificates from old people, their applications would be reconsidered; and, if not, when would they become eligible, as they can procure no better or more reliable evidence?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The pension of James O'Rourke was discontinued in July, 1910, on the ground that he had failed to prove he had attained the statutory age. The Local Government Board did not decide the case until one of their inspectors had visited O'Rourke. Margaret O'Rourke's pension was disallowed in May, 1910. The certificates referred to did not, in the opinion of the Board, afford sufficient proof that the pensioners had reached the statutory age. It is not in the Board's power to reconsider their decisions.

  Chelmsford Town Council (Housing Question).
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings at the last meeting of the Chelmsford Town Council, from which it appears that there is a house famine in the town, many tenants having received ejectment notices and being unable to secure other accommodation, while the town council are called upon to pay at the rate of £5.000 per acre for land required for public improvements; and whether, in view of the apparent inadequacy of the Budget taxes to check landlord monopoly in Chelmsford, he will consider the advisability of imposing a direct Budget tax of 1d. in the £ on the capital value of all land values, and will promote legislation authorising local authorities to make land values the basis of local rating, thus relieving buildings and improvements and encouraging the erection of houses for the accommodation of those who are being dispossessed by their present landlords?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it is premature to pass judgment on the economic effects of a system of taxation which has been in force little more than a year, and in respect of which the preliminary valuation is not even yet complete. With regard to local taxation, it would not be desirable for the Government to enter upon the consideration of so sweeping a change as that indicated by my hon. Friend in anticipation of the recommendations of the Committee now inquiring into the relations of local and Imperial finance.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Has the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer been drawn, to the special circumstances at Chelmsford, referred to in the first part of the question?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid they are not unique.

  Education (Wales).
  Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the President of the Board of Education when he proposes to transfer to the Welsh Department that portion of the Board's work in Wales that relates to technology and higher education in science and in art, including evening schools, as outlined in the Board's Report for the year 1906–7?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I hope to complete arrangements very soon for the transfer to the Welsh Department of the

  951
  administration of those grants in respect of Wales which are at present administered by the Technical Branch of the Board of Education. The inspection of ordinary technical work, involving evening schools, in Wales is already carried out by the Welsh Department's Inspectors.
  Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the President of the Board of Education what proportion of the grant of £325,000 advanced from the Development Fund to the Board of Education, in aid of the provision by county education authorities of agricultural education, he proposes to allocate to Wales?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No proportion of the Grant is allocated specifically to Wales, but applications received from local education authorities in England and Wales will be dealt with on precisely similar terms. I shall, of course, bear in mind the geographical peculiarities of Wales.

  Merchant Vessels in War.
  Mr. YERBURGHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have perfected the organisation of their scheme for conveying information to merchant vessels at sea on the outbreak of war; and whether they are satisfied that orders of the Admiralty conveyed through the admirals by His Majesty's ships to our merchant ships would be understood?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): I am unable to make any statement upon the matters referred to in the question.
  Mr. YERBURGH: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been directed to this matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, but I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it would be undesirable to go into particulars.

  Government Contracts (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that when the question of the Fair-Wage Clause in Government contracts was discussed in this House in 1909 the President of the Board of Trade stated that it would, however, not be the practice of Government Departments to keep on their list of contractors firms who obeyed the letter of the clause by paying recognised rates on Government contracts, but who
  952
  were proved to be notoriously bad employers in other directions; and whether, in view of this declaration made on behalf of the Government, he will have the Fair-Wage Clause administered by his Department in consonance with such declaration?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am aware of the statement quoted by the hon. Member, and so far as practicable the Fair-Wages Clauses are administered by the Admiralty in accordance therewith. The question of the wages paid by a firm for private work can only come before the Admiralty for consideration when determining the suitability of a firm for admission to, or retention on, the list of contractors.
  Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in any case where inquiry is being made of a specified complaint against an employer, the inquiry extends to matters that would prove whether the employer was notoriously bad in other directions?
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh, yes; we have not infrequently both refused to admit a firm to the list of Admiralty contractors and have on other occasions struck off firms because they had been notoriously bad employers.

  Swine Fever Outbreak.
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether Mr. Dodson's farm, at Sprot-borough, near Doncaster, is still under swine-fever restrictions owing to an outbreak of swine fever that took place on 14th February; and what, if any, is the limit to such quarantine set by the Board in cases where no fresh outbreak has occurred?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir E. Strachey): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the latter part, perhaps the hon. Member would allow me to refer him to the answer I gave last Wednesday to my hon. Friend the Member for the Don-caster Division.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: What are the conditions which this man will have to fulfil before his farm can be got out of quarantine?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: He undertook to refrain from further breeding and to feed off his swine for slaughter as quickly as possible.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: How does the hon. Baronet possibly justify six months' quarantine in this case, when the chief veterinary officer of the Board admits that three months is the utmost period for the latency of this disease?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that at all arises out of the question.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Is it a matter of whether or not a man will carry out his obligation, or is it a matter of common-sense?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The occupier of the farm is not allowed to break the agreement which he undertook to perform.

  Housing and Town Planning Act (Gloucestershire).
  Mr. ESSEXasked the President of the Local Government Board whether any action has been or is being taken, and, if so, what, by the authority empowered to make inspection under the Housing and Town Planning Act for the parishes of Stow-on-the-Wold, Moreton-in-the-Marsh, Bourton-on-the-Water, and Tetbury, in the county of Gloucester?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have made inquiries and am informed that, as regards Stow-on-the-Wold, the work of inspection is in hand in respect of certain areas, and a report by the medical officer of health is about to be submitted to the urban district council; as regards Moreton-in-the-Marsh, a systematic inspection is now in progress, thirty houses having been inspected under the Act; as regards Bourton-on-the-Water, no inspection has yet been made under the Act, as the local authority are at present dealing with other parts of their district; and as regards Tetbury, the work of inspection is proceeding, and considerable progress has been made.

  Tuberculosis Order (Compensation for Slaughter).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the Board have received a copy of the resolution unanimously adopted at a meeting of the Tuberculosis (Animals) Committee on the 26th July last, respectfully urging the Board to bring into operation forthwith the Tuberculosis Order of 27th May, 1909, with the further provision that the compensation to be paid thereunder in the case of animals not visibly
  954
  tuberculous, slaughtered in the interests of public health, should be provided either out of the Development Fund or from other Imperial sources, and not at the expense of the ratepayers; and, if so, what action is it proposed to take in the matter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes, Sir; the resolution has been received. The matter will receive further consideration.

  Local Authorities and Sale of Milk.
  Mr. BARNSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is now in a position to state the result of the inquiries which the Board have been making as to the manner in which the existing provisions of the Law relating to the sale of milk is at present administered by local authorities?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The inquiry is not yet sufficiently advanced to enable me to make any general statement upon the subject.

  Stocks of Wheat and Flour.
  Mr. YERBURGHasked whether any official statistics are collected of the actual stocks of wheat and flour held in this country both at the ports and by farmers and millers at any given time in the year; and, if not, whether the Board will take steps to obtain them?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Official statistics as to stocks of wheat and flour are not at present regularly obtained. The possibility of making arrangements for their collection is under consideration.

  Shops Bill (Sunday Closing Provisions).
  Mr. GREENEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that a Sunday market has been in existence in the Broadway, London Fields, for about forty years, and that the district contains a large number of Jewish residents, he will consider the claims of the Broadway, London Fields, to be included in the area of exemption from the Sunday closing provisions of the Shops Bill?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I would point out to the hon. Member that under the Bill as amended by the Standing Committee the whole of the county of London is exempted up to two o'clock in the afternoon from the Sunday closing provisions of the Bill.

  Postal Facilities (Peppard, Henley-on- Thames).
  Mr. FLEMINGasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the delay in the delivery of letters at Peppard, near Henley-on-Thames, owing to mis-sorting; and whether he will inquire into the conditions under which the sorting is carried out?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): So far as I am aware only one person at Peppard has complained of any mis-sorting of letters, and steps have been taken which have, I think, prevented any further cause for complaint.

  Telephonic Communication (Castlecomer and Kilkenny).
  Mr. MEAGHERasked the Postmaster-General whether he can see his way to have telephonic communication established between Castlecomer and the trunk line at Kilkenny, so as to meet the convenience of the people of Castlecomer district, there being no public telephone in Castlecomer?
  Captain NORTON: I have not received any application on this subject from the residents at Castlecomer, but I will inquire into the matter.
  Mr. MEAGHERasked the Postmaster-General whether he can see his way to avail of the services of the day car between Kilkenny and Castlecomer to establish a postal service direct to and from Kilkenny from Castlecomer?
  Captain NORTON: I am having inquiry made in the matter, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Arterial Drainage (Ireland).
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, in the report of the Development Commission recently issued, there is no mention that any action whatever has been taken in connection with the reclamation and drainage of land which is one of the principal objects for which the money under the Development Fund Act is applicable; whether he is aware that several Royal Commissions have reported on the urgent need of arterial drainage in Ireland, especially in the flooded area of the River Barrow; and whether instructions will be issued to the Commissioners to give immediate attention to this question in view of its urgency in Ireland?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I understand that certain schemes for land drainage are now before the Commission and will shortly be considered by them. An application for a grant for the drainage of the River Barrow area is being reported on, in accordance with Section 4 (1) of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, by the Government Department concerned.

  Kingstown Harbour (Repairing Slip).
  Mr. COTTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that there is no repairing slip in Kingstown Harbour, county of Dublin; whether he is aware that, in consequence of the absence of a slip, yachts and other boats over a certain size cannot be repaired in Kingstown, to the loss alike of the owners of the boats and of the town; and, if so, whether he will take steps to provide a slip in Kingstown Harbour such as exists in every other Royal harbour in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There is no repairing slip at Kingstown Harbour, and I understand that it is not usual for the authorities of harbours such as Kingstown with limited foreshore to provide such a slip for yachts. There is, however, a hauling up slip which makes it possible for Kingstown yachts, with very few exceptions, to be placed in the store-yard, and for the exceptional cases there are ample facilities in the adjacent port of Dublin.

  Taxing Office, Dublin.
  Mr. BRADYasked why an additional junior clerk has not been appointed to the Taxing Office. Four Courts, Dublin, in pursuance of the unanimous recommendation of the Registrar to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and Court of Appeal, the President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, and the Treasury Remembrancer in Ireland, being the committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to inquire into the nature and extent of the duties of the staff of the taxing masters of the Supreme Court, in Ireland; and whether he is aware that the recommendation of the said committee, made as far back as November, 1909, had the entire approval of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who recommended that the views in the Report should be given effect to as soon as possible?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Treasury have received no recommendation from the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on this subject.
  Mr. BRADY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on 4th November, 1909, wrote that:—
  "His Lordship had carefully considered the Report"— (referred to in the question on the Paper)—"and he entirely agrees with the views and recommendations therein set out."
  And whether the Secretary was directed to express the hope that the recommendations contained in the Report would be given effect to as soon as possible.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I can only convey to the House the information the Lord Chancellor of Ireland gives me.
  Mr. BRADY: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman's own representative, namely, the Treasury Remembrancer, was a member of this Commission which unanimously reported in favour of the additional clerk in the Department?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
  Mr. BRADY: I submit it does arise, as the Treasury Remembrancer is referred to in the Report.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it in his mind for the moment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better put it down on the Paper.
  Mr. BRADY: I do not wish to detain the House, but I have already put it down three times upon the Paper.

  High Court Judges (Ireland).
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been directed to the statement recently made by two of the High Court judges in Ireland that the arrears of cases in the courts are attributable to the undermanning of the Irish Bench; whether, in view of this statement, he will have prepared and published a Return setting forth the number of days each year during the past three years in which each of the Irish High Court judges attended in court, and the hours at which business commenced and terminated on each day; and whether he will give a list of the commissions and other public bodies of which any of these judges are members, or have been members during the past ten years?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Lord Chancellor informs me that during the hearing of a recent case in the Court of Appeal, the absence of the two Lords Justices of
  958
  Appeal on circuit was given as the reason why the postponement of the hearing of another branch of the same case became unavoidable. The judges have been in attendance in Dublin or on circuit for the discharge of business arising in their respective courts on all occasions as required, and have often sat much beyond the appointed time. It would not be possible to furnish, with any approach to accuracy, the further particulars asked for in the question. I must not, however, be taken as agreeing with the inference that the Irish Bench is at present undermanned.
  Mr. HAYDEN: Can the right hon Gentleman say whether the judges frequently rise long before the appointed time?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Sometimes, no doubt, they rise before the appointed time, but, then, they sometimes sit beyond the appointed time, and between the two justice is done.
  Mr. HAYDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question as to the Commissions?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Well, I really have no information as to the list of Commissions or other public bodies of which the judges are members.
  Mr. HAYDEN: Are they not fairly numerous?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know. I should imagine that probably they neglect these duties.

  Irish University Professorships.
  Captain CRAIGasked whether the Dublin Commissioners under the Irish Universities Act, pursuant to a statute dated 15th May, 1909, set up a lectureship in Spanish and one in Italian at a stipend of £100 each, which were duly advertised in July and August, 1909, the Commissioners stating that the appointments-would be made in the October following; that two eminently distinguished ladies applied for the respective lectureships; that the Commissioners again met on 7th January, 1910, and appointed a Miss Degani to the combined lectureship in Spanish and Italian at a stipend of £300 per annum, although she had been passed over by the governing body for every position for which she had applied; whether the lady in question has any qualifications for the position; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent such waste of public money?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Dublin Commissioners at first instituted separate lectureships in Italian and Spanish, with stipends of £100 a year each, and advertised for candidates. After full consideration of the applications received the Commissioners came to the conclusion that it was desirable to substitute for the two separate offices a single lectureship, with a stipend of £300 a year. This they accordingly did by a new statute, and they then appointed to the office the candidate whom they deemed to be the most learned and suitable. There is no ground whatever for the allegation that there has been a waste of public money. Miss Degani is a most competent person.
  Captain CRAIG: Does it not constitute a waste of public money that when two qualified persons apparently who were prepared to accept the posts at £100 each that the Commissioners should now institute a position of £300 a year. Is not that a waste of £100 per year?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know what right the hon. and gallant Member has to speak upon the relative learning of these respective candidates. That is for a learned body, and they have decided that, upon the whole, this lady should hold the two appointments.
  Captain CRAIG: Is it not a fact that the two ladies who originally applied are fully qualified to teach Spanish and Italian respectively, and were prepared to do so at £100 a year each, and that the Commissioners have now combined the two positions in one at a salary of £300 in order to appoint a lady who had influence at Dublin Castle?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am as incompetent as the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say who is competent for teaching Spanish and Italian. That was referred to a body of experts.
  Captain CRAIG: I beg to give notice, when the Statute is laid upon the Table, I shall move an address to the Crown against it.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Commissioners referred the question of the filling of those posts to the governing bodies of the college, as they did in other cases?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot say; I do not know.

  Labour Disputes.
  Mr. NEEDHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of trade disputes in which the assistance of the Board of Trade has been employed under the Conciliation Act of 1896, and the number of workpeople directly concerned in such disputes; and if he will give the figures separately for each of the years since the Act came into force?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I will circulate with the Votes a statement giving in detail the information asked for by my hon. Friend so far as available. I may say that the total number of trade disputes in which the Board of Trade have taken action under the Conciliation Act, 1896, has been 467, of which 215 involved an actual stoppage of work. The number of workpeople affected in these 215 disputes were 555,000. This total is exclusive of a very large but unascertainable number of persons affected by disputes which were settled without any stoppage occurring.
  Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to deal with labour disputes upon the lines of the Canadian statute which has been utilised successfully to settle disputes amicably without recourse to compulsion?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am well aware of the Act referred to by my hon. Friend, but I do not think I can at present usefully add anything to the answers which have been given recently in the House by the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend with regard to proposals for dealing with the prevention and settlement of trade disputes. The whole matter is receiving very careful consideration.
  Mr. NEEDHAMasked whether, in considering any plan which might tend to prevent or shorten industrial warfare, due weight would be given to the importance of any tribunal or office which may be set up being entirely free from political control?
  Mr. BUXTON: In dealing with this very difficult matter due weight will be given to all relevant considerations.

  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether the Congested Districts Board would ac-

  961
  quire the townland of Cleragh, on the Corscadden estate, Glenade, county Leitrim, for the purpose of redistribution amongst the evicted tenants and uneconomic holders in the district, having regard to the fact that it is the only waste land in the vicinity and is much required for relief of congestion?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The solicitor for the owner of the estate referred to has informed the Congested Districts Board that the necessary maps and documents are being prepared to enable an inspection of the property to be made by the Board with a view to deciding whether they will make an offer for purchase. Pending an inspection the Board cannot say how they would deal with the lands if acquired by them.
  Mr. LUNDONasked if the Chief Secretary will say how many evicted tenants whose cases have been passed by the Estates Commissioners have yet to be provided for in county Limerick, and how many cases were rejected; will the names of those to be provided for be given, and also the property from which they were evicted; and will the names of those whose claims have been rejected be also given?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my replies to the questions on this subject asked by the hon. Member for West Limerick on the 3rd and 7th August.

  Housing of Working Classes Act (West Clare).
  Mr. LYNCHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can state the cause of the delay in reference to the building of cottages sanctioned by the urban council of Kilrush, West Clare, in accordance with the Housing of the Working Classes Act; and what is the condition of affairs in reference to the sworn inquiry concerning this matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There has been no delay in this case on the part of the Local Government Board. Difficulties arose with respect to the acquisition of a site, and it was subsequently found necessary to return the plans for amendment. The urban district council made formal application for a loan on the 17th April last, and when they have duly amended the plans and re-submitted them the Board will be in a position to make arrangements for holding a sworn inquiry.

  Irish Land Commission (Report).
  Mr. FFRENCHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Report of the Irish Land Commission for the year ending 31st March, 1911, is now overdue more than four months; and if he can say when the report will be issued?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The report referred to was presented to Parliament on 24th July, and will, I understand, be circulated within the next few days.
  Mr. LARDNER: Is it not possible for us to have this report more promptly in the future?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will endeavour to secure that that shall be done.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether in the case of small minorities of tenants on estates now sold who have for special and reasonable reasons refused to sign purchase agreements and are being harassed by their landlords, the Congested Districts Board have power to intervene, with a view of bringing about the complete sale of those estates, and thus avert the destruction of many homes?
  Mr. BIRRELL: When portion of an estate situated in a congested districts county is being sold by direct sale through the Estates Commissioners, the Congested Districts Board are not prepared to intervene as regards unsold holdings until the sale through the Commissioners is completed.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is the total cost of the Irish Land Commission, and of the land purchase department of the Congested Districts Board now as compared with the cost when the Land Purchase Act of 1903 was introduced?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The estimate of the expenditure of the Irish Land Commission for the financial year 1903-4, which was prepared without reference to the Irish Land Act, 1903, amounted to £131,740 net. The amount of the estimate for the current financial year is £544,395 net. Since the passing of the Irish Land Acts of 1903 and 1909, however, a number of additional payments, amounting, in the whole to £365,000 for the current year, have had to be provided for annually, all of which are borne on the Vote for the Irish Land Commission.. These additional charges cover

  963
  the dividends and Sinking Fund required for the stock set apart for the purposes of the Land Purchase Aid Fund, the dividends and Sinking Fund required to be provided in the case of the issue of stock at a discount, and provision for the improvement of estates. The total cost of the Land Purchase Department of the Congested Districts Board cannot be given, as some of the indoor and outdoor staff of the Board are engaged in work other than land purchase.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PARLIAMENT BILL).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to 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, 337; Noes, 205.

Division No. 308.]

AYES.

[3.35 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Crumley, Patrick

Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Cullinan, J.

Hayden, John Patrick

Acland, Francis Dyke

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Helme, Norval Watson

Adamson, William

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Agnew, Sir George William

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

Higham, John Sharp

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Hinds, John

Alden, Percy

Dawes, J. A.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

De Forest, Baron

Hodge, John

Allen, Charles P (Stroud)

Delany, William

Holt, Richard Durning

Armitage, R.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Devlin, Joseph

Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Dickinson, W. H.

Hudson, Walter

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Dillon, John

Hughes, S. L.

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Donelan, Capt. A.

Hunt, Rowland

Barnes, G. N.

Doris, W.

Hunter, W. (Govan)

Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

Duffy, William, J.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Barton, W.

Edwards, Enoch Hanley

John, Edward Thomas

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Johnson, W.

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Bentham, G. J.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Essex, Richard Walter

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Esslemont, George Birnie

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Black, Arthur W.

Falconer, J.

Jones, W. S. Glyn. (Stepney)

Boland, John Pius

Farrell, James Patrick

Jowett, F. W.

Booth, Frederick Handel

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Joyce, Michael

Bowerman, Charles W.

Ferens, T. R.

Keating, M.

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Ffrench, Peter

Kellaway, Frederick George

Brace, William

Field, William

Kelly, Edward

Brady, P. J.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Brigg, Sir John

Fitzgibbon, John

Kilbride, Denis

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Brunner, J. F. L.

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Bryce, J. Annan

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Gibson, Sir James P.

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gill, A. H.

Lansbury, George

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

Goldstone, Frank

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Leach, Charles

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Chancellor, Henry G.

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

Logan, John William

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

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

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Clancy, John Joseph

Hackett, J.

Lundon, T.

Clough, William

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Clynes, J. R.

Hancock, J. G.

Lynch, A. A.

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Hardie, J. Keir

McGhee, Richard

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

Maclean, Donald

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

Cotton, William Francis

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

Macpherson, James Ian

Cowan, W. H.

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

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

M'Callum, John M.

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

M'Curdy, C. A.

Crooks, William

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

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

Snowden, P.

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Manfield, Harry

Pirie, Duncan V.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Pointer, Joseph

Strachey, Sir Edward

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Pollard, Sir George H.

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

Martin, J.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Sutherland, J. E.

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Sutton, John E.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Meagher, Michael

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

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

Tennant, Harold John

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

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

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Middlebrook, William

Pringle, William M. R.

Toulmin, Sir George

Millar, James Duncan

Radford, G. H.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Molloy, M.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Molteno, Percy Alport

Rainy, A. Rolland

Verney, Sir Harry

Mond, Sir Alfred M.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Wadsworth, J.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Mooney, J. J.

Reddy, Michael

Walters, John Tudor

Morgan, George Hay

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Walton, Sir Joseph

Morrell, Philip

Redmond, William (Clare)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Rendall, Athelstan

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Muldoon, John

Richards, Thomas

Wardle, George J,

Munro, R.

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Waring, Walter

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Needham, Christopher T.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Webb, H.

Neilson, Francis

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Nolan, Joseph

Robinson, Sidney

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

Norman, Sir Henry

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Whitehouse, John Howard

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Nuttall, Harry

Roe, Sir Thomas

Whyte, A. F.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Wiles, Thomas

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Rowlands, James

Wilkie, Alexander

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Rowntree, Arnold

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

O'Doherty, Philip

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

O'Donnell, Thomas

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

Williams, Penny (Middlesbrough)

O'Dowd, John

Samuel, J (Stockton-on-Tees)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Ogden, Fred

Scanlan, Thomas

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

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

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

O'Malley, William

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

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

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

Sheehy, David

Young, William (Perth, East)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

O'Shee, James John

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Burgoyne, A. H.

Duke, Henry Edward

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Burn, Col. C. R.

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Butcher, J. G.

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Archer-Shee, Major M.

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

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

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Campion, W. R.

Falle, B. G.

Astor, Waldorf

Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred

Fell, Arthur

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Baird, J. L.

Cassel, Felix

Finlay, Sir Robert

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Balcarres, Lord

Cator, John

Fleming, Valentine

Baldwin, Stanley

Cautley, H. S.

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

Cave, George

Forster, Henry William

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Foster, Philip Staveley

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Gardner, Ernest

Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Gastrell, Major W. H.

Barnston, H.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Gibbs, G. A.

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

Chambers, James

Gilmour, Captain John

Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Goldsmith, Frank

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Clyde, J. Avon

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Grant, J. A.

Beresford, Lord C.

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Greene, W. R.

Bigland, Alfred

Craik, Sir Henry

Guinness, Hon. W. E.

Bird, A.

Cripps, Sir C. A.

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

Croft, H. P.

Haddock, George Bahr

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Dalrymple, Viscount

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

Beyton, James

Doughty, Sir George

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

966

967

Hamersley, A. St. George

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

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

Mackinder, H. J.

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Macmaster, Donald

Spear, Sir John Ward

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

M'Mordie, Robert

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Harris, Henry Percy

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

Starkey, John R.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Stewart, Gershem

Hickman, Col. T. E.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Hill, Sir Clement

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Hill-Wood, Samuel

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

Talbot, Lord E.

Hoare, S. J. G.

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

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

Hohler, G. F.

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

Thynne, Lord A.

Horner, A. L.

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

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Houston, Robert Paterson

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Touche, George Alexander

Hume-Williams W. E.

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Ingleby, Holcombe

Parkes, Ebenezer

Valentia, Viscount

Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

Pease Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

Kerry, Earl of

Perkins, Walter Frank

Weigall, Captain A. G.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Peto, Basil Edward

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

Knight, Captain E. A.

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Quilter, William Eley C.

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Larmor, Sir J.

Rawson, Col. R. H.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wolmer, Viscount

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

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Lee, Arthur H.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Worthington-Evans, L.

Lewisham, Viscount

Rothschild, Lionel de

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Yerburgh, Robert

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Sanders, Robert A.

Younger, Sir George

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Sanderson, Lancelot

Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Mr. Stanier.

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

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

PARLIAMENT BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.
  Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [24th July], "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
  Question again proposed, Debate resumed.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  The Motion I desire to submit is not at all of an unfamiliar character to the procedure of this House, and, as the House is aware, it has the effect of destroying the Bill under consideration. It is moved at this stage on Bills for very various reasons, and the reasons for which I am anxious to move it on the present occasion are these: That the Upper House of Parliament is not at this moment a free assembly; that, owing to the action of the Government, which, as I shall contend, is unconstitutional both in form and in substance, the House of Lords has been deprived of that freedom which as a legislative assembly it ought to enjoy in the performance of its high functions, and that it
  968
  is an idle and a foolish thing we should send back Amendments to that House in the ordinary course of constitutional practice, for an Assembly which has been deprived of its freedom has no advantage in carrying on a form of constitutional action. I have to prove, as it seems to me, two main propositions: First, that the action of the Government in applying this pressure is unconstitutional in form and in substance; and, secondly, that it operates on the House of Lords as duress, and actually destroys its freedom. Thirdly, I propose to argue that the Government itself, viewing their policy from the wider and deeper point of view, will hardly derive any benefit from the violent course they are taking, and that, therefore, they would be better advised at this stage in dropping the further proceedings of the Bill. Let me first deal with the point of the unconstitutional character of the action of the Government, both in form and in substance. I think it is unconstitutional in form. I will deal quite briefly with that, because it was dealt with very fully in a very able speech by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. [Cheers.] I am very glad if that speech has begun to produce conviction. I wish I had seen more signs of that conviction in the Division

  969
  Lobby last night. Of course, the process of uprooting prejudice is a slow one, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to listen quite often to the Leader of the Opposition before he agrees with him. Nevertheless, a beginning has been made. However, I must not be distracted, else I shall waste the time of the House. I was arguing that the action of the Government is unconstitutional in form and in substance, I say it is unconstitutional in form, because they induced the Crown to exercise the Prerogative in a manner which they ought to have advised the Crown it was not proper to exercise it. At the beginning of my argument I think hon. Members opposite will agree with me. I say we have during the last seventy years somewhat changed our conception of the constitutional functions of the Crown. Anyone who reads the history of 1832 will see the King was then supposed to take, and was recognised as taking, an active and personal part in political questions of high importance. King William IV. was known to be, and was recognised by all parties as being a very strong supporter of the Reform Bill. He acted, in a sense, freely. He acted, therefore, in a sense, on his own free discretion in exercising his Prerogative in respect of that Bill. That is quite incontestable. I remember an old rhyme written at the time, which ran:—
  "What though I rejected be,
  Twenty Peers will carry me.
  If twenty won't, thirty will,
  For I am His Majesty's bouncing Bill."
  That was a jingle written at the time when it was universally recognised that King William was in favour of the Reform Bill. Both parties would desire and expect to find the Crown discretion exercised in a judicial spirit. The great Prerogative of the Crown—and this is a great Prerogative —ought to be exercised judicially with the same sort of discretion which the judge has in deciding a, point of law. It is not an absolute discretion to decide according to the Sovereign's inclination. It is a discretion to be used judicially. How did the Government give the King any opportunity of exercising that judicial discretion? They gave him no opportunity whatever. What is necessary for the exercise of judicial discretion? I, at any rate, think it is necessary to consult impartial persons, or if impartial persons cannot be found, then at least to hear both sides. In the Privy Council, for instance, a great many people might be found who are not violent partisans. Hon. Members
  970
  opposite, I am not surprised, do not welcome that suggestion; it would work against their party interest. The King might also consult the Leaders of the Opposition. He should refer to both sides before he came to a decision. It was claimed by the Prime Minister in his speech last night that the only result of that would have been to bring the King into the arena of party conflict at that moment. But why should it bring the King more into party conflict for him to hear both sides in a spirit of impartiality on some public occasion which could easily be arranged by means of the machinery of the Privy Council? Why should he not have announced his intention to sit in no partisan spirit, and to hear both sides, and then decide the constitutional question submitted to him in accordance with precedent? Surely such would have been the advice of Ministers who were anxious to save the honour of the King. But what, in fact, have the Government done? They have made the Monarchy and the Crown Prerogative a partisan institution. They have used the Prerogative in precisely the same manner as they have used their followers in this House. They have used them for their party convenience first. The consequence necessarily is to make a great body of loyal subjects, who are not less devoted in loyalty to the King's person than hon. Members opposite—to make them feel that they have been very hardly treated by the Monarch. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] I need not say I am attributing the responsibility wholly to His Majesty's Government. It is on them, of course, that any responsibility lies, and to them attaches the blame of what may be the effect of their action. In this respect they have sinned. It has certainly been so, because every fair-minded man will admit that both Houses of Parliament, and certainly this House in the last degree, but both Houses have been too much under the influence of partisan, feeling themselves. One of the reasons, indeed, I think, the true reason, for the constitutional difficulty has been that you have a party majority in this House using its followers without the slightest consideration, and you have a party majority in the other House not so partisan. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] How often has the House of Lords given way in late years? They may not have used their party majority ruthlessly, but still I am perfectly prepared to

  971
  admit they have done so in a spirit too partisan, and it is the conflict of these partisan bodies that has brought about the present constitutional crisis. Construct your Constitution as you please, but if the followers of any party in the Legislature or if the Crown are going to be used in a spirit of partisanship, you will have, in one way or another, a constitutional breakdown. In spite of that consideration, and instead of making things better, the Government have made things worse. Instead of trying to rid this and the other House of their exaggerated partisan character, they have tried to make the Crown itself partisan, and they have used the Prerogative for that purpose. Consequently I say they have been wrong in substance and in form in the advice they have given. This power of creating Peers is not one of the normal powers of constitutional working. I will presently quote authorities to show that. It is not, as the Prime Minister seemed to argue, a way out of a constitutional difficulty which any House of Commons may avail itself of whenever it thinks fit. It is one of the rare exceptional powers which in times of revolutionary pressure may be adopted. It belongs to the same order of constitutional powers as the power of the two Houses to declare the Throne vacant. That has been actually used in English history more often than the power of creating Peers. The latter has only been used once, and that on a very small scale, in Queen Anne's time. On three occasions has the Throne been declared vacant; thus I maintain that these are reserved powers to be used under the Constitution. They are not constitutional powers, they are revolutionary powers. Now the Prime Minister, in arguing this matter—I should gladly see him punished by the criminal law—but I cannot help being sorry he is not here. [HON. MEMBERS: "'Vide, 'vide."] I was only expressing my regret, I hope not in a manner distasteful to hon. Members opposite, that the right hon. Gentleman had found himself ill——
  Mr. RAFFAN: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Noble Lord is entitled to say that the conduct of the Prime Minister has been such as to bring him within the criminal Jaw?
  Mr. SPEAKER: As I understood it, the Noble Lord merely expressed a pious opinion.
  Mr. POINTER: May I ask whether, in your opinion, that expression was a pious opinion or an impious one?
  4.0 P.M.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I conceive that the Government and the Prime Minister have been guilty of high treason. That is my point. Undoubtedly it is high treason to overthrow the liberties of either House of Parliament, and that is the whole argument I am addressing to the House, for that is precisely what they have done. He said in his speech that the precedent of 1832 was not so strong a case for creating Peers as the case at present existing. That seemed to me a very surprising statement. The first thing the Prime Minister overlooked in his statement is that the House of Commons which then deliberated was an unreformed House of Commons. The astonishing part of the Parliamentary situation of 1831 was that the House of Commons, itself unreformed, was specially anxious to achieve reform. It was a most imperfect mirror of public opinion. It could hardly be called a mirror of public opinion at all. But, nevertheless, so almost universal was the feeling in favour of reform that in that aristocratic assembly —for such it was; it was not in the least a democratic assembly—that a majority of 130 or 140 was in favour of the Reform Bill. That was the significance; and, of course, the feeling of the population was overwhelmingly strong. I will read the House a very remarkable description of the temper and feeling that took place when the Whig Government resigned on the failure of their advice to the King to create Peers and the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel attempted to form a Government. The description is by a diarist, long a clerk of this House, and dealing with the question why they did not. take office, he says:—
  "The Duke thought a dissolution the only mode of establishing the new Government. Peel dreaded civil war. Both, perhaps, were in the right. The latter certainly would have had an uneasy berth at Tarn-worth. Hill told me that the Union——"
  That is the political union of Birmingham, a revolutionary body then in existence. There are a good many Members from Birmingham and the surrounding districts here who will tell us whether there is a similar feeling in that district at the present time—
  "'would have sent such a body of their members to that place during the election, that Peel's return would have been impracticable. The accounts from the country now poured in and were of the most alarming description. Parkes came on a deputation from Birmingham. He told me it was with extreme difficulty that the people could be kept from

  973
  coming to extremities…. The workmen walk about talking nothing but the Bill. The account of the vote of the Lords was received as a public calamity. The churches and dissenting chapels tolled their bells the whole night."
  Last night was there a general tolling of bells?
  "Well might the general in command be alarmed. He Wrote to Lord Hill that he was wholly incapable of resistance in case of insurrection."
  It will be observed that the people were on the very brink of an appeal to force. It cannot be argued that because the creation of Peers was justifiable when an appeal to force was immediately pending it is justifiable to-day. How can you argue, as the Prime Minister argued, that there is actually a stronger case to-day than there was then? [An HON. MEMBER: "The 'Birmingham Post' says the Bill must be passed."] The "Birmingham Post" does not propose to use force if it is not passed. The point is there was then a revolution immediately pending, and that this operated on the mind of the Whig Ministry is shown clearly by the language of Lord Althorp himself. There are two very remarkable letters which appeared in his "Life." The first was on 23rd November, six weeks after the Lords rejected the Bill on the Second Reading, and after the great Bristol riots and after Nottingham Castle had been burnt down, in which he says:—
  "I feel what I believe to be an insurmountable objection to overwhelming the House of Lords by a large creation of Peers"
  This was the Leader of the House of Commons, the Minister principally responsible for the Reform Bill itself.
  "But still I must admit that if it was clearly proved to me that a revolution would be the consequence of not taking this step and that not only the House of Lords, but every other thing of value in the country, would be overturned, it would be a very strong thing to any it ought not to be taken."
  I should like to ask the Government whether they represented to the King that it was clearly proved to them that a revolution would be the consequence of not taking that step. If not, what is the use of building on the precedent of 1832? Then Lord Althorp goes on—
  "I should prefer making use of the privileges of the Commons for the purpose of forcing the House of Lords to using this Prerogative of the Crown. As I told you this morning, both, however, are very desperate expedients."
  That is to say that he actually thought tacking, of which we have heard so much and which has been so often repudiated by the Government, a less unconstitutional course of two desperate expedients than the course of creating Peers. A few weeks later he was less disinclined, but
  974
  still very disinclined, to create Peers. He did not mind so much making a small creation, but to make forty, fifty or sixty would be to effect a certain revolution with the view of preventing a contingent one. Can anyone who has not closed his mind to all fair argument really maintain, in. face of these extracts, that the case now is the case of 1832? The thing is altogether absurd. The case is altogether different and we must look to another precedent, an interesting precedent, for such authority as can be brought for the Government action. There was once before in English history a contemplated creation of Peers which never took place. It was in the reign of James II. He was engaged in packing both Houses of Parliament. He was packing the House of Commons by proceedings in the law courts and by writs of quo uvarranto by which the charters were forfeited, a legal proceeding, but a very unconstitutional one, which enabled him to control the representation of the House of Commons. Then among his Ministers the question arose, what about the House of Lords. There were two Ministers who, it is interesting to remember were both ancestors of the present Home Secretary. One was Lord Sunderland, who, I believe, was the Home Secretary's ancestor in the direct male line, and the other is Lord Churchill, afterwards the great Marlborough, the right hon. Gentleman's ancestor in the female line. The right hon. Gentleman is too little a believer in the hereditary principle to be either gratified or offended when I say that they were men of eminent ability and also noted, even in an age of inconsistency, for the shamelessness of their tergiversations. Lord Sunderland said to Lord Churchill when this difficulty was propounded, "Oh silly, we will call up your troop of guards to the House of Lords." Such a conversation might almost have taken place between the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, except that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is never addressed as "oh silly." Courtesy is so much more prevalent nowadays. But the policy is just the same. There was a total disregard of the liberties of Parliament that went hand-in-hand with the proposal for a packed House of Commons. We do not need to look at precedents to be assured that packing either House of Parliament or any legislative assembly is essentially unconstitutional. How could it be otherwise? How can anyone seriously maintain that to appoint to an assembly, be it what it may, a number

  975
  of persons pledged to vote in a particular way is in accordance with the constitution when the very existence of the assembly at all and the powers conferred upon it presuppose that it will act freely, honestly, and according to its conscience? Evidently what the Government is doing is to subvert one of the ancient Houses of Parliament by an act of Prerogative. It makes the matter worse that they are doing this in order to pass a Bill which in our view destroys, and even in their view most seriously limits, the powers of that House. If words have a meaning this is a revolutionary proceeding. It is a breach of all constitutional action. It is to apply pressure to a House of Parliament which is altogether beyond the limits of constitutional right.
  Then we have extracts read to us from constitutional text-books. Constitutional textbooks are, of course, the work of commentators of eminent learning. They do not make the Constitution, but only comment upon it. But what is the line of Professor Dicey, for example, and many others who have written on the subject? It is "where the will of the people is conclusively ascertained." That brings me to the next argument. Is the will of the people conclusively ascertained on this point? Let us see. At the last General Election the question of cheap food and the like certainly operated very strongly on the electorate. There was also the question of whether they had the general approbation of the policy of the Government as a whole as against the general approbation of the policy of the Opposition as a whole, which is also a confusing element, and all the controversies which have arisen out of the Budget, and the question of how far finance was properly a matter for the House of Lords to discuss—all these matters were a confusing element for the issue that is now before the House. But apart from that there were two main points, only one of which can, even by hon. Members opposite, be supposed to have been decided. There was the attack upon the Veto of the House of Lords, and, though very little was said about it on the opposite side, there was also the question of the absolute supremacy of the House of Commons. Supposing it to be true that the issue of Peers v. People—the issue of the absolute Veto of the Lords—which was the staple of their speeches, was decided, that matter is not raised in the Lords Amendments, and does not arise to-day. It is common ground that we intend to repeal the Parliament
  976
  Bill. What is raised by these Amendments is not the Veto of the House of Lords, it is the Veto of the people in certain great issues over the proceedings of the House of Commons.
  The Home Secretary developed once again that old argument, "be fair to both sides," which he has used very many times during these Debates as an argument in defence of the Bill. The answer to it is quite a simple one. Whatever may be said of the proposal that different people ought to have the same opportunity of doing the same thing, no possible canon of justice or equity can say that different people ought to have the same opportunity of doing different things. If the Home Secretary thinks that over he will see that equity of dealing is. destroyed at a blow by that consideration. Or to put an illustration, which is often more intelligible than an abstract proposition, it does not follow because the House of Lords passed the Education Bill of 1902 that, therefore, Home Rule is to pass with equal facility, because Home Rule is quite a different sort of thing. It is not only that we think it undesirable, just as the Prime Minister used to think it undesirable twelve years ago, and just as the Home Secretary thought it undesirable at a much more recent period. It is evidently a measure of a different calibre. It is a measure which will be exceedingly difficult to revoke, it is a measure which excites an opposition of an altogether different character, and it is a measure that alters the Constitution fundamentally. If you really care about giving both sides an equal chance, the proper thing is to shut out both political parties from passing such a measure without reference to the people. I do not suppose there would be much difficulty about coming to an understanding on that basis. But to say, that because of this doctrine of equality you are to have the absolute supremacy of the House of Commons, that is to say, that you are to have alternate tyrannies, first one party doing exactly what it likes, and then the other party doing exactly what it likes, the House of Commons being elected as it is with no real choice of the electorate as to what candidates it will have—as a matter of fact, the candidates are chosen by the party organisations, and unless the party organisation chooses a candidate he does not get in, broadly speaking. As a matter of fact, there is no absolute mirror of the will of the people in this House, and to say that the people of this country

  977
  are unaware of that is untrue. They are perfectly aware of the faults and defects of the representative system. They know that the House of Commons constantly does not represent their true mind, and to say that they have decided that they do not wish to have a veto upon measures of a great, primary, and irrevocable character is entirely untrue. The will of the people on that point has not been ascertained, and I am confident the will of the people is on our side. The Prime Minister yesterday challenged us to point out some other way. I will make a proposition which he may support; at any rate he has often foreshadowed it in his speeches. He has more than once said that he would have no objection to the Referendum as a way out of a great constitutional difficulty. Hardly any of us expect to see a greater constitutional difficulty than that which exists at the present moment. I suggest that the disagreement between the two Houses should be referred by special Act of Parliament to the electorate to decide. [An Hon. MEMBER: "It has decided twice."] Lord Lansdowne's Amendment has never been rejected; I am not suggesting a dissolution of Parliament. The thing should be referred to the people in this form:—
  "Will you have the Parliament Bill with Lord Lansdowne's Amendment or without Lord Lansdowne's Amendment?"
  It might be provided in the Bill that the Parliament Bill should be forthwith presented for the Royal Assent in the form in which the electorate prefer. That is a way out.
  My right hon. Friend above the Gangway quite agrees with me that it would be perfectly satisfactory, but I do not suppose the Government will accept it. They know they would be beaten. They know that except for the purposes of party rhetoric the will of the people has not been conclusively obtained, and anyone opposite who has a fair judgment will agree in his secret heart that the will of the people on this particular issue of Lord Lansdowne's Amendment is on our side and against you. I have a quotation on that point which has the great authority of Mr. Gladstone. It was in that famous speech in which he finally left this subject to the House. It was the last speech he delivered in this House, and it contained great criticism by him of the action of the House of Lords. He said:—
  "The House of Commons itself is a party in the case. The House of Commons could not be the final
  978
  judge in its own case. I am by no means anxious to precipitate proceedings of that kind, however much they may be invited by an impatience not unnatural in the circumstances of the case. There is an authority higher than the House of Commons. It is the authority of the nation which must in the last resort decide."
  Does anyone really believe that the nation in the last resort is deciding this issue of Lord Lansdowne's Amendment? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Controversialists who make that sort of case would make any sort of case, and argument is thrown away upon them. No one on this side of the House says that Lord Lansdowne's Amendment has been decided by the people. What has been the actual effect of the unconstitutional action of the Government in respect of the House of Lords. There has been pressure to divert the House from its natural lines. This has been expressly declared by Lord Lansdowne, who has said that he only yields to force majeure, that he yields only to mere force. He said he was no longer a free agent; he said he would insist upon his Amendment so long as he was a free agent, but as soon as he ceased to be a free agent he did not propose to insist further. I do not want to use a word that would in the slightest degree reflect—I have no reflection in my mind—upon the courage of Lord Lansdowne. I am quite sure that there is no defect in his courage, but I think his judgment is mistaken in this particular matter. I do think that if he adhered to the position which he took up, he would in the end make resistance to the position of the Government easier, the reaction more certain, and the eventual repeal of the Parliament Bill more certain. I do not want to throw even the tiniest stone against him. I do not in the least doubt that he is acting from motives of a conscientious character, but the point is that he is avowedly put under duress. It is not his own free judgment; he is constrained in what he is doing.
  There are other Members of the other House upon whom the constraint has operated still more powerfully, and about whom I confess I cannot speak in equal terms of respect. I cannot conceive how any self-respecting person can give a vote against his convictions under the pressure of a Government of which he disapproves in the case of a Bill which he thinks is ruinous to the country. We have called the Peers who are to be created "puppet peers," but there is something worse than being a puppet: it is to be a puppet's deputy. There are not a few honest Liberals, I believe, who are shrinking from the ignominious task that the Government

  979
  would put upon them, and are unwilling to be made Peers in the circumstances of the case. I confess it would be more patriotic, more dignified, and more public spirited if the Conservative Peers had not been panic-stricken, because the Government had brought forward a bogey of a kind, which they are never tired of manufacturing, and if they were not going to vote against their own wishes and in defiance of their own convictions, in order that the Government may be able to claim their support in having put the seal upon that piece of legislation. Their apprehension, is that there will be such a creation of Peers as would create a working majority for the Government in the House of Lords. For reasons on which I will say a word or two in a later branch of my argument, I am not at all afraid of such a creation as that. Anyone who listened to the Prime Minister's speech yesterday could see for himself that no such creation is contemplated. He was very careful to direct his argument solely to the necessity of passing the Parliament Bill. The whole of his argument was directed to the passage of the Parliament Bill, and there was nothing of the suggestion which haunts the disorderly imagination of the "Spectator." That the Ministers of the Crown contemplate making such an addition to the House of Lords as would give them a permanent Liberal majority so as to pass any conceivable Bill is a fantastical idea.
  The Prime Minister's speech, if you will read it, you will see what his argument was. It is not an argument I agree with, but it is an argument to create Peers for the purpose of passing the Parliament Bill. That is not an argument for the creation of a working Liberal majority in the House of Lords. I am personally indifferent how far the Government break up the Constitution. Indeed, I believe that so far as the Unionist party are concerned, apart from other considerations, the more they are able to break up the Constitution, the better it will be in the end for the national Constitution and the better for us. Let me give an illustration which will make my meaning clear. Suppose the heat of politics rose higher, and when Home Rule comes into discussion, there was opposition, such as I confess might very well take place, of a disorderly character to arrest the progress of that Bill. Suppose the whole of the Unionist party were behind that. Suppose that the Government proposed or threatened to suspend the whole of the Unionist party from the service of
  980
  this House? Would the Government gain by such a course? Does any one believe they would be better off, or that they would be stronger, if the Opposition were forcibly removed from this House? Any one can see that that would not only be a tyrannical proceeding, but an exceedingly unwise proceeding. It would at once make clear to the country that they were being governed by sheer power, by the sheer tyrannical assertion of power, and that the forms and liberties of the Constitution were at an end. Just the same argument applies in a, minor degree to the packing of the House of Lords with a permanent majority of Liberals by a large creation of Peers. All these things bring home to the people, who are believers in self-government in their very bones, that it was indeed true that there was a tyrannical system which was engaged in making subservient and has made subservient all the powers of the legislature to its own will and has long trodden under foot all the safeguards of true constitutional liberty.
  I say, therefore, it is an unwise course even in the interests of the Government themselves. What are they doing all this for? There is no secret about it. They are doing all this, they are going through all this crisis, because they will not concede the point that Home Rule should be referred to the people. Will any Member of the Government dispute that if they conceded that point and made that the concession that Home Rule should be referred to the people before it came into law, the crisis would be at an end? Does any one here dispute it? [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Welsh Disestablishment?"] There is not the least doubt that if a concession so considerable were made it would put an end to the crisis. I may ask the Home Secretary, who is giving me his attention, does he deny that if that concession were made, the crisis would be at an end? You are going to create Peers because you will not refer Home Rule to the people. It shows how people mistake the country in which they live. If the Constitution and the system of Government comes to an end, if you break the Constitution, we must fall back upon force. Are you prepared to do that? The Home Secretary said last night that they would pass the Home Rule Bill. I will wager they do not carry Home Rule. I do not put any confidence in the suggestion in the Parliament Bill of two Sessions and all the rest of that nonsense.

  981
  I do not put any confidence in the safeguards which the Government have put in the Parliament Bill, and which have unhappily gulled some persons. The contest about Home Rule will not be decided in the City of Westminster at all. It will rather be decided in the City of Belfast. They who have broken the Constitution, they who have destroyed government by consent, will have no reason to complain if the people of the north-east of Ireland organise a secession from the Government of Ireland which the Government propose to set up, and if they set up a complete machinery, which I think can easily be done in the coming autumn—a complete machinery of government, collect their own taxes, and leave the Government of Ireland—[Laughter and interruption]. Hon. Members seem to take these observations as if they were mere empty threats. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who is the traitor now?" and "Teaching treason."] You thought that disorder in the House of Commons was an empty threat. [Interruption.] I say that I look back on the event of fourteen days ago with satisfaction. [Interruption, and HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] I say I look back upon it with satisfaction, because I think it symbolised a great constitutional reality—a great political reality. No doubt hon. Members opposite were the majority. You had the power in the House, but you could not prevent us interrupting the Prime Minister. Now what is true on a small scale is true also of Home Rule on a much larger and more important scale. The Government have broken the Constitution and they cannot complain. Those who are fighting for what they believe to be constitutional liberty and freedom are not to be put down because the Government have captured the House and used it for party purposes, because they have wrested consent from the Sovereign—[Renewed interruptions]—so that they may with all the authority of the Crown, Lords and Commons in their hands, pose before the country as absolute masters and carry out their will as they please. Be sure of it, free men are not so governed. The Unionists of Ireland and England will make that understood in the near future, and the spirit and the heart of us will not allow this sordid chain of coercion—the Irish Party coercing the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister coercing Parliament. We will not allow it——
  Mr. LEIF JONES: On a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether
  982
  it is in order to introduce the name of the Crown into our Debate?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It appears to me that it would be impossible to conduct this discussion without doing so. Hon. Members will bear in mind what the Prime Minister said in his statement yesterday.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: On that point may I submit that we are not to-day debating the Resolution of yesterday. I submit that it was in order to introduce the name of the Crown yesterday, because it was in pursuance of a Resolution definitely drawing attention to a matter affecting the Crown. To-day we are debating the question whether we shall consider the Lords Amendments. The case to-day is entirely different from that of yesterday. Under the practice of the House, is not the Noble Lord out of order in introducing the name of the Crown into Debate?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is rather late in taking that point. [Interruption, and HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I do not think there is anything in the point for this reason: The House is considering not only the Motion before it, but the results of that Motion, and therefore the House is well entitled to take into consideration before it arrives at a decision what the results of that decision will be both in this House and elsewhere, and all the surrounding cirumstances of the case.
  Lord HUGH CECIL:I assure the House I am not going to trespass on its attention beyond a single sentence more. We will not allow the spirit of liberty to be fettered by such a chain as that. We are prepared to contend, as many have contended before us, for the greatest cause that can appeal to a free people—the cause of the unity of the people and the liberty of the subject.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: Through the courtesy of the Prime Minister last night I was prevented from utilising the few minutes that remained after the speech of the Home Secretary to make some observations which I desired to make. [Interruption.] I speak very seldom in this House, and I think I can show reason, having regard to the announcement made yesterday by the Home Secretary, that I have a special right to be heard as representing the minority in Ireland. The truth of the matter is, as was said by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Durham (Mr. Atherley Jones) yesterday,

  983
  the Irish question, which was put forward in. such a bombastic way by the Home Secretary last night largely dominates, if it does not entirely dominate, the present situation, because anybody who will recollect the succession of events which led up to the last election, to the guarantees, and to the present deadlock, will, I think, be satisfied that the situation from the start down to the present moment has been dominated by the Irish Nationalist Members, and, in point of fact, it has been dominated by them, and by them alone. I congratulate them upon their power. I cannot help congratulating the hon. and learned Member for Waterford on the success of his operations in bringing to their knees the great Liberal party of England, and in announcing as a necessary part of their policy for keeping the loyalty of the Irish Members that they were prepared to destroy to the uttermost the ancient Constitution of this country. The truth of the matter is that when you look back upon the arrangements—I call them advisedly arrangements—with the Irish Nationalist Members, the whole of the proceedings in relation to this Parliament Bill have been a farce and a delusion from the start. This House has never been, a free agent. The Government has never been a free agent, and from the disgraceful tale that was unfolded to us yesterday, it appears that at the time when the Crown was given advice when the crisis arose, even the Crown was not a free agent, because the Crown had been bound contrary to all precedent in reference to a situation which it was impossible to contemplate, and in addition to that the House of Lords, who have sent us this Bill down here, themselves ceased to be free agents from the moment the blackmailing letter of the Prime Minister was sent. [Interruptions, and HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Withdraw what? I shall not withdraw it, and I repeat it.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: On a point of Order. I wish your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether the application of the term "blackmailing" by one Member to another Member is Parliamentary?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not a pretty expression, but I cannot say it is out of order.
  Sir E. CARSON: In these circumstances —[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] This does the Government much more harm than the Opposition.
  Sir JOSEPH WALTON: Your speech does your cause more harm.
  Sir E. CARSON: I am afraid I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's opinion. I prefer my own. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Withdraw 'blackmailing,'" and "Order."] May I ask if the hon. Gentleman opposite is entitled to keep interrupting?
  Mr. SPEAKER:I was asked whether an expression used by the hon. and learned Member was unparliamentary. If I had thought it was unparliamentary I would have asked the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it. I have told the House that, though I did not like the expression—and I quite understand that many hon. Members share in that dislike—I cannot say it is an unparliamentary expression, for I have frequently heard it used in this House.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Would you consider in the case of an expression which is not entirely unparliamentary, but is an improper expression to use, that it would be more proper for the right hon. Gentleman, opposite to withdraw it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Whether the hon. Member withdraws an improper expression or not is entirely a matter for himself.
  Sir E. CARSON: I shall not accept the standard of taste set up by that hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Set up by the Speaker "and" Order, Pringle!"] I will strip the whole of this matter of all its technicalities, and see if I cannot make good what I have stated as to the Irish party dominating the situation. Of course, it is very interesting to go into precedents. Nothing could have been more interesting or able than the review that was given by the Noble Lord; but everybody knows that a Government which is out for revolution cares nothing for precedent, and there is no precedent in the present case that is applicable. All the precedents and all the forms of the Constitution so far as they are used are only used to cover up and give a veneer of constitutionalism to the revolutionary acts of the Government. The Noble Lord laid down, what no one would dispute, that when His Majesty is called upon to exercise this great Prerogative, which is almost unknown in our history, he exercises, or ought to be advised to exercise, a fair and judicial judgment as between the various subjects of his realm. No one can dispute that for this reason, that a Constitution is not a Constitution for a political party. [Cheers.]
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Why did you use it as one?
  Sir E. CARSON: A Constitution is a Constitution for a nation. I understand these ironical cheers. You refer to the House of Lords as at present constituted. Who made the bulk of the Peers? [HON. MEMBERS: "You did" and "Charles II."] Of course, in the present state of affairs, and with their Irish allies holding the key to the situation, it never occurred to the Prime Minister, naturally, that anybody ought to see the Sovereign or advise him or be consulted by him except those who were prepared to carry out the will of the Irish Nationalists. Just take the dates. The hon. and learned Member for Water-ford said in a speech in October last that the situation was an ideal one for them; and the Prime Minister knew it. Here is what the hon. and learned Member said in the month of October. Mark the date, because you will remember that the Prime Minister told us last night that it was on the 14th or 15th of November that he tendered his advice to the Sovereign: "We do not care a snap of the finger for either political party in England, or for any political leader. If they refuse to do our will we can turn the Liberals out as easily as we can reduce a Conservative Government to impotence. The situation is ideal for our cause." So it was. Then again, a few days afterward he said this, "Whether they," that is, the Liberals, "are sincere or not we will make, and we have got the power to do it, we will make them toe the line." [An Hon. MEMBER: "We heard all that last night."] Within a month of that statement the Prime Minister was before his King getting guarantees to which he was going afterwards to bind him under an entirely different state of circumstances.
  I noticed in the written communication which the Prime Minister produced yesterday as having passed to the Sovereign that he used the words, which seemed to me to be somewhat extraordinary, that he had asked for guarantees; but it does not go on to say with reference to the Parliament Bill, but in reference to the policy of the Government. That was rather a tall order—to ask the Sovereign for guarantees with reference to the policy of the Government, and now we are told that that policy includes Home Rule. I do not think that anybody can doubt, having regard to the dates which I have given, that it was the dominating factor. I believe, at all events, that if the Government had been free agents here—and I do them the justice of
  986
  saying that—I believe they would have framed this Parliament Bill not as a mers political party, but as trustees for the nation. Look how it stands at the present moment. Does anybody believe that if it was not for hon. Members below the Gangway this crisis would not have been settled days and days or weeks and weeks ago? [An Hon. MEMBER: "Which Members?"] The sole question of substance between the two Houses is whether Home Rule shall be passed, if the House of Lords disagree with it, without submitting a Bill which the nation have never seen to the nation themselves, and it is because the Government are not free agents in the matter, that all this constitutional uneasiness, and all these proposals, including the degradation of the Prerogative of the Crown, are resorted to by His Majesty's Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand (Mr. Long) put a, question last night which has been repeated by the Noble Lord who has just addressed us. It is: Do you agree, before other matters are withdrawn, to some Clause in the Parliament Bill under which they can send Home Rule to the people, who, whenever they saw a concrete Bill have in the past always repudiated it?
  I should like to know this—I think I have a right to ask—when His Majesty, as stated in the communication made to us yesterday by the Prime Minister, assented under some hypothetical circumstances, of which the Prime Minister was to be the judge, to the exercise of constitutional powers as they were called of creating peers, was it put before him that that involved, as is now announced, the passage of a Home Rule Bill without its ever being submitted to the country? What Home Rule Bill? The Prime Minister says Home Rule was before the electorate at the last election. What Home Rule was before them? Anybody who remembers the struggles we had on the question of Home Rule in years gone by will know perfectly well that it was not until the details of the measure came to be discussed in this House, and were put before the people, that the people were enabled to understand the full results of the policy of disintegration. I think I have a right to ask when His Majesty was, as I think, trapped into giving this promise of guarantees on some future occasion if those advisers who were so anxious that his name should never be brought into politics advised him as to what would be the effect on this Home Rule controversy? For myself, I believe it was impossible,

  987
  because I do not believe that even the Government themselves at the present moment know what they mean by Home Rule, and I am certain that the country does not. The Prime Minister said yesterday that Home Rule was sufficiently discussed before the country at the election. I believe that to be absolutely untrue. In the same breath in which he said that he said at the last election that it was a bogey. Are electors in the habit of seriously considering bogeys? I see a letter which has been sent to "The Times" today, enclosing a circular from Sir Ernest Scares, who was, I think, at the time one of the Government Whips. He also uses the same phrase. I expect he got it from the Prime Minister. He says:—
  "I hope you will not be led astray by the Home Rule bogey, with which our opponents are attempting to confuse the issue."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Read on; read the rest of the paragraph."] I will read the whole of it.
  "And you have known me long enough to rely upon my word and I definitely pledge myself to vote against that independent Parliament, and against any scheme for separation of the two countries."
  That was the way in which Sir Ernest Soares gave an explicit definition of the policy of Home Rule.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): It was your bogey.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his very courteous interruption. Sir Ernest Soares was a Whip, I believe, of the late Government. Does the Prime Minister seriously tell us that Home Rule was the issue before the country at the last election, when not a single one of his colleagues, including the Chief Secretary for Ireland, put the question of Home Rule into his election address? That is a very curious way to put an issue before the country. I can imagine the Prime Minister and the Cabinet saying: "Gentlemen, let us all leave it out in order that the country may the better understand it." The truth of the matter is, as I think I have shown, at all events to my own satisfaction, which is something, that from the point of view of the Irish it is an ideal situation—to use the hon. and learned Gentleman's words—which have given rise to this controversy. It is the Irish, and not the House of Lords, who have brought about this deadlock. They can turn you out to-day, or they can turn
  988
  you out to-morrow, and that is a situation brought about by the fact that the Prime Minister has gone back upon what he once so wisely laid down, that it would be unwise of the Liberal party to take office unless it had a majority independent of the Irish vote. The Home Secretary, last night, gave away the whole case when he said: "We are going to pass Home Rule in this Parliament." Yes, that is the price of the support of hon. Members below the Gangway. I cannot prophesy whether this statement will come true or not, but I can at all events say this, that we are not going to accept Home Rule from this Parliament.
  I know that hon. Members opposite think they are better acquainted with the North of Ireland than I am. Their information is overwhelming. I once met a Liberal Minister, who asked me something about Home Rule in Ireland, and I said, "Do you think there is any use our discussing it? Do you know anything about it?" And he said, "Something." "Have you ever been there?" And he said, "Not exactly, but I have been round it in a yacht," and he knew the whole position of Ireland remarkably well. If anything ever justified resistance to Home Rule it is the conduct of the Government in relation to this Parliament Bill. You are going to attempt to pass it, according to the Home Secretary, without putting it before the electors, and by a pure act of force. I do not want in the least to boast, but I may at least express my own hope, made most solemnly, that your act of force will be resisted by force. I believe myself it will, and I believe that those who resist will have constitutional right on their side. For these reasons, and because neither the House of Lords nor the Commons, or the Government have been free agents, throughout the whole of the transaction in relation to this Parliament Bill, I beg to second the Motion of the Noble Lord.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): It is not my intention to follow at any length either the Noble Lord or the right hon. and learned Gentleman into their speeches, which obviously were intended to be compressed within the scope of yesterday's Debate, and the Amendment they have moved may be inconvenient from the point of view of the business of the House of Commons, though I frankly admit not from the point of view of their speeches. But I will answer the question which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just put to me very shortly. He has asked the

  989
  Government to state whether at the time when the advice was tendered in November, of which the Prime Minister gave the House a full account yesterday, the Sovereign was apprised of the fact that the Government contemplated using the Parliament Bill for carrying Home Rule.
  Sir E. CARSON: May I ask whether he had informed His Majesty of the Government proposals in relation to Home Rule?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: With all respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think that is the right version of the question, or, at any rate, it is an extension of it. I am not going to reply to the question except in the most formal manner, as is my duty. The Sovereign, as is well known, takes no part in party politics, he expresses no opinion thereon, and there would be very great danger if we were to embark on a discussion which seemed to suggest that His Majesty associates himself with the opinions of either one or the other of parties in this House. We repudiate for ourselves any such intention. But it is right and proper to say that His Majesty was fully acquainted in November with the true facts of the political situation and with all the matters in dispute between the various parties in the State, among which Home Rule was unquestionably one of the more important. And how could there be any mistake about this? Because before November, 1910, in the Parliament of 1910, on April 14th, 1910 —it is a memorable date, and I fancy it will prove to be one in the history of this country—the Opposition, in an Amendment which was supported by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, moved to exempt Home Rule from the provisions of the Parliament Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO. no."] Certainly, to exempt Home Rule from the provisions of the Resolution—I make the hon. Gentleman a present of any advantage from that—to remove from the scope of the Resolutions, which governed the Parliament Bill, a measure connecter with Home Rule for Ireland. That matter was debated fully in this House, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself spoke upon it. After full debate in this House it was rejected on a Division by more than one hundred votes. Therefore, it is absurd—and hon. Gentlemen opposite know in their own hearts it is absurd—to say that we have made any secret of our intention, our consistent and original intention, to use the machinery of the Parlia-
  990
  ment Bill for the passage of Home Rule, for which we consider we have ample authority derived from the electors. I do not intend to follow the Noble Lord, the Member for Greenwich—[An Hon. MEMBER: "For Oxford University"]—I remember when the Noble Lord was Member for Greenwich, and I recollect he was turned out of his seat for Greenwich, but if he was turned out, the difficulty was not with me, but with the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson). I cannot attempt to answer at all the thinly veiled criticism of the Noble Lord upon the action of the Crown. There is one matter in his speech, referred to also by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to which I am bound immediately to refer, namely, the reference which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made to the use of force. I should not have thought that any Member of that party was less suitable to play a leading part in a fray. He advocates in this. Debate, openly refers to, recourse to methods of riot and disorder on the part of any minority who conceived themselves, discontented with the decision of the. Government. The Noble Lord even asked us to consider if we had any reason to expect that the Parliament Bill would pass into law, because unlike the case of 1832, there had been no rioting in the country before it. No, Sir, there has been no rioting in the country. The people had no votes in 1832, so that they had little choice as to what alternative they should adopt. But they have votes now, and they have, used their votes, and we stand here to see that the use of their votes shall be respected.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Noble Lord are very wrong in using language of this kind at the present time when there is very grave labour unrest all over the country. There are 70,000 dockers on strike in London. Those men have just the same strong feelings as the Noble Lord. Some of them are hungry, some of them are suffering, and I should like to know if they were to break out into rioting who would be the first to come here and urge that the soldiers should be sent. We deprecate the use of this language. It is not suitable for the House of Commons, it is injurious and injudicious in the times in which we live, and least of all is it suitable for the party which prides itself as being the party of law and order, and the party which undoubtedly has the most to lose by any scenes of turbulence and riot. There is

  991
  another argument of the Noble Lord with which I will deal in passing, and it is the only fresh argument that I have discovered in the course of this Debate. The Noble Lord's contention is that there ought to be another special appeal to the country—he suggests by Referendum, on the subject of the Parliament Bill. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Home Rule."] On the Lansdowne Amendments to the Parliament. Bill. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Home Rule."] He suggested that there ought to be another appeal on this subject because, although the Parliament Bill itself might have been before the electorate at the last election, the Lansdowne Amendments could not have been foreseen. There are a great many Amendments which cannot possibly be foreseen, but suppose we had the other appeal which the Noble Lord desires, and I learn he does not suggest that it should take an election form, suppose we had that appeal on the Parliament Bill and the Lansdowne Amendments and that the Parliament Bill were again approved and the Lansdowne Amendments were again repudiated, how can we tell that the electors would have foreseen other contingencies and that other Amendments might be introduced and that we might be going on till the extremes of perverted political ingenuity had been exhausted.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I expressly stated in the proposal I adumbrated that the special Reference Bill would provide that the Parliament Bill would be submitted for the Royal Assent forthwith without further proceeding in either House in the form approved by the electorate, either with or without Amendments.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Where then is the logical reason for the Noble Lord's Amendment? Why, if because the Amendments were not foreseen the will of the people in favour of the Bill is vitiated, why would not this other decision on the Parliament Bill, plus the Lansdowne Amendment and other unforeseen Amendments, be vitiated also? We cannot really have any hope of coming to any agreement with the Noble Lord. He has his own definitions and his own conceptions and data in this conflict. His definition of partisanship is that it is an inherent vice of all Liberal Governments and of the Liberal party, and that they adhere to it in spite of the many examples of tolerance and self-respect with which they are furnished
  992
  by the House of Lords, by the Conservative party, and by the family to which the Noble Lord belongs. His definition of high treason is when the majority of the nation claim for themselves the same political rights as the other portion of the nation have long enjoyed. There is one question I should like to ask, not only of the Noble Lord, but of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, not for the purposes of controversy, but for the general information of the House and of the country. The Noble Lord said that of course it was his intention to repeal the Parliament Bill at the first opportunity, and that that was common ground among the different bodies and sections into which the Conservative party is now divided. I want to know, is that really so? I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition, is that really so, that it is common ground among all sections of the Conservative party that at the first opportunity the Parliament Bill should be repealed?
  Mr. BALFOUR: The policy of the party to which I belong is that the House of Lords should be reformed, and that with that reform, coincident with it and contemporaneous with it, there should be a readjustment between the reformed House of Lords and this House, so that some better method of dealing with deadlocks should be devised. If a revolution is to be carried out by the arbitrary will of the Minister of the day that involves an entire modification from top to bottom of the present policy of the Government. It he calls that repeal I am in favour of it, but I am not in favour, and so far as I know none of my Friends' are, of the mere repeal of this Bill without substituting any reform system.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: We were quite aware on this side of the House, and we had it from the public declarations of the right hon. Gentleman and other leaders of the Conservative party that the party which he leads was united upon curtailing the Prerogative of the Crown. We know that and quite recognised that he has clearly declared his intention of carrying out some alteration in the House of Lords which would have that effect. [Hon. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] A Bill has already been introduced by Lord Lansdowne which would have that effect, but it is very useful and very convenient at this stage for us to get placed on record, and there is nothing to be ashamed of in expressing an opinion clearly, that it is the settled policy

  993
  of the Opposition to repeal the Parliament Bill. Whether that will expedite their return to power or not is a matter which only the future can tell. The Noble Lord's Motion, although it has given me the opportunity of making this speech, has another use to which I think it might be put in the interests of the general convenience, of the House, and that is that this Motion which raises the whole question of the Lords Amendments, which after all is the matter we have come here this afternoon to discuss, does afford a convenient opportunity for the Government to state generally what course they propose to take in regard to these different Amendments.
  I think that a statement should be made briefly in relation to the whole group of Amendments in order that the House may not begin the discussion without knowing the view we take generally of all the Amendments on the Paper. The first Amendment which the House has to consider raises the question of the substitution of a Joint Committee which is to be composed as is set out in the Lords Amendment, and which has to decide several important functions. This Committee is to be composed of the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, the Chairman of Ways and Means of the House of Commons, a Lord of Appeal to be chosen by and from the Lords of Appeal in ordinary and other Peers of Parliament holding or who have held high judicial office, and a Member of the House of Commons to be appointed by the Speaker. This Committee is to decide first of all what is or is not a Money Bill; and secondly, it is to decide the special subjects relegated to it under Sub-section 3, or what is called the Lansdowne Amendment. These matters are so described in the Lansdowne Amendment:—
  "The Committee is to settle whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill, whether it is a Bill which, in their opinion, raises an issue of great gravity upon which the judgment of the country has not been sufficiently ascertained."
  I do not think I need say much or occupy the time of the House further than saying that we regard that proposal as altogether fantastic. It is perfectly impossible that matters of supreme issue in the country, and which are great subjects of conflict between the political parties, are to be decided upon by a fancy tribunal of six or seven superior men. No nation
  994
  would ever willingly entrust the decision of its policy to such hands. In any case the matters on which they would decide are not those which are susceptible in their very nature, of being the subjects of judicial decision. How are you to decide judicially, and on what judicial grounds can you come to a conclusion that the matter is or is not one of great gravity, or one upon which the judgment of the country has not been ascertained? How that could be done has never been pointed out. Those are obviously matters of opinion, and highly controversial opinion, and we regard it as utterly impossible that such matters could ever be adjudicated upon by such a tribunal, or, if they were submitted to be adjudicated upon by such a tribunal, that the tribunal would have any means of coming to a decision of any value at all for the purposes of the discussion.
  As for the first part of the duties of this new tribunal, that the tribunal shall be the judge of what is or is not a Money Bill, the position of the Government again is perfectly clear. The House of Commons had always claimed to be the judge, through its Speaker, of what are its privileges, and there is no privilege which the House of Commons values more than the sole control of all matters relating to finance; and we are not likely at this time of day to abandon that most necessary and essential privilege, or to add to the House of Lords at this present time powers which in all the centuries they have never successfully asserted. I may add, as a comment upon the technical preparation of the Amendment, that it is quite evident to anyone who studies the text of the Amended Bill that the tribunal to be set up to adjudicate on these matters was devised with an eye on Clause 2 of the Bill, and the House will in all probability recognise that it is in itself quite unsuited to decide the much simpler matters which come within the scope of Clause 1. We shall, therefore, ask the House to reject the whole apparatus of the Joint Committee, and to restore the Speaker of the House of Commons to his ancient and natural place, not only in the Parliament Bill, but in the constitutional practice of this country—his ancient and natural place, not merely as the judge of the privileges of this House, but as their defender.
  But the Government have given full consideration, as was their duty, to the speech delivered in the House of Lords by the only living Member of that body who has

  995
  filled the Chair of this House. I mean the speech of Lord Peel. We have felt it our duty to consider very gravely the observations which that most distinguished and famous Speaker of the House of Commons then thought it necessary and proper to make. He dwelt upon the need of associating with you, Sir, in your task of coming to a decision, some other persons of weight and responsibility. He dwelt on the need of consultation which a Speaker may feel in regard to what we all admit is an extra burden added to the already heavy duties which fall upon the Chair. We cannot in any circumstances admit any Member of the House of Lords to any share whatever in the decision as to the privileges of this House with regard to finance, nor could we in any way impair or divide the sole and plenary authority of the Speaker of this House to decide finally upon these matters. But we have come to the conclusion—the House will realise that I am only speaking in the regrettable absence of the Prime Minister, whose voice is strained by the speech which he had to deliver yesterday—that it may render the decision of the Chair more easy, it may lighten the burden and make the decision when taken more readily acceptable to the House at large and to the public out of doors, if it is known that there has been an opportunity for consultation between the Speaker and other responsible Members of Parliament, that a statutory opportunity has been provided whereby the Speaker shall consult with Members in responsible positions representing both sides of the House. Therefore the Government propose to move an Amendment to Clause 1. Of course we shall previously have restored the Speaker to his position and excised the provision for a Joint Committee. We shall then propose to move the following words:—
  "Before giving his certificate the Speaker shall consult, if practicable"—
  I will explain those words presently—
  "the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means"—
  who is usually by long custom drawn from the supporters of the Government—
  "and the Chairman of the Committee on Public Acounts"—
  who by long Parliamentary tradition is drawn from the Members of the Opposition. The Amendment will read in this way:—
  "Before giving his certificate the Speaker shall consult, if practicable, the
  996
  Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means and the Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts."
  The Government trust that this statutory opportunity of consulting with Members of authority will be an aid to you, Sir, in your duties—an aid which we do not think you require, but which your successors may find useful. The words "if practicable" are inserted because it is possible that one or the other of those Members might be ill or absent from the country at the time, and it is felt that this amount of elasticity must be provided.
  The Joint Committee is the foundation upon which what is called the Cromer Amendment is based, and also that upon which the Lansdowne Amendment rests. The Joint Committee being rejected root and branch, as we shall ask the House to reject it, the Cromer Amendment falls ipso facto to the ground, and the Lansdowne Amendment, we think, does not require any additional weight to pull it down. The natural force of gravity will bring about that inevitable conclusion. For what does the Lansdowne Amendment amount to? It amounts to the substitution of that very policy of the Referendum which was definitely rejected at the poll in December of last year. It amounts to the substitution of the rejected policy for the policy of the Parliament Bill which was specifically affirmed. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The House will doubtless take notice that some hon. Gentlemen opposite say "No." We do not expect to convince them; we do not expect that anything we may say will alter their opinion. Shortly stated, the Lansdowne Amendment means that any Liberal Bill to which the Conservative party object must first pass the House of Commons three times in a period of not less than two years; it must then run the gauntlet of the Committee so curiously and mysteriously composed — a Committee which, in our opinion, is sure always to be Conservative in tone, if not, indeed, with a permanent Conservative majority. Then, after it has been through all the Parliamentary processes, it is to be referred by that Committee, if the Committee think fit, to the decision of the electors by a Referendum under some system never yet defined or explained, either in the Amendment to the Bill or in any other proposals which have yet been brought before Parliament. Meanwhile, as an instance of the political equality that we are offered at this time of day by this concession which the House of Lords is re-

  997
  presented to have made, every Conservative Bill which passes by a bare majority would at once receive the Royal Assent. [Several Hon. MEMBERS: "NO."] Let me add that the introduction of the provision of the Referendum into this vital Amendment to the Bill, unaccompanied as it is by the slightest explanation of the manner in which the Referendum is to be effected, or even of the principle on which it is to proceed, is to all intents equivalent to a dilatory Motion. It is exactly the same, in fact, and in result as a Motion to read a Bill this day six or twelve months. It is, therefore, practically tantamount to the direct rejection of the Bill.
  I have only two or three more points to deal with in regard to the Lansdowne Amendment. I have explained why it is we shall ask the House to reject it in toto. The Amendment deals, not merely with subjects of gravity or subjects which have not been sufficiently discussed, but with certain specific topics. All those topics have been debated over and over again in this House during the long Debates we have had this year and last year, because the same subjects were raised on both occasions and decided during the passage of this Bill, and in connection with the Resolutions on which the Bill is founded. We are now asked to introduce the principle of the Referendum on a method not yet defined in regard to any Bill affecting the existence of the Crown. We can only say in regard to that that the British Crown requires no propping by Referendum or by a Joint Committee of the curious character now proposed. It reposes on the almost universal and ever-deepening conviction of the great mass of all classes that the limited monarchy is the only sure means by which the liberty and prosperity of this country can be secured and maintained. Then we are asked to exempt the Protestant Succession. The Protestant Succession does not stand in any need of these Jacobin or Napoleonic devices of Referendum or Venetian plans of a special tribunal of superior persons. So far as the Crown and the Protestant Succession are concerned, such peculiar safeguards are wholly unnecessary, as everyone knows. But it would be a matter of great inconvenience if a Bill such as that which was passed by a very large measure of general consent last year to relieve the King from having to make the Royal Declaration in terms which were so offensive to many of his subjects—it would be a real misfortune if such a procedure could have been made to apply to that measure. It is very
  998
  probable that it would have prevented altogether that very necessary and desirable act of policy being consummated. Lastly, there is Sub-section (b) of the Amendment, which seeks to exclude from the scope of the Bill any measure establishing Home Rule in Ireland or in the United Kingdom. That also we have dealt with on numerous occasions in this House, both this Session and in previous years, and the Government ask for nothing better than to join issue in the most abrupt and direct manner with the Opposition upon that specific point.
  I have stated to the House the course which the Government propose to adopt on what we must call the vital and controversial Amendments to the Bill. It may be shortly stated that we propose to reject them all. There are, however, several other Amendments which offer some opportunity, I do not say of minimising our differences with the Lords or with the Opposition, but of observing those relations of courtesy which ought to prevail between the two branches of the Legislature. We welcome that opportunity. We have never regarded this Bill as being incapable of Amendment in either House, so long as its main principles were unaffected. We are contending for great issues and for real facts. We do not desire to show any want of respect or to deny any serious consideration to the labours of the other House. It is our duty to do our best to co-operate with them. Let me take the least important of the remaining Amendments first. There is an Amendment which seeks to make it clear that Provisional Order Bills are not included in the term "Public Bill," and are wholly outside the ambit of this measure. That was the original intention of the Government. We propose to ask the House to agree to a new Clause which gives effect to that. In the second place the House will see that there is another new Clause which proposes to introduce new enacting words appropriate to the condition of affairs which will be established when the Parliament Bill is passed into law.
  We have always felt that sooner or later the need would arise of making some alteration in the enacting words, and we have indicated that we thought that that had better apply in the future to all Bills. That was the argument which we adopted, and not to any special class of Bills. But it has been represented that meanwhile, before this new legislation, introducing new enacting words is passed through, occasions may arise when it would not be

  999
  appropriate to say that a Bill which has passed into law has passed "By and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal." We have no desire to take their name in vain. Therefore we propose to accept that Amendment, which introduces in the form set forth on the Paper, new enacting words.
  I now come to the last of the Amendments—the one which seeks to prevent the machinery of the Parliament Bill being used to extend the duration of Parliament beyond five years, which is the new limit of life of Parliament which we introduced and which, as the House will remember, from the days when the late Sir Henry Campbell-Banuerman first put forward this plan, has always been an essential and inseparable part of our constitutional proposals. We have often adopted this, although the Government have never taken any very strong line in pressing it. We say frankly that we do not think that there is any real danger of Parliament seeking to extend its life. If there is a real danger, as we have often said, it is a danger which we have successfully passed through for many years, and when we lived under the Government of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. But. Sir, if at this last moment in our discussions the House of Lords seriously desires this reassurance we are not prepared to deny it to them.
  Such, then, is the advice which the Government would respectfully tender to the House in regard to the Amendments which the House of Lords have made in the Parliament Bill. It is advice in which we trust our friends will discern no weakness, and our opponents no provocation. We must insist upon our position in all essentials, but we do not wish at the moment of prosperity to exult unduly over conscientious men from whom we differ, and whom by constitutional methods we have defeated. We do not pretend that our acceptance of some of these Amendments will in any way mitigate either the hostility of the Conservative party or the hostility of the House of Lords. On the principle of our measure the gulf remains unbridged. But we do net seek at all to proceed by efforts which will inflict any unnecessary humiliation upon our opponents. We do not seek their humiliation. We seek only our right! I think it right to make a statement at this stage to the House as I think it will facilitate the course of our Debate.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure we are all very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kindness in not exulting over us in his moment of triumph. Yesterday and to-day I have occasionally taken the opportunity of scanning the faces of Gentlemen who sit on that Bench opposite, and I have seen no sign of exultation. I should advise the right hon. Gentleman, before he uses a phrase of that kind, to take to himself the phrase of the Prime Minister, and to "wait and see" what the final result will be. I rise for the purpose of supporting the Amendment which has been brought before the House. I do not intend, therefore, to take up any time with the details with which the right hon. Gentleman has just furnished us. I think that is all the less necessary because it was quite evident the right hon. Gentleman was not enough interested to get up his own case. All that he has done, all that it amounts to is that, after paying a high tribute to Lord Peel, he told us that the Government had brought forth the smallest mouse of concession which had ever been produced. I am now going to deal with the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he was not going to answer the speeches of the Noble Lord or of the right hon. Gentleman who sits beside him. But he did not entirely neglect in his speech the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Trinity College.
  That right hon. Gentleman put to the-right hon. Gentleman opposite a plain and definite question. That: question was: "Did the Prime Minister at the time he dealt with his Sovereign put before him the Home Rule scheme which would be the result of the granting of the Prerogative?" What was the answer of the right hon. Gentleman? He turned up the OFFICIAL REPORT, and told us there was a Debate which conclusively proved that the Prime Minister put the whole case before the Sovereign. Then he dealt also next with the Noble Lord who sits below the Gangway. How did he deal with him? He said if disorder or riot or force arose, the Noble Lord was the last man to make complaint. Well, I thought that even in war we had got beyond the stage that brute force was the only element that counted? I venture to say, in spite of the admiration which I feel for the ability of the right hon. Gentleman, in spite also of the training as a great commander which he obtained in Sidney Street recently; in spite, I say, of these advantages, if it-comes to a struggle I will back my Nobler Friend against the right hon. Gentleman.

  1001
  I would like, if I may, to make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. We all feel pretty strongly about this subject. It is said by some hon. Gentlemen opposite that our indignation is simulated—that it is not proved that it is very real. Well, in giving expression to the indignation which I feel I shall endeavour to use strong restraint. I should try, but hon. Gentlemen opposite must not be surprised if occasionally the language seems too strong for them. At all events I promise this: that I shall go not a hair's breadth for the sake of trying to get cheers from hon. Members behind me, although I like the cheers of those Members. I shall go a length beyond what I think is necessary to make the charge which we make against the Government, and which can quite properly be brought up in this discussion in the Amendment which I am now supporting.
  The charge which we make against the Government is this—and it. is a charge which I shall try to make good in every point: It is that they have deliberately departed from their own proposals, the proposals which they laid before the country at the last election, and on which they won that election; proposals which included not merely the alteration of the relations between the two Houses, but the alteration of the composition of the Upper House. I say, in the first place, that they have deliberately abandoned those proposals, and by doing so have lost the claim that they have the support of the people of this country. Secondly, I say that the Government have carried out, or are carrying out—I think as a matter of fact it is already carried out—the destruction of the Constitution of this country by revolutionary means. I say that such means were quite unnecessary; that every object which they dared openly to avow could have been secured without any recourse to revolutionary methods. I say further, that the Government, or rather the Prime Minister—and in this respect he has a special responsibility which cannot be shared by any Cabinet—has abused his privilege as confidential adviser to the Crown, and has used the Prerogative as a party weapon in the interests of party. I say, in addition, that they have done all this, not because they themselves thought it either just or necessary, but they have done it at the bidding of a small faction in this House, whose votes they now depend upon; whose Leader commanded them only a year ago to use revolutionary tactics—and they have obeyed the command—whose Leader also told us in this House
  1002
  that neither he nor his Friends cared, anything about British politics. Yet the Government have not only allowed these Gentlemen, who care nothing about British politics, to dominate British politics, but they have made themselves their tools in abolishing a Constitution which is nothing to them, but which ought to be much to the men who sit opposite. I shall try to make good these charges, and I shall do it as briefly as I can.
  6.0 P.M.
  What about reform of the House of Lords? Hon. Gentlemen who sit on that bench at least will not pretend that the Preamble was put in only as a form in order to win votes. They must assert it was honestly meant to be carried out. The Prime Minister, indeed, in this House in an earlier Debate said that he regarded it as a debt of honour. When can that debt of honour be fulfilled? What would hon. Gentlemen opposite, what would the Prime Minister himself think of a man who admitted that an obligation was a debt of honour, but who said: "I am not going to pay it now; I am going to leave it to be paid by my heirs." That is exactly what they have done. It is in this Parliament, and in this Parliament alone, that that debt of honour can be carried out. Already in this House the speeches, not only of the Socialist and Labour Members, but scores of Members on his own side, have shown it is utterly impossible for him to fulfil that pledge. The Government have no right to carry out half of their policy if they cannot carry out the whole of it. They have no right to use the votes of men given to them because they did not apply to Single-Chamber Government in order to establish Single-Chamber Government in this country. The second point is this. I say that this revolution was not necessary in order to obtain everything which the Government dare openly avow. They could have got it without that. The Prime Minister yesterday challenged us to point out any alternative course which he could adopt. In making the challenge he himself made an assumption which, of course, does not exist. His assumption was that the Parliament Bill had received the support of the people of this country. Well, I accept that to a certain extent, but his assumption also implies that the assent of the people of this country had been received to the refusal of any modification in the Parliament Bill whatever, and that assumption we do not accept. But even for the sake of argument, if I take the right hon. Gentleman's own assumption I

  1003
  might point out to him that he had an alternative course, and it was an alternative course which must have occurred to him. It is very obvious. It was simply to consider for a short time not merely the interests of his party, but the interests of the nation and to risk the loss of the Irish vote. That was the alternative. It was not a great thing.
  Hon. Gentlemen from Ireland will not, I am sure, feel any offence at my saying this—they have often said it themselves— that they put up their sword to auction for the highest bidder. But there was only one bidder—and a single bidder can always dictate the terms—and if the Prime Minister had had the courage to say to the Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway from Ireland, "We believe in Home Rule," I think he would say that now with much truth, "and we will do our best to carry Home Rule for you; we will make arrangements by which you will get Home Rule if the people of this country desire it, but we will not destroy the Constitution in order that you may get Home Rule in spite of the will of the people of this country." If he had said that what choice would Gentlemen below the Gangway have but to accept it? But he knows what would follow. There is not a man whom I am addressing now, not one, who does not recognise that if it had not been for Irish pressure this question would have been settled, and settled by agreement, and there would have been no revolution, and they have been asked over and over again even at this hour, "will you accept one single Amendment preventing Home Rule from being carried until the people of this country wish it carried? Will you accept that and get the crisis over?" They refuse because they are afraid of the Irish Members. That is the alternative, and it is an alternative which would have resulted in more cause of exultation to which the Home Secretary has alluded than the proceedings of which the Government are so proud now.
  And the third charge which I wish to make against them is that the Government, or rather the Prime Minister—for he alone was responsible—has abused his privilege as adviser of the Crown in the interests of his party. The Home Secretary asked us to leave the relations between the Prime Minister and the Crown where it was left yesterday by the Prime Minister's speech. We have no intention of leaving it there, and the Government have no right to ask us to do so. It must be
  1004
  obvious to everyone they cannot use the Prerogative of the Crown as one of their ordinary party weapons and then turn to us and try to shelter themselves by saying, "leave it where it is." They cannot do that. They have got to play their cards in this matter upon the table. Some questions have already been asked, but have not yet been answered. The Prime Minister will have to answer them. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition put one yesterday. It was in effect this: "Did you," he said to the Prime Minister, "remember that you were not merely the Leader of a party, but the adviser of the Sovereign, and did you point out to him when you asked for these guarantees that they would not be required for eight months, and that it was impossible to foresee the exact form in which they would be required?" That, as a matter of fact, it would come to this, that these guarantees were to be given solely to enable Home Rule being carried without submission to the will of the people of this country. The Prime Minister did not answer that question specifically, he answered it in substance, and what was his answer? In this connection, by the way, I am bound to say this, though I am sorry to say it in the absence of the Prime Minister, I find it very difficult to understand the answer to the question given by the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend when that is contrasted with his subsequent statement. I ask any hon. Member upon the opposite side to compare his speech with his answer and he will find, though I may be mistaken, that while the answer was true in the letter, it was false in the spirit.
  The answer deliberately left on our minds the impression that he had only asked for these powers from the King a few days ago, when as a matter of fact he extracted them eight months before, Now, I say, did the Prime Minister point out to the King exactly the nature of the contingency in which the use of this Prerogative might be required? He did nothing of the kind. His ultimatum to the King, which was accepted, is in writing, and what was it? Not that he would grant powers to pass the Parliament Bill, but that he would give powers; to carry out the policy of the Government, and once that pledge was given what happened. The King was no longer a free agent, the Prime Minister had bound him in advance hand and foot, and the Prime Minister and not the King must henceforth be the sole judge as to whether or not and under what conditions Peers

  1005
  should be created. I say there never was in the whole history of this or any other country an incident which I believe was so discreditable.
  I come to another question also put and not answered. When the Prime Minister went to the King for these guarantees before the election did he point out to him as he was bound to do by his duty to his Sovereign as well as to his party, that the proposal he made was very unusual and extra-constitutional, not to say unconstitutional, but that the King had another constitutional alternative. Did he point out to him that he had the right, constitutionally, which no one will deny of trying to find out if there was any other Minister who before this change was made would give him any other advice. I say the Prime Minister was bound in honour to do that, and in my belief he was bound in honour to do more. He talked a great deal about the historical precedent of 1832, and he tried to be sarcastic with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as to his knowledge of history. He told us the Reform Bill for instance, in 1832 was only before the people at one election and how did he account for it? He said there was another election the year before but that was on the demise of the Crown.
  An election was fought on the death of the King, and no other issue at all, but is there a man who ever read the elementary text books of history, who does not know that the leading issue in the election of 1830 was the question of Reform. The indication which the right hon. Gentleman gave us of his knowledge of history at least showed that he has studied the precedent of 1832. Well, what was it? Why, after the two elections, which were fought solely on this issue and that reform had been carried through the House of Commons by an overwhelming majority and had been amended in the Lords, the King did not agree to create Peers. He sent for the Leader of the Opposition, and he asked him if he was prepared to form a Government and give him different advice, and it was only after the Leader of the Opposition refused that the King consented to make Peers. I say the Prime Minister was bound to point out to the Sovereign that that was his constitutional duty. Why did he not do that? The question was put to the right hon. Gentleman specifically. Did he answer it?
  Mr. PRINGLE Mr. PRINGLE rose. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."]
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the Hon. Member for North-West Lancashire not to interrupt. He will have an opportunity of speaking later on, and he must reserve what he has to say until the proper time.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It was the Prime Minister's duty to take that course. The conditions, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend before the election, made that duty far greater than in 1832 because the Sovereign is in a much less independent position now and is more in a judical position. The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question categorically, but he answered it in his speech because he said no alternative Government was possible. He was the judge, and what was the ground upon which he said no alternative Government was possible? He said that the Leader of the Opposition could not have passed Supply. As a matter of fact, I think that was not true because, I think, the Supplies for the year had been passed. But if it was true what a sidelight that gives us upon the scheming of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We understand now why the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in Supply only for a month. We see now what that meant. The Prime Minister was prepared to prevent the King from exercising his legitimate Prerogative by the use of every chicanery of which it was possible for him to avail himself. What was the other excuse given by the Prime Minister? He said it would have brought the name of the King into the controversy. He was jealous for the honour of his Sovereign, and he was afraid that his name might be brought into the controversy. How could it be brought into the controversy? There is no hon. Member sitting on the bench opposite who dare deny that the King had the constitutional right to take the course I suggested and send for the Leader of the Opposition. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did he not do it?"] Because the Prime Minister did not advise him to do it.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Could he not have done it on his own?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Why should he be attacked for exercising that right? [An HON. MEMBER: "He is not being attacked."] The Prime Minister said he would have been attacked. There is nothing to my mind which shows more the baseness—that is the word that was in my mind, but perhaps it is too strong a word—

  1007
  there is nothing more than that which shows the undesirableness of the course pursued by the Prime Minister. He knew and he was right that we who sit on this side of the House would not, under any circumstances, attack the King. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] He preyed upon that knowledge, and deliberately refrained from giving the King the advice which he ought to have given to him because some of the Gentlemen below the Gangway might attack the King.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman means that we should have done that more than he is doing himself at the present moment?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a question which is easily answered. I have from first to last deliberately said that I am attacking the Prime Minister for the advice he has given. It is the Prime Minister alone who is responsible. That is the case. There was no alternative Government because it would bring the King's name in. Surely we might begin to be a little more sincere in this House. [An HON. MEMBER. "And not so insulting."] Why did the Prime Minister not give that advice? Everybody knows that if it had been given an alternative Government would have been formed. They know also that if that change of Government took place it would have attracted the attention of the country to the fact that a revolution was going on, and the Government knew that would have diminished their chance of winning the election. That was the sole reason why they refrained from giving the advice which they ought to have given. I made another statement which I also desire to make good. I said that all this was done at the bidding of hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway. I can assure the House that I am not going to repeat the arguments which have been put much more strongly by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, Dublin (Sir E. Carson) than I can hope to put them. I will, however, point out that, to my mind, there is nothing in our political life which is more extraordinary than that the Government should come now and tell us that Home Rule was an issue at the last election. On what ground do they base that statement? One argument has been used which is so contemptible that I would not have referred to it but for the fact that it has been used by the Prime Minister. It was that we had made admissions in our
  1008
  speeches. I tried to make it an issue over and over again, at least a dozen times in Manchester, and I was met by cries: "That is not the issue; that is a bogey." We did try to make it the issue, but we failed, and it is because we failed that right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite are now sitting on that Bench. The Home Secretary last night, in an amusing impromptu which, for greater accuracy, he had committed to writing, referred to the courage of my right hon. Friends the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham), and the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith). The Home Secretary gave us a great proof of his courage last night, for he said: "We are going to pass Home Rule, whatever happens." Why did he not say that in his election address? It would have shown a little courage if the right hon. Gentleman had made that declaration at Manchester, but he did not do so.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I made long references to Home Rule in seventeen speeches at Manchester.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, and the right hon. Gentleman carefully chose to leave it out of his address, and if he had not taken that course it, would certainly have shown more courage. After all, what are the facts? Home Rule was not mentioned either in the election address of the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister gave his excuse for this in a previous Debate, for he said: "My address was entirely on the question of the House of Lords, and that was the sole reason." That is exactly our case. I have looked up the Prime Minister's election address, and I find there a sentence which did not refer to the House of Lords, and it was this in substance:" I have so recently put all my views on the different subjects of the day before the country at the previous election that I am not going to repeat them now."
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That was in the Prime Minister's address, because I turned it up, and the right hon. Gentleman will find that my statement is accurate. In the previous election in the year 1910 the Prime Minister did remember this question, and mentioned almost every political controversy, except Home Rule. He forgot all about that. As has already been pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College, Dublin, the

  1009
  one man in the Government whom everybody thought would have put Home Rule in his election address was the Irish Secretary, but he did not do it, he also forgot it. But although the Chief Secretary forgot it in his election address he did not forget it in his speeches at Bristol, because he said just before the election——
  Mr. B1RRELL: I have contradicted that statement once before.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity of contradicting it again if he has any comment to make on my statement. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "Home Rule was one of the questions that ought to be left to the judgment of the people. That was only the beginning. If some of those present thought the Liberals could smuggle a Home Rule Bill through the House of Commons during the following three years, all that he could say was that their ignorance was astounding."
  Mr. BIRRELL: Hear, hear.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman means by his cheers that we are not going to smuggle it through, but that we are going to discuss it. But what was the charge we were making. It was that you were going by the arbitrary force of your majority to force Home Rule through, and it was to meet that charge that the right hon. Gentleman used those words. It is not so much what the right hon. Gentleman says now that his words meant as what the people who heard them thought they meant. If you want a contrast I can imagine none greater or more striking than the speech of the Chief Secretary before the election with the speech delivered by the same right hon. Gentleman in Manchester after the election. What does the right hon. Gentleman do. He goes to Manchester, and he says, "Home Rule is the one thing that lies nearest to my heart. My heart is beating for Home Rule."
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is not quoting my words.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No. I am not quoting his exact language, but does he deny what I have stated?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Well, it sounds rather ridiculous as the right hon. Gentleman has quoted it. I hope it did not sound so ridiculous when it was delivered.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I know I cannot rival the right hon. Gentleman in the force of language, but I have given the substance of what he said. After the election,
  1010
  he professed his ardent love for Home Rule, but he did not dare to say a word in its favour while the Parliament Bill was before the country.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly in error. Everybody in North Bristol knows that I am, and always have been, an ardent Home Ruler, and again and again I have argued the case at full length before my constituents. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not dealing with the question whether the right hon. Gentleman has over and over again stated that he is in favour of Home Rule. I am dealing with the sole question whether he pointed out to the electors that Home Rule was an issue at the last election. There is only one other remark I would like to make before I sit down. Considering that I have made some very strong statements, I am obliged to hon. Gentlemen opposite for their courtesy in listening to me. The right hon. Gentleman was very indignant with my Noble Friend and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, Dublin, for threatening resistance. I should like to say a word or two about that question. I say quite seriously, and I am in earnest when I say it that the Government are deliberately destroying not only the Constitution but also representative Government. On what basis does representative Government rest? It is a convention everybody will admit that as a last resort every Government rests on force. Representative Government, which has grown up in all democratic countries, is based on the convention that the majority for the time being represents the balance of the forces in any given country. It is part of that convention if it is to continue that the majority should not ride rough-shod over the minority, and it is for that reason that in every democratic country except this it is supposed that a Second Chamber is necessary in order to preserve representative Government. I do not think I am disloyal, and I do not want to be shot. I do not want to be shot, but I say this with absolute deliberation, if the people of this country decide that they will make the experiment of Home Rule then—and here again I must part company with some of my hon. Friends in this House, and I must certainly part company with some of those who supported me in the constituency I represent— I should say I believe in representative government, and, however much you dislike it,

  1011
  you cannot compel the United Kingdom to keep up the present arrangement against their will, and I should say to the loyalists of Ireland, "You have got to submit." On the other hand, I say equally deliberately if this or any other Government try to force through a measure on which there is good reason to believe the people of this country are not agreed, and to which those of us who abhor the Bill believe the people of this country are opposed, I would never, if I were one of those Irish loyalists, consent to have such a system forced upon me as part of a corrupt Parliamentary bargain. I believe if this or any other Government attempts it they will find they have broken up the foundations of society in this country, and they will not carry their Bill.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: In the white heat of party passion which has prevailed during the early part of the evening, and which affected even the powerful and restrained speech to which we have just been listening, I cannot expect that the few observations which I feel it my duty to make will prove altogether satisfying to men in any quarter of the House who are party men first of all. Possibly for that very reason the observations may not altogether be thrown away in the times for calmer reflection which will come hereafter. My friends and myself have supported the Parliament Bill on every critical Division, and we shall, of course, do so till the end, but we do not support it because we believe it to be the best method of reconciling England to Home Rule. We support it because our paramount business in this House is to endeavour to win Home Rule for Ireland from either English party so long as the incomparably greater blessing of winning it by the consent of both parties combined is denied to us. We supported the Parliament Bill because I think, in the Debate on the Address, we had from the Prime Minister a public pledge that the introduction of the Home Rule Bill would be the first business of the Government once this Bill is passed, and we supported it also out of respect for the majority of our own countrymen, who allowed themselves to be captured by the assurance that the moment this Bill was passed into law the last obstacle had disappeared to carrying a great measure of Home Rule for Ireland into law within the lifetime of the present Government.
  Some of us did not share that illusion, and do not share it now. We had our re-
  1012
  serves, not at all, I am bound to say, as to the sincerity of the Prime Minister's promise so far as it went, and most decidedly not at all as to the good faith of the mass of the Liberal party, but we had our doubts and we have our doubts and our reserves as to the all but insuperable difficulties from the Parliamentary point of view of devoting three Sessions in the dwindling span of activity of the present Parliament to forcing a Bill likely to arouse so much passion into law without another appeal to the country at another General Election. I am bound to say, in my humble judgment, those difficulties have not been greatly diminished, as no doubt they were meant to be, by the very comforting assurance given last night by the Home Secretary in the fine speech which he delivered. The Home Secretary last night challenged anybody to name for him any way out of this deadlock except the action which the Government is now taking. We had to-day two ways pointed out, one by the Noble Lord below me (Lord Hugh Cecil) and one by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Bonar Law), with both of which, of course, I am in entire disagreement. Speaking very humbly, my Friends and myself believed from the beginning, and believe with still more firmness now, that not only the Home Rule problem but this whole constitutional cleavage between the two estates of the realm—if I should not say between the three estates of the realm— might be remedied by other methods, less belligerent methods than the revolutionary or reactionary threatenings with which the air is now filled in this House.
  Possibly I may be forgiven if I recall to the House that in the early days of the Session I respectfully pointed out to the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) that the influence of his seventy votes might be wisely exercised, not in exacerbating the quarrel between the two Houses or between the two British parties, but in endeavouring to bring them to an agreement which would solve the constitutional crisis, and thereby earn for Ireland and for him the everlasting gratitude of moderate men of every party in this country, and at the same time a Home Rule settlement that would save Ireland from certainly half a generation of uncertainty and anxiety that, entirely apart from those rather, if I may be excused for saying so, absurd threats of actual physical violence we have heard uttered in; this House to-night, must attend any Irish Parliament that started without a certain

  1013
  large degree of good will and of appeasement on the part of reasonable men among the Protestant minority in Ireland and among their sympathisers here in Great Britain. I made that suggestion, and I promised that my Friends and myself would most cordially and most heartily support him in securing the credit of that great achievement for Ireland. I dare say it is very easy to scoff in exultation on the one side or anger on the other side at proposals of that kind, as the Home Secretary scoffed at them last night as ideal, but I have my doubts whether, apart from the passions of this moment, there are many men on either side of this House who in their confidential moods would deny that eighty votes exercised, not for any mercenary purpose, but with a high purpose of that kind, would have been effectual in sparing us all the long years of trouble and revolution and reaction which are now before us. To-night the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University told us, and indeed we all knew it, that with the one exception of the Irish reservation the House of Lords would swallow the Parliament Bill as it stands. We know, but for that one single exception, it would be susceptible of agreement in the course of an hour's negotiation.
  I know what the difficulties now are. I know too well. I have no doubt the Unionist party have been driven, most foolishly and stupidly, to reconsider their attitude towards Ireland of twelve months' ago, when "The Times" newspaper itself declared that Home Rule was now an open question. Heretical as it may seem, I regard that attitude of "The Times" newspaper of twelve months ago as a more happy omen for Home Rule than even the passing of this Parliament Bill. Moreover, I say, great as the difficulties now are, I want no better proof that a settlement—even on the question of Home Rule—is not beyond the resources of statesmanship on both sides of the House than the fact—it is only one of many facts to the same purport—that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long), who is, I think everybody will admit, perhaps the most typical and respected English opponent of Home Rule among the chief men in this House, within the last few weeks expressed his belief that the Home Rule difficulty was one to be approached by the methods of a Peace Conference on the South African model. I do not want for one monent to read into the right hon. Gentleman's words anything whatever that would be unworthy of his
  1014
  record as a staunch champion of the Protestant minority in Ireland. I do say it is in that direction and it is not in the implacable spirit which appears to be now settled upon this House lies the true solution of almost every difficulty that at the present moment distracts the two Houses and the two English parties.
  A different course was followed. My counsel was rejected with every species of insult. Instead of playing the part of a great peacemaker which was open to him, the Member for Waterford contented himself with sitting silent, receiving the rather ill-omened adulation of the Leader of the Opposition as "the hero of the situation," of the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith) as "the master of the Prime Minister," and to-day of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson) as "the English dictator," and with falling back upon what is called the old methods of making the Liberal Prime Minister toe the line and of wringing Home Rule from the necessities of the English parties. I make no disguise about it. Time there was fifteen or twenty years ago—aye, even ten years ago in the Asquith-Rosebery days—when the-hon. Member for Waterford was quite rightly carrying on his campaign. That policy then and now was to my mind a wise policy and a necessary policy in order to force either English party in this House of Commons to give us Home Rule. We had to fight both in turns, but now when circumstances are wholly and completely altered between the two Houses that policy in my humble judgment is the surest means of repelling, and of arousing the unreasonable prejudices, of the English people and of furnishing the opponents of Home Rule with what is really their last argument.
  Ireland, not altogether to her advantage, has throughout this crisis undoubtedly had a more decisive power than ever she had before or than possibly she will ever have again. I am afraid that power has been exercised in a way that, whatever its effect may be upon the Liberal party, leaves the cause of Ireland in a more dubious position at this stage of the struggle than it was before. Well, we shall see; the next year or two will tell. We are asked in the meantime to shut our eyes and to darken our understandings and to put our trust in the Member for Waterford. I do not wish to say a word of unnecessary heat but I am bound to say that we will not

  1015
  shut our eyes until, at all events, we have read the Home Rule Bill, as to which it is now confessed the Member for Water-ford knows as little as any other Member in this House, although we were informed several months ago that Bill had been submitted to the Irish leaders and had been approved by them. As a matter of fact, the present situation in Ireland is this: She is paying a heavy pecuniary penalty. The farmers are losing at least a million and a half a year by the destruction of land purchase. The official records published only the other day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer prove that within the last year over two millions sterling additional burdens were placed on Ireland, and I am sorry that Ireland has already paid the most crushing penalties for the Liberal alliance, while its advantages up to the present are in the world of dreams, and so much in the clouds that the Prime Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) scarcely ever refer to one another in this House except to disown any negotiations for Ireland as if there were something disreputable about the fact. I never knew Gladstone disown his negotiations with Parnell, and I never knew that either Gladstone or Parnell had any reason to be ashamed of them.
  I am sorry to have to speak at so much length, but this I will say, in connection with the struggle into which so many men in this House are entering in such light spirits and with so light a heart that my Friends and myself undoubtedly enter on it with the deepest reluctance, and we do not acknowledge any responsibility of our own. I think no doubt that this Bill is practically in course of law. I do not care in what particular way it will work out, but I see nothing whatever, in the prospect put before Ireland to-day, except the certainty of years of bitter and uncertain party warfare. I have no right to make any appeal, but I have the right to say this. My Friends and myself in the past eight years have suffered something from abuse for our fidelity—and that is our only crime—to the magnificent peace programme of 1903, which will stand to the everlasting credit of Ireland and to which the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford was as deeply committed as we are. I think that gives me some right to say that I trust the Unionist Party will not allow themselves to be coerced into playing an unworthy part against Ireland in the conflicts which certainly, through no
  1016
  fault of ours, will again and for many a day take place. One cannot shut one's eyes to the fact that the acceptance of Home Rule on the principle of self-government ought to have been easily secured six months ago, but most reasonable men both in England and among the Protestant minority of Ireland now fear it will be complicated by a fresh crop of misunderstandings, and may be altogether wrecked if the position of the Liberal Government should be seriously shaken by some unforeseen accident, by some great slump in English trade, by some great English war, or by the inevitable swing of the English pendulum.
  I am not content to stake the future of Ireland on the chance how ninety or ninety-five people may vote on one side or the other at Bethnal Green. I shall be most glad to make a public apology in this House if time should prove me to be in the wrong. Any great measure of national self-government will receive ungrudging support from us whatever party may have the credit of carrying it through. I believe opinions have advanoed very far now, and no outburst of feeling, no matter how extreme on the part of any party, whether English or Irish, can prevent the growth of good feeling between the two countries or can prevent the ultimate satisfaction of the demand for self-government.
  I will only say, in a moment like the present—when this country has taken the lead in the peace propaganda and in peace conferences, when it is joining in arbitration treaties with America and Japan and, in fact, all round except Ireland—it does seem a little lamentable that the Government of a country which has grown great by good sense and by reasonable compromise should shrink from uttering one word of peace in a crisis like this.
  I hold the differences, either as to the House of Lords or as to Ireland, are largely reconcilable. My Friends around me are a very small minority of the representatives of Ireland and they have been exposed to many outrages and insults. But they are men who are not to be deflected from their course, no matter what the cost may be, for they know that they possess the unflinching confidence of at least half a million of the bravest and the most self-sacrificing members of the Irish race. We do not intend to be intimidated from going on in the belief that, whatever may happen to ourselves, the principles which we are contending for are the only principles that will bring genuine peace between the two countries, and, in spite of the anger of

  1017
  the moment, we believe that at least a million, of our Protestant fellow-countrymen can be induced to become willing partners in the Irish nation, and we would welcome them to take their part and exercise their influence in the future of their own country.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It would be presumptions for a young Member to follow the hon. Gentleman. The appeal which he has made is not addressed to those upon these benches, but to Gentlemen who sit in other quarters of the House, and it seems hardly proper and fitting that on a day such as this any attempt should be made to seek conciliation in regard to this question of Irish Home Rule. I am indeed surprised that the hon. Member, after hearing the speeches of the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson), should have thought it necessary to make an appeal for a pacific solution in regard to Ireland. He might surely have seen that the voice which today preaches peace in relation to Irish Home Rule is indeed a voice crying in the wilderness. I should like to bring back the attention of the House to the considerations which were being dealt with by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law) made a very able, a very acute, and a very ingenious debating speech. Among other things he showed, as he has frequently done, his con-tempt for the Irish vote. Apparently, to judge from his treatment of Irish votes, both in this House and in the country, the value of Irish votes is considerably less than the value of a vote in any other part of the United Kingdom, but I would remind him of the fact that he has evidently forgotten that had it not been for the Irish vote in the General Election of 1900 he would never have been Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow, and would probably have never had an opportunity of distinguishing himself as he has done in this House. But this Debate has revealed a very extraordinary situation in the ranks of the Unionist party. It has surely brought that party to the sorriest pass to which ever any great party in this country has been reduced. We have had the Unionist party in this House yesterday and to-day attacking the Crown, for after all it was an attack on the Crown, however disguised it might be. We have had them attacking the intelligence of the country, we have had them justifying disorder in this House,
  1018
  and we have had them inciting to armed revolt in the North of Ireland. Such is the condition to which this party has been reduced. It is said that an Englishman never knows when he is beaten. We always thought that it was the part of an, Englishman to know how to take a beating, but it is obvious that hon. Gentlemen opposite have forgotten, if indeed they ever learnt, that part.
  We are told, for example, by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law) that the Prime Minister has not made a full and frank disclosure of all his negotiations, with the Crown and of all the advice which he tendered to the Crown. What forsooth does he suggest were the material and relevant facts which the Prime Minister should have put before the King and which he alleged had not been put before the King? He suggests, for example, that it was never put before His Majesty that under the Parliament Bill the Government would seek to pass Home Rule in this Parliament. This is a matter of common knowledge. It has been a matter of common knowledge, not only in this Parliament, but in the last Parliament. In Debate after Debate in this House during the spring of last year, I think on 14th April of last year, this very question was debated, and it was clearly admitted and acknowledged by the Government that if the Parliament Bill were passed the powers of that Bill would be used for the purpose of passing Home Rule for Ireland. I believe the then Prince of Wales was sitting over the clock and heard the whole discussion. To suggest that His Majesty is not now aware of these considerations is nothing more nor less than a direct insult to the intelligence of His Majesty.
  Then we are asked, did the Prime Minister advise His Majesty to send for the Leader of the Opposition and ask for his advice? When was it the part of any responsible Minister in this country to advise the Crown to send for advice to the Opposition? The duty of the Prime Minister is to tender advice to the Crown. That is the constitutional duty. If the advice is not accepted it is the duty of the Prime Minister, under these circumstances, to resign his office. Then, of course, if the Crown is able to have other advice and if the Leader of the Opposition then believes that he has the majority of the country behind him, he will take the responsibility of offering other advice to the Crown. That is the constitutional position. It was the constitutional posi-

  1019
  tion in the time of Lord Grey. He did not advise King William IV. to send for the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel, so as to advise him of the circumstances in connection with the Lords' Amendments on the Reform Bill. He tendered definite advice to His Majesty for the creation of Peers for the purpose of overbearing the opposition of the House of Lords. That advice was rejected by His Majesty. In these circumstances Earl Grey resigned office and gave the Opposition of that time the opportunity of assuming responsibility for the Government of the country, a responsibility which the Opposition then was not able to undertake and which they would not have been able to undertake last year if they had had the opportunity. I think I have said enough to show that the Vote of Censure yesterday, and this discussion to-day are really an attack upon the Crown, but they are further an attack upon the intelligence of the electors. The whole case of the Opposition is that the country had not sufficient intelligence to understand that the Parliament Bill would be used for the purpose of passing Home Rule.
  The Prime Minister, before the General Election, on 19th January, in his famous speech in the Albert Hall, said clearly and categorically that the Parliament Bill was intended for that very purpose. It has been reiterated again and again through the last Parliament, and it was said constantly in the course of the whole of the last General Election. We all remember the incident in relation to the Referendum connected with the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Balfour) Albert Hall speech. We remember how he then decided to take Tariff Reform out of the last General Election, as it were, so that it might not embarrass the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law) when he was fighting the North-West Division of Manchester, and we remember that he made a sporting offer to the Prime Minister then, and asked him if he, in return for this, would allow Home Rule to be submitted to a Referendum. There was no ambiguity about the Prime Minister's answer to that offer. It was perfectly clear that under no consideration would he agree to having a Referendum on Home Rule. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because he was taking the opinion of the country on it at the General Election by the only constitutional method hitherto known in this country, but, strange to say,
  1020
  the only constitutional method which has now become disagreeable to the constitutional party in this country.
  The issue at the last General Election— the Parliament Bill as a means of regulating the relations of the two Houses—was before the country, and all that the Parliament Bill involved, particularly in regard to Home Rule, and with the result, after that appeal to the people, with the majority which now supports His Majesty's Government in regard to that policy, we hold that this Parliament has a moral authority to carry through a measure of Home Rule for Ireland, and all this talk about armed revolt in Ireland leaves us cold. We do not believe for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) is going to desert his lucrative practice at the English Bar in order to engage in military operations in the North of Ireland. Certainly, if he did we are sure of this: that the military results would not compensate for the pecuniary sacrifice. All these things leave us cold. We believe that the people of the North of Ireland, many of them of Scotch extraction, will at least show that they retain a certain amount of that shrewdness which belonged to their Scottish ancestry and will determine to make the best of the condition of things which will result out of the establishment of Home Rule. We are not terrified by any of these things. We believe that these attacks upon the Crown and upon the electors, and this talk of armed revolt are only evidence of one thing, the utter discredit into which the party opposite has fallen. It is a party which is bankrupt in leadership, bankrupt in ideas, and bankrupt in reputation. It has fallen into a condition of disrepute.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I rise to make an appeal to the House to bring this discussion to an end, and to proceed to the consideration of the Amendments. The only question before the House at present is whether we shall proceed to consider the Lords Amendments. I think that has been discussed at very unusual length. I remember this Motion being made by Conservative as well as Liberal Ministers, and we have always discussed it for an hour or two; but I cannot recall any instance in which it has taken quite so long as on the present occasion. I think there is every evidence that the Debate has been exhausted, though I should like very much to have replied to the very powerful speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar

  1021
  Law), with reference to what fell from the hon. Member (Mr. William O'Brien) and the interesting appeal he made. I hope we shall be able to proceed now to the discussion of the Amendments. The speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle) shows what unlimited possibilities there are in this Motion, if we proceed to discuss it.
  Mr. KING: I rise to express my regret at the appeal that has been made to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He must have noticed that a large number of Members were rising and were anxious to take part in the Debate. He apparently also forgets that we have suspended the Eleven
  o'clock Rule, and that many of us have come out prepared to make a good night of it. Under the circumstances, I should suggest that we continue this discussion till after the dinner hour and then proceed to business. If the right hon. Gentleman will consent to that course——
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 335; Noes, 205.

  Division No. 309.]

  AYES.

  [7.15 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Crooks, William

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Crumley, Patrick

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Adamson, William

  Cullinan, John

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

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

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Harwood, George

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Alden, Percy

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

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Armitage, Robert

  De Forest, Baron

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Delany, William

  Hayward, Evan

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Donglas

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

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

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Dillon, John

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Barnes, George N.

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Doris, W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Hinds, John

  Barton, William

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hodge, John

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Hudson, Walter

  Black, Arthur W.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Boland, John Plus

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Sowerman, Charles W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  John, Edward Thomas

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Falconer, James

  Johnson, William

  Brace, William

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Field, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Fitzgibbon, John.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Keating, Matthew

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Kelly, Edward

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Cameron, Robert

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Kilbride, Denis

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Glanville, H. J.

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

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

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Lansbury, George

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Clough, William

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

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

  Clynes, John R.

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

  Leach, Charles

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hackett, J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Logan, John William

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hancock, John George

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Colton, William Francis

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Harcourt, Robert V, (Montrose)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  O'Malley, William

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Macdonald, J. Famsay (Leicester)

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

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, N.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  O'Shaughnessy, p. J.

  Snowden, Philip

  McGhee, Richard

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

  Maclean, Donald

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Sutton, John E.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Pointer, Joseph

  Tennant, Harold John

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Manfield, Harry

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

  Verney, Sir Henry

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Radford, George Heynes

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Walters, John Tudor

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

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Middlebrook, William

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Reddy, Michael

  Wardle, George J.

  Molloy, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Waring, Walter

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Richards, Thomas

  Webb, H.

  Mooney, John J.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Muldoon, John

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Whitley, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Munro, Robert

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Robinson, Sydney

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Neilson, Francis

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Rowlands, James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcstr'sh, N.)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wilson, W. T. (West Houghton)

  Nuttall, Harry

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

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Sheehy, David

  O'Dowd, John

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Ogden, Fred

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Croft, Henry Page

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Butcher, John George

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

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

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Astor, Waldorf

  Campion, W. R.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cassel, Felix

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cator, John

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Fell Arthur

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Cave, George

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Barnston, Harry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W,

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Chambers, James

  Forster, Henry William

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bigland, Alfred

  Clyde, James Avon

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Bird, Alfred

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Goldman, C. S

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim S.)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Boyton, James

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  1024

  1025

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Grant, J. A.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Gretton, John

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

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

  Stanier, Beville

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  M'Mordie, Robert James

  Stewart, Gershom

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

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

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Harris, Henry Percy

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Thynne Lord Alexander

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Newman, John R. P.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

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

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Walrond, Hon Lionel

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Wheler, Granville, C. H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

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

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W)

  Jardine, Ernest, (Somerset, E)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Keswick, William

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Sanderson and Mr. Barrie.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 348; Noes, 209.

  Division No. 310.]

  AYES.

  [7.30 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Brace, William

  Crumley, Patrick

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Brady, P. J.

  Cullinan, J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brigg, Sir John

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Adamson, William

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

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

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Burke, E. Haviland-

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Allen, Percy

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  De Forest, Baron

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

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

  Delany, William

  Armitage, Robert

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Cameron, Robert

  Devlin, Joseph

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Dillon, John

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Barlow Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Doris, W.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Duffy, William J.

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Barton, W.

  Clough, William

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Clynes, John R.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Bentham, G. J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cotton, William Francis

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Boland, John Pius

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Crawshay Williams, Eliot

  Falconer, J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crean, Eugene

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Crooks, William

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Logan, John William

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Field, William

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Reddy, M.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Lundon, Thomas

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Furness, Stephen

  Lynch, A. A.

  Richards, Thomas

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaves)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  McGhee, Richard

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Gilhooly, James

  Maclean, Donald

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Gill, A. H.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Glanville, H. J.

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Forde

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Robinson, Sydney

  Goldstone, Frank

  MacVeagh Jeremiah

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  M'Kean, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Griffith, Ellis J

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

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Rowlands, James

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

  Manfield, Harry

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Guiney, P.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

  Hackett, J.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Hail, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Hancock, John George

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Meagher, Michael

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Hardie, Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Sheehy, David

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Middlebrook, William

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

  Molloy, M.

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Harwood, George

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Snowden, Philip

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Mooney, J. J.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Summers, James Woolley

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morrell, Philip

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hayward, Evan

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Sutton, John E.

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Muldoon, John

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

  Munro, R.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Henry, Charles E. H.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Neilson, Francis

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hinds, John

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Verney, Sir Henry

  Hobhouse Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Hodge, John

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nuttall, Harry

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs, Ince)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Brien, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Hughes' S. L.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Wardie, George J.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Waring, Walter

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  O'Dowd, John

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  John, Edward Thomas

  Ogden, Fred

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Johnson, W.

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

  Webb, H.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Malley, William

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Whitehouse, John Howard

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whitley, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Keating, Matthew

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Kelly, Edward

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pointer, Joseph

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Lansbury, George

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

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Leach, Charles

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  1028

  1029

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fell, Arthur

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mills, Hon. Chas. Thomas

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Finlay, Sir Robert

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

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Newdegate, F A.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Astor, Waldorf

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Gardner, Ernest

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

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

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goldman, C. S.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Grant, J. A.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Barnston, Harry

  Greene, W. R.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Gretton, John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Quilter, William Ely C.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bird A.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

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

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Boyton, James

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

  Bull. Sir William James

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hills, John Waller

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Stanier, Beville

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Starkey, John R.

  Campion, W. R.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Cassel, Felix

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  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

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chambers, J.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Tryon, Capt, George Clement

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Keswick, William

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Walroad, Hon. Lionel

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

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

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Lee, Arthur H.

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Croft, H. P.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Long, Rt. Hon Walter

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Dixon, C. H.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Doughty, Sir George

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  M'Mordie, Robert James

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Magnus Sir Philip

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

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Pike Pease.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Question, "That, the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Powers of House of Lords as to Money Bills.)
  (1) If a Money Bill, having been passed by the House of Commons, and sent up to
  1030
  the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, is not passed by the House of Lords without Amendment within one month after it is so sent up to that House, the Bill shall, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent

  1031
  being signified, notwithstanding that the House of Lords have not consented to the Bill.
  (2) A Money Bill means a public Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund, or on money provided by Parliament, or the variation or repeal of any such charges; supply; the appropriation, receipt, custody, issue or audit of accounts of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or subordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of them. In this Subsection the expressions "taxation," "public money," and "loan" respectively do not include any taxation, money, or loan raised by local authorities or bodies for local purposes.
  (3) There shall be endorsed on every Money Bill when it is sent up to the House of Lords and when it is presented to His Majesty for assent the certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons signed by him that it is a Money Bill.
  Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (2) leave out the words, "Speaker of the House of Commons" and insert the words "Joint Committee."
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  I have to state that the Government will propose a consequential Amendment to be inserted at the end of Sub-section (3) as follows: "Before giving his certificate the Speaker shall consult, if practicable, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means and the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts."
  Mr. BALFOUR: I wish your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether on the question that the House disagree with the Lords Amendment we should take the Debate now rather than on the Amendment which the Government propose to substitute.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think we ought to deal, first of all, with the Lords Amendment inserting the words "Joint Committee," and afterwards take a Debate on the other Amendment.
  Mr. BALFOUR: This will involve two Debates. As I understand the matter the Government have so far conceded the arguments which were used in this House and the other House that they do not mean to ask the Speaker of this House, unassisted and without any person to confer with him, to decide the questions of the moment and magnitude involved in the decisions to be given as to Money Bills. So far so good. Whether the suggestion of the House of Lords is the best that could be made I do not express an opinion, but I say it is far better than the Government suggestion. The Government ask this House to be the judges in their own case on a matter in which they are not alone interested. The Home Secretary, I think, stated that this House has always been jealous of its privileges in connection with finance, and he seemed to regard it as a necessary corollary of that view that the House of Commons authorities alone should be allowed to express an opinion as to whether a measure did or did not go beyond the true province of finance. I think we are all agreed that a Bill may appear to be a financial Bill, though it may not really be a financial one. We are all agreed that "tacking" is a gross violation of the privileges of the Second Chamber. We are also agreed that there might be a Bill not open to the technical charge of tacking, but which might contain provisions which would substantially and morally amount to tacking.
  It has been said that substantial and moral tacking in a form of interference with the privileges of the Second Chamber which should not be countenanced. Therefore we are all agreed as to the aim we have in this matter. The only question is as to the best means of carrying out our object. I venture to say in the first place that the Committee the Government propose is not nearly strong enough to deal with the matters which will come up for decision. I also suggest that the Committee proposed in the Bill as amended by the Lords is far stronger as an impartial committee, and I say it is one on which there is no probability whatever that the rights of this House will suffer any diminution, injury, or wrong. It would be a serious thing if at the moment when we are attempting to lay down what the rights are of the House of Lords in regard to finance we should not have a tribunal which can adequately command the general confidence of the country. Everybody knows what the real difficulty under-

  1033
  lying this matter is. The real difficulty underlying the whole subject is that you cannot formulate in absolute and precise legal terms what a Money Bill is so that any man looking at a Bill can decide whether it does or does not include "tacking provisions." That can only be decided by commonsense. and by moderate, instructed and impartial opinion. I believe that impartiality in the sense of the elimination of all party prejudice is almost impossible, for nearly every man belongs to one party or another, but I venture to suggest that you can generally secure this application of commonsense and statesmanlike judgment as to whether a Bill does or does not go over the line which divides moral tacking from purely technical tacking. In order to do that you must go to a tribunal more strongly constituted than that the Government propose as an alternative. It is impossible to throw that burden on the Speaker. I am quite certain, and I think everybody is quite certain, that that would be an unworkable system. I do venture to suggest that the Government are making a great mistake if they do not suggest a stronger tribunal than that which they propose, and one which does not make the House of Commons too obviously and too purely the sole judge in its own case. This tribunal, apart from that consideration, seems to me far weaker than the tribunal which was passed by the other House.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has raised an important question which is in controversy, and which is more directly raised on this particular Amendment, which this House has now to consider. That is to say whether or not a Bill the main governing purpose of which is held by the Committee not to be to impose taxation shall be held not to be a Financial Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman desires that the Debate on the second Amendment should be taken at the same time as the Debate on the first, possibly that may be the more convenient course, because if this second Amendment is omitted, as we shall ask the House disagree with it, then a great part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument will fall to the ground. If, on the other hand, his argument is to be countered by us, then it will be necessary to discuss the second Amendment of the House of Lords.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I would like to ask, Sir, whether in your view it would be more convenient to discuss the proposals
  1034
  now before the House. I would suggest that it would be more convenient if the House were to have a general discussion of the whole question.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It would not be possible to discuss in this Amendment the nature of the Committee which the Government have suggested to assist the Speaker. I do not think that would be possible, because that suggestion when it conies up will be open to amendment. Therefore, I do not think it would be possible to make any Amendment in this. I understood the Postmaster-General to ask me whether this first Amendment, together with the second, ought to be discussed together. I think they do stand or fall together, and I think it is impossible to avoid discussing them together.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I should like to ask the Government one or two questions on this matter. In the first place, I hope they will be able to give us a much more extended explanation than anyone has yet done as to the change of attitude with regard to this important matter, because some of us were content to be silent during the debates on this matter some weeks ago, and although some of us had open minds on the matter, we were fully convinced by the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Postmaster-General that no case was made out for any suggestion of any kind of Committee. I could quote the Postmaster-General or the Prime Minister OH this point. They made it perfectly clear that the opinion of the Government was that no case for a Committee had been made out, that the matter had been fully considered and that the result of the consideration was that the Government could not in any circumstances entertain the suggestion for a Committee. The hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) brought the matter forward and made a very persuasive speech and spent the greater part of an evening discussing this question of a Committee. What has happened to make the Government change their minds? Can it be that they are listening to any demand made by the other House with a view to compromise or conciliation? Because this suggestion is not made from the other House. It is not even suggested that ex-Speaker Lord Peel supported it in the other House.
  As I understand the suggestion of the Government is that there shall be a Committee of two in addition to Mr. Speaker who shall be consulted when practicable.

  1035
  That is a very vague phrase, "when practicable." I imagine that it is intended to get over the strong position taken by the Government when the question was last put before us that it would not be possible to consult the Committee, and that, even if you appointed it, a situation might arise unexpectedly when there would be no opportunity of calling the Committee together or taking its advice or consulting it in any way. Therefore, I suppose, "when practicable" is intended to get over the emergency of a sudden point of Order arising when Mr. Speaker would have to decide the question himself. For my part, unless there are strong reasons given by the Government I shall continue to hold to the position which they themselves have abandoned, that is, that Mr. Speaker himself is a qualified authority to determine whether or not the Bill is a Financial Bill. Our whole case has been that there is no increased responsibility placed on Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Speaker has had this power of prescribing what is a Money Bill practically throughout the whole tenure of the office of Speakership, and that therefore we were not placing any new or great responsibility on the Chair in deciding this matter. But if the Government have come round to the question of a Committee they might also tell us why in another place two representatives of the Government, Lord Haldane and Lord Morley, subsequently to the speech of Mr. ex-Speaker Peel, said they would not entertain the question of a Committee. I submit that those of us who have followed the Government throughout the whole of this Bill without taking up any unnecessary time are entitled to some kind of explanation. Why are we asked to swallow a policy which the Government have hitherto opposed, and why have the Government been induced to alter the decision?
  Why have the Government selected the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee as those whom the Speaker shall consult when practicable? Surely no one will say that that is a tribunal that is strong in a matter of that kind. My personal view is that in a case of difficulty Mr. Speaker should call into consultation the best heads in the House who would be able to give him the best assistance. While the Chairman of Ways and Means is a clever, impartial authority, surely it cannot be said of the respected Member for
  1036
  West Dorset (Colonel Williams) because of the position which he occupies as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee that he has a very close knowledge of House of Commons procedure. The Chairman of the Kitchen Committee would be as desirable as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. [An Hon. MEMBER: "A far better man."] Therefore I say we are entitled to know what are the considerations which have induced the Government to alter their position and their policy? I do not see that they are going to get any advantage from it. The "Morning Post" tells them this morning that the mere fact that they are going to bring forward Amendments at this eleventh hour is a sign that the forwards in a Conservative party are frightening the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has not accepted any compromise they have offered. Why, therefore, did they ask us, for no reason whatever, to alter the position of a few weeks ago, when no case for such alteration has been or can be made out?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I may point out to my hon. Friend that the proposal which the Government are now asking the House to accept is a very different proposal indeed from the Committee on which the Speaker would have, one vote among several which was previously laid before the House. But before I do so I think it is desirable, after what you, Sir. have said and what the Leader of the Opposition has said as to the somewhat larger question in the remarks which he has addressed to the House, to deal with the second Amendment of the House of Lords which it is clear may be taken in conjunction with the first Amendment, and which raises a considerably larger question.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: On the point of Order. I submit that the question of the second Amendment does not properly arise now. The second Amendment is merely the question of how you define a Money Bill. The Bill as it left this House contained a particular definition of a Money Bill. The House of Lords altered that. What we are now discussing is, what is the tribunal to determine the question of a Money Bill. The question of a definition of a Money Bill does not arise necessarily when you are discussing the question of the tribunal.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The nature of the tribunal must depend upon the task which it has to perform in matters submitted to its judgment. If the tribunal has to determine merely whether or not a Bill conforms to the terms of the definition at present in the Parliament Bill, then one tribunal may be adequate. But if it has to perform a far more difficult and much wider task, namely, to determine whether or not the main governing purpose of a Bill is financial or not, then you may require a different tribunal, and the Leader of the Opposition based his defence of the Committee proposed by the House of Lords on the ground that it is necessary to have some body which is competent to decide whether or not you are engaged on moral tacking. That is to say, whether or not the Bill is one which, under the guise of a Finance Bill, is really a political measure dealing with other matters which have been put into it. The Leader of the Opposition, in deciding whether the two Amendments should be taken as one, asked the opinion of Mr. Speaker as to whether it would be for the convenience of the House to take the two Amendments together? If, however, it would suit the convenience of the Leader of the Opposition to consider the question of the Committee first and the question of moral tacking afterwards there would not be difficulty in separating the two Amendments if it would meet the desire of the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do see some difficulty in discussing the character of the tribunal until you determine what the tribunal has got to deal with. If the tribunal has nothing of real importance to deal with it matters very little how it is constituted. If, on the other hand, it has got to do duties of a grave character, then its constition becomes of first-class importance. Therefore, it does seem to me that it is rather difficult to deal with them apart, although I quite appreciate the inconvenience of keeping them together. I would imagine that the suggestion of Mr. Speaker is the best, and that we ought to keep them together.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The second Amendment uses the words "but if, in the opinion of the Joint Committee." Therefore, that would hang on to the first Amendment, and would have to stand or fall by the first Amendment.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: Do I understand you to rule that we can only discuss the House of Lords Amendments, and not the substitution of the Joint Committee which the Home Secretary announced?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think that it would be better to discuss these Amendments first, and when the Government Amendment is proposed to set up a Joint Committee to assist the Speaker then to treat that as a separate Amendment. The two Amendments, it seems to me, do hang together and are quite apart from the other one.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think we are all at one in desiring to discuss these two questions together, and when we get rid of the Amendment as to a Joint Committee we will discuss the Government Amendment afterwards. I would ask hon. Members to look at the very important Amendment which stands second on the Paper, the purpose of which is as follows:—
  "But, if in the opinion of the Joint Committee, the main governing purpose of a Bill imposing taxation, or of any portion of a Bill imposing taxation, is not purely financial in character, the Bill, or such portion thereof as aforesaid, shall be subject to the provisions of Section 2 of this Act."
  If such a provision were inserted in the Act it would be necessary for the tribunal such as is proposed, to enter not into the nature of a Bill as expressed upon the face of it, but into the motives that have animated the introducers of the Bill, and they will have to form a judgment as to what "the main governing purpose" of the Bill is. Obviously, as soon as you apply any crude test to this proposal it appears immediately to be utterly impracticable. A more fantastic proposal it is difficult to conceive. Let us take a concrete case. Let us suppose that hon. Members opposite are in power, and that the first Bill they introduce is a Bill in the ordinary form of a Money Bill, which contains a provision that there shall be a tax on foreign corn to the extent of 2s. a quarter. It may be said that no conflict would be likely to arise if hon. Members opposite were here on these benches, and since no conflict would occur between the two Houses, this matter would not be referred to the Joint Committee for decision. But that is not

  1039
  so, because every Money Bill that goes to the House of Lords must have on its face the certificate of the Speaker that this is a Money Bill, and it would be necessary, therefore, that this problem should be put to the Speaker as representing the Joint Committee — should be put to the Joint Committee in order that the Speaker may certify if the Bill is a Money Bill or not. Therefore, the very first question which this Joint Committee would have to decide would be whether or not the main governing purpose of imposing a 2s. tax on corn is financial or is not. How is any tribunal to decide a problem of that kind? The purpose is not to be found in the words. The only document they would have before them would be the putting of a tax of 2s. a quarter on corn. How are they to say whether the purpose of that proposal is to unite the Empire, to encourage agriculture, or merely to raise the revenue which the 2s. tax will yield. Imagine such a law in force. Imagine the 1s. duty on corn which was imposed by the Conservative Government of that day coining before the Joint Committee charged with the duty of determining whether the main governing purpose of imposing that 1s. duty was to raise revenue or whether it was to encourage British agriculture, or for any other secondary and less direct purpose. Probably the main governing purpose of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day (Sir Michael Hicks Beach) was to raise revenue, but if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham were asked what was his main governing purpose in supporting the imposition of a duty on corn, he might give an entirely opposite answer.
  It appears from remarks that were made in the other House that the authors of this Amendment considered that a Joint Committee, not being a court of law, could properly consider not only the actual text of the Bill, but the facts and circumstances which attend its introduction. Therefore the Joint Committee would be compelled to investigate the individual views of individual statesmen who propose particular forms of taxation in order that they might arrive at an opinion whether or not the main governing purpose of the tax is purely financial or not. Take another case, the Budget of 1909. It is alleged that the imposition of the duty of 3s. 9d. on whisky was not merely for the purpose of raising revenue, but was also intended to have a temperance effect, to
  1040
  discourage the drinking of spirits. The Committee would be called upon under this Amendment to decide that question, and everything would depend upon their decision. If they decided that the 3s. 9d. was not a purely financial measure, then the House of Lords would be at liberty to reject the Bill, and we should have all the turmoil of a General Election. [An Hon. MEMBER: "NO."] Yes; the Budget must be passed in the year, and a general election would be the only way out of the difficulty. If, on the other hand, the Joint Committee of six men consider the 3s. 9d. is purely a financial measure the Bill may go on its way rejoicing. At what point are you to say that taxation ceases to be financial? Sir Michael Hicks Beach, in the year 1900, put a duty of 6d. on spirits. That clearly was a financial measure. If you were to say that the Duty of 3s. 9d. was not a financial measure, but a temperance measure, at what point between 6d. and 3s. 9d. is the Committee to declare that the main governing purpose of the tax is not purely financial. Take again the Licence Duties in the Budget of 1909. Mr. Gladstone imposed a Licence Duty in 1881 which brought in nearly half a million of money. My right hon. Friend's tax, imposed two years ago, brought in about two millions of money. No one challenged the Licence Duty of 1881 as other than a proper form of financial legislation. Where are you to say, between the half million and the two million, that legislation of that character ceases to be purely financial? Hon. Members opposite probably will say. You must look at the motive of those who introduced the legislation.
  But if you could point to the speech by the Lord Advocate, who said that if the Licence Bill were, rejected there was an alternative in the form of swinging taxation, then you may say that the motive or the main governing purpose of the Bill is not financial, but is a temperance measure or is a measure of predatory confiscation, or whatever you like to call it. Imagine once more the position, in which this body of six gentlemen, who, it is assumed, are to perform a quasi legal task, will be placed. They will have to examine the Lord Advocate's speech; they will have to go into recondite questions as to the statement of the Lord Advocate, and how far his declarations really bind the Government. They would have to hear the Lord Advocate on his own defence in order to determine whether or not his remarks were intended as a threat, or where intended really as a prophecy. This kind

  1041
  of duty, with an Amendment of this character inserted in the Bill, would be inevitably cast upon this unfortunate Joint Committee. Obviously when a measure is examined in the concrete, and not merely in a world of vague generalisation, it is found that no tribunal can possibly declare by looking at it whether or not its main governing purpose is financial or is not. Every financial measure has some social and political effect. Every tax you like to impose has directly or indirectly some effect upon the social and economic position of a particular class. The Death Duties, now regarded as being an ordinary and proper device of the fiscal art, might be pushed to such a point that they would become confiscatory and oppressive. But how could anyone say at any particular moment whether or not a given scale of Death Duties is or is not to be considered purely financial. In the Budget of 1894 it was considered at that time that the Death Duties were very oppressive, but now they are regarded as an ordinary part of our fiscal system. So it will be with the graduated Income Tax and with many other measures. I must apologise for detaining the House at such length, but I am dealing now with the two Amendments.
  It will be urged by hon. Members opposite that these words, "The main governing purpose," were taken from a speech of the Prime Minister, but he was then dealing, as anyone can see who examines his speech, with entirely different circumstances. He was dealing with a Bill like the Education Bill by way of illustration. He said it had been argued that since certain financial provisions formed part of the Education Bill of 1902 it might be held, under the Parliament Bill, that that brought the whole measure within the category of Money Bills, which were excluded from the House of Lords by Clause 1 of our Bill. He said that that was not so, and that you must take into account whether the main governing purpose of the Bill was financial or not. Another illustration that was given was the measure creating two new judges, and charging on the Consolidated Fund their salaries. He was asked, is it the case that because the, charge is laid upon the Consolidated Fund therefore this Bill would come within Clause 1 of the Parliament Bill as a Money Bill. His answer was no, and that clearly the main governing purpose of the Bill was to create two new judges. He never made any suggestion that you either could or ought to empower any tribunal or person to examine or decide whether a given tax
  1042
  was imposed, not to bring in revenue, or whether it was imposed so as to handicap or prejudice in their business particular taxpayers. Such a task would be an impossible one to impose on any tribunal, as I have taken pains to argue.
  These are the reasons we must ask the House to reject the second Amendment, and these are the reasons why it is unnecessary to have any Joint Committee to deal with this particular aspect of the question. If we accepted the second Amendment, this measure, which is designed to protect the powers of the House of Commons in matters of finance, would act as an invasion of our existing powers, and would give the House of Lords larger scope in matters of financial legislation than ever they had in the past. For the more modest purposes which are included in Clause 1 of our Bill, I do not think that any hon. Member opposite would actually argue that it is essential to have the Joint Committee which is proposed by the House of Lords. Certainly, this House could not assent to its financial privileges being placed in the hands of that Committee. It would consist of the Lord Chairman of Committees, of the Lord Chancellor, of one of the legal Members of the House of Lords, and from this side of Mr. Speaker, of the Chairman of Committees, and of a Member of the House, chosen by the Speaker. If the Conservative party were in power they would naturally have the Lord Chancellor first a member of their party; the Chairman of Committees in this House belongs by custom to the Ministerial party, and the Lord Chairman in the other House has always been a Member of the Conservative party. As to the Law Lords and other legal Members of the House of Lords, they are as two to one Members of the Conservative party, and it may be assumed that the fourth member of the Committee would also be a Member of the Conservative party. So that in those circumstances they would have four Gentlemen drawn from the ranks of the Conservative party, while on our side there would be only one Liberal Member, who might or might not be selected to serve upon the Committee. I leave out, of course, the Speaker, who may be assumed to be wholly impartial. If, on the other hand, a Liberal Government were in power we should be able, and we should have on the Committee two Members, the Lord Chancellor and the-Chairman of Committees. The Opposition

  1043
  would have the Lord Chairman, the Law Lord and a Member of the House chosen from the Opposition, so that in all cases the Liberal representatives would be in a minority on this Committee which is charged with such large powers. I do not deny that the other House in all probability have endeavoured to find an impartial tribunal. I do not make any suggestion that the composition of this Committee is designedly such as to give it a partial character. I do claim the effect of it will be, however much the Members of this Committee may endeavour to keep an open mind and to approach these problems with an impartial spirit, since the questions they would have to decide are not mere matters of interpretation, but are matters of opinion and deal with questions raising great issues, the inevitable result would be that party feeling would enter into their deliberations. Those are therefore the reasons why I must ask the House to disagree with both of the first two Amendments of the House of Lords.
  Sir ROBERT FINLAY: I desire to make a very few observations upon both points to which the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has been directed. In the first place there is the point whether we should have a Joint Committee, the Speaker having a casting vote, or whether we should leave the whole matter to the Speaker with or without advice. On that point I desire to submit to the House that the Lords Amendments give effect, as the proposal of the Government does not, to the very weighty observations which were made in the House of Lords by Lord Peel, who spoke with all the authority of a great Speaker of the House of Commons. It is no use for the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to say that the Speaker has hitherto decided these matters in the House of Commons. That is perfectly true, but he has decided them only for the House of Commons, and his ruling did not in the slightest degree bind anybody except the House of which he is the Chairman. That has been his function. Now you are proposing to do something quite different and to set up a tribunal whose decision is to bind not only this House but also the other House. Surely right hon. Gentlemen opposite must recognise that under those circumstances it is perfectly idle to appeal to the fact that when this House only was concerned in the past the Speaker was the tribunal to decide such questions.
  1044
  I do not go over the objections which were stated by Lord Peel, and which were also stated in this House, to throwing this duty upon the Speaker. There are many objections, they have been forcibly stated by Lord Peel, and I am quite sure his speech has not escaped the attention of any Member of this House. I do submit to the House that the Lords Amendments give effect to the position taken up by Lord Peel, and that it would be a great mistake to go back to the crude proposal of the Government that the Speaker shall decide these matters. With regard to the other matter to which the right hon. Gentleman directed his observations, he said it was really impossible for the Committee to decide what the main governing purpose of a Bill was. The Prime Minister used the words, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, which are reproduced substantially in this Amendment. He was referring to measures such as the Education Bill and the Licensing Bill and Bills of that kind, and what he said was this, that the test whether a Bill is a Financial Bill or not is whether that is its main governing purpose. Those are the words substantially of the second Amendment which has come down from the Lords.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: To be judged from the text of the Bill itself.
  Sir R. FINLAY: We are not discussing what materials the Committee is to take into account. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that it was impossible to say what the main governing purpose of a Bill was. The right hon. Gentleman argued that to say whether the main governing purpose was or was not financial, that the test suggested by the Prime Minister himself was one perfectly incapable of application. That really was the whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman. I admit that cases occur and many cases might be suggested which are nearer the line and which might be on the borderline, but there are many cases with regard to which the tribunal would not have the slightest difficulty in saying that the Bill was on one side of the line or the other. Take the case, and I am not suggesting it is a probable case, of a measure which proposed that the holder of a living in the Established Church paid 20s. in the £ taxation. That would be a financial measure——
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What is a tariff?
  Sir R. FINLAY: That is another point. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to apply his mind to the illustration I am

  1045
  giving of a proposal to tax the holder of a living in the Established Church 20s. in the £ upon the salary which he derives. Would that be a financial measure? I await with interest the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I note he requires to take a little time to answer the question.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should be happy to answer the right hon. Gentleman if he answers my question.
  Sir R. FINLAY: As the right hon. Gentleman declines to answer the question until he has had time, to consider the subject, I propose to say only this, that it is perfectly obvious that no tribunal would have the slightest difficulty in saying that that was not a financial measure. It is in the garb of a financial measure, but it has a different object, namely, the Disendowment of the Church. Many illustrations might be given. Take a subject which excited very great interest in past generations, and one on which the country was most acutely divided, namely, as to whether there should be a standing Army in time of peace or not. According to this Bill, in the form the Government have prepared it, a measure providing funds for the setting up of a standing Army in time of peace could not have been dealt with by the House of Lords because that would be purely a financial measure. I say to put in an anachronism of that kind is preposterous, and that it is a complete mistake to suppose that any infringement of the privileges of this House such as this House has enjoyed in the past would be created by saying that where a measure, though financial in character, has for its main purpose something which is not financial, then the House of Lords are at liberty to deal with it. There is another illustration which can be taken from the present time. I will not go into it because it might be anticipating a Debate which we may have in the course of a few days, namely, the question of the Payment of Members. Is that a purely financial question? I commend that question to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer after he answers the other question I put to him——
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Will you answer mine?
  Sir R. FINLAY: That matter is one which involves large questions of public policy, and yet it might be sent up in the form of a financial measure. The policy of the Government is to make it impossible
  1046
  for the Lords to have any say on questions of public policy involved in such matters. I say that the whole line of argument which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted is a mistaken one. It is very easy to say that it is difficult to draw a line precisely, and for any tribunal to say with perfect ease that this or that case is on the one side or the other. I most respectfully submit that the Government are making a mistake in endeavouring, not to preserve the old privileges of the House, but unduly to extend them by enabling this House under the guise of financial measures to promote ends which are purely political.
  Major MORRISON-BELL: The Postmaster-General explained to the House how very difficult it would be for the proposed Joint Committee to come to any decision as to what was or was not finance, or as to what amounted to "tacking." But all his arguments really went to show that if it would be difficult for a Joint Committee, it would be much more difficult for the Speaker unaided. It is important to press this point at the present moment, because there is already a movement on the benches opposite, led by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy(Sir H. Dalziel) to take away the help which the Government themselves are inclined to give to the Speaker. We do not consider that the proposal of the Government is adequate, but we hope the Government will adhere to it, as it would at any rate, give the Speaker some assistance, and that they will not be frightened from it by the hon. Member, who apparently has not very much support.
  Mr. PETO: I am glad to hear the Postmaster-General, at any rate, give more reasons than the Home Secretary thought fit to give for the course the Government propose to take. Those reasons seem to divide themselves into three classes—first, the Postmaster-General objects to the term "the main governing principle." The term was selected by the Prime Minister, who is certainly acknowledged on both sides to be a master in selecting the exact words necessary to express his meaning, and those words have been adopted in another place as wise words for this Amendment. If the Postmaster-General thinks that they are not apt, if he thinks it is perfectly impossible for any Committee, no matter how constituted, to decide what is "the main governing purpose" of a measure, that is an excellent reason for suggesting some other words; but it is no reason for doing away with any Committee

  1047
  whatever and entirely negativing the Lords Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to put a number of hard cases, in which he said it would be difficult for anyone to come to a decision. No one disputes that there will inevitably be very hard cases. Hard cases can be quoted in connection with the legislation of the last few years, in which it would be exceedingly difficult for anyone to decide whether a measure fell on one side of the line or on the other. We quite admit that that would apply to the Death Duties, or to a case taken by the right hon. Gentleman of the shilling registration tax on wheat, where one hon. Member might think that the main governing purpose was one thing and another another. But the harder the case propounded, the stronger is the argument for the best and most representative Committee of the greatest possible experience that can be set up for the assistance of Mr. Speaker.
  The only other substantial argument of the Postmaster-General was with reference to the constitution of the proposed tribunal. He said that in one case it would be three to two and in another four to one in favour of the policy represented by hon. Members on this side of (ho House. If that is true, it is an
  excellent reason for modifying the composition of the tribunal, or for proposing some other tribunal which would be still more impartial and still better fitted to carry out this extremely difficult task; but again it is no argument whatever for saying that there shall be no Committee at all to assist Mr. Speaker. The harder the case to be decided the more important it is to have a carefully selected, absolutely representative, and wholly impartial tribunal. It is a most extraordinary thing that, in regard to this Amendment, which has been considered by some of the best heads in either House of Parliament, the Government have nothing to put forward except what I cannot but regard as somewhat captious criticism of detail. They have no offer whatever to make of any alternative plan. They propose to leave the matter, so far as this Amendment is concerned, to the exclusive decision of Mr. Speaker, to bring him out of the sphere which he has always filled in this House with such distinction, and to throw upon him duties which will inevitably render him liable to the severe criticism of whatever party is dissatisfied with his decision.
  Question put, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 289; Noes, 145.

  Division No. 311.]

  AYES.

  [8.34 p.m.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Clough, William

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Clynes, John R.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Adamson, William

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Field, William

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Armitage, R.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A

  Cowan, W. H.

  Furness, Stephen

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Crean, Eugene

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Crooks, William

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Gilhooly, James

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Cullinan, J.

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Bentham, George J.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Black, Arthur W.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Boland, John Pius

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

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  De Forest, Baron

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Brace, William

  Delany, William

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

  Brady, P. J.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Guiney, P.

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Dillon, John

  Gulland, John W.

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Doris, William

  Hackett, John

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Duffy, William J.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hancock, J. G.

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

  Edwards, Enoch Hanley

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Cameron, Robert

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Harvey, A. G C. (Rochdale)

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

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Harwood, George

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Meagher, Michael

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

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

  Robinson, Sidney

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Middlebrook, William

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Hayward, Evan

  Millar, James Duncan

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Molloy, Michael

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mond, Sir Alfred

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Mooney, John J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Hinds, John

  Morgan, George Hay

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Hodge, John

  Morrell, Philip

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Muldoon, John

  Sheehy, David

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Munro, Robert

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Hudson, Walter

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Snowden, Philip

  John, Edward Thomas

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Johnson, William

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Sutton, J. E.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Dowd, John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Kelly, Edward

  Ogden, Fred

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Malley, William

  Wadsworth, John

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

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

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  O'Shee, James John

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Wardle, George J.

  Lansbury, George

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Webb, H.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Leach, Charles

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pointer, Joseph

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lynch, Arthur Harold

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  McGhee, Richard

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Radford, George Heynes

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Rea, Rt. Hon Russell (South Shields)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Reddy, Michael

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  M'Kean, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Rendall, Athelstan

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

  Manfield, Harry

  Richards, Thomas

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Chambers, J.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Ashley, W. W.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Astor, Waldorf

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Courthope, George Loyd

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

  Butcher, John George

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Croft, H. P.

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Campion, W. R.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Barnston, H.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

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

  Cassel, Felix

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cator, John

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cautley, H. S.

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

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Cave, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Bigland, Alfred

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  1050

  1051

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Larmor, Sir J

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Forster, Henry William

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Stanier, Beville

  Goldman, C. S.

  M'Mordie, Robert James

  Stewart, Gershom

  Goldsmith, Frank

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hills, John Waller

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hoare, S. J. G.

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

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Hohler, G. F.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Williams, Col R. (Dorset, W.)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Horner, A. L.

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Sanders.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "those subjects or any of them" ["or subordinate matters incidental to those subjects, or any of them"], and insert instead thereof the words "the provisions of such Bill; but if, in the opinion of the Joint Committee, the main governing purpose of a Bill imposing taxation, or of any portion of a Bill imposing taxation, is not purely finan-
  cial in character, the Bill, or such portion thereof as aforesaid, shall be subject to the provisions of Section 2 of this Act.
  Motion made and Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 146.

  Division No. 312.]

  AYES.

  [8.45 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Adamson, William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Clough, William

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Clynes, John R.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Armitage, R.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ffrench, Peter

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Field, William

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Crean, Eugene

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Crooks, William

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Bentham, George J.

  Crumley, Patrick

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Cullinan, J.

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Black, Arthur W.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Gilhooly, James

  Boland, John Pius

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Gill, A. H.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Davies, Timothy, (Lincs., Louth)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

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

  Goldstone, Frank

  Brace, William

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Brady, P. J.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Brigg, Sir John

  De Forest, Baron

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Brocklehurst, W. B

  Delany, William

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dillon, John

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Guiney, P.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Doris, W.

  Gulland, John William

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in Furness)

  Hackett, J.

  Cameron, Robert

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Hancock, J. G.

  M'Kean, John

  Richards, Thomas

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

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

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Manfield, Harry

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-Shire)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Robinson, Sidney

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Harwood, George

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Middlebrook, William

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Molloy, M.

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

  Hayward, Evan

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Morgan, George Hay

  Sheehy, David

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morrell, Philip

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Hinds, John

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Hodge, John

  Muldoon, John

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Munro, R.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R.C.

  Snowden, P.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

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

  Hudson, Walter

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Sutton, John E.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Tennant, Harold John

  Johnson, W.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Dowd, John

  Wadsworth, J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Ogden, Fred

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Keating, M.

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

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Malley, William

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Kelly, Edward

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Webb, H.

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Shee, James John

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Lansbury, George

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Leach, Charles

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

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

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  McGhee, Richard

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Reddy, M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Cautley, H. S.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Cave, George

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

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

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Chambers, J.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bull, Sir William James

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Butcher, John George

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Barnston, H.

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

  Courthope, George Loyd

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

  Campion, W. R.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Croft, H. P.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cassel, Felix

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Cator, John

  Dixon, C. H.

  1054

  1055

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Rothschild, Lionel de

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

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Fell, Arthur

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W Hayes

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Forster, Henry William

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Stanier, Beville

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Mordie, Robert James

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Goldman, C. S.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mills, Hon Charles Thomas

  Touche, George Alexander

  Greene, W. R.

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

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Guinness, Hon. Walter E.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Hickman, Colonel T. E.

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

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

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

  Hills, J. W.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Yate, Col. C. E

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Horner, A. L.

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Sanders.

  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to add the, words "Before giving his certificate ["that it is a Money Bill"] the Speaker shall consult, if practicable, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, and the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts."
  I wish to make it clear, in answer to the observations of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir Henry Dalziel), that the Government in no way alter their opinion in re-respect to the objections which can properly be raised, and which, in our opinion, are overwhelming to anything in the nature of a Committee, such as was proposed when the Bill was passing through this House. Three suggestions were made. One time it was proposed there should be something in the nature of an equal tribunal to whom these questions of doubtful interpretation should be referred. That proposal is no longer made. The second proposal was that the House of Lords should be admitted to a share in the tribunal which was to judge the question of the privileges of the House of Commons. That proposal we have just debated, and it has been rejected by a vote of the House. The proposal was that a Committee should be set up of which the Speaker should be a Member, and also the Chairman; but there was a possibility that the Speaker might be over-ruled by other Members of that Committee. Against all those pro-
  1056
  posals, as the hon. Member has very correctly said, the Prime Minister has argued both in Committee and on the Report stage and other hon. Members supported his arguments. The proposal we are now making is a different one to any which was proposed in the House when the Bill was under consideration. The proposal is that the Speaker when he comes to settle these matters—which may sometimes be very delicate and difficult questions—should have the opportunity of consultation with other Members of this House in order to get their views upon the subject. The Government have been somewhat impressed by the arguments advanced in the other House by Lord Peel, who was for so many years Speaker of this House, and who left S this House with the regard and the respect of every Member in it. He was universally regarded as one of the best Speakers this House has ever had. Speaking as an ex-Speaker, he expressed his strong view that it is desirable, that the Speaker should have an opportunity of consultation with other Members of this House.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Is it not the case that the Noble Lord supported the Committee which, on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, we have just voted against?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The only suggestion then before the House of Lords was the suggestion of this Committee to which, for the reasons I have given, the Govern-

  1057
  ment cannot agree. But because we are unable to accept the suggestion of a Committee that is no reason why we should not go some way towards meeting the desires expressed with all the authority of an ex-Speaker if it can be done without impairing the principles on which this Bill is founded. If hon. Members can show if any real harm is being done by this proposal or that it is in any way inconsistent with the main purposes of the Bill, or that it limits the control of the House of Commons over the determination of what are or are not its privileges, then matters would be different.
  Sip H. DALZIEL: It is for you to show that this Amendment will do good.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am certain it will be the desire of every hon. Member of this House to strengthen in every possible way the position of the Speaker, and we should not lay the Speaker open to any charges which might in any degree reflect upon his impartiality. I think the Speaker should be assuerd that the House will have no objection to him consulting with other Members of the House in order to make certain that in the various views which may be put before him, he should not overlook any consideration which might otherwise not be present to his mind. The persons chosen to assist him will naturally include the Chairman of Ways and Means, because all financial business originates in Committee of Ways and Means. The Chairman of that Committee, therefore, will have heard all the debates in Committee upon the measure in question, and when the Speaker comes to give his certificate it is right that the Chairman of Ways and Means should be consulted, if anyone is consulted, in the matter. In the next place, as the Speaker has to give his certificate as the agent of the House as a whole, if he is given assistance from any quarter, it should be partly drawn from the Members of the Opposition of this House. I am sure no one would desire in a matter of this character that the persons chosen should be wholly from one side of the House, and that the other side should have no opportunity of being consulted in any way. I think I am right in saying that there is only one Member of the Opposition who has any official status in any matter affecting finance, and that is the Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts, who has always by
  1058
  custom been chosen from the Opposition, and who by the very nature of his functions is called upon to deal with some, at all events, of the financial matters upon which the House has to legislate, and he is continually in touch with the practice and principles which regulate financial legislation in this House. Those are the reasons why these two hon. Members are chosen from the House and not others. Of course the Speaker, if he so desires, may consult other hon. Members, but these two are inserted in order that it should be known that the Speaker has been proceeding not merely on his own Motion. Although the decision given is that of the Speaker, an opportunity is given for consultation with other Members unless circumstances should intervene to make that impossible in the normal course. He has that opportunity of consulting with other hon. Members and hearing their views. The words, "is practicable" are inserted because cases may arise in which one or other of those Members may be absent from the House, and, of course, it would be exceedingly inconvenient and disastrous to the provisions of this Bill if any proceedings were invalidated merely because the Speaker had not been able to consult the persons mentioned in the Bill. These are the reasons why after very careful and prolonged consideration the Prime Minister, who has given this matter his closest attention, is of opinion that, on the whole, it is desirable that the Speaker should be given strength and support by the methods of consultation which we propose, and that is a reason why the Government ask the House to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I think the Postmaster-General on this matter deserves the sympathy of the House. During the time I have been a Member of this House I have never known a Member of the Government to be placed in a more unfortunate position than the Postmaster-General has been placed by having to submit this weakest of all cases to the House. I rise on behalf of my colleagues on these benches to protest against this Amendment. We can claim that we have supported the Government very consistently through every stage of this Bill. I remember the discussions that took place during the Committee stage, when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were urging the aceptance of Amendments setting up some form or other of a

  1059
  Committee. I listened to the speeches made by the Prime Minister and by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and with those speeches we fully agreed. I am quite sure in the speech to which we have listened to-night we have not heard a single argument to induce us to depart from the position in which we supported the Government throughout the Committee stage. I listened to a speech of the right hon. Gentleman a little earlier in the evening dealing with the two Amendments the Committee have just disposed of, and I am quite certain that every argument he used then, and, in fact, every word with which he supported those arguments, are equally applicable to the case he has endeavoured to make out as they were to the case he was opposing. Why was it we supported the Government during the Committee stage? We supported the Government in resisting the Amendments that were proposed because of our confidence in the impartiality of the Chair. We believed, in spite of the arguments advanced, that it was imposing too heavy a burden upon the Speaker, that the Speaker, left to himself, was better able to decide the question than if he was exposed as the Chairman of a Committee to take part in the deliberations of that Committee, and was then called upon to exercise, as the Amendment suggested, his casting vote. It seems to me that, if the Joint Committee, the Judicial Committee, and the other Committees that were then proposed were bad, this is infinitely worse.
  The Government propose that the Chairman of Ways and Means for the time being and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for the time being may be called in for consultation by the Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shall."] Well, I suppose it is going to be made statutory, and that they must be consulted. There is the proviso "if practicable," and, in the event of it not being practicable, other Members may be consulted. I do not wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but I understand that was the statement he made. What does this mean? Is this not going to interfere to a very large extent with the impartiality of the Chair? Who may the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for the time being be. It may be, when we have another Parliament, that the Speaker will be drawn from the actual party in power. It does not happen to
  1060
  be so to-day. The Chairman of the Ways and Means is always a Member of the party in power. I know of nothing, though there may be custom against it, to prevent the Chairman of a Public Accounts Committee being drawn from the party in power. There is nothing more than custom against it, and custom could be set aside. It is not a very old-established custom. What would that mean? It would mean that all the three Members concerned, the Speaker and the two Members to be invited in consultation, would be Members of the same party, members of the party in power, and members of the party primarily concerned in the dispute as to the character of the Bill on which they have to adjudicate. I venture to say there is no Member of this House who would not rather the impartiality of the Chair was left entirely uninterfered with, and there is certainly no one who would prefer that this service should come, as it might come in one case and even in both cases, from gentlemen who, however impartial they tried to be, could not forget they were Members of the party in power, and who might also be Members of the party from whom the Speaker himself had been selected.
  The Government have changed their position. They were very definite and determined on this point throughout the long discussion in the Committee stage. Why have they changed their position? Is it a concession to the Die-hards? The only argument we have heard is that this course has been recommended by a Noble Lord who formerly presided with great distinction over the deliberations of this House, but who has so far departed from the faith as to become subservient to the whip of the party opposite. Why that should be a recommendation to adopt a proposal in this great constitutional struggle passes my comprehension, and yet the only argument I have heard is that Lord Peel, in the Debate gave some colour of support to the suggestion. May I ask the House just to listen to the position as we had it described to us as recently as the Committee stage by no less an authority than the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. In replying on the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), the Prime Minister used these words:—
  "You are now proposing to give the Speaker a casting Tote, and what is that but an indirect method of arriving at the same result as we propose? You are throwing the ultimate responsibility upon the shoulders of the Speaker."

  1061
  These are the words to which I particularly want to call attention:—
  "I think it would be very much better in these matters to leave the Speaker to exercise his own unfettered judgment. I have no doubt Mr. Speaker, when necessary, would take advice and counsel."
  It seems to me, if that was the correct position but a few weeks ago, it is the correct position to-day, and this is the very last moment that any concession should be made. I think experience proves that immediately the Government endeavour to conciliate the Noble Lords advantage is taken of that spirit of conciliation if not in the other House in this House, and it is charged against them as being an indication of weakness. I should like to appeal to the Government even at this last moment to stand by their Bill. Some of us have gone through two elections on this question. We may be told the Bill was not in its detail before the country in January last year, but the Resolution was. The Bill was definitely before the country when we proceeded by the voluntary act of the Cabinet to our constituencies to fight on the Bill, and I think we are perfectly entitled to ask tonight, when we are considering these Amendments, that no quarter shall be given to those who compelled the second election, but that we shall stand by the Bill and nothing but the Bill. I therefore protest against the acceptance of this Amendment.
  Mr. MILDMAY: It is very difficult to know what the result of the alternative will be. It is a very slight alteration that is proposed. Mr. Speaker is merely to consult with the two Gentlemen mentioned, but the decision is still to be his. The hon. Member who last spoke referred to Mr. Speaker Peel. I had the honour of sitting under Mr. Speaker Peel during the whole of his occupancy of that Chair, and I can speak to the high estimation in which he was held by the whole House. I do not think it can be averred that his speech, to which reference has been made, was in any way a party speech. I doubt very much whether this Amendment which has been put forward by the Government will remove the objections to which reference has been made. I feel myself that with this Amendment there will still be far too heavy a responsibility on Mr. Speaker. Are we to leave him in a position of absolute impartiality, or are we to drag him into the arena of party polities? We are enlarging the area of his field of duty. Up till now his authority in this House has been unquestioned. Will it be
  1062
  so unquestionably accepted outside this House if this Amendment is adopted? He will have to give a decision between parties whether or not a Bill is a Money Bill. It may be a question on which opinions are evenly balanced. It may be difficult to avoid a semblance of leaning unduly to one side or the other. But once he has decided in favour of one political party we thrust him forward to compel the subservience of the House of Lords to that political party. It seems to me that that would be a very dangerous proceeding. I think it was one of the Members for Plymouth who, in the Debate on this Bill, said we were going to put it in the power of Mr. Speaker to destroy the Government of the day by ruling that the Budget is not a purely Money Bill, because by such a ruling he would put it in the power of the House of Lords to reject that Budget, and, of course, no Government could remain in office after the rejection of their Budget. I say, therefore, it is a very dangerous and difficult duty that you are throwing upon Mr. Speaker.
  I know hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh at our fears. They say in all sincerity that they have absolute confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker. So have we. We have absolute confidence in his impartiality and integrity. We know that the present occupant of the Chair will rise to any occasion. His character is very firmly established indeed. But what about future occupants of the Chair? Remember that the necessity of coming to this most momentous decision may occur to a new Speaker within the first weeks of his assuming office, before he has had the opportunity of establishing his character for impartiality, and if it does so, may it not ruin the whole future of a potentially strong and impartial Speaker? The authority of Mr. Speaker once ruined, the difficulties of the office are increased a hundredfold. Hon. Gentlemen opposite deride our fears lest the reputation of Mr. Speaker for impartiality should be endangered. But we have seen something of the same kind in regard to election petitions. I do not know whether hon. Members read a letter written to "The Times" a short time ago, by Sir Harry Poland, who stated that when, in 1868, it was proposed to require judges to try election petitions they strongly objected on the ground that the inevitable result would be to destroy, or at all events materially to impair, the confidence of the public in their fairness, impartiality and inflexible integrity when political mat-

  1063
  ters come incidentally before them. This same danger, we are now pointing out, will be incurred by the Speaker of the future. Will anybody say, in view of the accusations against the judges which have lately been made in the leading Government organs and in other quarters, will anybody say that the fears expressed in 1868 were not well founded? With this lesson before us, I maintain that we ought not light-heartedly to throw a fresh burden on Mr. Speaker. I am not satisfied with the Amendment. I think he should have more assistance; he should not be left in the position he would be left in if this Amendment is added to the Bill.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: I think the question really is, will the Speaker's authority be diminished or will it be increased by the formal addition of two advisers whom he is obliged to consult, but with whose advice he is not necessarily obliged to comply. I think the wording of this Amendment has been a little misunderstood. If I thought that the Amendment would weaken the authority of the Speaker I should oppose it. The Speaker is the greatest asset of this House; his impartiality is its most valuable asset, but because I do not believe it will have the effect of weakening his impartiality as an authority of this House I hold that we ought to support the Amendment. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Henderson) told us that he had full confidence in the Speaker. We all have that, and although every Speaker hitherto may have been originally returned to this House as a party man, what we claim is that once a Speaker is put into the Chair he is no longer actuated by party spirit.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: All I suggested was that the Speaker might be selected in the future from the party in power. That is not the case at present.
  Mr. T. TAYLOR: I accept the hon. Member's statement, but I fail to see what is the meaning of his suggestion, unless it be understood that the Speaker is selected from the party in power, and might possibly act in the interests of that party. But the Speaker does not act as a party man, so it does not matter from what party he originally came. Fortunately for us the Speaker in this House for many years past has happened to be selected from the party not in power. For my own part, I hope that that will always be the case because I say, as a supporter of the
  1064
  Government, I believe we stand to gain rather than to lose by it, as the average traditions of the English gentleman, traditions which will continue whatever classes-may be represented in the House of Commons, will incline the man occupying that seat to lean against his own party rather than towards it. For my own part I do not claim, as a Member of the majority, any advantage. I think the advantage should be given to the minority rather than to the majority. I also have had great confidence in the Speakers we have had hitherto, and I claim that the type of man we have had hitherto as Speaker is the best possible indication of the kind of man we may expect to have in the future. I myself have no fear, and hon. Gentlemen opposite need not have any fear, should a Labour Member or an Irish Member be chosen to act as Speaker. I believe such a man would immediately inherit the traditions of that noble office. There is one point I should like to refer to. The Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means is also Deputy-Speaker. I am not quite sure if he is so by authority of his office. I think he is. If that be so, that is to say that the Chairman of Ways and Means is called upon as at the present moment to occupy the chair of the Speaker, then I think we must all agree that he must be one of the most appropriate individuals to be consulted by the Speaker on these difficult occasions. I take that for granted, that he is an appropriate individual, that a man who is qualified to occupy the Chair of the Speaker occasionally is one of the most likely men to be consulted by the Speaker.
  I should like the House to consider the character of the men who have in the past occupied the chair of the Public Accounts Committee. I see the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Williams), the present Chairman, present. I will not endeavour to gild refined gold, and will not flatter him in his presence, but those who have sat many years in the House can say he is one of the most respected Members of the House, who, I believe, acts in the public interest, and, in common with other chairmen of Public Accounts Committees, has used the far too limited power he has in the public interest. I will take the last five occupants of the office so far as I remember them and know them. There was Lord Shuttleworth a good many years ago, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, a respected Member of the Irish party; Sir Arthur Hayter, now Lord Haversham, and Mr. Victor Cavendish, now Duke of Devonshire,

  1065
  a most able Member of the Committee. I am glad to say, as a business man myself, I have never come across a duke, at all events, who was a better business man. My friends who have sat with the Duke of Devonshire in this House know that he was a very able business man, and conducted the business of the Public Accounts Committee in a very good way. Why was he made Chairman of that Committee? It has been the custom in the past when an ex-Secretary to the Treasury was available, that is the Secretary to the Treasury in the previous Government, to make him Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and I think that a very wise tradition. The reason why the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Williams) occupies the office now is that his predecessor, the present Duke of Devonshire, was removed by the death of his uncle to the other House. He might have been Chairman of the Committee to-day but for that. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Hayes Fisher?"] I believe the hon. Member for Fulham is a good business man and a respected member of the county council, though a very strong opponent of ours. We can recognise, surely, as business men, the ability of a business man, and we can respect his character though we differ entirely from his politics.
  Mr. JOHNWARD: What has this to do with the Amendment?
  Mr. T. TAYLOR: The character of one of the two advisers that the Speaker is to have in the future, if this Amendment is carried, is a very material point. It is absolutely in order, and, in my judgment, it has a great deal to do with the question. The list of names I have read shows that the men who become chairmen of the Public Accounts Committee are for the most part, at all events, members of this House, with a good deal of experience behind them, knowledge of estimates and knowledge of the very kind of business that this Amendment relates to.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: The Chairman of the Selection Committee?
  Mr. T. TAYLOR: The Chairman of the Selection Committee is also a very much respected Member of the House. This is not a question of selecting individuals. It is a question of the interpretation of an Act of Parliament—what are Money Bills and what are not? I can almost understand the indignation of gentlemen
  1066
  who may perhaps think they ought to have been consulted about this. I will take the liberty to believe that, like other people, my hon. Friends behind would like to have been consulted before this Amendment was thrown upon the Table of the House this afternoon, in this very sudden way. I should like also to have had my view put in. But we cannot all have that. I am a thorough supporter of the Veto Bill. I would rather not alter a line or a comma because it is apt to be misunderstood outside—now I am speaking, of course, as a party man—as an act of weakness, but we know it is not. We need not mind that. Surely if we believe a thing is good in itself we ought to vote for it.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I was glad to hear the unqualified approval of the business capacity of Members of the other House which has been given by the last speaker. If he goes on making speeches of a similar nature much longer I shall look forward to the time when he will be a hearty supporter of the other House in all respects. I cannot help thinking that the Postmaster-General was in a very difficult position to-night, because, in my opinion, this is an absolutely fatuous Amendment. The argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman was that it was to give the Speaker the opportunity of consulting other Members of the House. Surely it does not need an Act of Parliament to authorise the Speaker to consult the Chairman of Ways and Means or the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee or any other Members of the House. Supposing this were passed, what would be the use of it? If he wanted to consult those two Members of the House, of course he could do it without this Amendment, and if he did not want to consult them he could call them together and then disregard their opinions. I can quite understand the hon. Member taking up the position that this responsibility ought not to be put upon the Speaker. That was my opinion, and I have voted in support of it. But this is an entirely different matter. You are not going to relieve the Speaker of responsibility in any shape or form. You are going to do something which will in some respects limit the apparent confidence of this House in the Speaker, and if it is to be left to the Speaker personally I should like it to be left to the Speaker himself. I should like to leave him absolutely unlimited powers to consult any Member of this House. If

  1067
  the Speaker were in any doubt about a question which he had to decide he would, of course, consult the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and in all probability other Members in whom he had confidence, if he thought it was necessary. It does not require an Act of Parliament to give him power to do that.
  There is another matter that I ought to mention. The Postmaster-General pointed out that if anyone could point out what harm this would do he would be willing to listen to any argument in support of that proposition. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who sits opposite that it is not for anybody to point out what harm there is in the Amendment. The onus lies upon the right hon. Gentleman who proposes the Amendment to show what good it does, and to show really how the position of the Speaker is to be strengthened or the responsibility taken off his shoulders.
  Mr. KING: I think the position is really a curious one. The consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Parliament Bill was put down over a fortnight ago. We were always told that the Prime Minister would come down to the House, and propose that the Lords Amendments be disagreed with in toto, but at the last moment when we are here expecting to send the Bill back to the House of Lords as we sent it originally, and to send it back in a few hours, without any notice upon the Paper we are asked to accept Amendments of a totally new character which we have to take down in shorthand as they are read out. And then we are expected out of loyalty—which I assure the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench in my case is as great as ever—to accept these Amendments. I intend to support the Government through thick and through thin in this Parliament Bill, but I respectfully submit to them that they should give us some real reason why they are proposing this Amendment above all others. They have undoubtedly altered their position, and it is quite impossible to reconcile the speech of the Postmaster-General with the speech of the Prime Minister that has been quoted. I suppose the real fact of the matter is that the Parliamentary and political position has altered, and these Amendments are being brought forward not to make the Bill any better, indeed, from our point of view, it could not be made any better, but to help Lord
  1068
  Lansdowne in his battle against the "Die-hards." After the miserable exhibition which the "Die-hards" have made in this House, in the other House, and in the country during the last fortnight, I think we do not need to go out of our way to give them a parting kick. They are going to receive the condemnation of the Upper House in the course of tomorrow. I do not think it is the part of the Government at the present time to attempt to save the face of Lord Lansdowne and of those Peers who denounced the Parliament Bill up and down the land and now at last are running away from their professions. Let them do so, but do not help them by even three small concessions on the Parliament Bill. I do trust and hope we shall not be asked to vote for this Amendment. I shall vote as I say in support of the Government. I shall support them through thick and through thin. I think their action on the whole has been exemplary and above all praise, but I do trust that wiser counsels will prevail, that we shall have unanimity above and below the Gangway, and that this Amendment will be withdrawn.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move to amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out the words, "the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means and the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts," and inserting instead thereof the words, "two Members to be appointed at the beginning of each Session by the Committee of Selection."
  The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House has entertained us with some interesting, but scarcely relevant, observations as to this particular Amendment. I may say that personally I like neither the Lords Amendment, nor the Bill as it stands, nor the present Amendment. With regard to the Lords Amendment, I think that subjects of difference between the two Houses should go before a tribunal which should be entirely non-Parliamentary. The longer I am in Parliament the less my enthusiasm is for either House. I cannot help thinking that some tribunal entirely outside Parliament, like the High Courts in France or America, will be found necessary. The Bill as it stands is open to serious objection because it makes the presiding officer of this House practically responsible for the acts of this House, with nothing whatever to relieve him from the responsibility. And anything that could be done to relieve him pro

  1069
  tanto would be an improvement. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen the conduct of business in foreign legislatures, where the president is avowedly elected to further the interests of the party in power. It is a very regrettable and shameful proceeding from our point of view, but still it does exist; and if further duties of this kind are placed upon the Speaker, the time may come when the Speaker would be elected to serve the interests of the party which happens to be in power at the time. I do think there should be some check upon that. He should not have unlimited power put upon him, but I do not like the check which has been suggested. I think there was a good deal in what the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson) said when he urged that the Chairman of Committees should not be one of those selected.
  The Chairman of Committees always belongs to the party in power, and I think it is very creditable that most of the Chairman of Committees have shown themselves to be so greatly impartial in the exercise of their functions, but all the same the Chairman is a special subject of criticism, and if these duties are placed upon him the time may come in the turning point of some great controversy when he will undoubtedly not be in such an impartial position. With regard to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee he fulfils very honourable, important and useful functions, but I am not sure that the qualifications for his office are the same qualifications which are required to determine whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not. That is a point of great delicacy, and a most admirable Chairman of Public Accounts Committee need not necessarily be well qualified to express an opinion upon those delicate points. My Amendment is to leave out the words referring to the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and to substitute for that two Members appointed at the beginning of each Session by the Committee of Selection. The Committee of Selection does, undoubtedly, justify the confidence the House has in them. I think we may fairly trust them to appoint a Member from either side who would be qualified by his personal experience and knowledge of constitutional questions to help Mr. Speaker in a question like this, and I believe that they would select the best men and that you would get two better assessors than would be got by the chance
  1070
  taking of the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
  Mr. POLLOCK Mr. POLLOCK seconded the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think this is an improvement on the suggestion made by the Government. If there are to-be consultative Members at all to assist Mr. Speaker in coming to a decision I think the Government have made the best choice in that respect. I fear there is some misunderstanding about the character of this Amendment. This is not setting up a committee in the ordinary sense. There is no idea of there being a division and of a casting vote being given. Mr. Speaker has the final decision in his own hands, and he has the full decision in his own hands whatever view the consultative members may express. The idea is that the Speaker of the House of Commons should have the full and final decision in. his own hands. Earlier in the evening, in the course of the Debate, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) asked why the Government had thought it necessary to put this Amendment down at all. I will explain to the House why that was done. I thought I would not say this without the full authority of Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker felt that he should not like to undertake such an onerous duty and heavy responsibility as that proposed to be put upon him without, at any rate, having someone associated with him for consultative purposes. I do not say that this is the suggestion of Mr. Speaker. On the contrary, this is the suggestion of the Government to meet the wishes of Mr. Speaker. That is the reason why we put this Amendment down. Mr. Speaker felt that whenever there was a decision to be taken on a Bill as to which there might be very great feeling on the part of hon. Members, he would like before he came to a conclusion upon it, that someone should be associated with him, with whom he could consult, and who would assist him in coming to a decision upon the point; and it is really with a view of meeting that desire that we put this Amendment on the Paper.
  If there is to be a consultative Committee of this kind, I think the Government have made the best choice. Take, first of all, the Chairman of Committees of Ways and Means. Although it is perfectly true that he is chosen from the party in power for the time being, after all, owing

  1071
  to his experience and practice in the Chair, he practically becomes more and more impartial in his demeanour, as, no doubt, both the supporters of the Government and the Members of the Opposition in turn often feel. That being so, it is not as if he were chosen from amongst the ordinary Members of the House. He does not take part in partisan debate; he studiously holds himself aloof from it, and that must have an effect on any man in the course of years. That does not apply in the same degree to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, but then he has no vote. It is true that he is chosen from the party not in office, but, as a rule, he is not a strong partisan. I think my hon. Friend will find that the Chairmen of the Public Accounts Committee are generally men who are not strong partisans. If a consultative Committee is to be set up at all from the Members of the House of Commons, I think the Government have taken the best method of meeting the desire expressed by Mr. Speaker. Of course, if hon. Members on both sides of the House say that they would prefer the present arrangement—if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite say that this is no improvement at all, and that they would prefer the Bill as it stands then they put the Government in a difficulty. I do not know whether they have expressed an opinion upon that matter up to the present. Those who have spoken are on the Back Benches. We have not heard anyone of authority up to the present, except one Member who spoke during the dinner hour, and he expressed the view that this was not an improvement on the Bill as originally sent up to the House of Lords.
  I would like to know what is the view of the Leader of the Opposition on this particular matter. The Government have put this forward not as meeting the wishes of the Opposition, and not as meeting half way the view expressed by the House of Lords, but as some contribution towards the solution of the problem, and in order to meet the difficulty in which Mr. Speaker would be placed if he had to act alone in deciding matters which provoke very passionate feeling, and which excite a deal of animosity on both sides. Therefore we thought we might strengthen him if we set up a consultative Committee of this kind, with a view rather of aiding him in coming to a decision than of taking the decision out of his hands. Of course that would be specially important if there were
  1072
  quite a new Speaker in the Chair. It does not apply to a Speaker of very wide experience, extending over a considerable number of years, as in the case of the present occupant of the Chair. But supposing there were a new Speaker, it would be a matter of very great importance to him to be associated with two old and experienced Members of the House, who could discuss these matters with him privately, and aid him in coming to a conclusion. I trust my hon. Friends will see that the Amendment does not really interfere with the objects they have in view. The only thing we say is that Mr. Speaker shall consult the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, but he is entitled to weigh the matter, and to come to his own decision afterwards. I trust that my hon. Friend will not press his opposition to the Amendment.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As a matter of personal explanation, I wish to state the reason why I did not say, in my opening remarks, why this Amendment had been put on the Paper by the Government. It was because I was anxious not to bring Mr. Speaker into the Debate.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made an appeal to me in regard to the Amendment now before the House. Of course, the question is really opened up now—in the first place as to what are the relative merits of the plan proposed by the Government as compared with the plan introduced by the House of Lords; in the second place, whether the plan proposed by the Government is the best method of meeting Mr. Speaker's wishes; and, in the third place, whether any plan should be adopted at all. The hon. Gentleman who spoke before the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to suspect that there was in this Amendment some scheme for pleasing Lord Lansdowne. Let me console him on that point.
  It is extremely unlikely that Lord Lansdowne would thank the Government for having gone any distance to meet the views of the other House. So far as I can form a judgment, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was amply justified in saying that what he had done goes practically no distance towards the acceptance of the Amendment which the House of Lords introduced. I made some observations earlier in the evening on that point on the first Amendment. I do not think it necessary to repeat them. The

  1073
  other House, in my opinion, produced a far better plan than that which was found in the Bill originally, or that which the Government now introduce into the Bill or that which my hon. Friend proposes to introduce into the Bill. I think, after what has occurred, we may take it that the Government, by the use of the Prerogative have wiped the House of Lords altogether out of this Bill. They propose to deal with this Bill as a Single Chamber and as a Single Chamber they have not the slightest idea of consulting and meeting the wishes of the House of Lords in any respect. By the use of the Prerogative they have expunged it from legislative existence altogether so far as this Bill is concerned. I therefore say not a word, I think it would be a waste of time of the House to say a single word, in defence of the House of Lords Amendment or by way of comparison between the plan proposed by the House of Lords and the plan proposed by the Government. Let us consider it, therefore, entirely from the Single Chamber point of view. Let us accept the revolutionary constitution imposed upon us. Let us deal with it from that point of view.
  10.0 P.M.
  I understand that the Government now have discovered—I should have thought they would have discovered long ago—what an intolerable burden it was to place upon the shoulders of any Speaker, be his Authority, experience and knowledge of the House what they may be, to decide of his own authority a question like that which may come up for his decision under the proposals of this Parliament Bill. The Government have now discovered this, fact, and they have revised their plan to meet the situation. Now that the Government have told us this I presume for the moment that the House feels that some plan must be adopted, either the Government plan or my hon. Friend's plan or some other plan by which the Speaker shall be relieved of duties which ought never to have been thrown on him. I do not myself think the Government plan a very good plan. It is quite true that there is an appearance of impartiality obtained, impartiality as between parties, by putting on the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, because he is by tradition always appointed from among the minority, and also that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, the Chairmen of Committees in my experience always endeavour to carry out impartially the duties entrusted to them. That they always succeed in carrying them
  1074
  out to the satisfaction of every Member of this House I will not say. That is probably beyond the limits of human wisdom or human good fortune. But we who sat under the present Chairman of Committees through many stormy Debates on most controversial Bills during the last six years make no suggestion that Mr. Speaker would not get perfectly impartial and able advice from the Chairman of Ways and Means. At the same time I confess I should have thought that of the plans suggested, the plan proposed by my hon. Friend might be adopted, or some analogous plan by which from the panel of Chairmen there might be selected two or three persons whom the Speaker might consult, instead of putting down two officials by name as the persons whom the Speaker is to consult and who will to a certain extent and in a very limited degree relieve him of the responsibility thrown upon him. I agree that the Chairman of Committees is chosen very largely for his business ability and impartiality. The Chairman of Committees as far as my knowledge goes has always been worthy of this House, but looking back over the Chairmen of Public Accounts Committees whom we have known during the last twenty years, I think it will be recognised that while they are often gentlemen of immense ability and knowledge they are perhaps not always those whom any Committee of Selection would choose for the place or who would naturally be selected from among the panel of Chairmen. One of the ablest Chairmen of Public Accounts Committees I have ever known was Mr. Bowles.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: He was never Chairman.
  Mr. BALFOUR: He certainly was the leading spirit on it, and his great ability in such matters was shown in connection with the working of that Committee. But the Chairman is not selected. I should have thought, for that particular position, on account of possessing the particular kind of qualities required for this special duty, and I should venture to suggest to the Government, not as any affair of the House of Lords, but looking at it from the one Chamber point of view, they would be well advised if they adopted a plan by which either the Committee of Selection could select a number of men to choose from, or by which a selection would be made from the panel of Chairmen. I think they would be well advised if they

  1075
  adopted that plan, because it is really always possible to find one man on each side of the House of authority and of weighty character, a party man no doubt, but not a violent party man, and who would carry weight with both sides of the House; who would be recognised as having given a decision which, whether right or wrong, was in no sense animated by partisanship or the violent movements of controversy, and who would give very great assistance to the Speaker in dealing with these problems. The Chairmen are merely alternatives in the chair. For certain purposes one is, as it were, the alter ego of the other. The Chairman of Committees can do now what he could not do in my earlier days. He can take the place of the Speaker, with the approval of the House of Commons, as, of course, without further ceremony when the Speaker is not in the chair. I am not sure that I think it would be desirable to give you what I call a direct official Member who may occupy this Chair. I suggest to the Government, in no spirit of criticism or partisan feeling, that they should substitute an Amendment by which the Committee of Selection could choose from among the panel of the Chairmen two or more Gentlemen whom they think carry weight with the House, and would be of real assistance to Mr. Speaker to carry out the duties imposed upon him. I shall not press my views now upon the House or upon the Government. I want simply to say that surely it would be grossly unfair to the Speaker to leave him alone to carry out these duties. I certainly would not vote against any Amendments which would be likely to relieve him of some portion of that burden.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I think the Debate which has taken place since this Amendment was moved ought to have shown the Government how desirable it would have been if they had allowed the House to understand before the short space of an hour what they proposed to do. The House is not in a position to decide upon this Amendment one way or another. No warning was given that it was to be moved, and no opportunity has been afforded to Members who take an interest in the matter to carefully turn over in their minds exactly what the proposal means. I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that the announcement of your wishes and desires by the Chancellor has made a good deal of difference in my own mind. Any announcement of that character must very
  1076
  properly receive very considerable weight from all parties in this House. At the same time, if one might venture to hold an opinion on the matter on which we have to pronounce, with such a richness of experience before us, I am bound to confess that I am still of opinion, theoretically at any rate, that this House would be well advised if it trusts the Speaker absolutely in the decision of this matter. At any rate whether we come to that conclusion or not, I think we ought very carefully to consider what sort of assistance ought to be given to you and your successors in that office. The proposal of the Government is to appoint the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman of Public Accounts to afford that assistance. I am bound to confess that I see very little merit in that proposal. First of all, the Chairman of Ways and Means is becoming more and more an impartial and non-party Member of this House. It has now ceased to be the practice for the Chairman of Ways and Means to vote on any subject that this House is discussing. Private Bills, of course, are outside the scope of this measure altogether. The Chairman of Committees, as a matter of fact, is beginning to occupy precisely the same relation to controversial business in this House that you yourself do.
  Two out of three Members of this Committee, or, to speak more accurately, one of the two advisers who are to be given to you, is, like yourself, an impartial Member of the House. The second adviser, at any rate, does not occupy that position. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) said, and as other Members eminent for their knowledge of the business of this House have said, some Members have not been partisans in the ordinary, wild, and emphatic sense in which the word is used here, but, nevertheless, up to now we have never had a function such as is proposed to be given by the Government to the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts to decide these matters. If that be done, then the position of the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts will begin to change. I cannot conceive for a single moment that the Opposition will appoint to the Chairmanship of the Committee of Public Accounts any but a Member of the Opposition, because the position is now only given to a Member of the Opposition.
  We know through the ordinary channels how these appointments are made, and the Opposition will undoubtedly have for

  1077
  Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts a man who is a strong man and an active man. What is the position of these two advisers whom Mr. Speaker is going to have? Without doing violence to what I think is the new position which the Chairman is beginning to occupy, he must be absolutely impartial and not assist the Opposition. The other adviser would be strongly partisan; he would do everything he possibly could to advance the interests of the Opposition. What is more, before the advice was given he would very likely have voted on every question on which he is advising you, as a Member of this House. He may have spoken, he may have taken a most active interest and done everything that lay in his power as a loyal and true member of his party to advance the very questions on which he is to advise. I am bound to confess that an advisory Committee proposed in that way is not a body that commends itself to me at all. I should like to draw the attention of the House, however, to what Lord Peel said in the House of Lords on this subject. He said:—
  "At present, the Speaker is able to take advice from any quarter; he may consult anybody he pleases."
  Therefore, this Amendment is not meeting his wishes. We are all perfectly clear about that. I do not know quite what he wants. Having very carefully read his speech, it is perfectly clear that he had got in his mind this, that Mr. Speaker might himself appoint anybody he wished, and that, therefore, whatever the Speaker required in order to enable him to carry out his functions, it would not merely be a consultative Committee. We come back to this, that Mr. Speaker's advisers are permanent officers of this House. If the advice is to be impartial, if it is going to be mature and rich in experience, then what better advisers can Mr. Speaker have than those he now has. Everyone knows who his ordinary advisers are. Everyone knows that even a new Speaker has got very old and very sage advisers round about him. Either one officer or the other knows his business from long experience, and everyone knows, moreover, that a new Speaker has got, as Lord Peel has said, the right to consult anybody, any Member of this House, any officer of this House, and any official of this House whom he desires. I therefore come back, and I must still hold to the opinion that I have held, since this Bill was introduced, and for which I have already voted, that the House "would do wisely if it trusts the Speaker to
  1078
  give a judicial and impartial decision upon this matter, after consulting those whom he desires, officers who are not Members of this House and Chairmen and others who are Members of this House. It is very difficult to vote against the opinion which has been expressed, but I am bound to confess, first of all, that I much regret the Government has taken the action it has done, and, above all, I regret that it has sprung this Amendment upon us without giving us the opportunity of carefully considering whether we could not make more valuable suggestions by way of Amendment to the Resolution which is now before us.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has certainly, I think, modified the views of the House in regard to this matter, and made it a little difficult for us to decide the Amendment which is put forward and offered by the Government to meet the wishes of Mr. Speaker upon this matter. I think perhaps it is better, in the short time we have, to put forward what occurs to us in regard to this Amendment, because I think it is a very serious decision, not so much from the point of view of the position with regard to the House of Lords controversy which we are carrying on, but in regard to the position of Mr. Speaker himself in future days in regard to matters which he will have to decide in this House. I think it is no slight matter in regard to which the House has been called on to decide. Like the last hon. Gentleman who spoke, I am inclined to think if you select any two Members automatically from the House you cannot do better than take the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. The-Chairman of Ways and Means naturally is in charge of our financial proceedings when we are in Committee, and therefore is fully apprised of all the facts. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, with the Comptroller and Auditor-General of the finances of the nation, is appointed to look after those affairs. Therefore, being a Member of the Opposition, he would be associated with any assessors in any Advisory Committee which may be appointed to help Mr. Speaker in this matter. If we are going to have two Gentlemen chosen automatically in any way, I do not think we could have done better than to select the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee

  1079
  both of whom are men who are fully acquainted with the history of our proceedings and naturally are men of weight and Authority in. the House.
  But I am in this difficulty with regard to the whole matter. I have been told, and I have said in regard to the whole matter, that what we are doing in the Parliament Bill is to stereotype the past practice of this House. I have been told and I have said that we are not changing the practice of this House with regard to financial matters. I am now informed a fresh burden is being laid on Mr. Speaker, that we are giving him some new decision that he has to take, and that it is desirable he should have help. I have understood that he is going to decide in future the questions which he has decided in the past —questions of privilege in this House in regard to financial matters, questions of the authority of this House in regard to financial matters. I understood that we were not going a step beyond where we had gone in past days in financial matters, that we were resisting encroachments by the House of Lords on the financial authority of this House. That has been the whole burden of the argument. If that is so, we are not now laying any fresh burden on Mr. Speaker in regard to these matters. Evidently there are others in high quarters who take a different view; therefore we are called upon suddenly and unexpectedly to debate a new situation. Here I rather differ from many hon. Members: I do not think that the matters which Mr. Speaker is going to be called upon to decide are so important or so far reaching as many Members appear to think. I understand it is a mere matter of fact, which will be largely in the knowledge of the House, whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill. That is a somewhat difficult matter, perhaps, but it is the kind of thing that Mr. Speaker is continually deciding. I really do not understand, and I do not think the Government have told us, that there is such a change in the decisions that Mr. Speaker is going to give. In fact, they have told us the opposite. They are now setting a new procedure with regard to the rulings of Mr. Speaker on financial matters. We have always been satisfied with those rulings.
  Mr. Speaker has been the guardian of our privileges, and I think, subject to Mr. Speaker's great authority in this matter, which makes it very difficult to express any opinion which seems to differ from him, it
  1080
  would be better to leave the decision still in Mr. Speaker's hands. If it is necessary in the case of Mr. Speaker's deciding whether or not a Bill is a Money Bill that he should consult two assessors, impartial representatives of the opinion of parties in this House, why is it not necessary in the case of the other financial rulings which Mr. Speaker continually has to give in the course of our debates? I cannot see that the differentiation between the two cases is such that when he has to decide on a whole Bill whether it is or is not a Money Bill, then he should consult these assessors. If in the case of an ordinary ruling on a point of Order or on Amendments of great and far-reaching importance he can decide without consulting assessors, why cannot he not decide this, I will not call it a new point, even though the House of Lords has to accept the verdict which he may give? It seems to me that by this Amendment you will necessarily weaken his decision in regard to ordinary financial rulings which he may give. The Government have no doubt considered the matter, but to us it is quite new, and comes as a surprise. What would be the position of Mr. Speaker if, having consulted his two assessors, and they are both against him, he then decides on his own judgment that a Bill is or is not a Money Bill? Are his assessors to be bound to secrecy, and not to reveal the advice which they have given to Mr. Speaker? Surely you are putting Mr. Speaker in a more, and not a less, difficult position if you tie him down by statute to consult two particular men. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the decision will be Mr. Speaker's. But what a burden of responsibility do you throw upon Mr. Speaker if, having appointed these two gentlemen, you tell him he may disregard their expressed opinion and give a far-reaching decision which is to carry effect in the other House and in the country?
  I submit that this proposal of the Government really does not leave a free decision to Mr. Speaker. He is necessarily guided by the men whom you have appointed to be assessors to him, and I really cannot conceive that in future Mr. Speaker should give a decision hostile to the two assessors. Like the hon. Gentleman and other speakers in this Debate, I feel the difficulty. Mr. Speaker asks for help to decide these questions, but I do say that this is a very far-reaching proposal, and that it is sprung upon us. I very much would have preferred that it

  1081
  had been left to the authority of Mr. Speaker to consult whom he would in this House. I cannot but believe he would have found abundant means, means that already exist in our procedure, to give him all the assistance in the matter of advice and consultation which he may require. Had it been left in its present position his decision would have been unfettered and free, and would have been given with all the weight of authority which attaches to his great office.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: It has been said that no new work is thrown upon Mr. Speaker in connection with this Bill. The Member who said so could not have studied the Parliament Bill. There is new work in connection with Mr. Speaker's certificate on Money Bills which go from us. Mr. Speaker himself, I can well understand, desired to have some collaboration in this matter. I must say I do not think the Government has chosen the best way of settling this difficulty. They do not make a Committee which will relieve Mr. Speaker any way. They leave him with the sole decision, and they leave him in the difficulty which was just now referred to by the hon. Member opposite, namely, that he is obliged to have assessors, yet the judgment is to be entirely his whatsoever their opinion may be. I can quite understand when the right hon. Gentleman said that they had brought forward this scheme in consideration of the wish of Mr. Speaker why he was careful to guard himself from saying that this particular scheme had his approval. I think that is a very important point. I do think, too, that it is a very unfortunate thing that we have to discuss this matter on a manuscript Amendment when we cannot fully appreciate the great importance of every word in connection with a matter which may be of very enormous importance in future. Personally I think that if we were going to proceed with it—and I have always thought that it should be in the form of a Committee with Mr. Speaker as Chairman, and that he should be relieved of this responsibility. The work is entirely separate from the decision which he has to make as Chief Officer of this House, and independent of this House. This is a new matter of an entirely different nature. It is one in which I think it would have been very well to discriminate entirely from the other duties which fall upon Mr. Speaker, and that which are put upon the Committee of which he undoubt-
  1082
  edly would be Chairman and prime mover in. That is one point which I desire to raise.
  In connection with the composition of the Committee I confess I am somewhat inclined to favour the proposal which has. been made in connection with the Amendment which is now actually before us than in connection with the two official Amendments—if I may so call them—which have been selected by the Government. I think it is desirable for us that these offices of Chairmanship, whether of Ways and Means or of the Public Accounts Committee, should be kept entirely separate from other duties. There will be a tendency if they are brought up into this position to select them, not for the work they have to do, but for work which may fall upon them. It is not a very desirable thing therefore to connect these two duties together permanently by statute. It might be if you. had the selection of two hon. Members by the Committee of Selection. That is a different matter, but to fix definitely that these two hon. Members are to be assessors on these points, which may be of vast import does inevitably tend to ensure that their selection will involve, not what they have to do in itself. That is undesirable; it is the thing we desire to avoid, on the selection of Mr. Speaker himself, and upon that ground I do not like the proposal of the Government. We are in this, position on this Amendment. We desire in any way we can to relieve Mr. Speaker and now that it is announced definitely to the House that he wishes for assistance it is difficult to vote against this proposal, though it is in no sense in a form which meets our wishes. I fervently hope the Government may give the matter further-consideration, and shall not insist in rushing it to a Division.
  Mr. DUKE: I should like to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order that an Amendment of this kind should be moved on the consideration of the Lords Amendments, without any further opportunity being given the House to consider it at successive stages?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not quite follow the hon. Member.
  Mr. DUKE: My point is this. If a new proposal was, made in this House it would be read a first time and a second time, and would have other stages as well. This proposal comes before the House in

  1083
  circumstances which unless you rule there must be a Report stage, once it is considered to-night it is done with once and for all. This matter comes up for the first time to-night, and I submit there should be other stages before it is finally decided.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing whatever irregular in the proposal to amend the Bill. Certain Amendments made by the Lords are being disagreed with and now an Amendment has been proposed for consideration and can be accepted or rejected. This Amendment stands precisely in the same position as an Amendment on the Report stage of a Bill. It is not necessary that an Amendment on the Report stage of a Bill should be made in a Committee stage. This Amendment stands in exactly the same position as that.
  Mr. DUKE: I do not cavil in any way way with that decision, Mr. Speaker, but if I may follow up what I said, I would point out that after the Report stage there would be the Third Reading stage, and I may respectfully submit that on a matter of this kind there ought to be something corresponding.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There would be no Third Reading stage of the Amendment; there would be of the Bill in the ordinary course but not of the Amendment.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: There has been a lengthy discussion on this question, but in view of its importance I do not think that it has taken up too much time. I think there is cause for complaint that we have not seen this proposal in print. We have only heard it read from the Table, and the Government and the House have had no opportunity of taking advantage of any suggestion which might have come from any part of the House to assist the Government in the position in which they are placed. I would suggest to the Government, in view of the circumstances under which this proposal has been put forward, that it would have been more helpful to them and more courteous to the House if we had known a few days ago exactly what was going to be proposed, because we did not know of it until we read it in the papers this morning and heard it read from the Table. The proposal to link up, so to speak, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in a matter of this kind is a bad and a most indefensible proposal. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has no claim whatever to be
  1084
  adopted and associated in a matter of this kind. I am not speaking personally, because we all have the greatest respect for the hon. Member who now occupies that position, but he has not been selected because of his knowledge of the Rules of the House or of our Rules of Procedure, but because he is a Member of the Opposition and because he is vigilant in the supervision of public expenditure and may be able to make out a case against the Government of the day. That is the sort of idea that underlies the suggestion that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee should always belong to the Opposition. It is unfair simply to look round to see where there is a Conservative chairman, and then nominate him to act in this matter. It is a bad selection. I like the suggestion better that the Committee of Selection should have a voice in the selection of the men who shall be appointed to this most responsible work.
  I think, however, that we must look in another direction for a solution of this question. We all have every confidence in the Speaker, but what is the position we have to keep in mind? You may have to consider the question of a great and a revolutionary Budget, and decide upon some great and important proposal which may be dividing the two parties in the State, upon which all parties are anxious to know when the Committee stage is reached whether the Speaker feels justified in giving a certificate that it is a Money Bill. There might be a great controversy throughout the country, and a great deal of feeling. Therefore, if you are to have hon. Gentlemen to assist the Speaker to bear the burden against all political parties outside the vortex of party politics, you should have the strongest men in the House of Commons, and, above all, the men who really can assist the Speaker. That certainly does not apply to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
  I have criticised the proposal of the Government, and the natural observation now is what better proposal can you suggest, granted that you have to have someone to assist Mr. Speaker? My proposal is that either the whole of the Speaker's Panel should be adopted, or that two of them should be selected by Mr. Speaker. The Panel is nominated by the Speaker at the beginning of the Session, and in most cases there is one representative upon it of every party in the House. I think the rule is that the Speaker nominates at the

  1085
  commencement of every Session a Panel of not more than five Members as temporary Chairmen of Committees, who act when requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means. I submit that this is a semi-judicial tribunal consisting of men who must have some standing and some experience in the conduct of the business of the House. I suggest to the Government that it would be better either to have the whole of the Speaker's Panel or else have two Members selected by the Speaker to occupy the position which is suggested in the Amendment. In any case, I cannot conceive of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee being selected because of the qualifications of his office. Such a proposal can only be a makeshift in a delicate situation, and I cannot believe that that will be the best settlement of this most important question.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: The House is undoubtedly in a very great difficulty; and I do not think it is possible to absolve the Government from blame for the position in which we find ourselves. Of course, the Parliamentary procedure is a very difficult one. The practice in regard to Amendments to the Lords Amendments is not to put them on the Paper, but there is, so far as I know, no precedent for the introduction of an important Amendment arousing a considerable feeling in the House, and, although I do really think we have been placed in a particular difficulty by the action of the Government, yet I admit a new case has arisen, and we must, therefore, try and find our own way out of the difficulty. The suggestion of the Government is that there shall be two officers, who are named in their Amendment. I think it is an unworkable proposal. The Government have told us that the Speaker must have some assistance. We accept that, and I think it has been accepted in all quarters of the House. Therefore, what we want to do is to find the best way of giving the Speaker the assistance. The Deputy-Speaker is authorised now to act in the absence of the Speaker. In the regrettable absence of the Speaker through illness, the Deputy-Speaker takes his place. Under the proposal of the Government, the Deputy-Speaker, acting in the capacity of the Speaker, would be deprived of the assistance given to the Speaker. When the Amendment was proposed earlier in the evening, the right hon. Gentleman told us the words "if practicable" were introduced in case one of those hon. Members might be
  1086
  absent from the country, and could not be consulted. Surely that strikes a vital blow at the suggestion of the Government. Their suggestion is that the Speaker has asked for, and must be given, some assistance. They then propose a scheme which would not give that assistance to the Deputy-Speaker, acting in the absence of the Speaker. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) has a great improvement upon the proposal of the Government. His Amendment, as I understand it, is that two Members of the House should be selected by the Committee of Selection. Now the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry Dalziel), with whom I am bound to say I have never found myself in agreement before, makes some suggestion which differs from that of my hon. Friend, and I am inclined to favour an amalgamation of the two. The Panel of the Chairman is selected by the Speaker. In this particular question, I think it would be desirable, having regard to the possibilities of the future—some of us believe, at all events I do, in disagreement with the hon. Gentleman who spoke a few moments ago—that you are laying new and heavy duties upon the Speaker which may produce very bitter controversy, such as has never arisen before in regard to the position of the Chair. It is necessary if you are going to surround him with any Advisory Board to bring between Mr. Speaker and his Advisory Board some independent, trusted authority in the House to select that Advisory Board.
  I venture to suggest that a way out of the difficulty would be to take my hon. Friend's proposal that the Committee of Selection shall, in addition to their existing duties, select an advisory board for Mr. Speaker, and that the selection shall be made, not from the whole House, but from the panel of Chairmen which has already been constituted by Mr. Speaker. I think, too, if that were made elastic so that from time to time the Committee of Selection could fill up the place of a Member absent through illness or any other cause which renders his presence impossible, then you would get rid of the difficulty that the advisory board might be non-existent, and you would secure the presence of advisers chosen by the most trusted Members of the House, because the panel of Chairmen is composed from year to year of men in whom we have confidence and who are selected because they are the most experienced Members of the House. They are called upon to discharge

  1087
  very difficult duties—duties sometimes almost as difficult as those which devolve on the occupant of the Chair in the House. They would get rid of the difficulty to which I have called attention, and therefore I venture to suggest an amalgamation of these proposals so as to provide the machinery necessary for the purposes of a breakdown.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: I accept, in common with most Members of the House, the position that it is necessary for the House to choose some sort of Advisory Committee to consult with Mr. Speaker on matters that may conceivably arise in the future, and to that extent to share his responsibility. I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that an amalgamation of the various proposals would be the better way of arriving at what we all desire. A good deal of criticism has been expressed on the views the Government have put forward. There are two distinct bodies of Chairmen in the House. There are the Chairmen of Standing Committees, a body which is set up at the beginning of the Session by the Committee of Selection themselves. It is drawn from different sections of the House, and they in turn choose members of their own body to preside over the four Standing Committees upstairs. Then there is another body which is, owing to the presence in the House of the Deputy-Chairman seldom called into operation. It is a body of five Chairmen, and I doubt if any hon. Member of the House can say at the moment who those five Chairmen are. It shows how little their services are used. Mr. Speaker nominates them at the beginning of Parliament to take the place of the Chairman of Ways and Means when required. I think it would be very advisable to keep the selection of two Members in some body outside these two bodies of five and eight. I have had some experience of seeing Chairmen chosen for Standing Committees upstairs. I do not think a body of five or eight is always the best body to decide which of their number should fulfil a responsible position. I would prefer to leave it to the Committee of Selection to decide, and my suggestion would be whether you take the panel of occasional Chairmen or the panel of Chairmen of Standing Committees, and there is something to be said for both—if you give the Committee of Selection power to choose two of the five nominated by the Speaker you have to some extent a combination of
  1088
  the judgment of all the authorities. That, on the whole, is the one that appears to me at present most likely to suit the general sense of the House.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: Surely the House is placed in a very extraordinary position. Here at the last stage in which the Amendments of the House of Lords are considered it becomes clear that the Government has introduced a proposal which, as far as I have been able to observe the course of the Debate, commands the support of no considerable section of their supporters. We are involved in a discussion now in which we are called upon to consider a variety of competing and alternative methods of providing Mr. Speaker with the advice which it now appears to be the common conclusion of the House Mr. Speaker may properly ask. The hon. Gentleman who spoke from below the Gangway has made one suggestion, the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has made another, an hon. Friend of mine on this side has made a third, and, so far as I am able precisely to understand, the suggestion of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Walter Long), has made a fourth. If I am right in that view there are before the House at present, besides the Government proposal, four or five other alternative suggestions as to the various methods by which it might be possible to supplement the opinion of Mr. Speaker in the difficulties in which he may be placed. Whatever else may be made clear by this divergence of opinion, I will undertake to say it has been made clear that the Government are guilty of wholesale mismanagement. Let no one arrive hurriedly at the conclusion that this is an inevitable mistake. If this confusion has arisen at the last moment it has arisen for one reason alone, that when I and my hon. Friend insistently pressed on the Government in the course of the Committee discussions on this subject that it was wrong and unsafe to leave to Mr. Speaker alone the decision of this point, we were met by the Government time after time with the argument that it was not unsafe to leave this decision to Mr. Speaker, and that it might be left properly and fully to him alone.
  We have been told to-night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Mr. Speaker has indicated the opinion that it would be to the advantage of the House that he should be reinforced in the decisions at which he arrives. Was it not possible to inquire into the view of Mr. Speaker before the decision was taken in

  1089
  the Committee stage? Ought it not to have been the first duty of any Government which was making so momentous a departure in our legislation to have ascertained, at the earliest stages, and while it would still have been possible on the floor of the House of Commons, to submit and examine competing schemes, whether Mr. Speaker held the views which have now been announced? I agree with what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition that this is, as far as we are concerned, a domestic dispute. It is not a dispute in which we are concerned to take part. No so-called concession which is made by the Government has the slightest value having regard to the view which I and my hon. Friend take of the proposal which we have now under discussion. But the House may draw a valuable lesson from the attitude which the Government has taken up on this Amendment, and it may usefully contrast the attitude which the Government took up in reference to other Amendments. We were told when we discussed this in Committee stage that the Government had considered and examined into the case, and that there were no grounds for reinforcing Mr. Speaker. If the Government were wrong on this point, how do we know they were not wrong on other points? Their minds were made up and they would not give the slightest consideration to the arguments which I and my hon. Friend pressed upon them. This difficulty has been manufactured by the Government, it exists primarily between themselves and their supporters, and it is one final illustration of the way in which their conduct of this Bill has been bungled and mismanaged.
  Mr. NEIL PRIMROSE: I do not think there is anyone who has followed this Debate, or at least anyone on this side, who now thinks that this Amendment was suggested in order to placate the Opposition. Any Member who holds that view must have a low idea of the intelligence of the Government. After crushing defeats twice in two years are the Opposition to be reconciled by an Amendment which does not get support from any side of the House? I cannot support the Amendment. It has been pointed out that the Speaker is the guardian of the honour of this House, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out that he will have to come to decisions which are very weighty in character, and that he may incur a certain amount of odium, and that it would relieve
  1090
  him of that odium if he had these advisers when he had to come to different decisions. But how can he be relieved when the assessors are Gentlemen whose advice he is bound in no way to follow? How can he be relieved when he has that Advisory Committee with whose selection he has nothing to do? The Government is an Advisory Committee to the Sovereign; in this case we have an Advisory Committee to the Speaker. The difference is that the Sovereign, when he accepts the advice of the Government, has no responsibility for the decision, but the Speaker in this case is alone responsible. I think the Speaker should have some support and advice on difficult occasions, but I do protest most emphatically against the selection of these advisers being in other hands than his own. In such a responsible position the Speaker, and he alone, should select his advisers.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Would it be in order to withdraw my Amendment, so that I may move it in an altered form?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can ask leave to withdraw his Amendment to the Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move to amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out the words, "the Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means, and the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts," and to insert instead thereof the words, "two members to be appointed from the Chairman's Panel at the beginning of each Session by the Committee of Selection."
  11.0 P.M.
  Colonel WILLIAMS: As one of the incriminated Members in this discussion, but as one who has been treated with kindly indulgence, I should like to say that I very much regret from one point of view that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is likely to disappear from this Amendment. I do so on the ground that for the first time the House and the Government hear that there is a Committee of Public Accounts. It is not the duty of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to inform his Leader how ho may oppose the Government. He has always considered himself an officer of the House and to be a Chairman of the House, representing the whole House, so that the whole House may take an interest in economy.

  1091
  If this Debate does nothing else it may, perhaps, have the result that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee will not in future have to go bat in hand to the Chief Government Whip, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Prime Minister, begging for a bare half-day for the real consideration of economy by this House. But I am rather glad on other grounds that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has disappeared from this Amendment. I want to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. James Hope). I am sorry that in one speech a certain amount of party argument was introduced when the House was otherwise engaged in trying to find a solution of a very real difficulty. Let me remind the House that two of the greatest Speakers of modern times—the present occupant of the Chair of this House and Lord Peel in the other House—have both expressed the opinion that the Speaker ought to have some assistance in this great difficulty. I think that ought to weigh very largely with the House. It weighed very largely with me. Then we come to the consideration of the question how that assistance is to be given. The hon. Member for South Worcestershire, who has great experience himself, suggested from the other side the words which have now been moved by my hon. Friend, that the Panel selected by the Speaker should be the corpus from which the two Members should be chosen, and that the Committee of Selection should be the persons to choose them. That seems to me to be the very best possible solution of the difficulty. We have in that way the great advantage of the knowledge of Mr. Speaker and of the best persons in the House of Commons who are entrusted with the Chairmenships of the House, and who further have a sense of responsibility as well as a knowledge of the rules and needs of the House. We have as the choosers the Committee of Selection, who are appointed because they are Members of the House who are well acquainted with all parts of the House and with the capabilities of Members. It seems to me that forms the very best solution of the difficulty, and it is one which I very much hope the House will see its way to accept.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I fully appreciate the position in which the House finds itself. Like many Members on this side of the House, I should be grateful if the
  1092
  House would find a Committee to assist Mr. Speaker without selecting the Chairman of Ways and Means because more and more that official is becoming analagous to the Speaker in his impartiality. I think some of us know from practical experience what is the character of assessors. They are bound to represent, not in a party spirit, but still with special knowledge, the two sides from which they are respectively brought. Therefore, I venture to support the suggestion that has been made by more than one Member of this House that the proper body from whom these two should be chosen would be the Chairman's Panel, not the Speaker's Panel, and chosen by the Committee of Selection with a clear understanding that the two Gentlemen are drawn from the opposite sides of the House.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I hope that the Government will accept this solution, which I think would be satisfactory.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: So long as the House, as I understand, accepts the general idea that the Speaker is permitted in this respect to be helped, and there is a suggestion that a Committee should be set up for the purpose of assisting him in arriving at a conclusion, I do not think that there ought to be any difficulty as long as we apply our minds to meeting that desire in finding a way which will commend itself to the general sense of the House. As I understand, the suggestion which now comes, not for the first time in the course of this Debate, and commends itself on the whole to the general sense of the House, is that there should be a selection from the panel of Chairmen. All the Government desire to do is to choose a body that commends itself generally to the opinion of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition threw out a suggestion of this kind at the start, and we have been considering it since, and as there seems to be a very general response to the suggestion on this side of the House we should be quite willing to accept that Amendment. I hope now that we may be able to come to a decision on this point, and proceed to the next Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Restriction of the powers of the House of Lords as to Bills other than Money Bills.)
  (1) If any Public Bill other than a Money Bill is passed by the House of Commons in 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 thereto, notwithstanding that the House of Lords have not consented to the Bill: Provided that this provision shall not take effect unless two years have elapsed between the date of the second reading in the first of those Sessions of the Bill in the House of Commons and the date on which it passes the House of Commons in the third of those Sessions.
  (2) When a Bill is presented to His Majesty for assent in pursuance of the provisions of this Section, there shall be endorsed on the Bill the certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons signed by him that the provision of this Section have been duly complied with.
  (3) 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.
  (4) 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 any Amendments which have been made by the House of Lords in the former Bill in the preceding Session and any Amendments which are certified by the Speaker to have been made by the House of Lords in the third Session and agreed to by the House of Commons shall be inserted in the Bill as presented for Royal Assent in pursuance of this Section.
  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
  1094
  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.
  Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1) after the word "Bill" ["a Money Bill"] to insert the words "or a Bill containing any provisions to extend the maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years."
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  It has fallen to my lot on two occasions in the last few years to ask the House to resist a proposal of this character. But I think if hon. Gentlemen cast their minds back they will remember that the Government have always indicated clearly that their objection to exemptions of this character are wholly different both in principle and in degree from objections to exemptions of a class which have so often been brought before us in the discussion of this measure. We must remember that it is an essential and indispensable part of our proposals for constitutional change that the life of Parliament should be shortened. That was the view of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman on the very first occasion when these proposals were laid before the House, now nearly five years ago, and we have never varied at all from that in any respect. Further, when you are dealing with questions, we will say, of the Protestant succession, when you are dealing with questions affecting the principle of devolution, or questions affecting the Prerogative of the Crown, or questions which may be alleged to be questions of great gravity, or questions which it may be alleged were not sufficiently discussed at the election, or on which there is left room for opinion, it would be necessary to interpret any provision making exceptions of that character and to have the interpretation by a special tribunal of some sort that may be called into existence. The question of any proposal to extend the life of Parliament beyond five years is of a character so simple that no complication of that kind could arise. We are, I think, bound to make every effort in our power to give

  1095
  reasonable reassurance where we can, without prejudice to any essential principles of the Bill, to persons to whom we are opposed. The Government will, therefore, more to agree with the Lords' Amendment excepting from the scope of the Parliament Bill any measure designed to extend the life of Parliament beyond the new limit of five years to which the Bill fixed it.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I desire to offer practically the same protest that I made earlier in the evening with regard to this new policy of the Government. Why is this course taken; whom is it to please? For what purpose has it been brought forward? The party on the other side have not asked for it. We voted against it in Committee. We cheered the Ministers when they opposed it, and without, so far as I can see, serving any purpose, for it is not going to please the Lords, it is not going to get their support, it is not pleasing hon. Gentlemen opposite, while, I venture to say, it will displease many of the Government's supporters. If there is no reason for doing it, if it is going to satisfy no public interest or provide the basis of any compromise, I confess I cannot understand why the Government should ask their supporters to reverse the position as they are doing to-night. What does the Amendment imply? It implies distrust of the House of Commons. It implies that the House of Commons cannot represent the people. To bring forward this Amendment indicates to me that the Government have not the confidence in the House of Commons which I thought they had. I say it is unnecessarily putting the House of Commons in chains. Nobody will seriously suggest that any House of Commons would dare to propose the continuance of its power. It never has been proposed under the Septennial Act, nor is there precedent for any such proposal under the five years proposed by the Government. Therefore, if you have got no cause for fearing the House of Commons might extend this power, why limit it by statute for fear of that great danger? I can conceive no cause for further exemptions. I only desire to say again I much regret that the Government have thought fit, and in keeping with their position and their policy, to bring forward an Amendment of this kind which I think does not increase the dignity of the House of Commons.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I do not frequently find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, but I think the whole House, considering his argument, must come to this conclusion that it is completely justified in this sense—that, by proposing this Amendment, the Home Secretary and the Government of which he is the mouthpiece have delivered the most positive blow at the whole principle of the Parliament Bill that has been struck in the whole course of this discussion. Some hon. Gentlemen do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is so, but I think that a few moments' consideration will show that it necessarily follows from the Amendment which the Government have themselves indicated. What is the basis upon which the Government found this? It is that some statutory safeguard is called for in order to prevent such abuse of powers on the part of the House of Commons as will allow them to prolong their lifetime beyond the period intended by this Bill. Why is any such security required? There can only be one reason, and it is that you have abandoned the whole and the only logical principle upon which you have founded yourselves to claim unexampled powers in the Parliament Bill.
  If it be true, as was well put by the hon. Gentleman, that the only logical principle upon which the Parliament Bill was ever founded can be successfully defended by argument, universal admission must be given to this view that the principle is this that there is an irresistible presumption that within a short time of a General Election the House of Commons on all questions represents the will of the people. That principle may be good or bad, but there is no other principle which can be represented as the substratum of the Parliament Bill. If that is so it is childish folly to say that in the case of a proposal to prolong the duration of Parliament any restriction is necessary when over and over again matters however important you have attempted to leave to the unrestricted power of the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman has with complete logic and consistency pointed out that the moving of this Amendment on the part of the Government has destroyed the only logical basis on which the Parliament Bill has ever been founded. It is clear that the House of Commons does not in the view of the Government even during those critical years during which they can propose any measure however subversive of anything we prize in our Constitution,

  1097
  necessarily represent the considered will of the people. If that is so there is no reason at any other point for a strong irresistible presumption that it represents the will of the people. In this one Amendment the Government have done more to reinforce the argument I and my friends have introduced to the House and the Country than all the arguments we have used. The whole case is stripped of any vestige of plausibility or truth it ever had by this Amendment.
  Lords Amendment: At the end of Subsection (1), insert—
  "Provided further that any Bill—

  (a) Which affects the existence of the Crown or the Protestant succession thereto; or

  b)Which establishes a National Parliament or Assembly or a National Council in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or England, with legislative powers therein; or

  (c)Which has been referred to the Joint Committee, and which in their opinion raises an issue of great gravity upon which the judgment of the country has not been sufficiently ascertained

  shall not be presented to His Majesty nor receive the Royal Assent under the provision of this Section unless and until it has been submitted to and approved by the electors in manner to be hereafter provided by Act of Parliament.
  (2) Any question whether a Bill comes within the meaning of paragraphs (a), (b), of Sub-section (1) of this Section shall be decided by the Joint Committee."
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  I do so for reasons which have been abundantly stated to the House in the course of the long debates on this matter this year and last, of which reasons I gave a short epitome this afternoon, and also for reasons which have been most clearly placed before the country at two general elections.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not know whether the Government think that this is a proper hour at which to have a debate upon this question. There may be some truth in the statement that this which is a fundamental
  1098
  part of the controversy has been discussed on previous occasions, though I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman's summary added much to our knowledge. Still it is true that we have dealt at great length with this irreconcilable point of difference between the two Houses. I do not believe it is possible at this time of night to continue, with either dignity or utility, the discussion of this question; therefore, it is sufficient for me, as far as I am concerned, to say, not with more emphasis than before, but with renewed emphasis, that this Amendment, and this Amendment alone, is the cause of the vital difference before the two Houses. It is this Amendment and this Amendment alone that has caused the Government to give the criminal advice to the Sovereign. It is in order to prevent this Amendment being introduced into the Bill, and for that purpose alone, that they propose to destroy the independence and the whole existence of the Second Chamber so far as this particular Bill is concerned. It is on account of this Amendment, and this Amendment alone, that they are turning avowedly to a single chamber system of government.
  What is this Amendment? It is in substance and in essence an Amendment intended to give the people of this country an opportunity of saying whether they will or will not have the great revolution in our Constitution which the Government propose to bring forward in the shape of Home Rule. It does not prejudge the case of Home Rule. When the Government Bill is brought forward it may meet with universal acclamation in every part of the House and of the country. Ulster as well as Connaught may embrace it. It may receive favour in Scotland as well as in England. This Amendment does not seek to condemn an unknown scheme of Home Rule; but it says that when that scheme is brought forward the country shall have an opportunity of pronouncing upon it. The Government are determined that the country shall not have that opportunity. For that reason, and that reason alone, they refuse to accept this Amendment, and are determined to thrust it down the throats of the other House by a procedure which, I think, after the debate of the last two days, every impartial person will admit is utterly subversive, not only of the ancient constitution of this country, but of every constitution that is based upon the independent existence of a second legislative chamber. I therefore propose,

  1099
  for my part, to take no further part in this debate. I do not suggest that my hon. Friends who have not had the same opportunity of speaking that I have had should imitate my reticence. I do not think anybody on this Bench at all events wishes to add to what has already been said upon this controversy. We shall content ourselves by recording a final vote against the procedure on the part of the Government which stands out in signal infamy in the whole history of the Constitution of this country.
  Mr. MILDMAY: What we contend, and what we have said before, is, that the existence of the Monarchy, of the Protestant succession to the Throne, and the integrity of the United Kingdom are matters of such vital importance that they are not to be left to the mercy of a single chamber. Say what hon. Members will, even with the Amendments foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, this Bill establishes the omnipotence in fundamental matters of a temporary majority in the House of Commons. Such a settlement is at variance with all the traditions of the Liberal party. No civilised country throughout the world, however advanced, would consent to it for one moment. You are turning your backs upon all your old declarations in this House, and your action in connection with Home Rule is going to be the very action that you have denounced over and over again. For many years you have constantly denounced that state of affairs under which, according to you, a Unionist Government selected for a specific purpose was enabled to force upon the country measures that it did not want, and which indeed it positively disliked. The Unionist Government of 1900, you have said, was elected to finish the war and not to pass the Education Bill. You are going to follow in the steps of that Government.
  The burden of your song for years has been, "Look at the evils which have resulted from uncontrolled legislation by a single chamber; when the Unionists are in power representative Government is a sham; they act in direct opposition to the will of the people." Now you produce, as your ideal solution of the difficulties before us, an even wider extension of that very evil which you have denounced in such unmeasured terms. You propose to make use of these methods to pass Home Rule behind the backs of the people. I do
  1100
  not believe in bitter recriminations, but we have come to the conclusion that your action is due to the necessities of your position—your position of dependence upon the Irish Nationalist members. I do not believe in throwing wounding accusations across the floor of the House, or of intentionally rubbing opponents up the wrong way, but we cannot help thinking that you have thrown all your old principles to the winds, because the Irish members have said: "This must be your solution; you must pass Home Rule without referring it to the people of England, or out you go." I know the Home Secretary resented earlier in the Debate the suggestion that Home Rule had been kept in the background at the last election, and stated that hon. Members on that side of the House have quoted passage after passage from Unionist speeches at the last election pointing out that the danger of Home Rule is imminent, and saying that Home Rule was the real question. Of course we did our best to point out the imminence of the danger of Home Rule, but were we successful? We were successful in Devonshire, which was represented in 1900 by ten supporters of the Government and three Unionists, but which is now represented by eleven Unionists and two supporters of the Government. But elsewhere it cannot be denied for one moment that success attended the persistent efforts of Liberal candidates to keep Home Rule out of sight. It is quite true that here and there Cabinet Ministers perorated about the concession of local self-government to Ireland subject to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, but what about the rank and file? County electors do not read the speeches of Cabinet Ministers; they take their programmes from the rival political party candidates, and we all know that the Liberal candidates generally avoided Home Rule like the plague, and any references to Home Rule had to be dragged out of them. How can it possibly be contended that Home Rule was not kept in the background in view of its deliberate and purposeful exclusion from the election addresses of most of the Liberal candidates, and in view of its still more significant exclusion from the election addresses of Cabinet Ministers? Has not the election address of the Prime Minister always been looked upon in the past as a comprehensive exposition of the whole policy of his party. It was so regarded in Mr. Gladstone's time. I put it frankly to hon.

  1101
  Gentlemen opposite, Can they honestly pretend, in view of the deliberate exclusion of the mention of Home Rule from the election addresses of the Prime Minister and of the great bulk of his supporters, that we are not justified in saying Home Rule was kept in the background? Is it not perfectly certain that if declarations in favour of Home Rule would have added to the popularity of the Liberal candidates such declarations would have been included in their election addresses? Did not exclusion mean that the result of inclusion was feared? How positively foolish to contend otherwise. The facts are against hon. Gentlemen opposite and that is why we think you will be incurring a very serious responsibility if you try to pass Home Rule behind the backs of the people. You say the people have changed their minds in regard to Home Rule. Well, why not give them the opportunity of saying so. Do not try to pass Home Rule by trying to trick the people out of their rights. It is perfectly certain it will not pay you in the end. This legislation will not be accepted by the country. All these Amendments seek to do is to lay down some such distinction as is drawn by every democratically governed country between ordinary legislation and legislation fundamentally affecting the Constitution. We are absolutely confident in regard to the future. You may for the moment put false issues before the people but truth is bound in the end to prevail, and sooner or later the people will realise we are struggling now not to preserve the veto of the House of Lords but to secure the right of absolute veto for the people themselves, to whom it rightly belongs.
  Mr. JOHN GORDON (Londonderry, S.): I represent a people deeply interested in the matters now under discussion. I am one of the representatives of the loyalist people of Ireland [Hon. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide."]. Interruptions of that kind show the tempers of hon. Gentlemen who do not want to listen to discussion. We are just as industrious and worthy a part of the population as any other portion of the United Kingdom, and all we ask for is British fair play. If we are to have a change in the form of government under which we have lived and under which the Unionist people in Ireland have prospered, that change ought not to be brought about until the opinion of the people has been obtained. I do not claim anything more than simple fair play on this question. The
  1102
  Home Secretary announced last night in this House that the Government intended to pass Home Rule in this Parliament. That announcement makes this matter of vital importance to us. We know that on previous occasions when this matter was brought before the Houses of Parliament and passed on two occasions the country disapproved of Home Rule. I think we have a right to demand that the opinion of the people should be taken on a question which is of such vital importance to a very large section of the people of Ireland. All I ask for and suggest for my fellow Unionist in Ireland is that the people of Great Britain should accord to us fair play by allowing the opinion of the people to be taken upon this great question before it is passed into law. If that opinion proves to be against us, however much we may regret it, and however much it may be to our disadvantage, at all events it will show that we are in a minority.
  How can you expect the Unionists of Ireland to acquiesce in a great change in the form of government under which they have lived so long when they feel that that change is only being carried by a Government which is under the control of the Nationalist representatives in this House? You must have some regard for the will of the people of the United Kingdom. How can we be expected to acquiesce in the wishes of a Cabinet which is under the domination and control of the Nationalists, of those whom we have known to be disloyal to the Constitution, who are against the industrial improvement of Ireland, who have no sympathy or knowledge of our industries, and who are wholly incapable of understanding what is necessary for the progress and prosperity of Ireland? I ask this House, in common justice to the Unionists of Ireland, not to disagree with the Lords Amendment, at all events so far as they relate to Home Rule. You ought not to force upon an industrious and law-abiding community a system of Government which is foreign to everything they desire, which they believe to be contrary to their best interests, and which they regard as being the most disastrous thing that could happen to a country in which they have the deepest interest and love.
  Mr. CROFT: I should not have intervened at this late hour but for the fact that when I rose this afternoon the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the closure, although not a single Member on the Back Benches had had the slightest

  1103
  opportunity of speaking upon a situation which is absolutely new. The hon. Member for the City of Cork this afternoon threw out a suggestion that a conference might be held with regard to the Irish difficulty. I believe a great number of Members on this side of the House would cordially welcome such a conference. [HON. MEMBERS: "'Vide, 'vide."]
  Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the House that at an earlier stage this afternoon, we specifically suspended the Eleven o clock Rule in order that the Debate might be continued. I therefore suggest the hon. Member should be allowed to proceed.
  Mr. CROFT: The suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork would, I am sure, receive support from many sides of the House because I believe everyone wants to see what is the irreducible minimum which can possibly be accepted. He told us that "The Times" and its brother the "Daily Mail" were prescribing the Unionist policy because at one time they mentioned they were in favour of Home Rule. I must ask him to believe it does not follow that either "The Times" or the "Daily Mail" represent the views of the majority of the Unionist party. If the hon. Member for Waterford stands where Parnell stood I think we can promise him in the future as we have given him in the past uncompromising resistance to his proposals. We have been told that it is the will of the people that Home Rule should be passed. I think that the predominant partner— England—which has clearly expressed its opinion against the Parliament Bill will never rest until the policy you are forcing upon it now has been reversed and until once more we have double chamber government such as every civilised country in the world possesses. When we are told that Home Rule was demanded by the people I think we are entitled to ask—has anyone a right to say the Government received a mandate when the people had not the smallest idea what the Home Rule Bill was! I very much doubt if any hon. Gentleman opposite knows what the Home Rule Bill is, and it is perfectly certain that the electors of Great Britain and Ireland had no conception whatever of what the measure might be. I think it is a hollow mockery to say that there was a mandate in favour of Home Rule. I had the honour of fighting a Liberal candidate and he professed
  1104
  great horror when it was suggested that he was in favour of Home Rule. He, in fact, described himself as a Liberal Home Ruler. At both the last elections when I heard the words "Home Rule" mentioned I was told that it was a bogey and that it was no part of the policy of the Government. If you say then that the electors voted for Home Rule at the last election you cannot any longer continue to say that the Parliament Bill was the absorbing question at that election. Everybody knows that in every constituency in the country Home Rule was hidden like a corpse. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were ashamed of it. Even the Prime Minister only became a Home Ruler at the point of the bayonet. Had the Government introduced their proposals for reform with the Preamble the delaying process would have been of some value, because there would have been a strong Second Chamber. But the mere fact that they have omitted any endeavour to reform the House of Lords, which we are told contains the idle rich, the robbers of the poor box and which was likened by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to an assembly of kangaroos, and the mere fact that they have done nothing whatever to alter the constitution of the House, shows that they have deliberately deceived the electors and that the whole foundation of their attack was not upon the functions of the Second Chamber but upon its hereditary constitution.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That point does not arise on this Amendment.
  Mr. CROFT: As to the Amendment, I venture to think that had the country realised that the Home Rule Bill was to be forced through by this back-stair method of the Parliament Bill instead of going through the ordinary British front door, the electors would most certainly have given a very different verdict at the recent elections. How could the right hon. Gentleman so frequently have said they had a mandate for Free Trade, for the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, and for other questions? It is absolutely impossible to lay down that the people of this country have in any way declared that they desire to have the Parliament Bill alone. The Sovereign has been coerced—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think I did not make myself clear to the hon. Member. The Debate which is now possible must be relevant to the Amendment which it is moved that this House disagree with—the Amendment circulated with the Papers.

  1105
  The hon. Member must confine his remarks to reasons in support of that Amendment.
  Mr. CROFT: Those who sit on these benches are of opinion that this is one of the vital questions which it is impossible to accept, the question of Home Rule, and there is no doubt whatever that if this Amendment was accepted there would be no question of the creation of Peers, and therefore until the electors have been able to give a clear expression of opinion upon this question, which twice they have rejected, there is not the smallest doubt that they are being betrayed and being deprived of their final vote as the arbiters of their fate. Because we are told that a Home Rule Bill is to be introduced under the Parliament Bill, I hope the Peers will stand firm in defence of the rights of the electors to declare whether they desire to have a Home Rule
  Bill or not. I believe it is in the interest of the Government themselves that they should accept this Amendment, because once the electors realise that when the Government were making this appeal with regard to the abolition of the hereditary system in the Second Chamber, and that under that cloak they are prepared to introduce a Home Rule Bill, I believe the electors will agree with those who like myself are not in the smallest degree ashamed of anything that has been said in this House that the Government have been guilty of trickery and deception and have betrayed the electors.
  Mr. CHURCHILL Mr. CHURCHILL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 311;Noes, 216.

  Division No. 313.]

  AYES.

  [11.55 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Cotton, William Francis

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

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cowan, W. H.

  Gulland, John William

  Adamson, William

  Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Crawshay-Williams (Eliot)

  Hackett, John

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Crooks, William

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hancock, J. G

  Alden, Percy

  Cullinan, John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Armitage, Robert

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  De Forest, Baron

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Delany, William

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

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

  Barnes, G. N.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Harwood, George

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Dillon, John

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Barton, William

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Doris, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Hayward, Evan

  Bentham, G. J

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Black, Arthur W.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Higham, John Sharp

  Boland, John Pius

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Hinds, John

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N)

  Hodge, John

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Brace, William

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Falconer, James

  Hudson, Walter

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Field, William

  Jardine, Sir Thomas (Roxburgh)

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

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  John, Edward Thomas

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Johnson, W.

  Cameron, Robert

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Furness, Stephen

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

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

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Gill, A. H.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon.-Winston S.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Joyce, Michael

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Keating, M.

  Clough, William

  Goldstone, Frank

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Clynes, John R.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Kelly, Edward

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Kilbride, Denis

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Lansbury, George

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sheehy, David

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Leach, Charles

  O'Dowd, John

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Ogden, Fred

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Snowden, Philip

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  O'Malley, William

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

  Lundon, Thomas

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

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  O'Shee, James John

  Summers, James Woolley

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Sutherland, John E.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Sutton, John E.

  Maclean, Donald

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Pointer, Joseph

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  McGhee, Richard

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Kean, John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Verney, Sir Harry

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs, Ince)

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

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Walters, John Tudor

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Manfield, Harry

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Wardle, George J.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Webb, H.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Reddy, Michael

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Meagher, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Millar, James Duncan

  Richards, Thomas

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Molloy, Michael

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Mooney, John J.

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Morrell, Philip

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Muldoon, John

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Munro, Robert

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Neilson, Francis

  Rowlands, James

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. William Jones and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bird, Alfred

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Clyde, James Avon

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Boyton, James

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Baget, Lt.-Col. J.

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Croft, Henry Page

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

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Balcarres, Lord

  Butcher, John George

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Baldwin, Stanley

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

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

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

  Campion, W. R.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Cassel, Felix

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

  Barnston, Harry

  Cator, John

  Falle, Bertram Godfrey

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Fell, Arthur

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Cave, George

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worcr.)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Chambers, James

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  1108

  1109

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (Liverp'l, Walton)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Grant, J. A.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Stanier, Beville

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Gretton, John

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Macmaster, Donald

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  M'Mordie, Robert

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutstord)

  Hall, Marshall, (E. Toxteth)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Mills, Hon. Chas. Thomas

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

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

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Harris, Henry Percy

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

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Thynne, Lard Alexander

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Newman, John R. P.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Hills, John Waller

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Nield, Herbert

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

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

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

  Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Homer, Andrew Long

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

  Hunt, Rowland

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

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

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Peto, Basil Edward

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

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Keswick, William

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Quilter, W. E. C.

  Younger, Sir George

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Kyffin-Taylor, G

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Sanders.

  Lane-Fox, G. R

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Question put accordingly, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 321; Noes, 215.

  Division No. 314.]

  AYES.

  [12.8 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Brace, William

  Cullinan, J.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Brady, P. J.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Adamson, William

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

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

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dawes, J. A.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N)

  De Forest, Baron

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Delany, William

  Alden, Percy

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Cameron, Robert

  Devlin, Joseph

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Armitage, R.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Dillon, John

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

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

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Doris, William

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Duffy, William J.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Clough, William

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Clynes, John R.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon Master of

  Barton, William

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cowan, W. H.

  Falconer, James

  Black, Arthur W.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Boland, John Plus

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Crean, Eugene

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crooks, William

  Ffrench, Peter

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Field, William

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Reddy, Michael

  Furness, Stephen

  Lundon, Thomas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Gelder, Sir W. H.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Richards, Thomas

  Gilhooly, James

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Gill, A. H.

  Maclean, Donald

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbigh.)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  MacGhee, Richard

  Robinson, Sidney

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Kean, John

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

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

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

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

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

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Guiney, P.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Gulland, John William

  Manfield, Harry

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Rowlands, James

  Hackett, John

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Hancock, J. G.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meagher, Michael

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Millar, James Duncan

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molloy, Michael

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

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

  Mond, Sir Alfred

  Sheehy, David

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

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Harwood, George

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mooney, John J.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Morgan, George Hay

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim S.)

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Morrell, Philip

  Snowden, P.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Muldoon, John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hayward, Evan

  Munro, Robert

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Summers, James Woolley

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Sutherland, John E.

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Neilson, Francis

  Sutton, John E.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hinds, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hodge, John

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Walters, John Tudor

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  O'Dowd, John

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  John, Edward Thomas

  Ogden, Fred

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Johnson, W.

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

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Malley, William

  Webb, H.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

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

  O'Shee, James John

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Joyce, Michael

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Whyte, A. F.

  Keating, Matthew

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Kelly, Edward

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Kennedy Vincent Paul

  Philipps, John (Longford, S.)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Lansbury George

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Pringle, William M. R.

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mr. William Jones and Mr. Howard.

  Leach, Charles

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Bagot, Lieut. Colonel J.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

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

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Balcarres, Lord

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  1112

  1113

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

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Goldman, C. S.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Nield, Herbert

  Barnston, H.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Grant, J. A.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bird, A.

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

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

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Boyton, James

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecelesall)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Butcher, John George

  Hills, John Waller

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

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

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Campion, W. R.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Cator, John

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Stanier, Beville

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Chambers, James

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Keswick, William

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kyffin-Taylor, G

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Larmor, Sir J.

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Croft, Henry Page

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Doughty, Sir George

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

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

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

  Eyres-Monsell, (Bolton, M.)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  MacGaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

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

  Mackinder, Halford J.

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

  Falle, B. G.

  Macmaster, Donald

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

  Fell, Arthur

  M'Mordie, Robert

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

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

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Younger, Sir George

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Foster, Philip Staveley

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Sanders.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Lords Amendment agreed to.

  Lords Amendment: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause:—
  A.—(1) At the beginning of each Parliament a Joint Committee (in this Act referred to as "the Joint Committee") shall be appointed, consisting of the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, the Chairman of Ways and Means of the House of Commons, a
  1114
  Lord of Appeal to be chosen by and from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and other Peers of Parliament holding or who have held high judicial office, and a Member of the House of Commons to be appointed by the Speaker, for the purposes of this Act. The Speaker of the House of Commons shall be chairman, and he shall have a casting vote.
  (2) The Speaker of the House of Commons may, if he think fit, and shall, if so requested in. writing by a Minister of the Crown or upon a resolution of either House of Parliament in that behalf, call together the Joint Committee for the purpose of deciding any question which under the provisions of this Act may be decided by them.
  (3) The decision of the Joint Committee on any question so referred to them shall be final and conclusive for all purposes and shall not be questioned in any court of law.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Lords Amendment: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause:—
  B.—(1) In every Bill presented to His Majesty under the preceding provisions of this Act, the words of enactment shall be as follows, that is to say:—
  "Be it enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911, and by authority of the same, as follows."
  (2) Any alteration of a Bill necessary to give effect to this Section shall not be deemed to be an Amendment of the Bill.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I understand this Amendment was moved by Lord Camper-down in another place. The acceptance of it by the Home Secretary suggests an affinity of temperament otherwise demonstrated of those two distinguished statesmen. We have often heard that dog does not eat dog, and we know now that rat does not eat rat.
  Mr. POLLOCK: It is important this House should realise its debt of gratitude to the other House.
  When this Amendment was moved in this House, as it was by one of my hon. Friends, we were told by the Postmaster-General that it was not necessary, and by the Attorney-General that the Amendment would be a proper thing to have, but in some other Act of Parliament. When it
  1116
  was brought up on Report the Postmaster-General told us that the matter had been discussed and he declined to accept it. The Home Secretary now moves to agree. Comment is unnecessary.
  Lords Amendment: To insert the following new Clause:—
  (C.—Provisional Order Bills excluded.)
  In this Act the expression "Public Bill" does not include any Bill for confirming a Provisional Order.
  Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.
  Committee nominated of the Attorney-General, Mr. Churchill, Sir Henry Dalziel, Mr. Arthur Henderson, and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
  Three to be the quorum.
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
  To be communicated to the Lords.— [Mr. Churchill.]

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; to be read the third time To-morrow (Wednesday).
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-seven minutes after Twelve a.m. on Wednesday, 9th August.